DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Friday, 19 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1868

Guildhall Tavern

Latest 1984

4 Guildhall Street

Folkestone

Guildhall Hotel 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Guildhall Whitbread sign

Above aluminium card issued June 1951. Sign series 3 number 16.

Guildhall sign 1970

Above sign taken in June 1970, by kind permission of Brian Curtis of the Inn Sign Society.

Guildhall Hotel in Folkestone

 

Earliest mention I have found for this establishment to date is from a Coroner's inquest detailed in the Dover Telegraph of 1847, but probably even older.

 

Also referred to as the Guildhall Vaults, this hotel closed in 1984 and was transformed into a Pizza Hut. It now appears to be a Noodle Bar called Zenkafe (2011).

1888 was a rather bad year for the estate of deceased licensee James Hoad as is shown in a transcript of a letter below:-

 Transcript of a letter sent to the Creditors of J.E. Hoad
 

52 Sandgate Road, Folkestone

6th December, 1888

Sir,

J.E. Hoad Deceased

 

I beg to inform you that up to the present time claims have been sent in against the estate of the deceased amounting to 1010 January 6.

The net assets of the deceased amount to 384-17-4 – which will pay a dividend of about 7/6 in the .

Messrs. Beer & Co., Brewers, Canterbury, are the largest creditors and have through their solicitor investigated the affairs of the deceased. Their claim amounts to 283 July 4 on which they are willing to accept a dividend of 10/- in the provided the same is paid within seven days from this date.

Mrs. Hoad's friends have agreed to augment the estate and to pay each of the creditors 10/- in the in discharge of his debt provided all the creditors agree to accept the same within 4 days from this date.

Be so good as to inform me by return whether you are willing to receive 10/- in the in discharge of your debt. If the offer be not accepted by all the creditors there will be no alternative but to institute an action for the administration of the estate of the deceased by the court in which case as the estate is small the result would probably be that there would be next to nothing for the creditors.

An account of assets and list of creditors have been furnished to Messrs. Beer & Co.'s solicitor and a copy thereof is open for inspection at my office.

I am sir

Your obedient servant

 

It appears at the time Mr. Hoad was obtaining supplies from several breweries including Messrs George Beer & Co, Star Brewery, Canterbury, Leney's, Phoenix Brewery, Dover, and Cliff's Bulwark Hill Brewery, Dover.

 

Invoice

Above shows account with George Beer's Star Brewery, Canterbury.

Invoice

Above picture showing an invoice from the Phoenix Brewery from Mr. Hoad of the "Guildford Hotel," Folkestone.

Invoice

Above picture showing an invoice to Mr. Hoad, 1888.

 

Guildhall Tavern 2011

Above picture taken from Google Maps 2011.

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday, 18 December, 1847. Price 5d.

FOLKESTONE CORONER'S INQUEST

Suicide of Mr. George Hilton.

An inquest was held on Saturday, at the “Guildhall,” before John Bateman, Esq., Coroner, on the body of Mr. George Hilton, late of Hythe, grocer, when the following evidence was taken.

Thomas Davis, landlord of the “Ship,” deposed: Deceased came to my house on Thursday evening, about seven o'clock, and had a glass of gin and water. He appeared much agitated and disturbed in his mind. After he drank the gin and water, he called for another glass, which he also drank, and then went to bed. About half-past eight o'clock in the morning, he called, from his bedroom, for a glass of gin and beer, which he had, and remained in bed till about half-past ten o'clock, when he called for a glass of ale, which I took to his room. He was in bed, and I asked him if he was unwell. He said he was very ill, and I asked if I should call a surgeon. He replied, “yes,” saying he had taken some poison. I immediately called for Mr. Eastes, who shortly arrived and applied the proper remedies, but without effect; and he died about nine o'clock in the evening. He was not known to me, and I do not recollect having seen him before.

Silvester Eastes, surgeon, deposed that he was called last Friday week to attend deceased, it having been stated that he had taken poison; he administered the usual remedies, but deceased gradually sank and died from its effects.

Thomas Hilton, of Sellinge, grocer, (brother of the deceased,) deposed that lately his brother had shown symptoms of insanity, and at times was very violent. He had no hesitation in saying that deceased was of unsound mind at the time of taking the poison.

Edward Hammond, chemist, deposed that on Thursday evening the deceased called upon him, and asked for an once of arsenic, saying he wanted it for his father, to destroy rats. Witness refused to let him have it, unless he could procure a competent witness. In about ten minutes afterwards the deceased returned, and asked if he could have a preparation that would have the same effect. Witness gave him powder for killing vermin, and labelled “Poison.” He remained in the shop for sometime afterwards. Witness himself known the deceased for some years, and thought him much addicted to drinking.

Verdict: That deceased destroyed himself during a fit of temporary insanity.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1869.

Spirit License (Fresh Application).

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman. J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Arthur Andrews applied for a spirit license for the Guildhall Hotel.

Mr. Creery, of Ashford, supported the application, and addressed the Bench. He said from his experience in licensing matters it appeared to him that the magistrates required three things before granting a new license; 1st, that the man who applies is a respectable man, and a man who can be trusted. 2nd, that the premises are proper for the purposes for which they are meant to be used, and 3rd, that the license asked for is requisite. He then proceeded to show the Magistrates that these three propositions ought to meet their approval in this case, and put in a requisition signed by 380 respectable inhabitants in support of the application.

Mr. Minter opposed on behalf of Mr. W. Medhurst and Mr. George Taylor, and while admitting the two first propositions of Mr. Creery, he contended on the third point that the license was not requisite, as the accommodation afforded by the other houses in the neighbourhood was quite sufficient.

The Court was then cleared. When re-opened the Chairman said that the Magistrates had come to the unanimous decision that no more licenses should be granted, but in exceptional cases, as they were of opinion that too many licensed houses already exist. The application would be refused.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 August 1869.

Annual Licensing Day.—A full bench of magistrates attended on Wednesday to grant renewals and hear fresh applications.

Mr. Arthur Andrews, of the Guildhall Hotel; Mr. Burgess, Richmond Tavern; Mr.Thomas Wilson, of the Prince of Wales; and Mr. Chittenden, of the Star and Garter, made fresh applications but were refused; the magistrates stating that no more licenses would be granted except under exceptional circumstances.

 

Folkestone Observer 25 August 1870.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Spirit License.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott R.N., R. Boarer, J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

Mr. Creery applied on behalf of Mr. Arthur Andrews for a spirit license to the Guildhall Inn. In a speech of some length, Mr. Creery referred to the respectability of his client, and produced a memorial signed by 338 persons to the effect that the applicant was a respectable man, and a spirit license was needed at the house, which was already licensed in every other respect, and had been recently fitted up with every convenience as a refreshment bar. The town of Folkestone, Mr. Creery observed, was rapidly increasing, and he never came without noticing building going on, but during several years past in this particular branch of trade no increase of accommodation had taken place. Last year the Bench had declined to grant the application, but this year he thought he had shown stronger reasons for allowing it.

Mr. Minter, instructed by the landlords of the King's Head and Folkestone Lugger opposed, alleging that the accommodation in the vicinity was already abundant.

The Bench refused to grant the application.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1870.

Wednesday August 24th: Before the Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.E. Dashwood Esqs.

This was the annual licensing day.

Application for spirit license:

Mr. Creery, on behalf of Mr. Andrews of the Guildhall Hotel, applied for a spirit license for that house.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of Mr. Medhurst, and the landlord of the Lugger, opposed the application.

Mr. Creery said there were very strong reasons, which he would lay before the Bench, to show why the application should be granted, and the two cases upon which the Bench had decided (Note. Royal Oak and Victoria in Sandgate) encouraged him to hope that the same liberal treatment would be extended to his client. Although on a former occasion the Bench refused to grant the application, since then he thought his case had grown stronger, and he believed the Bench would view the facts and arguments he should lay before them without any reference to any former decision. The applicant was well known as a tradesman, and so was his father, who was much respected in the town. If it had been required they could have got a memorial signed by any number of inhabitants, but as it was they had a strong one to present to the Bench. During the two years Mr. Andrews had occupied the house no complaint had been made, and it had been conducted in an orderly and praiseworthy manner. He did not know if any of the Bench had frequented the house. If so they would better understand it's thorough efficiency for what it is intended. It is a refreshment bar. During the last two years it had been fitted up in an elaborate manner, reminding him of one of the gin palaces of Vauxhall and Cremorne, and, he thought, more respectably conducted than many such places. The question would be: Is a license to sell spirits necessary? To decide this they must remember the remarkable enlargement of the boundaries of Folkestone, and improvements in the town during the past few years. He certainly was surprised when he came to Folkestone to see the large number of new houses and mansions erected in every part, and the visitors had, in ratio, increased, and consequently the Town Hall was the centre of attraction, and the thirsty souls that follow entertainments could not do without refreshments. Frequent were the entertainments at the Hall; moreover, His Honour, the Judge of the County Court, came once a month and brought many visitors with his advent, who often needed refreshments. Added to this was the great increase of population and houses, and the new Bathing Establishment, and it was an undoubted fact that no increase of accommodation had been provided in ratio to the demand.His friend (Mr. Minter) could not contradict him when he said there had not been, for the last forty years, any increase in that locality. A gentleman on the Bench shook his head; well, at any rate, the increase was very limited. Gentlemen in other lines of business were making fortunes and retiring, but this particular business stood still. He had a memorial to present, signed by 12 tradesmen, 26 licensed victuallers, and 293 inhabitants and visitors of Folkestone. All agreed that in the locality of the Town Hall more public accommodation was required, and that was, he thought, a sufficient reason, independent of the requisition signed by 300 of the most respectable inhabitants. Against Mr. Medhurst, who opposed the application, he had nothing to say. He was a respectable and old inhabitant, and they were not willing to inflict any injury on him. In spite of the good opinion the Bench and all they had of Mr. Medhurst, he trusted that no personal feeling would be allowed to be imported into the case, and however much they might respect him, he hoped that feeling would not stand in the way of the present application, in justice to the petitioner. They had been rejected once, and now they came again, and that alone, he thought, was a circumstance that should have it's weight with the Bench.

Mr. Minter, in reply, said that the case was even weaker than on the last occasion when it was brought before the magistrates. This was the second application, and no circumstance had occurred to change the reason for refusing the license. Was the petition more respectably signed? He would ask the Bench to look at the names, and among them were many sergeants and corporals of the Camp, who could not possibly know the requirements of Folkestone, and one person living in Canterbury. The memorial was perfectly useless for the purpose for which it was intended. The statement that no public houses were in the neighbourhood was false. They were surrounded with them: The King's Arms, The Lugger, The Rose, and others, all within an area of 100 yards. His ground of opposition, for he had nothing to say against the respectability of applicant, was that it was neither necessary nor required. Mr. Creery said many “mansions” had been erected in the immediate neighbourhood. Where? At any rate, he did not think their occupants would sent to a public house for what they required, but would be most likely to look into the cellars of the “mansions”. The Bathing Establishment was also mentioned, Mr. Creery evidently forgetting that that place had a license. He thought he had mentioned enough to show that there was no reason to reverse the decision of last year.

The Bench declined to grant the license.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1870.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott, J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

The Guildhall Hotel: This was an application for a spirit license to this house, which adjoins the Town Hall. Mr. Creery supported the application, and Mr. J. Minter opposed on behalf of Mr. W. Medhurst and Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Creery, in introducing the case, said that the Magistrates' decision in the two cases decided by them encouraged him in the hope that the same liberal spirit would be extended to all applicants for new licenses, except in those cases where there existed strong grounds of objection. Although the ground of this application was sufficiently strong, he would proceed to explain the case to them. He (Mr. Creery) had the honour to act as Clerk to a large Bench of Magistrates, and he always found that the justices required to be satisfied that the applicant was a person to be trusted, and was a respectable man. They might not be so well acquainted with Mr. Arthur Andrews, but they were acquainted with his father, who was a respectable contractor and builder residing in their midst for very many years, and he had a memorial to produce, which was signed by upwards of 300 individuals, giving a most satisfactory evidence of the respectability of the applicant, who had occupied this house upwards of two years, and no complaint of any description had ever been made. He was just the proper person to be entrusted with the sale of spirits; he already had beer and wine licenses. If the Bench was anxious to ascertain whether the premises were properly fitted up for the purpose, he would explain that this house was constructed for a refreshment bar, and not intended for people to go in and sit down. But the most important point was whether the license for the sale of spirits was necessary and required. He would remind the Bench of the large increase of buildings in Folkestone; the hall in which they were assembled was also new, and thousands, he might say, who attended the hall every week found this house a great convenience. Although there had been a great increase in the population there had been no corresponding increase in accommodation for the public for the past 40 or 50 years. Every other business had increased, and some who had made fortunes in them may be sitting on the Bench. Was this grant required? He could produce 300 witnesses to say it was; not personally, as that would take up too much time, but by memorial, (The learned gentleman here produced a memorial several yards long) which was signed by 19 tradesmen of the immediate neighbourhood, 29 licensed victuallers, and 293 of the inhabitants and visitors of Folkestone. It read “We, the undersigned inhabitants of Folkestone, beg to submit the necessity for more Public House accommodation near the Town Hall, and ask you to grant a license to Mr. Arthur Andrews, a respectable tradesman, who two years ago opened this house”. The memorial, after speaking of the increase in visitors, proceeded “The fact that there was only one public house in the immediate neighbourhood would be sufficient reason to induce the Magistrates to grant a license, the house being conducted in a highly respectable manner”. Mr. Creery then enumerated the other houses accessible from the Guildhall; The King's Arms, kept by Mr. Medhurst, a very respectable and old inhabitant of Folkestone, and a person, he was sure, who would not willingly inflict injury on neighbours not so well off as himself. He hoped the Magistrates would accede to the request of the 338 persons who asked them to grant a license.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed on behalf of Mr. Medhurst, of the King's Arms, and Mr. Taylor, the landlord of the Lugger, to oppose the present application, which was the renewal of one made last year, and in his opinion the applicant had a weaker case than before. No circumstances had changed since the first application was made, and when the Magistrates determined it was not necessary or requisite to grant the license. The memorial on the previous occasion was more respectably, if not more numerously, signed. He had inspected the present signatures and the inspection would give rise to this remark, that they were for the most part perfectly useless. The statement that there was only one other house in the neighbourhood was untrue, as they had the Lugger, the Rose, Mr. Lukey's all close at hand. The persons that signed must either not read the memorial or be signing to an untrue statement, and the probability was the signatures were utterly worthless, as they could not know what the memorial contained. On inspection it would be found that some who signed lived at Canterbury, Shorncliffe Camp, Sandgate and Swingfield Minnis; was the accommodation really necessary or required by such people? He contended there was nothing in the circumstances different from the previous year. Mr. Andrews, they all knew as a highly respectable man, but that was not the only thing required, and he would ask the Magistrates to say the same at that meeting as they had said before.

The Magistrates decided to hear the other applications before deciding.

The Bench decided on not granting the above application.

 

From the Whitstable Times, 22 October, 1870.

ANDREWS v. JUSTICES OF FOLKESTONE.

In this case Mr. Biron represented the appellant to ask the Court to reverse the decision of the justices of Folkestone in an application for a wine and spirit license for the “Guildhall Hotel,” next to the Town Hall. The hotel was represented as having a splendidly fitted refreshment bar—a trade that the applicant especially “went into”— having every convenience and accommodation for 70 or 80 persons at one time, and in fact being a place where marble and plate glass abound.

Witnesses on both sides were examined, and Mr. Barrow having addressed the Court in maintenance of the magisterial decision, contending that already there were nine licensed houses within 286 yards of the Guildhall, the Court granted the license, ordering the decision of the Magistrates to be quashed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 October 1870.

East Kent Quarter Sessions, Canterbury.

Andrews v The Justices Of Folkestone.

October 18th: Before E. Knatchbull-Hugesson M.P., Chairman, and a Bench of Magistrates.

This was an appeal by Mr. Arthur Andrews, the keeper of a beerhouse adjoining the Town Hall, Folkestone, called the Guildhall Hotel, against the refusal of the Justices to grant him a license to sell excisable liquors by retail at the said house.

Mr. Biron was Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Barrow for the respondents, the Justices.

Mr. Biron, in stating the appellant's case said the Justices had refused the license on the ostensible ground that there was ample inn accommodation in the neighbourhood, but he should prove that the licensing of the appellant's house would be a great convenience to the public. The house adjoins the Town Hall, where all public business was transacted and entertainments were held, and there were only two licensed houses in the immediate district, namely the King's Arms and Lugger, which were of a very primitive character. Mr. Biron produced a photograph of the appellant's house, and said a memorial in favour of the house being licensed had been signed by 293 persons.

Mr. Barrow objected to the reception of this memorial, or any reference being made to it, and Mr. Biron admitted he could not put it in as evidence.

Mr. Biron then called Charles Andrews, who stated that he was a builder, and had lived in Folkestone 27 years. The Town Hall was in the centre of the town, and the County Court, Quarter Sessions, Petty Sessions and other public business was transacted there. The Guildhall Hotel abutted onto the Town Hall, his son was the tenant, and had occupied it about two years and nine months. It was fitted up as a refreshment bar, and had no equal in Folkestone. The bar would hold 70 or 80 people; 50 or 60 people had often been in it. A spirit license to the house would be a great convenience. The bar of the King's Arms Hotel will not accommodate more than four people. The bar and parlour are about eight feet square. The only houses in the borough licensed within the last 27 years are the Rendezvous, Shakespeare, Gun and Albion. I have spent 300 or 400 on the Guildhall Hotel. My son don't intend to let the rooms in the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow: The plan you have handed me is correct. I see the nine licensed houses marked on it. The first is the King's Arms; it is fourteen yards from my son's house. The Lugger is 50 or 60 yards; the George 93 yards; Rendezvous 101 yards. The Prince Albert is a long distance off, 142 yards. I call the Shakespeare a very long distance off, 166 yards; the Gun longer still, 215 yards; Foresters 286 yards. There is also the Albion Hotel in Bouverie Square. The Gun, Albion and Rendezvous have, I believe, all been licensed within four years. The inside of the bar of the Guildhall Hotel is only 13ft. 8in. frontage, and 18ft. deep. The bar takes up the whole of the ground floor of the house. On the first floor there is a parlour and two back sitting rooms. My son occupies them all: he don't use them for guests. On the second floor there are four bedrooms, and an attic over. There is no urinal to the house; there is a water closet at the back. You go down stairs to it. Between the Guildhall Hotel and the Town Hall there is a passage. I know people commit a nuisance in it. Don't know that the Surveyor sends his men daily to cleanse it. There is a Tap Room opposite the King's Arms bar. It is capable of holding 40 or 50 people; there is also a sitting room at the back of the bar which will hold about the same number. The King's Arms is one of the principal houses in the town. The Officers from Shorncliffe Camp mess at it.

Re-examined by Mr. Biron: At the bottom of the Town Hall passage there is a urinal. People won't go to the end of the passage to use it. It is a long dark passage.

Mr. Arthur Andrwes, the appellant, Mr. Tucker, a bootmaker, a tenant of the appellant's father, and Mr. Hoad, a plasterer, were called by Mr. Biron, and gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Barrow said he had proved his case out of the mouths of the appellant's witnesses, and need not, therefore, have to call evidence. It was for the Court below to decide as to the propriety of the application. The Alehouse Act gave the Justices power to regulate the number of licensed houses. They had a discretion in the matter, and the Court of Queen's Bench had over and over again declined to interfere with the discretion of Justices. Jurisdiction, in matters of licensing, is entrusted to them from a consideration of their local knowledge, and the Court must assume that they had done their duty, and their decision ought to be supported. The Justices had decided that the house was not wanted, and even if it were, it had certain disqualifications. Out of the mouths of the appellant's witnesses he had proved that within a radius of 286 yards from the Town Hall there were nine licensed houses. The Bench, knowing the wants of the locality, said it was preposterous to suppose another licensed house was required. As to the house itself, look at it's boasted accommodation: A bar, covering the whole of the ground floor, and yet only 13 feet by 18 feet; then there were no apartments or beds to let to visitors, and the appellant could not provide the accommodation he was bound to do by law. There was no urinal to the house, but a water closet, only to be reached by going down steps. The consequence was, the Town hall passage was rendered a nuisance, and how much worse would it be if a spirit license were granted to the house with the insufficient accommodation it afforded. He thought the Court would hesitate before disturbing the decision of the Court below, but would dismiss the appeal.

The Court retired to deliberate, and after an absence of half an hour returned, when the Chairman said the license would be granted.

We understand that this decision was only obtained through the casting vote of the Chairman.

 

Folkestone Express 22 October 1870.

At the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the Eastern Division of the county, held at St. Augustine's Session House, Canterbury, on Tuesday last, Mr. Biron, on behalf of Mr. Andrews, applied to the Court to reverse the decision of the justices of Folkestone in an application for a wine and spirit license for the Guildhall Hotel, next to the Town Hall, Folkestone. The hotel was represented as having a splendidly fitted refreshment bar – a trade that the applicant especially “went into” – having every convenience and accommodation for 70 to 80 persons at one time, and in fact being a place where marble and plate glass abound. Witnesses on both sides were examined, and Mr. Barrow having addressed the Court in maintenance of the magisterial decision, contending that already there were nine licensed houses within 286 yards of the Guildhall. The Court granted the license, ordering the decision of the Folkestone Magistrates to be quashed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 September 1871.

Annual Licensing Day.

Wednesday last was the Annual Licensing Day. The Magistrates on the Bench were The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Gambrill Esqs.

When all the licenses were disposed of with the exception of that of the Guildhall public house, the landlord of that house, Mr. Andrews, came before the bench and asked that his license might be renewed.

The Mayor: The magistrates were in doubt whether they should renew your license. There are many complaints against your house. Much noise has been heard there, and music and singing have annoyed the neighbourhood. The magistrates will grant the license for this year, but it is very likely that if anything like what is complained of occurs again, your license will be taken away.

Mr. Andrews said that he acknowledged that some music had been played in his bar, but he did not think at the time that it would annoy anyone. He would, however, take care that it should not happen again.

Mr. Hart: There is not space or room in your place for anything like that; in fact you have not accommodation. I can only warn you that, although your license is granted this year, I think it probable that it might be taken away next year.

Mr. Andrews: I have plenty of accommodation and rooms for people to sit down in. Mine is the only house in Folkestone where there is a stand up bar like the London system. People can come in, take what they want, and then leave. I would rather have a trade of that character, because it is an accommodation to people who quickly come in for what they require and go away again. In consequence of being so near the street the talking creates a little hubbub or noise.

Mr. Hart: Well, that is not a place for a house like that. A nuisance is created at the corner, and if the evils complained of continue I warn you that your license will be taken away. I hope you will do all in your power to keep your house orderly and quietly conducted.

Mr. Andrews said he would endeavour to do so, and this concluded the business before the Court.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 September 1872.

Saturday, September 7th: Before The Mayor and T. Caister Esq.

Charles Andrews, landlord of the Guildhall Hotel, applied for an occasional license to sell excisable liquors at the Town Hall on the following Wednesday.

The Bench refused the application.

 

Folkestone Express 30 August 1873.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clarke Esq.

The licensing committee met at ten o'clock for the purpose of taking into consideration the question of making any alteration in the hours for opening and closing public houses. Shortly after eleven o'clock the licensed victuallers present were called into Court, where the Clerk said the Bench would hear anything with reference to the alteration of the hours for the opening and closing.

Mr. Andrews, in reply to the Clerk, said he had filed a petition in liquidation and that the trustee would apply for a renewal of the license to the Guildhall Hotel.

The matter was left over until the adjourned meeting on the 30th September.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 October 1873.

Adjourned Licensing Day.

Wednesday, October 1st: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

The Guildhall Tavern license was transferred from Arthur, to Henry Andrews.

Note: This transfer is not listed in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 4 October 1873.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Guildhall Hotel.

Tuesday, September 30th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. Wilks, of Hythe, applied for a transfer of the license of the Guildhall Hotel from Henry Andrews to his brother, Arthur Andrews. It having been shown that the premises were let to Arthur, the application was granted.

Note: No mention of Henry Andrews in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 October 1873.

Bankruptcy.

At the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Monday last, before Mr. Registrar Callaway, Arthur Andrews, innkeeper, Folkestone, bankrupt, came up for his adjourned public examination. Mr. R.W. Flint appeared to oppose on behalf of the trustee; Mr. Kelcey, from the office of Messrs. Hallett & Co., Ashford, for the bankrupt. The bankrupt was cross-examined at length by Mr. Flint as to what had become of certain portions of his estate. It was elicited that the bankrupt had accepted bills for his father – he did not know how many. Bankrupt denied that he informed any of his creditors of being about to become bankrupt, but afterwards admitted that he told Messrs. Leney, brewers of Dover, and that he had since paid to Mr. Hall, their traveller, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to 31 1s. It was also elicited that the profits had amounted to 200 a year. Mr. Flint strongly opposed the bankrupt being allowed to pass his examination, and asked for further accounts. The learned Registrar ordered the bankrupt to furnish a goods, cash, and deficiency account for the three months prior to his bankruptcy, and adjourned the sitting to the 15th inst.

 

Folkestone Express 11 October 1873.

At the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Monday last, before Mr. Registrar Callaway, Arthur Andrews, innkeeper, Folkestone, a bankrupt, came up for his adjourned public examination.

Mr. R. W. Flint appeared to oppose on behalf of the trustee; Mr. Kelcey, from the offices of Messrs. Hallett and Co., Ashford, for the bankrupt.

The bankrupt was cross-examined at length by Mr. Flint as to what had become of certain portions of his estate. It was eliceited that the bankrupt had accepted bills for his father – he did not know how many. Bankrupt denied he informed any of his creditors of being about to become bankrupt, but afterwards admitted that he told Messrs. Leney, brewers, of Dover, and that he had since paid to Mr. Hall, their traveller, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to 31 1s. It was also elicited that his profits amounted to 200 a year. Mr. Flint strongly opposed bankrupt being allowed to pass his examination, and asked for further accounts.

The learned Registrar ordered the bankrupt to furnish a goods, cash, and deficiency account for the three months prior to his bankruptcy, and adjourned the sitting to the 15th inst.

 

Southeastern Gazette 14 October 1873.

Bankruptcy.

At the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Monday last, before Mr. Registrar Callaway, Arthur Andrews, innkeeper, Folkestone, a bankrupt, came up for his adjourned public examination. Mr. R. W. Flint appeared to oppose on behalf of the trustees, Mr. Kelcey, from the office of Messrs. Hallett and Co., Ashford, for the bankrupt.

The bankrupt was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Flint as to what had become of certain portions of his estate. It was elicited that the bankrupt had accepted bills for his father—he did not know how many. Bankrupt denied he informed any of his creditors of being about to become a bankrupt, but afterwards admitted that he told Messrs. Leney, brewers, of Dover, and that he had since paid to Mr. Hall, their traveller, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to 31 Is. It was also elicited that his profits had amounted to 200 a year.

Mr. Flint strongly opposed the bankrupt being allowed to pass his examination, and asked for further accounts.

The learned Registrar ordered the bankrupt to furnish a goods, cash, and deficiency account for the three months prior to his bankruptcy, and adjourned the sitting to the 15th inst.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 October 1873.

The Bankruptcy Court, Canterbury.

Wednesday, October 15th, 1873. Arthur Andrews, of Folkestone, came up for his final examination, and after a long hearing, the Registrar made an order that he should pass. At the previous examination, the bankrupt stated that he had accepted bills for his father, but this appeared to be incorrect and what he meant was that while he was carrying on the house for his father he had accepted bills in his own name in the ordinary transactions of business.

 

Folkestone Express 18 October 1873.

The Bankruptcy Court, Canterbury.

October 16th, 1873.

Arthur Andrews, of Folkestone, came up for his final examination, and after a long hearing the Registrar made an order that he should pass. At the previous examination the bankrupt stated that he had accepted bills for his father, but this appeared to be incorrect, and what he meant was that while he was carrying on the house for his father had had accepted bills in his own name in the ordinary transactions of business.

 

Folkestone Express 30 May 1874.

Advertisement Extract.

To Brewers, Capitalists, Photographers and Others.

Messrs. Andrews and Son beg to offer for public auction at the West Cliff Hotel, Folkestone, on Friday the 19th June, 1874, at seven o'clock in the evening, the following desirable residences, in three lots:

Lot 3: A Free Fully Licensed Public House, known as the Guildhall Hotel, situate next the Town Hall, Folkestone, having a most extensive and lucrative bar trade, and being of great importance in the neighbourhood.

The House contains good dry wine and beer cellars, kitchen, scullery and W.C. A large and splendidly fitted Bar, with Bottle and Jug Department.

Also 9 rooms suitable for sitting and bedrooms, and 2 W.C.s, the workshop in the rear with back entrance and use of pump with good water.

This Lot leased from Earl Radnor for 99 years from the 24th June, 1844, and the annual ground rent will be 2 5s.

Further particulars and conditions of sale may be obtained on application to the auctioneers, Hythe, at the West Cliff Hotel, Folkestone, or to George Wilks Esq.,

Solicitor,

Hythe.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 January 1875.

Monday, January 4th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Jane Pellett was charged with obtaining on the 24th of December, 6d. worth of oranges, 1 lb. Of sugar, and a quart of chestnuts.

Prisoner represented herself to prosecutor's assistant named Court, as a servant of Mr. Arthur Andrews, of the Guildhall Tavern, whereas she was not in his employ at that time, but she had been his servant.

Mr. Andrews stated that he never authorised her to obtain goods for him.

Remanded until Wednesday.

Wednesday, January 6th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, W. Bateman, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Jane Pellett was brought up on remand, charged with obtaining from Mr. Daniels, grocer, Beach Street, 1 lbs. of cheese, 2 lbs. of prunes, 2 oz. of peel.

The prisoner represented herself as Mr. Spurrier's servant, in whose name she had the goods.

Mr. Spurrier denied sending the girl for the goods. She had been in his employ.

The Bench committed her for trial at the Quarter Sessions on the charge heard against her on Saturday and on this occasion.

 

Folkestone Express 9 January 1875.

Monday, January 4th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Jane Pellitt, general servant, out of place, was charged with having obtained by false pretences sixpennyworth of oranges, a quart of chestnuts and a pound of lump sugar, value 1s. 2d., from Mr. Spinks, grocer. Guildhall Street, on the 24th ultimo.

William Court, apprentice to prosecutor, knew the prisoner, who had been in the habit of purchasing goods at his employer's for Mr. Andrews of the Guildhall Tavern. On the afternoon of the 24th prisoner was served by witness with sixpennyworth of oranges, a quart of chestnuts and a pound of lump sugar. Witness asked, after he had served her, who the goods were for, and she said for Mr. Andrews. Did not then know that she had left Mr. Andrews' service; had he known this, should not have served her. The goods were worth 1s. 2d.

Arthur Andrews, of the Guildhall Tavern, said prisoner left his service about the beginning of December. Did not authorise the prisoner to get them.

The witness Court, re-called, said when he asked who the goods were for she had not taken them off the counter. Witness had weighed and measured the goods.

A nice point arose as to whether the prisoner obtained the goods under a false pretence, as she was served before being asked for her employer's name. Eventually she was remanded till Wednesday.

Wednesday, January 6th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Dr. Bateman, J. Kelcey, R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Jane Pellitt was charged on remand of having obtained certain groceries by false pretences from J.B. Spinks, Guildhall Street, on the 24th ultimo. The depositions taken on Monday having been read over, a consultation took place between the members of the Bench. Prisoner was cautioned, and said she didn't wish to say anything, only that she was guilty.

Prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, Mr. Andrews being bound over to prosecute. He objected to do so, but was told that as he had taken out the summons he must do so.

 

Folkestone Express 30 January 1875.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday, January 28th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Jane Pellett, 16, domestic servant, imperfectly educated, was indicted for having obtained by false pretences 1 lbs. of cheese, 2 lbs. of prunes, and 2 ozs. of candied peel, value 1s. 8d., the property of George Daniels, on the 19th and 23rd December.

A second count charged her with obtaining by false pretences 12 oranges, 1 quart of chestnuts and 1 lb. lump sugar, value 1s 2d., the property of James Reeves Spinks, on the 24th December.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and in reply to the Recorder said she had no witnesses to speak to her character.

Superintendent Wilshere stated, in answer to the Recorder, that he had received information of 12 or 13 similar charges against prisoner, who had been identified in several cases.

Mr. Edward Simmons, the Governor of the Dover Gaol, said prisoner had been well behaved when in gaol, and appeared to feel her position acutely. If she continued to conduct herself aright during her term of imprisonment he hoped, with the help of the Chaplain, to get her some employment after it's expiry.

The Recorder said taking into consideration prisoner's youth he should sentence her to a light term. She would be sentenced to two calendar months' imprisonment for the false pretences to Mr. Spinks, and two similar sentences in each of the other cases of fraud upon Mr. Daniels, making in all six months' imprisonment.

 

Southeastern Gazette 10 May 1875.

Local News/

At the Police Court a few days since Robert Acton Beresford, a tramp, was oharged with begging in Sandgate Road.

Prisoner went into the King’s Arms and Guildhall Tavern, and told people that he was a cashiered military officer.

Mr. Boarer, before whom prisoner was charged, asked the ex-captain if they did not know each other, to which prisoner replied that he was not aware of it.

He begged to be allowed to leave the town, saying he had a family at Brighton.

He was told that he would be at perfect liberty to go away after he had received the public hospitality for fourteen days, during which period he would be kept to hard labour for the benefit of his health.

The “gallant captain,” who seemed indignant at the degradation he was doomed to undergo, was then removed.

Folkestone Chronicle 15 June 1878.

Notice.

Mr. THOMAS HARVEY.

GUILDHALL HOTEL, FOLKESTONE.

All persons having any claim upon Mr. Harvey are requested to send full particulars thereof to me, the undersigned, on or before the 20th day of June instant, and all persons having any property belonging to Mr. Harvey will forthwith deliver the same to Mrs. Harvey, at the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone.

Dated 13th day of June, 1878.

WORSFOLD MOWLL.

Solicitor, Dover.

 

Folkestone Express 11 January 1879.

Thursday, January 9th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., and Captain Fletcher.

Ann Clarke, charged with being drunk and disorderly in Sandgate Road on Wednesday, pleaded Guilty. Superintendent Wilshere said the prisoner was turned out of the Guildhall Tavern, and was afterwards quarrelling with a man in the street.

She was fined 1s., and 3s. 6d. costs, which she paid.

 

Folkestone Express 8 March 1879.

Monday, March 3rd: Before Alderman Hoad, R.W. Boarer, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Minnie Smith appeared to a charge of being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening.

P.C. Ovenden said he saw the prisoner lying in the gutter in the centre of a crowd of persons, opposite the Guildhall Tavern. He raised her up and advised her to go home. She refused to do so and swore at him, and was taken into custody.

Superintendent Wilshere said the prisoner had been up on similar charges six times previously. The last time was in '76, and since then she had been very orderly.

The Magistrates dismissed the prisoner with a caution.

 

Folkestone Express 4 August 1883.

Saturday, July 28th: Before J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Holden, and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs., and General Armstrong C.B.

James Edward Hoad was charged with maliciously throwing a stone and breaking a window in the house of the Mayor. Defendant is the landlord of the Guildhall Tavern. Mr. Minter prosecuted. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.Mr. Minter said the prosecution was instituted under the Malicious Damage to Property Act, and he proceeded to detail the circumstances of the case. The defendant was an innkeeper at the Guildhall Tavern, adjoining the Town Hall. The offence, he thought the Bench would say when they had heard the evidence, was one of a very dastardly character, and one which if proved, as no doubt it would be, would call for exceptional punishment. On the 14th of July, at midnight, Mr. Sherwood's window was broken under the circumstances they would have in evidence, by a stone. That stone, they said, was thrown by the defendant from the roof of his house, for the purpose of maliciously injuring Mr. Sherwood's property. The would wonder why the defendant should be guilty of such a dastardly act towards the Mayor. The motive that he should suggest was gathered from the defendant's own words. He seemed to have taken it into his head that Mr. Sherwood supported the Salvation Army in Folkestone. Whether or not that interfered with his particular business, he (Mr. Minter) did not know, but he should prove in evidence that defendant was heard to call the Mayor a scamp. At that moment he was not in a position to put in vertain anonymous letters which had been received by the Mayor, therefore he would not further refer to them at that stage. Having detailed the facts of the case given in the evidence, he said he should ask the Bench to say that no person, other than the person that the witness Grimes said broke the window, could have done it, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, although the evidence was presumptive, presumptive evidence was sometimes the very best evidence, and he should ask the Bench to convict the defendant on the ground that no other person could have got access to the premises without the defendant's knowledge.

He called Mr. John Sherwood, who said: I am Mayor of the borough, and live at No. 5, Sandgate Road. On Saturday, the 14th July, the windows over my offices were perfect. On Sunday morning I found one of the panes broken. The value of the window is about 1. I know the defendant as landlord of the house opposite. I can see the roof of his house from my dining room on the first floor. There is a skylight in the roof, and a parapet wall in front.

P.C. James Delaney said: I was on duty t 12 o'clock at night on Saturday the 14th July. I was standing opposite Mr. Dunsford's, talking to Mr. Loftus Banks. Whilst talking I heard a stone go against something. The sound came from Mr. Sherwood's house. I gave some direction to Mr. Banks, and then ran to Guildhall Street into the new building. I blew my whistle for assistance. I entered the building in Guildhall Street, and came out into Sandgate Road. I then went and stood under the porch of the Town Hall, where I found P.C. Smith. Whilst standing there I heard a stone come. In my judgement it came from the direction of Guildhall Street. I went through the passage across the market, and entered the passage leading to Mr. Hoad's backway. There was a dog barking. Mr Hoad lifted the window up and said “What's the matter?” I said “Nothing, I am only going my usual rounds”. I then returned to the front of the Town Hall.

Cross-examined: He was dressed as though he was going to bed or getting up. The window is entirely in the rear of the premises. My light was thrown on to the window, and it made the dog bark, and caused Mr. Hoad to throw up the window. From where I stood first I had a view of defendant's house. I saw no-one on the roof. It was a light night. I did not hear any glass smashed, but heard some stones strike against the building. The window could be struck by a stone coming from several directions. I am not prepared to swear that the first stone came from any particular direction. When I heard the second stone I was standing under the Town Hall porch. The second stone I heard fall into the road. I cannot say it struck the building. I can swer it came from the direction of the Guildhall by the direction the stone took when it fell on the road. The stone was picked up in my presence. I did not see it fall. I am prepared to swear that was the stone thrown. There was no other in the road. The stone travelled towards Mr. Sherwood's front door. The window broken was the farther one.

Re-examined: I can swear there was no-one in Sandgate Road, Church Street, or Guildhall Street. Thinking it came from behind defendant's house, I went round.

William Grimes said: I am an assistant to Mr. Sherwood. I sleep in the room over the dining room. From my bedroom I can see the Town Hall and three or four other houses. I can see the roof of the Guildhall Tavern. On Saturday night at eleven o'clock I went to my bedroom. The household generally had retired to rest. I sat down and read for about three quarters of an hour, then washed, turned out the gas, and got into bed. As I laid down I heard something come up against the outside of the house. I immediately jumped out of bed, lifted one of the Venetian blinds and looked out. My line of sight was towards the Guildhall Tavern. I saw a light in the skylight in the roof of the Guildhall Tavern, and saw a head over the parapet. I watched it for about five minutes. Then I saw the body rise up, and I saw his arm raise and move in the action of throwing. I heard a thud against the house. The window being plate glass it would only make a thud. The man was between me and the light of the skylight. I could not distinguish his features. I should not like to say the man was of the size of the defendant. I do not know the depth of the parapet. I saw him go into the skylight. The adjoining houses have no skylights. The light disappeared. I continued at the window. It was about five minutes past twelve when the second thud came. I afterwards saw a person come to the window of the Guildhall Tavern. It was a little more than a minute after the light disappeared in the skylight. The person placed his face to the window and was looking at the policemen below. I cannot identify the person.

Cross-examined: I did not re-light the gas after I put it out. I am not able to distinguish the figure of the person whom I saw on the parapet, or the person who came to the window. I cannot identify either person in any way whatever. I cannot say which arm of the figure moved.

Re-examined: I saw the man at the window several times during 10 minutes.

P.C. Dawson said: On the 17th July I went to defendant's house at 20 minutes past eight in the morning. I went again at 7.20, and on the 19th I asked defendant if he let beds. He said “I don't let beds, but I can recommend you to the Shakespeare Inn”. There was a soldier there on the 19th. The soldier and I talked together.

Mr. Bannon objected to the conversation being given in evidence.

Examination continued: Hoad said “It is only the Mayor, the scamp. Don't think anything of that. If he put his foot on them he should get rid of them at once”.

Cross-examined: There had been some previous discussion about the Salvation Army. The defendant said some man had been locked up for stealing the flag. I took it that “putting his foot down” had reference to the Salvation Army.

P.C. Smith said he heard a whistle blown and went to the front of the Town Hall. He heard a stone strike Mr. Sherwood's building. He thought the stone came from the back of Guildhall Street. He had frequently used the house, and Hoad was the only man he had seen there.

Mr. Bannon addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant, urging that he was perfectly innocent of the offence charged against him.

The Bench retired to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman said the magistrates were unanimously of opinion that the offence was proved. The defendant was liable to two months' hard labour, but they had decided to deal leniently with the matter. Defendant must pay 20s., the damage, 3 fine, and 15s. 6d. costs, or in default go to prison for one month with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 1 August 1885.

Wednesday, July 29th: Before W.J. Jeffreason, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. Bannon applied on behalf of Mr. Hoad, of the Guildhall Tavern for a licence to sell refreshments at the Conservative Fete at Morehall on Bank Holiday. Granted.

Mr. Quested also applied for a licence to sell outside the grounds, in a field adjoining, but the Bench refused permission.

 

Southeastern Gazette 10 December 1887.

Local News.

On Thursday two privates in the King’s Royal Rifles, at Shorncliffe, named Grover and Whittington, were charged with burglariously entering the Guildhall Tavern, Folkestone, on the previous day. The burglar or burglars entered the house through a fanlight 3ft. 6in. in width by l9in., and succeeded in taking away 112 foreign coins, a quantity of silver money, two bottles of spirits, and three boxes of cigars. When Whittington’s kit was searched most of the money was found tied up in his socks. The prisoner Grove was discharged, his statement that he bought the coins from the other prisoner being found correct. Whittington was committed to take his trial at the next Kent Assizes.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 December 1887.

At the Police Court on Thursday, Thomas Whittington and Henry Grover, privates in the King's Royal Rifles, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, were charged with having feloniously and burglariously entered the Guildhall Tavern on the 6th inst., and taking therefrom two bottles of spirits, 7s. 6d. in silver, 5s. in bronze, and 112 foreign bronze coins, the property of James Edward Hoad.

The prosecutor stated he discovered that the fanlight which led to the bar had been broken, and marks were left of someone's boots on the frame. The fanlight was 3 ft. 6 ins. long and 19 ins. deep.

Thomas William Hogben, a barman in the last witness's employ, gave corroborative evidence, adding that the chain attached to the fanlight was broken.

Corporal Geralde, K.R.R., proved having given information to Sergeant Lodge, who searched the prisoners and found the coins produced. Major Houssen went to the prisoners' quarters and searched the kits. In that of Whittington's he found a large number of coins tied up in a sock (produced). On a shelf at the head of his bed he found three boxes of cigars and one bottle of spirits. He then communicated with the civil police authorities, the result of which was that Sergeant Harman took the prisoners into custody. Whittington stated on his way that he knew nothing about the robbery, but found a parcel at the rear of his quarters in the night, which contained the articles in question, and which he intended to keep until claimed.

Corporal Coleman, K.R.R., deposed that the prisoners were in bed at 10.15 on the night in question, that being the time that the lights were turned out. He saw them again at 6.30 in the morning in bed. It would be possible for them to have gone out in the night as the doors were never fastened.

The Magistrates discharged Grover, and committed the other prisoner for trial at the next assizes.

 

Folkestone Express 10 December 1887.

Thursday, December 8th: Before Captain Carter, J. Fitness and E.R. Ward Esq.

Two privates of the King's Royal Rifles, one named Thomas Whittington, and the other Grover, were charged with burglary at the Guildhall Tavern, and stealing the articles named in the depositions given below.

John Edward Hoad said: I am landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, 4, Guildhall Street. On the night of Tuesday I was in the bar till about a quarter past twelve. Before leaving I left the fanlights open about six inches at the top, suspended by a cord and chain. I went into the bar about eight o'clock on Wednesday morning. I examined the bar and found the fanlight cord and chain broken. The fanlight is 3 ft. 6 ins. long and 19 ins. deep. I noticed marks on the glass and on the ledge of the door as if feet had been placed on the ledges. I missed from the till, which was not locked, 7s. 6d. in silver, 2s. 6d. in English coppers, 5s. worth of French coppers from a shelf, and four boxes of cigars from a shelf close to the ceiling. I value the cigars at 32s. I missed two or three bottles of spirits, one brandy and the other rum, value 6s.

Thomas William Hogben, barman to Mr. Hoad, said: I left the house on Tuesday night between ten minutes and a quarter past eleven. The fanlight over the door nearest the Town Hall was about 6 in. down. I went to work about half past six on Wednesday morning. I went to the front bar and noticed that the fanlight over the door nearest the Town Hall was closed, and the chain and cord was broken. When I took hold of the string, the fanlight fell down. I noticed a stool standing near the door. I saw Mr. Hoad about eight and told him about the fanlights. I had previously noticed that the till was open, and that it was empty.

Corporal Charles Dearlove, of the King's Royal Rifles, said: About 10 minutes past twelve on Wednesday I saw the two prisoners at the canteen on Shorncliffe Camp. They were in the bar, and from there they went to the taproom. I stood about four yards from them. They produced some coin from their pockets. Whittington had an old fashioned halfpenny or some other coin. That produced is the same. Twenty minutes after a provost corporal came round with the information that a house had been broken into. I went to the taproom and asked Grover if he had any old coins to make away with. He said he had, and pulled from his pocket a lot of silver and English and French halfpence. I could not judge how much. I asked him if he had any old silver coins to put on my watch chain. He said he had at home. I ordered him to be confined. At the Guardroom he was searched by Sergt. Ledge. Some silver coin, foreign coin and English coppers were found on him. I afterwards had Whittington confined to the Guardroom and searched. Some coin and an old halfpenny were found on him. I made no charge against them, but I told the Sergt. Major and we went and searched the men's kits. In Whittington's kit we found a bottle of brandy, and a bag of money with a name on it. In his valise we found two boxes of cigars, and on a shelf over the bed a third box. Those produced are the same. In Grover's kit we found nothing.

Grover said he had no foreign silver in his possession.

Sergt. Thomas Lodge, K.R.R., said: At a quarter past one on Wednesday, Grover was brought to me in the Guardroom. I searched him in the corporal's presence. I found in his pocket 4s. 3d. in English coins, and 1s. 10 d. in foreign coins. I told him he would be charged with being concerned in a burglary at Folkestone. He replied “I know nothing about it. I wasn't out of the barracks, and can prove where I got the coins from”. Shortly after Corpl. Dearlove brought in Whittington, and I searched him. I found 8s. 6d. in silver, and 9d. in copper, among the latter being the old halfpenny. I told Whittington he would be charged on suspicion of being concerned in a robbery at Folkestone on the previous night.

Sergt. Major Job Hounsell, K.R.R., said: In consequence of a communication made to me by Corp. Dearlove I went with him to the room which prisoners occupied. I searched their kits. I Whittington's kit we found a bottle of brandy with J.E. Hoad's name on, and three boxes of cigars, and in the bed a sock containing copper coins, a piece of candle, and a small paper bag with Mr. Hoad's name on it. I did not count the money till the Sergeant of the police came. In Grover's kit I found nothing relating to the robbery. At the Guardroom I asked Whittington where he got the brandy, cigars, and foreign coins from. He said he bought them off a “civi”, meaning a civilian. I told him I should report it to the police. I asked Grover when he got the coins taken from him, and he replied that he bought them off Private Whittington. Whittington made no reply to that. Police Sergt. Harman came to the Camp about four the same afternoon, and the prisoners were given into his custody. The property found in Whittington's bed and kit was handed over to him. The prisoners were present at tattoo at ten o'clock on Tuesday night. Corp. Coleman certified that they were present in the room. It is quite possible for a man to leave barracks after tattoo and be absent till six the next morning without being missed. Prisoners were on parade at half past seven on Wednesday morning. The Corporal slept in the same room.

Police Sergt. Harman said: I went to the Camp and received the prisoner into custody, and also the property now produced. I charged the prisoners with breaking and entering the Guildhall Tavern, Folkestone, between the hours of twelve and six that morning, and stealing 7s. 6d. in silver, 2s. 6d. in English bronze, 5s. in French bronze, 1s. 6d. in old English copper coins, two bottles of spirits and three boxes of cigars. Whittington said “I know nothing about it. I was in my hut at the time”. Grover replied “I bought 14d. of French coppers off Whittington this morning. I gave him 6d. and a pot of porter for them. I have plenty of witnesses to prove that”, and called out several names to the Sergeant Major to produce as witnesses. He also said “A few days ago I bought eight pennyworth of French bronze from Private Callaghan, and gave 4d. for them”. I had Callaghan produced, made the enquiry, and found that was correct. I brought the prisoners to the police station, and when near the end of the lines Whittington said “That is where I got them from, round behind there, from a man I have often seen when I have been on pass”.

Supt. Taylor said: I read the charge to the prisoners. Whittington made a statement, which I took down. This was to the effect that he found the articles in a latrine. Grover said “The Sergeant has got all I want to say”.

Corporal Alfred Joseph Colman said he was corporal in charge of the room in which the prisoner slept, and was present at tattoo on Tuesday night – 10 o'clock. Both prisoners were there, and in bed. Lights were put out at a quarter past ten. He saw them next morning at half past six in bed. The room was in darkness during the night. The door of the room was not locked at night time. He saw Grover buying some coins off Whittington about half past eight on Wednesday morning. Grover gave Whittington 6d. for some French coins.

Mr. Hoad was re-called, and said he could not recognise either of the prisoners. Among the coins he missed there were some Indian ones.

The depositions being read over and signed, the prisoner Grover was dismissed, there being no evidence against him.

Whittington made a statement to the effect that he went to the latrine about half past five in the morning, and there found all the articles and money.

The Bench decided to commit this prisoner for trial at the next assizes.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 14 December 1887.

Thursday, December 8th: Present Capt. Carter (in the chair), John Hoad Esq., John Fitness Esq., and E.W. Ward Esq.

Thomas Whittington and Frederick Grover, privates in the King's Royal Rifles, were charged with having burglariously entered the premises known as the Guildhall Tavern, Guildhall Street, and stealing therefrom three bottles of spirits, five boxes of cigars, and a quantity of silver and bronze money, the property of James Hoad.

Mr. Hoad said that he locked up the house as usual on the night of the 6th December and saw that the fanlights were fastened. When he came down on Wednesday morning the barman made a communication to him, and he then found that the fanlight nearest the Town Hall was open. He identified the bottle of brandy produced as his property – it bore his label – and he also identified the three boxes of cigars. There were no marks of his own on the boxes, but he identified them by the brands. Of one brand, no person in Folkestone but Mr. Starr and himself had purchased any. He produced the invoice for one lot of cigars – he had 24 boxes, but had only 21 left now. The other spirits taken were another bottle of brandy, and he thought a bottle of rum. There was also a quantity of bronze money missing, including French, Indian, English, and old English coins and some silver.

Thomas William Hogben said that he was barman in the employ of Mr. Hoad at the Guildhall Tavern. He left there about 11.15 on Tuesday night. He did not lock up the house, as Mr. Hoad always did that, but he noticed that both the fanlights were shut. They were fastened with chains and cords. He went to business at 6.30 on Wednesday morning, letting himself in as usual by the back door, of which he had the key. He then went into the front bar and noticed that the fanlight next the Town hall was closed, but he noticed that the cord was broken, and when he went to open it as usual, it fell down. He also noticed that one of the water bottles and a tray were moved to the opposite side of the bar from where he had left them the previous night. He saw Mr. Hoad about eight o'clock and made a communication to him about the fastenings. The first thing he noticed on going round the bar was that the till was wide open. He served the customers who came early in the morning.

Corporal Charles Dearlove, of the K.R.R., said that about 12.10 on Wednesday afternoon he saw the prisoners in the Canteen of the Regiment. They were together at the bar for three or four minutes and afterwards went into the taproom with their beer. He heard no conversation between them and the waiter. They both had money while in the bar, silver and bronze mixed. Whittington had an old fashioned bronze coin which he was showing to other people at the bar. Witness did not know if it was a halfpenny or a penny, but should know the coin again. (Witness identified it from several shown him). Prisoners then went into the taproom. He did not follow them for nearly half an hour, but when Corporal Hood brought round papers certifying that a house in Folkestone had been broken into he made it his business to go into the room, and asked Grover if he had any old coins to make away with. Grover said yes, he had, and pulled out a handful of coins, silver and bronze mixed. They were both English and French, but he could not say what was the worth of them. He asked if Grover had got any old silver coins, as he wanted one for his watch chain. Grover said he had some at home. Witness then ordered him to be confined, and he was taken to the guard room. The Sergeant of the Guard searched him in presence of witness and found a number of coins, English and French, on him, but he did not know how many. Shortly after he found Whittington walking towards the guard room with Grover's dinner. He was also arrested, by witness's instructions, and was searched by Sergeant Lodge in witness's presence. Some silver and bronze coins were found on him, including the old bronze coin of which he had already spoken. He made no charge against the prisoners, but went to the Sergt. Major, who went with witness to the barrack room and searched the prisoners' kits. They found in Whittington's kit a bottle of spirits, three boxes of cigars, and a bag (or sock) containing money. Both prisoners slept in one room. They found two boxes of cigars in Whittington's kit and one on the shelf above his bed. He identified the spirits and cigars as those found. They searched Grover's kit but found nothing in it. Grover said that he had no questions to ask, except that he had no foreign silver, only coppers.

Sergt. Thomas Lodge said that he was on duty at the guard room about 1.15 on Wednesday when Corporal Dearlove came there. He searched the prisoners in the presence of the Corporal. He found 4s. 3d. in English coins, and some foreign coins in Grover's pockets. He took the money from him and placed him under arrest, saying that he would be charged with burglary in Folkestone on the previous night. Grover said he knew nothing about it and could prove where he got the coins from. About three minutes after another Corporal brought in Whittington. Witness searched him and found 8s. 6d. in silver, 8d. in English bronze and an old English coin. The silver was made up of one shilling and the rest in sixpences. He told Whittington that he would be charged with being concerned in a burglary at Folkestone, and ordered him to be detained.

Sergt. Major Hounslow deposed that in consequence of what Corporal Dearlove told him shortly after one o'clock on Wednesday he went with the Corporal to the hut in which the prisoners lived. They both slept in one room. They searched Whittington's kit and bed and found one bottle of brandy and three boxes of cigars in the kit. In the bed they found a sock containing a number of coins, a piece of candle, and a small paper bag with Mr. Hoad's name on it. They did not count the money then, but did so when the Police Sergeant arrived. Witness also took some money which had been found on the prisoners from the Sergeant of the Guard. They then searched Grover's kit but found nothing relating to the present charge. Witness then went to the guard room and told the Sergeant that he wished to see the prisoners. He asked Whittington where he got the brandy, the cigars, and the foreign coins. Witness had them in his hand at the time. Whittington said he bought them off a “civi” – witness supposed he meant a civilian. Witness then told him that he should sent to the Superintendent of Police at Folkestone and say that he had found the property which had been stolen.

He then asked Grover where he got the coins taken from him and Grover said that he bought them off Private Whittington that morning. P.S. Harman came to the barracks about five o'clock and witness handed over the prisoners to his custody. He also handed over the property which had been found in Whittington's kit and bed. The prisoners were present at tattoo, and the Corporal of the room reported them as present after “lights out”. It was quite possible for a man to leave Camp after tattoo and not be missed until six in the morning. He knew of his own knowledge that prisoners were on parade at 7.30 next morning.

P.S. Harman gave corroborative evidence as to having the prisoners and the property from last witness. Whittington, after being cautioned, said he knew nothing about the money – he was in bed. Grover said he bought 1s. 2d. in French coppers off Whittington, and gave him sixpence and a pot of porter for them. He had plenty of witnesses to prove that. A few days before he had bought eight pennyworth from Private Flanagan and had given fourpence for them. Witness found that Grover's account of this transaction was perfectly correct, as he had Private Flanagan and the Sergeant who gave him the coins both called. As witness was bringing the prisoners to the station, Whittington pointed to some huts and said “That's where I got 'em, round there”, meaning behind the huts.

Superintendent Taylor gave evidence as to having received the prisoners at 6.30 and having charged them with the offence. He also cautioned them that anything they might say would be used in evidence against them. Whittington made a statement, which witness took down in writing and now produced. (This was put in). Grover said “The Sergeant has got all I want to say”.

Corporal Coleman said that he was in charge of the room in which prisoners slept. Both prisoners were present at tattoo – he saw them. He also saw them when “lights out” was sounded. They were both in bed then. He saw them again about 6.30 next morning, when they were both in bed. In reply to questions, the witness said that the room was in darkness between “lights out” and reveille. The door was shut but not fastened. He saw Grover buy some foreign coins from Whittington after breakfast. Could not say how man coins, but Grover paid sixpence for them. That was in the room where they slept.

Mr. Hoad, re-called, said that he did not know either of the prisoners. They might have been in his house, but not often enough for him to remember their faces. He could not positively swear to the coins, but he had a number of Indian, French, and other coins of the same character as those produced.

In reply to the Bench, the Superintendent said that it would be quite easy to walk from the Guildhall to the Camp in half an hour.

The Chairman (after a long consultation) said that the evidence with respect to Grover was not sufficient to convict him, although the case was one of very strong suspicion. He would be discharged, but he must understand that if the police obtained any new evidence he would be liable to be again brought before them.

In reply to the Bench, the prisoner Whittington elected to make a statement, which was, of course, duly taken down. In the main it did not contradict the evidence given for the prosecution, except that prisoner declared he did not leave the Camp all night, and that he found the brandy, cigars, and money in two parcels in a certain building on the Camp. He took the goods to his hut and put the money in his pocket, meaning to give it up if he could find out who lost it.

The Chairman said they had carefully considered the case, and the evidence was very strong against the prisoner. He would be committed for trial at the next Assizes for the County of Kent, wherever they might be held.

The witnesses were then bound over to appear and give evidence, and the case, which had caused great interest, and had occupied two hours, was concluded – at any rate so far as our Police Court is concerned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 August 1888.

Inquest.

The Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) held an inquest at the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon, touching the death of James Edward Hoad, late landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, whose death occurred under circumstances detailed in the evidence below.

James Kennett Boorn, Town Sergeant, identified the body.

Eleanor Hoad, widow of deceased, said her husband was 39 years of age. On Sunday week witness was lying in bed in the back room above the bar with a child who was ill, when she heard a crash of glass downstairs. She looked over the banisters, but saw nothing. She called out, but got no answer, so therefore went back to bed again. When deceased left her she thought he went to bed. She did not pursue her enquiries, as she thought it was merely a glass knocked down. She was nervous about the child, and did not go down. Next morning about half past eight she went into the bedroom where deceased slept. He was lying on the bed, dressed and smothered in blood. He told her that he missed his footing and fell down the stairs and through the glass of a door at the foot of the stairs. He had a cut on the eyebrow and two smaller ones above. He got up and bathed his face. After he had bathed his face he laid on the sofa in the drawing room. Next day he went to a chemist's and had his head strapped up. At eleven o'clock one evening, about three days before his death, she found him in a sort of fainting fit and sent for Dr. Eastes.

Dr. Thomas Eastes said the deceased called him early on Sunday morning, July 29th, to attend his child. He went immediately and saw the child in the presence of the deceased and his wife. He was called to see deceased on Thursday night, the 2nd of August. He seemed to have fainted and he found he had three wounds on his forehead, and erysipelas in those wounds, which was spreading over the forehead, and he was delirious. He attended him from that time until his death, which took place early on Monday morning, the 6th inst. The cause of death was exhaustion from delirium tremens and erysipelas supervening in the wounds. The child was suffering from rheumatism, but deceased did not wish to see him. He was not sober when he called witness to attend his child. The real cause of the erysipelas was strapping the wounds up. The fainting fit was no doubt the commencement of a severe illness.

Frederick Henry Darley, watchmaker, said he was sent for by Mr. Hoad on Thursday or Friday at midday. He went, and found deceased in the back room on the ground floor. He said “See what an eye I've got. I have sent for some leeches as I want to get the colour out. I want you to hold the glass until the leeches bite”. He put on three leeches. He told witness how the fall occurred. On Saturday afternoon Mrs. Hoad sent for him. She told him her husband was very strange, and they could not keep him in bed. He went up into his bedroom, and found deceased sitting on his bed. Only Mrs. Hoad was with him. He induced him to get into bed and then went away, telling Mrs. Hoad he would return as soon as his business was closed. He went again at half past nine, but did not see deceased. At half past eleven Mrs. Hoad sent for him again. He was then very excited, and he told her he would want more than one man to take care of him. Two other men were obtained, and witness stayed until six o'clock next morning. He went again at ten o'clock, and remained with deceased until the time of his death, excepting about two hours. Deceased died at a little past three on Monday morning. At ten o'clock on Sunday night he had a sleeping draught, and about twelve he became insensible. He knew deceased had been drinking hard for several weeks, and he remonstrated with him about it, and he promised to give it up.

Thomas Hogben, a barman who was in the employ of the deceased, said deceased told him how the wound on his face was caused. A day or two after he said he thought he should go to Goodliffe's and witness advised him to do so. He saw deceased on Wednesday morning, and he then had his eye strapped up. He saw him again on Thursday morning. He then said he was queer and should go to bed. On Friday morning deceased sent for him. He went to his bedroom, and deceased gave him some instructions about the beer. On Friday night he saw him again, and by his direction did several acts of business, paying rates and so on. He saw him again on Saturday morning, and again on Sunday night. On Sunday night he was very delirious. Deceased had been drinking very hard for a month past.

The Coroner said there had been so many absurd reports about that he thought it was necessary to take the evidence at considerable length. But there was no doubt that the deceased's death was caused by his own folly and imprudence in drinking to excess, and his own neglect.

The jury returned a verdict that death was caused by exhaustion from delirium tremens and erysipelas.

 

Folkestone Express 11 August 1888.

Inquest.

On Tuesday afternoon an inquest was held by the Borough Coroner at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on the body of James Edward Hoad, late landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, Guildhall Street, who died on Monday morning.

James Kennett Boorn, Town Sergeant, identified the body. He said he last saw deceased alive on Saturday week, when he called at the Town Hall. He seemed then to be in a pretty good state of health. He had a cut on his left eye, and told witness that he missed his footing at the bottom steps of the stairs, and fell with his head through the glass. He said he thought he was on the last step, but there were two. He complained of his head, and said he could not go into the bar with his head cut, so he went to have a chat with witness.

Eleanor Hoad, widow of deceased, said he was 39 years of age. On Sunday week he had a fall. Witness was lying in bed in the back room above the bar with a child who was ill when she heard him fall. Before he fell he had been for a doctor to attend his child. Dr. Eastes attended about one o'clock, she thought. It was some time after Dr. Eastes had gone that she heard a crash of glass downstairs. She looked over the banisters, but saw nothing. She called out, but got no answer, and she went back to bed again. When deceased left her she thought he went to bed. She did not pursue her enquiries, as she thought it was merely a glass knocked down. She was nervous about the child, and did not go down. Next morning about half past eight she went into the bedroom where deceased slept. He was lying on the bed, dressed, and smothered in blood. He told her that he missed his footing and fell down the stairs, and through the glass of the door at the foot of the stairs. He had a cut on the eyebrow, and two smaller ones above. He got up and bathed his face. After he had bathed his face he laid on the sofa in the drawing room. Next day he went to a chemist's and had his head strapped up. At eleven o'clock one evening about three days before his death she found him in a sort of fainting fit and sent for Dr. Eastes. He was slightly delirious, and she had two men to attend to him.

Dr. Thomas Eastes said the deceased called him early on Sunday morning, July 29th, to attend his child. He went immediately and saw the child in the presence of deceased and his wife. He was called to see deceased on Thursday night, the 2nd of August. He seemed to have fainted, and he found he had three wounds on his forehead, and erysipelas in those wounds, which was spreading over the forehead, and he was delirious. He attended him from that time until his death, which took place early on Monday morning, the 6th inst. The cause of death was exhaustion from delirium tremens, and erysipelas supervening in the wounds. The child was suffering from rheumatism, but deceased did not wish to see him. He was not sober when he called witness to attend his child. The real cause of the erysipelas was strapping the wounds up. The fainting fit was no doubt the commencement of a severe illness.

A brother of deceased asked Dr. Eastes if deceased had been attended by a physician at first, whether he would not have been saved.

Dr. Eastes replied that he could not say. Some cases did badly from the first. Deceased always avoided him when he went into the house. It was certainly by his own free will that he did not see him. Deceased's general state of health no doubt accelerated his death. Had he been in better health, the probability was that erysipelas would not have ensued.

In reply to a question by a juror, the Coroner said that no doctor had a right to give a certificate of death when it followed upon injuries received by falling.

Frederick Henry Darley, watchmaker, said he was sent for by Mr. Hoad on Thursday or Friday at midday. He went, and found deceased in the back room on the ground floor. He said “See what an eye I've got. I have sent for some leeches as I want to get the colour out. I want you to hold the glass until the leeches bite”. He put on three leeches. He told witness how the fall occurred. On Saturday afternoon Mrs. Hoad sent for him. She told him her husband was very strange and they could not keep him in bed. He went up into his bedroom, and found deceased sitting on his bed. Only Mrs. Hoad was with him. He induced him to get into bed, and then went away, telling Mrs. Hoad he would return as soon as his business was closed. He went again at half past nine, but did not see deceased. At half past eleven Mrs. Hoad sent for him again. He was then very excited and he told her he would more than one man to take care of him. Two other men were obtained, and witness stayed until six o'clock next morning. He went again at ten o'clock, and remained with deceased until the time of his death, excepting about two hours. Deceased died at a little past three on Monday morning. At ten o'clock on Sunday night he had a sleeping draught, and about twelve he became insensible. He knew deceased had been drinking hard for several weeks, and he remonstrated with him about it, and he promised to give it up.

Thomas Hogben, a barman who was in the employ of the deceased, said deceased told him how the wound on his face was caused. A day or two after he said he thought he should go to Goodliffe's, and witness advised him to do so. He saw deceased on Wednesday morning, and he then had his eye strapped up. He saw him again on Thursday morning. He then said he was queer and should go to bed. On Friday morning deceased sent for him. He went to his bedroom, and deceased gave him some instructions about the beer. On Friday night he saw him again, and by his direction did several acts of business, paying rates and so on. He saw him again on Saturday morning, and again on Saturday night. On Sunday night he saw deceased again, and he was then very delirious. Deceased had been drinking very hard for a month past.

The Coroner said there had been so many absurd reports about that he thought it was necessary to take the evidence at considerable length. But there was no doubt that the deceased's death was caused by his own folly and imprudence in drinking to excess, and by his own neglect. He could have gone himself to a doctor, but did not have surgical attention until his wife sent for Dr. Eastes.

The deceased's brother said all the relations were refused who went to see him.

Dr. Eastes said he gave strict orders that no-one was to be allowed to see deceased, and Mr. Darley said he carried out the doctor's orders. No-one was admitted except those who were in attendance upon him.

The jury returned a verdict that death was caused by exhaustion through delirium tremens and erysipelas.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 August 1888.

Inquest.

On Tuesday an inquest was held at the Town Hall on the body of James Edward Hoad, late landlord of the Guildhall Tavern. The evidence showed that deceased fell down some stairs and cut his head against a glass door. He suffered from delirium tremens, and erysipelas supervened in the wounds, from the effects of which deceased died. A verdict to that effect was returned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 October 1890.

Saturday, October 4th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, Major Penfold, J. Fitness, E.T. Ward and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Frederick Arthur Bing was summoned for being drunk whilst in charge of a horse and cart on the 27th ult., and pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Gardner stated that he saw the defendant come out of the Guildhall Tavern about ten minutes past three on the day in question. He got up into a cart which was standing outside, but as he was drunk and unfit to be in charge of a horse and cart witness took him into custody.

There were several previous convictions against the defendant, who was now fined 10s. and 6s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1892.>

Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the Town Hall, on the occasion of a fancy dress ball on the 11th February. Granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 August 1892.

Monday, August 8th: Before Mr. J. Fitness, Aldermen Pledge and Dunk.

Three privates in the West Surrey Regiment, named Edward Anwyl, William Davis, and William Bruce, were charged, with others not in custody, of assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliams and John Winfelder.

Guilliams said he was a Dutch waiter, and on Saturday evening from 10 o'clock till 10.45 he was in the Guildhall Vaults with John Winfelder and others. There were some soldiers there, and witness “stood treat” and remained with them in the bar about ten minutes. They left together and went to the East Kent Arms just before closing time, and he and his his friends treated the soldiers again. They left there at closing time and went up Sandgate Road as far as Christ Church Road, where they stood talking for a time. He and Winfelder accompanied them along Shorncliffe Road. He walked arm-in-arm with one of the soldiers, and after he had gone some distance he missed his friend and looked back to see what had become of him, but could not see him. About six or seven soldiers were with him then. Just at that moment one of the soldiers got hold of his watch chain. He was wearing a gold double-cased keyless watch and a gold Albert chain with twisted links. He requested him to let go, but he would not. The soldier called “Help” to the other soldiers. They were close behind and came running up. The Scotch soldier put his hand inside of his waistcoat, and must have stolen his silk handkerchief and pocket book. He also said “You had better walk on. Your friend will be with you in a minute”. They had a struggle for a minute, the soldiers got hold of his arms, he got free, and ran away towards the town. He missed his watch and chain, pocket book, letter case, a silk handkerchief, his stick and hat. He shouted to his friend, and after a time saw him coming out of a field. He was very excited, had his tie unfastened, no collar on, and his clothes were dirty. He told witness what had happened and they went together to the police station. On Sunday morning they went with Sergeant Swift to Shorncliffe Camp. He saw the stick produced at the Camp – it was the one he had on Saturday night. He saw no more of his property. The value of the watch and chain was 13. He could not identify any of the prisoners as those who assaulted him.

John Winfelder, also a foreign waiter, said that when he was in Shorncliffe Road one of the soldiers he was with tried to get his hand into his trousers pocket. Four or five others came up and knocked him down in the cornfield. They held him down by the arms and legs and took everything he had about him – about 15s. or 20s. in money, a silver watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe, and a stick. He was not sure as to the men. The man Anwyl was one of the two who walked with him arm-in-arm. On Sunday they went to the Camp, and witness identified the stick produced as his property. The watch and chain were worth about 1. In reply to the Court he said he first saw Anwyl in Christ Church Road.

Anwyl said it was correct that he was one of the soldiers who walked with witness up Shorncliffe Road.

William Stanley, caretaker of the Recreation Room, Provisional Battalion, said he lent Davis and Bruce 1s. 6d. on the two sticks, and subsequently handed them to the colour sergeant.

Sergeant Swift said the robbery was reported to him at 1.30 on Sunday morning. The men had been drinking and were not sober. Neither of them had a hat on, and they were excited. He went to a field in Shorncliffe Road, near Leigh House. He found a Glengarry cap of the West Surrey Regiment and a linen cuff. When the men were arrested, Bruce said “I have got myself into this through selling that stick”. Davis had on him 6s. 10., and the others about 18d. each.

Supt Taylor asked for a remand until Saturday, and it was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 13 August 1892.

Monday, August 8th: Before Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, and J. Fitness Esq.

Edward Anwyl, William Davis, and William Bruce, privates in the West Surrey Regiment, three smart looking soldiers, were charged with being concerned with others, not in custody, with assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliam and another.

Charles Guilliam said he was a Dutch waiter. On Saturday evening from ten o'clock till a quarter to eleven he was in the Guildhall Vaults with John Winfelder and others, drinking together. They were in a bar at the back of the house. They left and returned to the house, entering another bar. There were some soldiers there, and witness “stood treat” and remained with them in the bar about ten minutes. They left together and went to the East Kent Arms just before closing time, and he and his friend treated the soldiers again. There were four or five of them. They left at closing time and went up Sandgate Road as far as Christ Church Road, where they stood talking for a time. Some of his friends left him there and he remained with Winfelder and some soldiers – altogether there were 14 or 15 soldiers – and they wanted some more to drink. He thought they said they could get it at the canteen. He and Winfelder accompanied them along Shorncliffe Road. He could not say he was quite sober – he was a little the worse for drink, but remembered clearly what took place. He walked down arm-in-arm with one of the soldiers, and after he had gone some distance he missed his friend and looked back to see what had become of him, but could not see him. About six or seven soldiers were with him then. A soldier in Scotch uniform came running up to him. Just at that moment one of the other soldiers got hold of his watch chain. He was wearing a gold double-cased keyless watch and a gold Albert chain with twisted links. He requested the soldier to let go, but he would not. He said he had better give it to him till he went back – it was not safe to wear it in the company he was in. He requested the soldier again to leave off, and pushed him away. He called “Help” to the other soldiers. They were close behind, and came running up. The Scotch soldier put his hand inside of his waistcoat, and must have stolen his silk handkerchief and pocket book. He also said “You had better walk on. Your friend will be with you in a minute”. They had a struggle for a minute, the soldiers got hold of his arms, he got free, and ran away towards the town. He missed his watch and chain, pocket book, letter case, a silk handkerchief, his stick and hat. He shouted to his friend, and after a time saw him coming out of a field. He was very excited, had his tie unfastened, no collar on, and his clothes were dirty. He told witness what had happened, and they went together to the police station. On Sunday morning they went with Sergeant Swift to Shorncliffe Camp. A number of men were paraded before them, but they could not identify the men who had assaulted him. He saw the stick produced at the Camp – it was the one he had on Saturday night. He saw no more of his property. The value of the watch and chain was 13. He could not identify any of the prisoners as those who assaulted him.

John Winfelder, also a foreign waiter, said when he was in Shroncliffe Road one of the soldiers he was with tried to get his hand into his trousers pocket. Four or five others came up and knocked him down in a cornfield They held him down by the arms and legs, and took everything he had about him – about 15s. or 20s. in money, a silver watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe and a stick. He cried out for help, and they threatened to kill him. He was not sure as to the men. He also lost a cuff. The man Anwyl was one of the two who walked with him arm-in-arm. He was not sure whether he was one of the men who pushed him in the field, but he supposed he was there. They left him after they had taken everything. He called for Guilliam, who came along a few minutes after, and they went together to the police station. On Sunday they went to the Camp, and witness picked Anwyl out. He identified the stick produced as his property. His watch and chain were worth about 1. He was not quite sober.

By Anwyl: You were not one of the men I saw in the East Kent Arms.

In reply to the Court, he said he first saw Anwyl in Christ Church Road.

Anwyl said it was correct that he was one of the soldiers who walked with witness up Shorncliffe Road.

William Child, a private in the West Surrey Regiment, said he saw the two stick produced, one in the possession of Davis, at 6.30 on Sunday morning. He asked witness the value of the Malacca cane. He said he exchanged his regimental cane for them. Bruce brought the acacia stick and asked what it was worth. He took it from behind his cot.

William Stanley, caretaker of the Recreation Room, Provisional Battalion, said he lent Davis and Bruce 1s. 6d. on the two sticks, and subsequently handed them to the colour sergeant.

Thomas Roblon, colour sergeant in the West Surrey Regiment, said he heard of the robbery about 10.30 on Sunday morning, and received the stick from the last witness. The three prisoners slept in the same barrack room.

Sergeant Swift said the robbery was reported to him at 1.30 on Sunday morning. The men had been drinking and were not sober. Neither of them had a hat on, and they were excited. He went to a field in Shorncliffe Road, near Leigh House. He found a Glengarry cap of the West Surrey Regiment, and a linen cuff. When the men were arrested Bruce said “I have got myself into this through selling that stick”. Davis had on him 6s. 10d., and the others about 18d. each.

Supt Taylor asked for a remand till Saturday, and it was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 August 1892.

Police Court Jottings.

Three smart young fellows of the West Surrey Regiment, whose collars were adorned with a little brass representation of the Sphinx with the word “Egypt” underneath, were brought up in custody on Monday, before Mr. Fitness and Alds. Pledge and Dunk, charged with an offence which, if proved against them, and should they have to take their trial before a judge of the same disposition of either Sir H. Hawkins or Sir C. Stephen will probably result in their acquaintance with the lash – highway robbery with violence. They were named respectively Wm. Bruce, Edwd. Anwyl, and Wm. Davis.

It appeared, according to the voluminous evidence which was most painstakingly recorded by the Deputy Magistrates' Clerk. On Saturday evening, about half past ten, a couple of Dutch waiters at an hotel in Folkestone, who gave the names of Chas. Guilliams and John Jas. Winfelder, met a number of soldiers in a public house, whence they adjourned to another, at each of which they treated them. On their leaving the second at “closing time” they walked up the Sandgate Road, and from thence towards the Cheriton Road; the soldiers, who were afterwards joined by some seven or eight others, accompanying them arm-in-arm, for, as they admitted in the course of their examination, they were the worse for drink. After they had gone some way on the road, some of the soldiers asked them to come further on, as they knew where they could get more drink. This invitation they ill-advisedly accepted, but after proceeding but a short way, Guilliams and his brother waiter found themselves hustled into a bean field, where they were knocked down and robbed of their watches and chains, and what money they had about them, together with their walking sticks, their pocket handkerchiefs, and their hats. The former managed to get away from his assailants and ran off, afterwards meeting his companion. They then went together to the police station and gave information of the outrage, and the case was put into the hands of P.S. Swift, who accompanied them to the scene of the tussle, where the Sergeant found, about ten yards from the highway, in the field, a Glengarry cap belonging to a private of the West Surrey Regiment. This was about two on Sunday morning. At nine the same morning the Sergeant accompanied the prosecutors to the Shorncliffe Camp, when some thirty men were paraded before them, and Winfelder identified Anwyl as one of the soldiers who had taken part in the robbery, but Guilliams was unable to pick out either of his assailants.

It was, however, proved by Wm. Stanley, a caretaker at the recreation room of the Provisional Battalion at the Camp, that Davis and Bruce each pledged with him a stick for 1s. 6d., which the two prosecutors now identified as their property which had been taken from them.

When apprehended by Sergt. Swift, the only one of the three who made any reply to the charge was Bruce, who said “I have got myself into this by selling that stick”. When searched Bruce had on him 1s. 7d., Anwyl 1s. 6d,. and Davis 6s. 10d.

Guilliams put the value of his watch and chain at 13 – they were of gold. Winfelder estimated his watch and chain at about a sovereign, while he had also been robbed of between 15s. and 20s. in money.

The three prisoners, who had conducted themselves very coolly throughout the Magisterial proceeding, said they were not guilty, Anwyl remarking “I most emphatically say that I am not guilty”.

At the conclusion of the case Mr. Supt. Taylor said he should ask for a remand in order to trace the stolen property, and this was granted until Saturday.

 

Sandgate Visitors' List 13 August 1892.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Monday three privates in the West Surrey Regiment, named Edward Anwyl, William Davis, and William Bruce, were remanded on a charge of being concerned with others not in custody, with assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliams and another on the previous Saturday evening. The prosecutor, who is a Dutch waiter, and another foreigner, named John Winfelder, met several soldiers in the Guildhall Vaults, Folkestone, and treated them. They left the house together and went into the East Kent Arms, just before closing time, where they again stood treat. They afterwards proceeded with the soldiers up Sandgate Road towards the Camp, and accompanied them along the Shorncliffe Road. Both were a little the worse for drink. They were afterwards assaulted by the soldiers, and robbed of their watches and money. The soldiers made off, and the prosecutor and his companion went to the police station and informed the police. P.S. Swift went to the spot, near Leigh House, where the assault was committed, and found a Glengarry cap of the West Surrey Regiment. Prisoners were arrested at the Camp on Sunday. Only Anwyl was recognised, but the sticks of prosecutor and his companion were found in the possession of the other two prisoners.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 August 1892.

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, Councillor Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

William Bruce, William Davis, and Edward Anwyl, three well-built soldiers, belonging to the West Surrey Regiment, were brought up on remand, and further charged with assaulting and robbing two Dutch waiters, named Charles Guilliams and John Winfelder on the night of the 6th inst.

It will be remembered that the case came before the Bench on the 8th inst., when the prosecutors deposed that they had been robbed of a gold double-cased keyless watch, gold Albert chain, pocket book, letter case, silk handkerchief, sticks, hats, 15s. in money, silver watch and chain, cigarette case, and pipe.

Frederick Harris, a lance corporal in the same regiment, now deposed that the defendants passed the quarter guard together at three minutes past twelve on the Saturday night, and went into quarters. He knew the men personally.

Bruce stated that he came into Folkestone on the evening of the 6th inst. with his comrades in the dock, and after drinking with them at the George Hotel, he left them and went to the Alhambra, Sandgate, where he stayed till closing time; after that he returned to barracks. He was not accompanied by the other defendants. With regard to the stick, he found that outside hut number 23 early on Sunday morning, and he carried it away and hid it behind his own cot.

Anwyl stated that he was in Folkestone until closing time. As he was returning to the Camp he overtook a group of soldiers with whom were the two prosecutors. He addressed the latter in Dutch and they replied. Shortly after he bid them “good night” and went into the Camp. He had neither handled nor seen the missing property.

Davis also averred that he had had nothing to do with the robbery.

The Bench stated that they had decided that the case should go before a jury for trial, and the prisoners would therefore be committed for trial.

The men were removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Express 20 August 1892.

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

William Brice, Edward Anwyl, and William Davis were charged on remand with assaulting and robbing two waiters.

Frederick Harris, a lance corporal in the West Surrey Regiment, was called, and said he was on duty with the quarter guard on Saturday night and saw the three prisoners go into Camp together at three minutes past twelve. They went up to the guard. No other soldiers were with them. They passed the guard and went into quarters.

All three prisoners made long statements of their proceedings on the night in question. Brice denied all connection with the matter or that he was in the company of the other prisoners, and appealed to the Bench to ask them the question.

Anwyl said he left the hut early in the morning of Sunday and found the walking stick.

Davis said he exchanged his regimental cane with a Scotch soldier for the stick in order that the latter might pass the guard, and next morning pawned it for 1s. 6d.

The prisoners were committed for trial at the Sessions.

 

Sandgate Visitors' List 20 August 1892.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday three privates in the West Surrey Regiment, named Edward Anwyl, William Bruce, and William Davis were committed for trial on the charge of assaulting and robbing two waiters in the Shorncliffe Road on the night of the 6th inst.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 October 1892.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday 17th October: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

William Bruce, Edward Anwyl, and William Davis, all privates in the West Kent Regiment, were charged with stealing from the person of John Winfelder one watch and chain, one cigarette case, one pipe, one stick, and the sum of 15s. in money on the 8th August.

Each of the prisoners pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

Mr. Matthews appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Tassell appeared for the defendant Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles defended the remaining two men at the request of the Learned Recorder.

The evidence, as given at the two hearings before the Bench, was repeated.

John Winfelder, prosecutor, said on the night in question he was drinking until closing time at the East Kent Arms, with Guilliam and some soldiers. All left together, and went in the direction of Shorncliffe Road. As they were walking together, a Scotch soldier tried to thrust his hand into witness's pocket, but he prevented him from doing so. The Scotch soldier then left witness and joined the other party, walking in front with Guilliam. Subsequently a gang of the soldiers got witness into a field alongside the Shorncliffe Road, knocked him down, and robbed him of everything he possessed. The next day he went to the Camp with a police sergeant, and identified Anwyl as one of the party by whom he was attacked.

In the course of cross-examination by Mr. Tassell, he said he did not say, before the Bench, that “he saw Anwyl in the field”, although the remark was on the depositions. He said “he supposed he was with him”. He could not swear to any of the prisoners.

By the Recorder: He told them he identified Anwyl as walking with him, and the Scotch soldier.

Was Anwyl with him when he tried to put his hand into his (witness's) pocket? – Yes.

What did Anwyl do? – He did not do anything.

Charles Guilliam, another waiter, deposed to accompanying the previous witness in his drinking campaign that evening. He did not witness the assault and robbery, but he saw Winfelder coming out of a field looking very much disturbed and excited.

Private Childs, of the West Kent Regiment, said on the Sunday morning he was shown a Malacca stick (produced) by Davis, who asked him the value of it. He told witness he had taken the stick in exchange for his regimental stick.

William Stanley, the Caretaker of the Recreation Room of the Provisional Battalion deposed to lending prisoner Davis 1s. 6d. on the stick until the following day.

Sergeant Swift said the prosecutors came to him at the Police Station on the night of the assault, and told him what had happened; they were somewhat excited, and under the influence of drink. With the men he went to the scene of the struggle, and there found a Glengarry cap belonging to the West Kent Regiment. During the Sunday morning they went to the Camp, and Winfelder identified Anwyl as one of those who had taken part in the assault.

The jury wished to know if the three prisoners were wearing their caps when they returned to the Camp.

An answer was returned, by Lance Corporal Harris, in the affirmative.

Mr. Tassell made an able speech on behalf on Anwyl, and in the course of his summing up, the Learned Recorder said Mr. Tassel had put forward his case in a clear manner. He had made a very able defence that was worthy of the best traditions of the bar.

The Recorder also admitted that there was hardly any evidence against Bruce, but the facts against Davis were of a very important description. He then pointed out that the latter had not shown how he came by the possession of the stick, and in affairs of this nature it was held that the recent possession of stolen property was evidence that either the person stole it, or he knew who did commit the theft.

Lieut. Geo. Williams gave the defendant Bruce an excellent character.

The issue was then left in the hands of the Petty Jury, and after deliberating together for a short time they found a verdict of Not Guilty against each of the prisoners.

The Court then adjourned for a short interval.

On re-assembling the three prisoners were again placed in the dock, and this time charged with stealing from the person of Charles Guilliams one watch and chain, one letter case, one pocket handkerchief, one stick, and one hat, on 8th August, 1892.

Mr. Mavrojain appeared to prosecute. Mr. Tassell defended Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles the others.

In the second case Charles Guilliams said he was now living in London, at No. 12, Stamford Street. He detailed what took place on the 8th August, as already described in the previous case, to which he added that his watch and chain, and pocket book, silk handkerchief, stick and hat were taken away from him in the course of a wrestle with five or six soldiers.

John Winfelder and William Childs gave evidence. The latter stated that Bruce produced a Malacca stick on the Sunday morning in his barrack hut. He drew it from behind his cot, and asked witness the value of it. He replied “One and sixpence”.

In summing up, the Learned Recorder said he thought it was right that the jury should acquit Anwyl, and also Davis, but he again commented very strongly on the fact that Bruce was found in the possession of a part of the stolen property, and he had failed to give any reasonable explanation as to how he had come by the same.

The Recorder having summed up, the jury expressed a desire to retire to consider their verdict.

Mr. Harrison (to the Recorder): There is no room, sir, for the jury to go to.

The Recorder (to the jury): I can't help it, gentlemen. It is the fault of the Borough. I consider it is a perfect scandal and a disgrace to a town like Folkestone. I have raised my voice over and over again, and I can't help it, gentlemen. If you don't take the matter in your own hands, I can't do anything.

Mr. Major (a juror): Put us in the cells! (Laughter)

It was eventually decided to lock the jury in the Reception Room at the Police Station.

After an absence of ten minutes the jury returned, and found a verdict of Not Guilty against all the prisoners.

 

Folkestone Express 22 October 1892.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 17th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Edward Anwyl, William Bruce, and William Davis were indicted for stealing from the person of John Winfelder a watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe, a stick, and 15s. in money.

There was another charge of stealing from the person of Charles Guilliams, but this was dealt with separately.

Mr. Matthews prosecuted. Mr. Tassel defended Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles, by direction of the Recorder, defended Bruce and Davis.

John Winfelder, one of the prosecutors, said he was a waiter. On the 6th August (Saturday night) he was with Guilliams in the East Kent Arms. There were some soldiers there, and they left at closing time and walked up the Shorncliffe Road. When they left they had some conversation with the soldiers. They were talking “some nonsense”, and asked witness to have another drink. He said he did not mind, and they went off to get another drink. Guilliams was in front. Witness was behind with two soldiers. One was a Scotch Guard, and the other a “red”. The Scotch soldier tried to get his hand in witness's pocket, and afterwards ran to Guilliams, and some other soldiers came up from behind, knocked him down, and robbed him of his watch, stick, money, cigarette case and handkerchief. He called out twice to Guilliams for help. He identified Anwyl as the man who was walking with him with one of the Scotch soldiers, but was not sure he was in the field. None of the soldiers stayed in the road. When he met Guilliams they both went to the police station together. Next day they went together to the Camp, and he identified Anwyl, picking him out from about 30 men. He was not drunk when the offence was committed, but he had been drinking.

By Mr. Tassell: I was not drunk and not sober. I know quite well what I did. We left the West Cliff about ten o'clock. We went first to the Guildhall and had a drink, and stayed there some time. At a quarter to eleven I and Guilliams went out and went in again. We did not then stand drinks to the soldiers. Then we went to the East Kent Arms. I can swear I was not drunk, but not just as sober as I am now. The place where the robbery took place was about ten minutes' walk from the West Cliff Hotel. I did not say before the Magistrates that I saw Anwyl in the field. I said I supposed so. (The evidence was read, in which he said “I saw him in the field when I was down”.) I did not say that. The nonsense we were talking was about soldiers. I cannot remember anything Anwyl did. I could not identify any of the Scotch soldiers. Anwyl was not in the Guildhall Vaults with us.

By Mr. Bowles: Neither Bruce nor Davis were in the Guildhall with us. We stood drinks to several soldiers in the East Kent Arms. I did not see Bruce or Davis there. I identified Anwyl as being with me when walking down Shorncliffe Road, but did not see him in the field, nor do I identify Bruce or Davis as having been in the field.

By The Recorder: Anwyl was with me when the Scotch soldier tried to put his hand in my pocket. I only said to him “Leave off!”. Anwyl did not do anything.

Charles Guilliams was called, and Mr. Matthews asked the Recorder whether he should examine him.

The Recorder did not see anything material in his evidence affecting the case of Winfelder, except that he bore out a part of the statements.

Witness was then sworn, and corroborated up to a certain point Winfelder's evidence. Winfelder, he said, was very excited and very dirty after he came out of the field.

By Mr. Tassell: I went with Winfelder in his “little round”. I was not quite sober. I have not been able to identify any single soldier.

Wm. Childs, private in the West Surrey Regiment, said he went on the 8th August to a room, when Davis was in the barracks. Davis showed him the stick produced and asked him the value of it, and he told him it was worth 18d. or 2s. He said he exchanged his regimental stick for it.

By Mr. Bowles: After he asked him the value of the stick he laid it down by the side of his bed.

Wm. Stanley, caretaker of the recreation room of the Provisional Battalion, said on the 8th August he saw Davis at eight o'clock in the morning. He asked him to lend him 18d. on the stick till next day. He said it was his own stick that he had given him in exchange.

By Mr. Bowles: It is not an uncommon thing to lend money just before pay day.

Sergeant Swift said the prosecutors were very excited, and under the influence of drink, when they went to the police station on the 8th of August. He went with them to a field in Shorncliffe Road, and there found a Glengarry cap, a cuff, and some links. The same morning they all went to the Camp together, and Winfelder picked out Anwyl, who was charged with robbing Winfelder. He replied “I never laid a finger on him”. When Davis was charged with being concerned in the assault and robbery he made no reply. Bruce and Anwyl were searched. They only had 1s. 6d. and 1s. 8d. on them.

By Mr. Bowles: Bruce and Davis were not identified. Sergeant Roblow told me they were in the guardroom.

Frederick Harris, lance corporal in the West Surrey Regiment, said the three prisoners entered the Camp together at three minutes past twelve on the 8th August.

By Mr. Tassell: They all arrived about the same time. They were due in at twelve.

By Mr. Bowles: There may have been 20 others come in at the same time.

Prisoners' statements were put in and read.

Mr. Matthews contended that the jury would consider that the men were guilty at any rate of taking part in the robbery.

The Recorder asked what the evidence against Bruce was.

Mr. Matthews said they were out together.

Mr. Bowles emphasised the Recorder's view.

Mr. Price, a juryman, asked if the cap found in the field could be identified as belonging to either of the prisoners.

The Colour Sergeant was re-called, and said he did not know who the cap belonged to. A man might have two or three. There was no number on the cap, which had been cut down. They had tried to find out who it belonged to, and could not. No Glengarry caps were missing among the men in the guardroom.

Mr. Price: Did the three men return with their caps on?

Harris was re-called, and said they did.

Mr. Tassell said he was extremely obliged to the jury for the manner in which they had brought out the facts of the cap. He then addressed the jury on behalf of Anwyl, and said if it had not been for the fact that he was picked out by Winfelder there would not have been a scrap of evidence against him, and he urged that it was a mistake altogether, and there was no value whatever in the identification. He also referred to the fact that Winfelder, two hours and a half after the public houses were shut up was still, according to Sergeant Swift's evidence, under the influence of drink. He remembered very little, except the identification, which was quite valueless. Even if he did see him, his evidence did not connect Anwyl in any way into the robbery, and from the very first moment he had told one consistent story.

Mr. Bowles addressed the jury on behalf of Bruce, first contending there was no evidence against him. In dealing with the charge against Davis and his dealing with the stick, he urged that his explanation was a very reasonable one, namely that he exchanged his regimental cane for it.

The Recorder said of course one was not inclined to have very much sympathy with people like the prosecutors, going about on a Saturday night spending their wages in public houses. But still the jury had a duty to perform. He scanned the evidence, and said in regard to Anwyl he had lost nothing at the hands of his counsel, and that he had been defended in a manner worthy of the best traditions of the bar, and he congratulated him on the able defence he had made. The evidence against Bruce, he said, was very slight indeed, but in the case of Davis, he said there was evidence of a very important nature. The possession of articles recently stolen had been held to be strong evidence of a guilty knowledge, and Davis was found within a few hours of the stick being stolen trying to dispose of it, and when charged by Swift with stealing a watch and chain, and a walking stick, he made no reply. It was undoubtedly a deplorable state of things that two men in a state of semi-drunkenness should be set upon by soldiers in such a manner, but it was for the jury to say whether either of the men were guilty of stealing or receiving the property stolen.

George Willes, Lieutenant of the 3rd Royal Berkshire Regiment, said Bruce bore a good character in the regiment.

The jury asked to be allowed to retire, and the Recorder was about to adjourn the Court for half an hour, when the jury consulted in the box for a moment, and gave a verdict of Not Guilty.

The Recorder thought the other indictment ought to be proceeded with.

After the adjournment the prisoners were indicted for assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliams. Mr. Mavro-Jain prosecuted, and Mr. Tassell and Mr. Bowles defended the prisoners as in the first case.

Charles Guilliams gave evidence. He said he was out of employment, and lived at 112, Stanford Street, London.

The evidence was practically the same as in the first case.

At the close of the case, the prosecuting counsel said the evidence against Anwyl was very slight. Against Bruce it was stronger, because he was found dealing with a stolen stick, and it was held that that constituted at any rate a knowledge that it was stolen property.

Mr. Tassell submitted that there was no evidence against Anwyl at all, but the Recorder declined to withdraw the case from the jury. Mr. Tassell then said it was especially hard that Anwyl should have to undergo a second trial, when there was absolutely no evidence against him whatever. He had told a simple, straightforward tale, which one jury believed, and acquitted him, and he asked that jury to do the same.

Mr. Bowles contended there was not a single bit of evidence against Davis, and, as regarded Bruce and the stick, the story he told as to finding it was perfectly probable. It might be a foolish thing to do, but it was not an act that ought to convict him of being connected with the robbery.

The Recorder then summed up. He said the evidence as to Anwyl and Davis was of a flimsy character, and he thought that those two should be acquitted. But because one jury acquitted Bruce, it was not to say that another should do so. There was evidence against him of a very cogent nature. Judges had said, and he had said over and over again that when people were found in possession of goods recently stolen, it was stong evidence that they either stole them, or knew them to be stolen, and in such a case the onus was shifted – it was for him to show that he came by them honestly. He summed up strongly against Bruce, chiefly on the ground of the inconsistency of the statements he made. He added further, that if people picked up property and dealt with it it was as much larceny as anything else.

The jury retired, and on their return into Court gave a verdict of acquittal in the case of all three prisoners.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 October 1892.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 17th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

William Bruce, 26, Edward Anwyl, 25, and William Davis, 25, three soldiers of the West Surrey Battalion, were charged with stealing from the person of John Winfelder a watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe and stick, and 15s.; also wit stealing from Charles Guilliams a watch and chain, a letter case, a pocket handkerchief, a stick and hat, on the same date, each robbery being accompanied with violence.

Mr. Matthew prosecuted in the first case, and Mr. Mavrojani in the second. Mr. A.J. Tassell (instructed by Mr. R.M. Mercer, of Canterbury) defended Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles, at the request of the Recorder, defended the other two.

On the 8th of August the prosecutors had been drinking at various public houses standing treat to soldiers. On leaving they were accompanied by the prisoners and others. They were then in a condition which Mr. Tassell described as “squiffy”, but upon the Recorder expressing his ignorance of the word, he substituted the expression “muddled”. After going some distance on the Shorncliffe Road they were knocked down and robbed by the soldiers. The evidence as to the prisoners having taken part in the robbery was not very clear, but they were afterwards found dealing with the sticks.

In summing up, alluding to Anwyl's case, the Recorder said he had lost nothing by the way in which he had been defended. His Counsel (Mr. Tassell) had put forward the defence in an able and clear manner, worthy of the best traditions of the Bar, and he congratulated him upon it.

Lieut. Willes, 3d Royal Berkshire, gave Bruce a good character.

The jury found the prisoners Not Guilty in the first case.

The second charge was heard before a fresh jury. The Recorder, in summing up, said he thought it right to advise them that they should acquit Anwyl and Davis. He dissented from the proposition that because one jury had acquitted a man a second should do the same, and in the case of Bruce he thought there were cogent circumstances in the case against him.

The jury, however, eventually followed the example of their predecessors in the box and acquitted all three prisoners.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 November 1892.

Wednesday, November 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. H.W. Poole, J. Fitness and E.T. Ward.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Tavern applied for a licence to serve at Carlo Maestrani's Restaurant on Monday next, the occasion of a dinner. He asked that the licence might be extended to 12 o'clock.

Councillor Holden: Eleven o'clock is late enough. It is late enough for the Mayor's Dinner and it is late enough for you.

Mr. Tunbridge said he was instructed to ask for the licence to extend to 12 o'clock.

Mr. Fitness asked him who gave him instructions.

Mr. Tunbridge replied “The dinner committee”.

Mr. Fitness: Oh! I shall vote for 11 o'clock.

The licence was granted on the understanding that the applicant would not draw after 11 o'clock.

 

Folkestone Express 26 November 1892.

Wednesday, November 23rd: Before The Mayor, Captain Carter, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, J. Fitness, E. Ward, and J. Holden Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence until twelve o'clock for the carnival dinner to be held on Monday at Maestrani's Restaurant. Granted until eleven o'clock, Mr. Holden remarking that eleven o'clock was late enough for a Mayor's Dinner, and it was late enough for a carnival.

 

Folkestone Express 3 December 1892.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the Tradesmen's Dinner at Maestrani's Restaurant, from six until eleven next Tuesday. Granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 March 1893.

Saturday, February 25th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge, Sherwood, and Dunk, Councillors Penfold, Holden and Spurgen, and Mr. J. Fitness.

Edward Murray, a respectably-attired young man, was charged with being drunk in the Market Place on the 19th ult.

Sergeant Harman deposed that shortly after ten o'clock on Sunday the 19th ult., he found defendant lying on his back at the bottom of the steps, near Messrs. Hyland and Goble's premises, in a helpless state of drunkenness. Witness and Sergeant Swift got the defendant into the station, where he vomited very much. They considered it advisable to call in Dr. Bateman, and did so, with the result that this gentleman confirmed the opinion of the sergeants that the defendant was drunk. Murray was detained until the morning, and then discharged.

Defendant said he was not drunk. He had been ill for a fortnight with influenza, and on Sunday evening, at the request of a pal, they adjourned to the Guildhall Tavern, where defendant had a small modicum of rum. After closing time he was going home in an orderly manner, but he fell down and hit his head on the steps at the bottom of the Market Place.

The Chairman said there was no doubt the defendant was drunk – a disgraceful thing for a young man in his position. Fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 31 May 1893.

Police Court Jottings.

One of the beauties of grandmotherly legislation was shown when on Saturday Mr. James Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Tavern, made an application to the Bench (The Mayor, Alderman Herbert C.C., Colonel De Crespigny, Messrs. Poole, Wightwick, and Fitness) for an occasional licence to sell at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening on the occasion of a smoking concert to be given to the Yeomanry.

The Clerk pointed out that according to the Act of Parliament the licence could not be granted for later than ten o'clock unless it was the occasion of a public ball or dinner.

Col. De Crespigny recommended that they call it a ball! The Mayor suggested they might give the men bread and cheese and call it a dinner. The Clerk declined to ask the Magistrates to infringe the Act of Parliament, and as Mr. Tunbridge said up to ten would “not be worth having”, our brave defenders will have to be content with a “dry pipe” on Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Express 3 June 1893.

Wednesday, May 31st: Before The Mayor, W. Wightwick and C. Pursey Esqs.

Mr. James Tunbridge renewed his application for an occasional licence for the Yeomanry smoking concert, which was granted, until ten o'clock.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 December 1895.

Local News.

The application of Mr. Tunbridge, Guildhall Vaults, for a temporary licence to supply liquors at the Carnival dinner was granted, the hours being from 6 to 11 o'clock.

 

Folkestone Express 7 December 1895.

Saturday, November 30th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell spirits at Mr. Maestrani's Restaurant on the occasion of the Carnival Dinner on Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 January 1896.

Monday, January 13th: Before The Mayor, and Messrs. Banks and Wightwick.

Mr. Tunbridge of the Guildhall Vaults was granted an occasional licence on the occasion of a dinner at Maestrani's Restaurant on Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Express 18 January 1896.

Monday, January 13th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence to sell at the Central Cafe Restaurant on Wednesday. Granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 February 1896.

Saturday, February 22nd: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold, and T.J. Vaughan.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for the Tradesmen's Dinner at Maestrani's Restaurant on Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Express 29 February 1896.

Saturday, February 22nd: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence to sell at Maestrani's Central Restaurant on the occasion of the Tradesmen's Dinner.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 May 1896.

Saturday, May 23rd : Before Messrs. J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, J. Fitness and J. Pledge.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence to serve at the Town Hall for the Yeomanry smoking concert. This was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 30 May 1896.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before The Mayor, C.J. Pursey, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, and J. Brooke Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the smoking concert at the Town Hall on Thursday. Granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 December 1896.

Wednesday, December 9th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Fitness, and General Gwyn.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence for a smoking concert at the Town Hall on Friday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 February 1897.

Saturday, February 20th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Holden.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell at the annual Foresters' Dinner at Maestrani's Restaurant.

 

Folkestone Express 27 February 1897.

Saturday, February 20th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Spurgen, and J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to supply liquors at Maestrani's Restaurant on the occasion of the Foresters' Dinner.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 May 1897.

Wednesday, May 5th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, and General Gwyn.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell at Maestrani's Restaurant on the occasion of the Football Smoking Concert on Monday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 December 1897.

Saturday, December 4th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, J. Holden, and J. Hood.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for the gardeners' dinner at Maestrani's Restaurant on Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 February 1898.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for the Licensed Victuallers' dinner at Maestrani's Restaurant on Thursday until 12 (midnight).

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 February 1898.

Monday, February 14th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for the Football Smoker at Maestrani's Restaurant on Thursday.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 August 1898.

Local News.

The Guildhall Vaults, next the Town Hall, held on lease from Lord Radnor, was sold on Thursday for 5,500 by Mr. Loftus Banks.

 

Sandgate Weekly News 27 August 1898.

Local News.

On Thursday the Guildhall Tavern, in Guildhall Street, Folkestone, was offered for sale at the Queen's Hotel by Mr. Loftus Banks, and realised 5,000.

 

Folkestone Programme 29 August 1898.

Notes.

The leasehold public house near the Town Hall, known as the Guildhall Vaults, was sold on Thursday afternoon by public auction for the substantial sum of 5,900. Forty five years of the leasehold have yet to expire, whilst the ground rent is only 10 per annum.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 October 1898.

Tuesday, October 25th: Before The Mayor, T.J. Vaughan, J. Hoad, and J. Pledge.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence for the football smoking concert on Wednesday at Maestrani's Restaurant.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 6 May 1899.

Saturday, April 29th: Before J. Banks, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lt. Col. Hamilton.

Mr. J. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an extension on account of the smoking concert for the benefit of Mr. W.R. Light, at the Town Hall on the following Monday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 June 1899.

Local News.

Mr. James Tunbridge was at Monday's Police Court granted a special licence for the supply of refreshments at the Yeomanry Ball at the Town Hall on Tuesday evening.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 June 1899.

Local News.

Mr. Tunbridge has been granted an occasional licence for the cricket field for Saturdays.

 

Folkestone Express 17 June 1899.

Wednesday, June 14th: Before J. Hoad, W. Wightwick, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.,

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell at the cricket field on Saturday.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 15 July 1899.

Wednesday, July 12th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, and W. Medhurst Esqs.

On the application of Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, an application for an occasional licence in connection with a cricket match was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 19 July 1899.

Wednesday, July 12th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, and W. Medhurst Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell liquors at a cricket match.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 July 1899.

Monday, July 17th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and Messrs. Pursey, Wightwick, and Cunningham.

Mr. James Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell refreshments at cricket matches on Wednesday and Friday.

 

Folkestone Express 29 July 1899.

Wednesday, July 26th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge, Col. Hamilton, and C.J. Pursey Esq.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell on the cricket field during cricket week.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 July 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

Mr. James Tunbridge asked for an occasional licence to sell liquors on the Plain during the Cricket week. Granted.

 

Folkestone Express 9 September 1899.

Saturday, September 2nd: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell at a cricket match.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 May 1900.

Wednesday, May 23rd: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Spurgen, and Stainer.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an extension from 9 until 3 a.m. on Friday, the occasion of the Yeomanry Ball.

 

Folkestone Express 26 May 1900.

Wednesday, May 23rdth: Before J. Hoad, G. Spurgen, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell at the Town hall on the occasion of the Yeomanry Ball.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 June 1900.

Saturday, June 2nd: Before Messrs. Fitness, Banks, and Wightwick, and Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to serve intoxicants, etc., at the Folkestone Cricket Ground on Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Express 23 June 1900.

Saturday, June 16th: Before J. Pledge and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted a temporary licence to sell spirits at the match between Folkestone and Hythe cricket match on the Plain.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 June 1901.

Saturday, May 25th: Before Lieut. Col. Penfold, Messrs. Peden, Pledge, and Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Mr. J. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell on the Folkestone Cricket Ground on Whit Monday.

 

Folkestone Express 1 June 1901.

Saturday, May 25th: Before Col. Penfold, Alderman J. Pledge, Colonel Westropp, and T.J. Vaughan, G. Peden, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for a cricket match on the Plain on Monday.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 June 1901.

Friday, May 31st: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.


Mr. Tunbridge applied for and was granted occasional licences for the cricket field for Saturday and Wednesday next.

 

Folkestone Express 8 June 1901.

Friday, May 31st: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted occasional licences for cricket matches on Saturday and Wednesday on the Sandgate Plain.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 July 1901.

Tuesday, July 23rd: Before Alderman J. Banks, Messrs. Wightwick, Salter, Pursey, and Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Arthur Owen, a respectably dressed excursionist, who visited the town on Saturday, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Saturday afternoon.

P.C. Sharp said that about 2.40 he was called by the landlord of the Guildhall for the purpose of ejecting prisoner. Prisoner was ejected, and both in and out of the bar he used filthy language. This caused a crowd to assemble. Prisoner refused to go away, and continued to use bad language, so he was taken into custody.

Prisoner told the Bench that he had been an abstainer for six months, and a few drops on Saturday must have overcome him.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'. The fine was paid.

 

Folkestone Express 27 July 1901.

Monday, July 22nd: Before Aldermen J. Banks and W. Salter, Col. Hamilton, and W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Arthur Owen, an excursionist, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly on Saturday afternoon.

P.C. Sharpe said about 3.40 p.m. on Saturday he was called to eject the prisoner from the Guildhall Tavern. He did so, and as the prisoner continued his disorderly behaviour and made use of most disgusting language he was obliged to arrest him.

The prisoner said he was an excursionist, and had a glass too much.

He was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days. The Chairman said when an excursionist drank too much he lost himself and his character.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 March 1902.

Monday, March 3rd: Before Alderman J. Banks, and Messrs. W. Wightwick, W. Salter, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey.

James Smith, a private in the Royal Fusiliers, Shorncliffe, was charged with stealing a glass, the property of Mr. James Tunbridge, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults.

P.C. James Ashby said: At 9.40 last night, near the Town Hall, I saw the prisoner cross the road from the Guildhall Vaults and get on to the Cheriton bus with a glass in his hand, partly covered by his tunic. I followed him to the top of the bus and said “What have you done to that glass?” At the same time he let the glass drop on the floor of the bus. I said “Can you give any account of this glass?”, and he replied “No, what is it all about?” He was sober, but had been drinking. I took him to the station and detained him while enquiries were made, and subsequently charged him with stealing the glass from the Guildhall Vaults.

James Tunbridge said he could not say that he had lost the glass the previous evening, but since Friday three had been taken from his bar.

The Chairman said that P.C. Ashby had done quite right in bringing the accused before the Bench. Prisoner had had a very narrow escape, but the evidence was not strong enough to convict.

Note: This appears to indicate that at this time Tunbridge was landlord of both the Guildhall and the Railway Bell.

 

Folkestone Express 8 March 1902.

Monday, March 3rd: Before Aldermen J. Banks and W. Salter, and W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Pte. James Smith, of the Royal Fusiliers, Shorncliffe Camp, was charged with stealing a glass tumbler from the Guildhall Vaults on Sunday evening.

P.C. James Ashby said at 9.40 p.m. on Sunday he was on duty in front of the Town Hall, when he saw prisoner cross from the Guildhall Vaults to get on to the Cheriton omnibus. As he was going up the steps he noticed he had a glass in his hand partly covered with the sleeve of his tunic. Witness went to him and said “What have you done with that glass?”, and at the same time it rolled on to the floor, and to the edge of the top of the bus. When asked to give account of the glass, he said “No; what's it about?” He was taken to the police station and charged with stealing it from the Guildhall Vaults.

Ames Tunbridge, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said the glass produced was similar to those used in the house. He had lost four glasses since Friday. He valued it at 5d.

P.C. Ashby was re-called, and said the glass was damp with beer.

Mr. Wightwick: That beer might come from many places. – Oh, yes.

The Chairman said the Bench did not consider the evidence sufficient to convict the prisoner, and he told him he had had a narrow escape. They therefore dismissed him.

 

Folkestone Express 15 March 1902.

Wednesday, March 12th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Jeffrey was granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the Guildhall Vaults.

 

Folkestone Express 26 April 1902/

Wednesday, April 23rd: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and W. Wightwick, W.C. Carpenter, G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. Dudley Jeffrey was granted a transfer of the Guildhall Vaults.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 August 1902.

Saturday, August 9th: Before Lieut. Colonel Penfold, Alderman Vaughan, and Mr. C.W. Carpenter.

Paul Latsha and George Washington Camp, Canadians, stationed at the Colonial Depot, Shorncliffe Camp, were charged, the former with being drunk and disorderly, wilful damage, and assault, and the latter with being drunk and disorderly and with assault.

Dudley Jeffrey, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said the prisoners came to his house on Friday afternoon about 5 p.m. Noticing that they were not sober, he refused to serve them. He was then assaulted by the accused. He eventually got them off the premises, and Latsha rushed at the door, putting his fist through the glass panel, which was valued at 2. The police were called, and the prisoners were given into custody.

P.C. Thomas Taylor formally proved the arrest of prisoners, which was accomplished after assistance had been obtained.

Latsha, in defence, alleged that it was the landlord's own fault. They (prisoners) were excited over a bet they had made between themselves. Mr. Dudley was appealed to, and, in reply, said they were drunk, and refused to serve them. At the same time he attempted to throw them out.

The Chairman said that it being Coronation Day, the Bench were going to be very lenient, but he was sorry to see Colonials in such a position. Latsha would have to pay 2 damage, 2s. 6d. fine, and 4s. 6d. costs for breaking the window, 2s. 6d. fine and 4s. 6d. costs for the assault, and 2s. 6d. fine and 4s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly. Camp would be fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs for being drunk and disorderly, and a similar amount and the same costs for the assault. In default prisoners would be committed to Canterbury for 14 days in each case, the sentences to run concurrently.

The fines were paid.

 

Folkestone Express 16 August 1902.

Saturday, August 9th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

Paul Latsher was charged with wilful damage, assault, and being drunk and disorderly, and George Washington Camp with assault and drunkenness. Both men are Canadians.

P.C. Taylor said on Friday evening, about five o'clock, he was on duty close to the Town Hall, when he saw the prisoners drunk and fighting. He requested them to go away, and as they refused, he took them into custody.

Dudley Jeffrey, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said the prisoners came into his house about 4.30 p.m., but he refused to serve them because they were drunk, and were using vile language. He attempted to put them out, but they came in again. Latsher punched him, and drew a knife, remarking that he “would give him a foot of steel”. Witness got them out after a struggle, when Latsher broke the glass door, valued at about 2.

Latsher denied ever having a knife, and Camp said they had had a bet, and the landlord put them out. He asked to be allowed to get his money. This was refused by the proprietor, who said he would put two black eyes on him. They were served with two glasses.

The Chairman said he was sorry to see Canadians disgracing themselves in such a manner. Latsher would be fined 3 1s. for the three charges and the damages, and Camp 14s.

The money was paid.

Notes By The Way.

Two Canadians who got into trouble through having too much to drink on Friday night were before the Magistrates on Saturday. One of them had the misfortune to break a square of glass in a bar door, and he was ordered to pay the damage. Altogether the penalties amounted to upwards of 3, and as the defendants had no money, the Magistrates and the Magistrates' Clerk were in a Coronation mood and, as I am informed, they did not like the idea of sending loyal Canadians to prison, so they had a “whip round”, and paid the fines, costs and penalties which they had imposed. When the men, who seemed to be very respectable fellows, get back to Canada they will entertain very grateful recollections of Messrs. Penfold, Carpenter, Vaughan and Bradley, who certainly did on this occasion temper justice with mercy.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 April 1903.

Saturday, April 18th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Councillor G. Peden, Messrs. J. Pledge and J. Stainer.

James Dogherty was summoned for having been drunk on licensed premises on the 18th inst.

P.C. Sales stated that he saw the defendant drunk in Rendezvous Street, in company with three soldiers. Shortly afterwards he went into the Guildhall Vaults, but the barmaid refused to serve him. When he told him that he would be reported, defendant said that he was not drunk, and that he had gone in for some more beer.

Dogherty denied being drunk, stating that he could not get drunk on 5d., which was all he possessed.

The Chief Constable said that defendant was last before the Court on the 18th March.

Addressing defendant, the Chairman said they were going to give him another chance by only imposing a fine of 2s. 6d., without costs. If he came again on a similar charge he would be more severely dealt with.

Defendant asked for a week's time in which to pay the fine, but the money was paid for him by Mr. Bickers, the Police Court Missionary.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 June 1903.

Friday, June 19th: Before Alderman Penfold, Col. Fynmore, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. G. Peden.

Pending transfer, Mr. James Filmer, late of the Black Lion, North Street, Canterbury, was granted temporary authority to sell on the premises of the Guildhall Vaults, Folkestone, vacated by Mr. Dudley Jeffrey.

 

Folkestone Express 27 June 1903.

Friday, June 19th: Before Colonel Penfold, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, G. Peden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults was temporarily transferred from Mr. Jeffrey to Mr. James Filmer, late of Canterbury.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Following, in most cases, orders for temporary authority, full transfers of licences in relation to the following houses were granted:- The Guildhall Vaults, from Mr. Dudley Jeffrey to Mr. James Filmer, late of Canterbury.

 

Folkestone Express 11 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Alderman Vaughan.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults was transferred from Dudley Jeffrey to James Filmer.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The following licence was transferred: Guildhall Vaults, from Mr. D. Jeffrey to Mr. Filmer.

 

Folkestone Express 24 October 1903.

Monday, October 19th: Before Aldermen Banks and Salter, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Leo Bartholomew Noonan, who appeared to feel his position in the dock very keenly, pleaded Guilty to a charge of being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Bourne stated that he was on duty outside the Town Hall at 8.30 the previous evening, when he saw prisoner, who was drunk, trying to force his way into the saloon bar of the Guildhall Vaults. When prevented from entering by the landlord, prisoner used obscene language and refused to go away when requested by witness; consequently he was compelled to take him into custody.

Prisoner, who told the Bench that he was heartily ashamed of his conduct, was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 December 1903.

Saturday, December 19th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Aldermen Salter and Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay, and Albert Charles Lewis were charged with obtaining 2 1s. 6d. by means of a trick from Stephen Collard on the previous Thursday.

Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, said he had only just received instructions to appear on behalf of the prosecutor, and he would like the case remanded until Monday.

Of course the Magistrates heard some evidence before making their decision on this point, and the prosecutor entered the witness box, and said he resided at 33 Bouverie Square and had no occupation. On Thursday he was in the Guildhall Tavern when the three prisoners came in. They all got into conversation, and he paid for some drink. Eventually he said he must be off, as he had to go and pay his gas bill, whereupon McKay told him he need not trouble about that, as the collector was there and would take it, McKay pointing out the prisoner Blake as the collector. Blake said “That will be all right, guv'nor; you pay me”, and asked for pen and ink. He (prosecutor) handed Blake 2 1s. 6d. and the Water Company's printed form and asked him for a receipt. Blake took the money, but not the printed form, and then said he would send the receipt along in the morning. There were four men present at the time. About ten minutes later Blake wanted him (prosecutor) to have a drink, but he declined, and then all the men left by the back way. As they did not return, he became suspicious, and gave information to the police.

On this evidence Mr. Haines asked for a remand.

Blake began to make a statement that he was superintendent of the Royal Irish Insurance Company, but he was advised not to say anything at this point.

All three prisoners were remanded until Monday morning and were granted bail, each in the sum of 20 and one surety in a like amount.

Monday, December 21st: Before Mr. W. Wightwick and Alderman Herbert.

When the three men, Lewis, McKay, and Blake were again charged with obtaining the sum of 2 1s. 6d. by means of a trick from the man Collard, Mr. Haines, who appeared for the prosecutor, said h would offer no evidence against Lewis, and Lewis was therefore discharged, though Mr. Minter, who represented him, made a protest against his being arrested and then being dismissed without even an apology.

The evidence given by the prosecutor on Saturday was read over and considerable additional evidence was called, the witnesses being Mrs. Filmer, the landlady of the Guildhall Vaults, where the theft was alleged to have taken place, and Walter Stephen Page, collector for the Gas and Coke Company who proved that the money owed by the prosecutor had not been paid to the company, and that the prisoners were not authorised to receive money on behalf of the company, and Sergt. Dunster.

Each of the prisoners gave evidence on their own behalf, entering into details as to what took place in the Guildhall Vaults while they were there with the prosecutor. Their statements amounted to a total denial of the charge.

The Magistrates, however, considered it was a case for a jury, and so committed the prisoners for trial at the Quarter Sessions, which will be held on January 1st.

Prisoners were allowed bail, themselves in 25 each, and one surety of 25 each.

 

Folkestone Express 26 December 1903.

Monday, December 21st: Before W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay and Albert Chas. Lewis were brought up on remand, charged with being concerned together in obtaining, by means of false pretences, 2 1s. 6d. from Stephen Collard.

Mr. Haines appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. Minter for Lewis.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said that he did not intend to offer any evidence against the prisoner Lewis, and asked for his discharge.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for Lewis, and, of course, he had no business to complain of the charge being brought against him, but, nevertheless, he wanted to point out that a respectable man was arrested in his own bed at midnight, locked up and brought before the Magistrates, and afterwards discharged without an apology.

The Clerk: There is no evidence against him.

Mr. Minter: Then he had no business to be arrested. Those responsible will be called upon to answer it.

Mr. Wightwick: I must say that I didn't think there was the slightest evidence against him.

Lewis was then discharged, and the case against the other two prisoners proceeded with.

The evidence of the prosecutor, given at the previous hearing, was to the effect that on Thursday last he was in the Guildhall Vaults. Whilst there the two prisoners came in and called for drinks. He entered into conversation with them, and they all had drinks together. About half past three prosecutor said he must be off as he had a little account to pay at the Gas Works. The prisoner McKay thereupon remarked “You need not trouble about that. Here's the collector (pointing to Blake)”. He took 2 1s. 6d. out of his pocket and Blake took it, saying he would send the receipt in the morning as he didn't have the book with him.

Blake: is it a fact that you were intoxicated?

Prosecutor: No.

How many drinks do you think you had in the house? – Five or six.

You say that you handed me the money? – Yes.

Prisoner: Well, I don't know anything about it.

Fanny Filmer, wife of the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, stated that on Thursday last she remembered the prosecutor being in the bar with the prisoners. They were in conversation together, and subsequently prosecutor asked for a pen and ink. One of the prisoners, when the articles were brought, said he didn't require them, as the receipt would be sent in the morning. All three were perfectly sober or else they would not have been served with drink.

By Blake: How many were in the bar at the time? – Three or four besides you.

Mr. Page, collector for the Folkestone Gas Company, said the prosecutor was indebted to the Company for 2 1s. 6d., which amount was still owing. Neither of the prisoners had been in the employ of the company, and they were not authorised to receive any money.

P.S. Dunstan gave evidence as follows:- From information received I went in search of the prisoners, and on Friday I saw them in the Dover Road. I told them that they answered the description of two men who, in company with a third man, obtained 2 1s. 6d. by means of a trick from Stephen Collard, whilst in the bar at the Guildhall Vaults. Blake said “I know nothing about any money”. While on the way to the station he said “I have some money, but I don't know who, and I shall have to rectify it”. He further said “Never mind. I shall have to go through it. There, though. Never mind”.

Blake went into the witness box, and on his oath said: I am a collector and assistant superintendent for the Irish Provident Association, and came to Folkestone last Thursday week. McKay, being one of our sub-agents, had done business with Mr. Filmer regarding plate glass insurance, and that accounted for my being in the house. I called at the house on this occasion to collect a premium off Miss Newman, a barmaid in Mr. Filmer's employ. Whilst there the prosecutor asked me and four or five others who were in the bar to have a drink and cigars. I paid for some, and my friend for others, but the majority were settled for by prosecutor; I should say about eight or nine. There was a phonograph in the bar and it was playing most of the time we were there. The prosecutor seemed to enjoy it and commenced to dance in the bar. I stayed there until 4.30, and no mention was made of any Gas Company, nor did I receive any money.

Mr. Haines: Then you admit that what the police officer stated was correct? – No. I deny it partly. I may have mentioned something about some money I should have to make up, but it was to do with the insurance.

Blake called the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults (James Filmer) as a witness. He stated that he saw no money handed to him (the prisoner) because he was in the billiard room. The prosecutor was a little jolly, but nothing out of the way.

Mr. Wightwick: What do you mean?

Witness: Well, the phonograph was going, and he wanted to jump about, but I stopped it.

Blake: Is it correct that you have a policy with our company? – Yes.

Was the prosecutor sober? – I should say that he was sober. I saw nothing the matter with him.

McKay's statement on oath was as follows:- I was formerly agent for the Irish Provident Association. My superintendent came down from London with Mr. Blake and explained to me that as business was very quiet Mr. Blake was going to take my book over. I have two good references with the company, and a bond. The superintendent looked over the books and everything was settled.

The Clerk: Get on with the facts connected with the case and to what happened in the Guildhall Vaults.

McKay: Well, I went to the Guildhall Vaults with Mr. Blake and another gentleman – Mr. Lewis – and we had several drinks together. When we were in the company of prosecutor he started to talk about different things, and I heard him say something about gas. I visited the convenience, and when I came back Blake had gone, and I, with Lewis, had a drink with the prosecutor. As to any money being passed, I know nothing about it. I am innocent, and I think it is very hard after being in Folkestone five years.

Mr. Wightwick, addressing the prisoners, said it was a case for a jury to decide, and therefore they would be committed to take their trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Each prisoner was offered bail in a sum of 25, and a further sum of 25.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 December 1903.

Saturday, December 19th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay, and Albert Chas. Lewis were charged with obtaining, by false pretences, from Stephen Collard, of 33, Bouverie Square, the sum of 2 1s. 6d.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that he had only that moment been instructed to prosecute, and he wished, after evidence had been heard, to apply for a remand.

Prosecutor said that on Thursday afternoon he was in the Guildhall Tavern. It was about half past three in the afternoon when the prisoners came into the public house together. Subsequently witness entered into conversation with the prisoners, and they drank together. After staying in the bar for a while, witness wished to go, and exclaimed that he had to go to the Gas Office to pay a little account. Prisoner McKay said “Oh, you need not trouble about that. Here is the collector; he will take it” (pointing to Blake). Witness paid 2 1s. 6d. to Blake, believing that he was the Gas Company's collector. Soon after Blake was paid, all the men went out of the house by the back door, and then witness became suspicious. He gave information to the police, and the prisoners were subsequently arrested.

The Bench remanded prisoners until Monday, bail being allowed in a surety of 20 each.

Monday, December 21st: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, and Alderman W.G. Herbert.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay, and Chas. Lewis were charged, on remand, with obtaining by false pretences, from Stephen Collard, of 33, Bouverie Square, the sum of 2 1s. 6d.

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. J. Minter represented the prisoner Lewis.

Mr. Haines said that, after reviewing the evidence, he did not wish to proceed with the case against Lewis, although he was in the company of the prisoners.

Mr. Minter, while aware that he had no right to complain of the charge being made against Lewis, pointed out to the Bench that the prisoner, who was a respectable man, was arrested at twelve o'clock at night, when in bed, “lugged” up to the police station, brought before the Magistrates, remanded on bail, and then the prosecution did not offer any evidence against him.

The Clerk to the Justices: There is no evidence against him.

Mr. Minter: Then why has he been arrested? Whoever is responsible for the arrest will have to answer for it.

Lewis was then discharged.

Stephen Collard was called, and the evidence given by him at the initial hearing was read over. In answer to prisoner Blake, witness said that he was not intoxicated in the Guildhall Tavern the previous Thursday afternoon. He had five or six drinks with prisoners. Blake was the man to whom he handed the money, and who ha been called the Gas Company's collector.

Mrs. Filmer, wife of the landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, deposed that she was in the bar when the prisoners and prosecutor were there. They were all drinking and conversing together. Prosecutor asked for a pen and ink, but when witness brought it, one of the prisoners said that they did not require it, as they would send the receipt in the morning. All the men were perfectly sober. There were four or five men in the bar.

Walter Page, the Gas Company's collector, said that the prosecutor was indebted to his form in the sum of 2 1s. 6d. Neither of the prisoners was in the employ of the Company, nor were they authorised to collect the money.

Sergt. Dunster proved arresting the prisoners on Friday night, in Dover Road. Blake said “I know nothing about the money”, and on the way to the station exclaimed “I took some money from someone, but I don't know who. I shall have to rectify it. Never mind, I shall have to go through with it. There, though, never mind”. McKay had 5s. in his possession, and Blake 1s. 5d. In one of Blake's papers, which were found on him, was a noted stating that enclosed was sent 8s. 11d.

Mr. Haines now asked for the prisoners to be committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Arthur Blake, on oath, said that he was a collector and assistant superintendent of the Irish Provident Association, stationed at Folkestone. McKay, being one of the sub-collectors of the Association, had done business with the landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, and it was the collection of a premium from a barmaid that took him to the house. In there they met the prosecutor with four or five other men. They all drank together, in all about eight drinks. Prosecutor drank whisky, and while a phonograph was playing he wished to jump about. He stoutly denied hearing of, or seeing, any money pass from Collard.

James Filmer, the landlord of the house in question, said that none of the men were drunk. He was not in the bar all the time, but while he was there prosecutor became a little bit jolly when the phonograph was playing, but he was stopped.

McKay denied all knowledge of the affair.

The Bench committed both Blake and McKay for trial at the Quarter Sessions, bail in their recognisances of 25 and a surety each of 25 being allowed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 January 1904.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday, January 1st: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Blake and McKay were found Guilty, and they received sentence of three months' hard labour. Blake, it is said, had previously been convicted of burglary.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 January 1904.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday, January 1st: Before J.C.L. Coward Esq.

Arthur Blake (28), agent, and Ernest McKay (31), agent, pleaded Not Guilty to an indictment against them of “unlawfully and knowingly obtaining by false pretences, of and from Stephen Collard, the sum of 2 1s. 6d., the monies of the said Stephen Collard, on the 17th December, 1903, at Folkestone”. Mr. Matthews again appeared for the prosecution, and McKay was defended by Mr. Wiegall, barrister. Blake was not legally represented.

Counsel for the prosecution briefly outlined the facts of the case, which, as given at the Police Court proceedings, were fully reported in last week's Herald, so that they are fresh within the memory of our readers. It will be remembered that the prosecutor and the two prisoners, who were said to be canvassers in the employ of the Irish Provident Assurance Association, were drinking together in the Guildhall Tavern, the former standing treat. After some time prosecutor announced that he was going to the Gas Office to pay a bill, whereupon McKay, it was alleged, turned round and told prosecutor that he had no need to do so, as his companion (Blake) was the Gas Company's collector. Collard thereupon handed the 2 1s. 6d. to Blake, and shortly afterwards the two prisoners disappeared.

Evidence to this effect was given by Stephen Collard, the prosecutor, who resides at 33, Bouverie Square, Folkestone.

In reply to Blake, witness denied that he was intoxicated, or that he commenced to jump about when a phonograph was playing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Weigall, Collard admitted that he had been dismissed from his employment at the Harbour because he absented himself without leave. On that occasion he went to Chatham to see his son, but did not let his family know, because his wife would not have allowed him to go. (Laughter) He was not aware that his family went to the police with the object of ascertaining his whereabouts, but they might have done.

Mr. Weigall: Did the police find you?

Witness: No, sir.

The Recorder: Did you find yourself, or who found you? (Laughter)

Witness: I found myself. (Loud laughter)

Without having lost yourself? (Laughter) – I never lost myself.

Mr. Weigall: It was a little mental aberration? – Yes.

Replying to Mr. Matthews, witness admitted that he did not understand the meaning of mental aberration. (Laughter)

James Filmer, landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, Mrs. Filmer, Walter S. Page, collector of the Gas Company, and P.S. Dunster repeated the evidence given at the police court, and were subjected to slight cross-examination.

Blake emphatically denied that he took any money from the prosecutor, or that he was introduced to Collard as the Gas Company's Collector by McKay.

On his oath, McKay, who said he had lived in Folkestone for three years, stated that prosecutor was “absolutely drunk”, and was dancing about in the bar, with the result that the landlord had to tell him not to knock the gas stove over. He did not introduce Blake as the Gas Company's collector, nor did he see any money change hands.

Arthur Charles Lewis, pianoforte tuner, Canterbury Road, was called as a witness for the defence, but he gave it as his opinion that prosecutor was not drunk, although he was a “little lively”.

George Kirby, landlord of the George Hotel (sic), by whom McKay was formerly employed as billiard marker, testified to his good character during the eight or nine months he was in his employ.

Addressing the jury on behalf of McKay, Mr. Weigall laid emphasis on the fact that they were dealing with a man of proved good character. After reviewing the evidence at considerable length, counsel contended that it was perfectly clear that prosecutor's evidence was not reliable because of defects in his memory. Prosecutor's whole story was that McKay was there all the time, but it was proved that McKay went to the lavatory with Lewis, and when they returned to the house the other two men had gone. Under the circumstances, therefore, he appealed to them to regard the whole evidence with care, and if they had any reasonable doubt, it was an act of mercy and justice to return a verdict in favour of the prisoner.

Mr. Matthews also addressed the jury for the prosecution.

Both prisoners were found guilty.

Chief Constable Reeve reported that Blake, who belonged to London, was, in 1896, at the Central Criminal Court, indicted on a charge of burglary and bound over; whilst in 1899, on a charge of housebreaking, he was sentenced to 21 calendar months with hard labour. Nothing was known against McKay.

The Recorder: Where is this Irish Provident Association that employs these ex burglars and housebreakers.

The Chief Constable: I have never heard the name before.

Blake said the head office was in Chancery Lane. When appointed he had to find two references and a bond, and before that he was employed for three years at the London Docks, handing to the Recorder a letter from the latter testifying to his good conduct.

McKay said he was a single man, but hoped to be married next month. (Laughter)

In passing sentence, the Recorder said he entirely agreed with the verdict. He shut his eyes against Blake's previous convictions, because he believed he had been trying to earn an honest living since he was last discharged. He was afraid McKay's matrimonial engagement would have to be slightly deferred, as the sentence he passed upon each of them was imprisonment, with hard labour, for three calendar months.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 January 1904.

Gossip.

An amusing incident occurred at the Quarter Sessions. After Blake and McKay had been found Guilty by the jury, Mr. Minter, the solicitor who had briefed Mr. Weigall for McKay, expressed his belief that McKay was a married man. Mr. Weigall called this statement to the attention of the Recorder in the hope, perhaps, of mitigating his sentence. Mr. Matthew, the counsel for the prosecution, from information received, denied the statement. Mr. Weigall then rose to say that McKay was engaged to be married the following month. We understand that the lady in question was in Court at the time. The Recorder, in passing sentence, remarked that McKay would have to defer his matrimonial arrangements. Earlier in the same trial Mr. Matthew was trying to establish the fact that Mr. Collard, the prosecutor, was sober at the time of the alleged trickery. It had been asserted that he had danced about in the bar of the Guildhall Tavern. “My experience is”, said the Recorder, “that when a man is drunk he does not dance about. What do you think?” I really know nothing of these things replied Mr. Matthew shortly. “You are very cruel” was the Recorder's good humoured response.

 

Folkestone Express 9 January 1904.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday, January 1st: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Arthur Blake (28), agent, and Ernest McKay (31), agent, pleaded Not Guilty to an indictment against them of “unlawfully and knowingly obtaining, by false pretences, of and from Stephen Collard, the sum of 2 1s. 6d., the monies of the said Stephen Collard, on the 17th December, 1903, at Folkestone”.

Mr. Matthew appeared for the prosecution, and McKay was defended by Mr. Weigall, barrister. Blake was not legally represented.

Counsel for the prosecution, in opening the case, dwelt upon the facts elicited at the Police Court (and which were fully reported in our columns a week or so ago). It will be remembered that the two prisoners went into the Guildhall Tavern, where they met the prosecutor. All three entered into conversation, and prosecutor stood several drinks. After remaining in the house for close upon two hours and a half, the prisoners were informed by the prosecutor that he had a gas bill to pay, whereupon McKay said “You need not trouble about going to the Gas Works. Here is the collector (pointing to Blake)”. The amount of the bill - 2 1s. 6d. – was then paid to Blake, and the prisoners promised to send the receipt in the morning. After the transaction both Blake and McKay left the house.

Evidence to this effect was given by the prosecutor (Stephen Collard), who said he was perfectly sober at the time.

The Recorder: Why did you give this money to Blake?

Prosecutor: Because he represented himself to be the collector of the Gas Company.

Prisoner Blake: You say you were not intoxicated in that house? – No.

Why did you commence to dance and sing? – I did not do so.

How much money do you think you gave to the concertina man? – Two shillings.

Mr. Weigall: You have told us that you are not in any employment now?

Prosecutor: No.

You were employed at the Harbour as a flagman, I believe? – Yes.

When did you leave? – About two months ago.

Was that after a visit to Dover? – No.

Why did you leave? – Because I was absent without leave.

Where had you been? – To Chatham.

It was a sudden disappearance, I believe? – Oh, no. Not at all.

Did your family know you were there? – My son knew.

Did your family go to the police? – They might have done.

You have lost your memory? – No, not at all.

Then why do you suppose that your family went to the police station to make inquiries about you? – I don't know.

They must have thought it was rather a sudden and eccentric disappearance? – I don't know.

Did the police eventually find you? – No.

Did they bring you back? – No.

The Recorder: Did they find you, or did you find yourself? – I found myself.

Without having lost yourself? (Laughter) – I never lost myself.

Mr. Wiegall: You suffer from a little mental aberration, I believe? – Yes.

Do you know what it is? – No. (Loud laughter)

In further cross-examination, prosecutor said that he knew perfectly well what transpired. He was quite collected.

James Filmer, landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, Mrs. Filmer, Walter S. Page (collector to the Gas Company), and P.S. Dunster were also called to bear out the evidence that they gave when the prisoners were first charged.

In cross-examination Mr. and Mrs. Filmer both said they did not see the money handed to Blake.

Addressing the petty jury, Blake made a long statement, in which he emphatically denied that he took any money from the prosecutor, or that he was represented to be the collector of the Gas Co. If collector was mentioned it must have been in connection with his business as an agent of the Irish Provident Association.

McKay elected to give evidence on oath, stating that Blake came to Folkestone to take over his book, as business had been slack of late. The prosecutor was absolutely drunk and danced about, and the landlord told him to be careful, or else he would knock the gas stove over. He did not introduce Blake as the collector of the Gas Company – he told Collard that he was the collector of the Irish Provident. Something was said about gas, but he did not know what.

Albert Charles Lewis, a pianoforte tuner, residing in Canterbury Road, said he was in company with the two prisoners in the Guildhall Tavern. The prosecutor seemed a “little lively”, but he was not drunk. Blake left the house before witness, who went in a cab with McKay to the Black Bull. Witness was the worse for drink, and was away sick and bad when the job happened.

George Kirby, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, deposed that McKay was in his employ nine months as billiard marker, and he was very honest indeed.

Mr. Weigall, on behalf of McKay, delivered a forcible address to the jury, asking them to remember that they were dealing with a man of proved good character. Reviewing the evidence, counsel urged that the statement of the prosecutor was not to be relied upon, because of defects in his memory. He appealed to them to say that the evidence was not sufficient to convict.

Mr. Matthew also addressed the jury, who brought in a verdict of Guilty after a few minutes' consultation.

Chief Constable Reeve reported that Blake, who belonged to London, was, in 1896, at the Central Criminal Court, indicted on a charge of burglary, and bound over; whilst in 1899, on a charge of housebreaking, he was sentenced to 21 calendar months, with hard labour.

The Recorder: Where is this Association that employs these housebreakers?

Supt. Reeve: I don't know anything about it. I have never heard the name before.

Blake: The London office is in Chancery Lane. I have been in regular employment since I was released from prison. When I was appointed I had to find two referees as a bond. Before this I was employed at the London Docks – first as an extra hand for eighteen months, and then a similar term as a regular hand, but owing to slackness of work I had to go.

Blake handed to the Recorder a letter testifying as to his character while employed at the London Docks.

Much to the amusement of those in Court, McKay said he was a single man, but hoped to be married next month.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said: The jury have found you Guilty of conspiring to defraud this man Collard, and it is a verdict I entirely agree with. I much regret to find men standing before me who are described, and there is no reason to doubt it, as men of good education, well-instructed, and in a position apparently of agents responsible to an insurance company of repute. In the sentence I am going to pass, I intend to shut my eyes to the previous convictions of Blake, because I believe that he has tried to earn an honest living since he was released on the last occasion, inasmuch as there is a certificate from the Docks to the effect that he left with a good character. I must point out that men, even when they are the worse for liquor, must be protected against men such as you are. As for you, McKay, I am afraid your matrimonial engagement will have to be slightly deferred. Each of you will be imprisoned with hard labour for three calendar months.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 April 1904.

Wednesday, April 13th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Westropp and Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Alterations to the Guildhall Tavern were approved.

 

Folkestone Express 16 April 1904.

Wednesday, April 13th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Westropp, G.I. Swoffer and J. Stainer Esqs.

The Magistrates agreed to slight alterations at the Guildhall Tavern being made.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 April 1904.

Wednesday, April 13th: Before Ald. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Permission was granted for alterations to be carried out on the following premises:- The Guildhall.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 November 1904.

On Tuesday morning the first of a series of Excise prosecutions was opened at the Folkestone Police Court (the Woodward Institute), before Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

Great interest was taken in the proceedings, which lasted from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. The summonses were laid against well-known traders, and in all cases related to the alleged selling of beers, wines, or spirits without a licence. The prosecution, at the instance of the Inland Revenue Department, was conducted by Mr. J.H. Shaw, barrister.

The first defendants were Teresa and Louis Maestrani, mother and son, restaurant keepers, of 26, Guildhall Street (now closed) and 2 & 4, South Street, both premises being unlicensed in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors. Defendants also had a licensed restaurant in Sandgate Road.

There was quite an array of Revenue Officers, and as the case proceeded it was evident that the prosecution had been most carefully prepared in every detail, and with such skill, that all Mr. Minter, on behalf of the defendants, could do was to withdraw the plea of Not Guilty and plead mitigating circumstances. The technical objections raised by the defence were all overruled, but those in Court generally commended the success of the various solicitors engaged in getting their clients off with such a light penalty as 1 on each information, when the maximum penalty was 50.

Briefly, there were six informations against the Maestranis. Mr. Davies, an Inspector of Inland Revenue, from Somerset House, together with Mr. Cope, an officer from the same department, at various dates entered the premises in Guildhall Street and South Street, after having placed two other preventative officers (Messrs. Hayward and Bates) at a point of observation. During dinner or lunch Messrs. Davies and Cope also ordered wines and spirits. In five cases liqueur brandy was ordered, and 6d. per glass paid. The waiter, having asked for the money in the usual way, proceeded to adjacent licensed houses and purchase eight pennyworth of brandy, which was served up in two sixpenny portions. In one case a portion was left after the division. In the case of the wine, a bottle of St. Julienne was ordered, and 4s. paid for it; this was purchased at a neighbouring hotel for 2s.

After a long hearing the Chairman announced that all cases had been fully made out, and although the penalty inflicted could be 50 in two instances, and 20 each for the remainder, the Bench had decided to be very lenient. The penalty on each information would be 1 and 9s. costs, making a total of 17 6s.

 

Folkestone Express 19 November 1904.

Tuesday, November 15th: Before W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer Esqs.

Teresa Maestrani and Louis Maestrani, restaurant proprietors, were summoned in four instances for selling wines, spirits, and beer without a licence at their restaurant at 26, Guildhall Street, on August 14th. Mr. J.H. Shaw, barrister, of the solicitors' department, Somerset House, prosecuted, and Mr. Minter defended.

Mr. Shaw, having given details of the offences alleged, called the following evidence:

James John Hayward, an officer of Inland Revenue, said on August 14th, in company with Mr. Bate, he went to the Guildhall Restaurant. They went in at seven minutes past eight in the evening. Mr. Louis Maestrani held a refreshment house licence for it. There was a wine list similar to the one produced on the tables in the restaurant. Witness ordered supper, and at 8.20 witness called the waiter and ordered a small bottle of St. Julien. The price on the wine list was 2s. The waiter asked for the money and witness gave him a sovereign. He left the premises and returned at 8.26 and said he could not get St. Julien, but asked if a bottle of Bordeaux would do. Witness replied “Yes”. The waiter had it with him, and said it was 1s. 6d., and gave witness 18s. 6d. change. At 8.37 Mr. Bate ordered one liqueur of brandy and an Allsopp's lager beer. The waiter said the brandy was 6d. and the beer 3d. Mr. Bate gave the waiter 2s. At 8.41 the waiter returned and served them with the lager and the brandy, giving Mr. Bate 1s. 3d. change. They paid for their supper and left at 8.45. On August 16th Mr. Bate and himself went to the restaurant at 7.53 in the evening. At 7.55 witness ordered two black coffees and two liqueur brandies, giving the waiter 1s. for brandy. He left the premises, and at one minute past eight he returned and served them with the liqueur. He gave them no change. After that he kept observation outside, and afterwards saw Mr. Cope enter the house, keeping observation until he came out again.

Percy Hart Bate, another Inland Revenue Officer, corroborated the former witness's evidence.

Alfred William Cope, another officer, said on August 14th he was with Mr. Davies outside the Guildhall Restaurant keeping observations from the time the last witnesses entered until they left. At 8.21 witness saw a waiter leave the restaurant. He followed him and went to the Guildhall Vaults. There he was served with a small bottle of Bordeaux, and the proprietor said to him “It is tenpence to you”. The waiter placed a sovereign on the counter and received change, and a check till on the counter showed 10d. The waiter returned to the restaurant with the wine. At 8.37 a waiter and a boy left the restaurant. Witness followed them. The boy went into the public house, and the waiter went to Maestrani's licensed premises in Sandgate Road. Witness followed him in and heard him speak to a man behind the counter, and he received from the man a bottle wrapped in paper. He returned to the restaurant with the bottle. He did not see him pay any money. Witness also saw the boy join the waiter and go in with him. The boy was carrying a glass which appeared to contain brandy. On the 16th August he again watched the restaurant with Mr. Davies. At 7.56 in the evening, witness had previously seen the two officers go into the restaurant, a waiter went to the Guildhall Vaults. Witness followed, and the waiter obtained brandy in a tumbler, placed 1s. on the counter, and received two pennies change. He returned to the restaurant with the brandy, Mr. Davies following the waiter into the restaurant. In consequence of directions from Mr. Davies he went into the restaurant after the other two had left. He saw a tumbler containing brandy on a shelf behind the counter. He asked for a coffee and brandy. The waiter went to the tumbler containing the brandy, filled the liqueur glass, and served it to witness. As the waiter served the brandy, a customer asked the waiter if he could have brandy. He gave the waiter some money, and the waiter poured the brandy from the tumbler into the liqueur glass. On the 29th August he went with Mr. Davies and saw the landlord of the public house and Mr. Louis Maestrani.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not hear what the waiter said when he went to the Sandgate Road restaurant. It appeared to be a bottle he received.

Re-examined, he said he did not lose sight of the waiter.

James Blake Davies, Inspector of the Inland Revenue Preventive Department, corroborated Mr. Cope's statement. He said when the waiter returned with what appeared to be a bottle, he followed him into the restaurant and went to the counter and asked for a sponge cake. He stood there and saw the waiter take the wrapper from the bottle and place it on the counter. It was a small bottle of Allsopp's lager beer. The boy who went in with the waiter handed a tumbler containing a liquid the colour of brandy, and pulled the till out and put a copper in. The waiter placed the beer on the tray, and poured out a portion of the brandy into a liqueur glass and placed it on the tray, and took it across to a table at which Messrs. Bate and Hayward sat. Witness then left, and shortly afterwards came out. On August 16th he also made observations with Mr. Cope. At 7.56 he saw the waiter go towards the Guildhall Vaults. On his return witness followed him into the restaurant. He had in his hand a tumbler containing what appeared to be brandy. He pulled the till out, threw two penny pieces into it, took down two liqueur glasses, and filled each from the tumbler, leaving in the tumbler about half, and placed the tumbler on the shelf behind him, and placed the two liqueur glasses on a tray and went across to Messrs. Bate and Hayward. Witness went out and gave certain directions to Mr. Cope, and remained on observation. Immediately Bate and Hayward left, he and Mr. Cope entered. From that time until Mr. Cope came out no-one left or entered the restaurant. On August 29th he went to the Guildhall Vaults and saw Mr. Filmer, who made a statement which witness took down. On August 30th he went to Mr. Louis Maestrani's private residence. Witness told him who he was, and in consequence of complaints received certain steps had been taken, and officers had visited his premises and made purchases of beer, spirits, and wine. Witness also told him he had seen a Mr. Filmer and obtained the following statement from him: I charge over the counter 1s. for Bordeaux, but 10d. to the restaurant. I should be satisfied with a profit of 3d. or 4d. per bottle. If 10d. worth of brandy, I should say that it was cognac, according to the quantity obtained”. Mr. Maestrani then said “I am in partnership with my mother in the businesses at Sandgate Road, Guildhall Street, and South Street. As to Guildhall Street, if intoxicants were ordered, money would be asked for in advance, and the beer would be fetched from Mr. Filmer's, next to the tobacconist's, except on the Sunday; the waiter would fetch beer and wine also from Mr. Filmer”. Witness then said “I will put it to you a waiter went from Guildhall Street to Sandgate Road and brought back lager for a customer at Guildhall Street”. He replied “Well, I am aware that would be wrong”. Witness asked him which business he particularly attended, and defendant replied “I am generally at Guildhall Street”. Witness then said “I will put it to you that wine has been brought from Mr. Filmer's to customers at Guildhall Street, and the customers charged much more for it than was paid at Mr. Filmer's”. He replied “ I make a little profit. Perhaps he charges 10d. for a bottle of medoc, and I would charge 1s. or else we should not get any profit”. Witness asked him what his practice was with regard to liqueur brandies, and he said “If two liqueurs of brandy were ordered, we would pay 10d. for it and charge 1s. We would sell the whole of the brandy to the customers and charge 1s. We do not keep liqueur glasses. We should not sell the brandy in the timblers”. Witness then told him tenpennyworth of brandy had been purchased, and that he knew three liqueur glasses charged at 6d. had been secured from that. Witness showed him the wine list which was obtained from the restaurant, and he replied “We have an arrangement with Mr. Hammerton, but we have not had a settlement yet. Our arrangement was made about three months ago”. Then witness pointed to champagne shown on the list, and he replied “We would charge 11s. a bottle, and pay Mr. Hammerton 7s. 6d. for it. We should get a profit of 1s. 6d. on a 2s. bottle of wine. That is, we should charge 3s. 6d. for it by our arrangement with Mr. Hammerton”. Witness told him if he would go down to Guildhall Restaurant, perhaps he would be able to show him liqueur glasses. He accompanied him, and witness pointed out the liqueur glasses behind the counter on a shelf. Afterwards witness saw the other defendant and read over the statements to her. Mrs. Maestrani's daughter was present and she said she was part proprietor of the shops, and that her husband was manager over them. She also said that they had applied for licences nine times. Mrs. Maestrani said “I cannot say anything”.

Edward Pinnex, and officer of the Inland Revenue stationed at Dover, said he produced his entry book and survey book. There was no excise licence to sell intoxicating liquors at 26, Guildhall Street, although there was a refreshment house licence, which was in the name of Louis Maestrani. Neither of the defendants had made an entry in those books.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the defendants, said the summonses were most unfairly worded because they simply said that wine, spirits, and beer were sold in the Borough of Folkestone. He thought he might fairly say that the summons was insufficient. On account of their vagueness he thought they ought to be dismissed. They would remember that the learned gentleman who appeared for the Inland Revenue said it was a joint offence. What was the evidence which showed that it was a joint offence? There was not one single bit of evidence against Mrs. Maestrani. The evidence of Mr. Pinnex showed that the refreshment house licence was held by Mr. Louis Maestrani, not by Mrs. Teresa Maestrani. There was no proof whatever, with the exception of Mr. Louis Maestrani's statement that Mrs. Teresa Maestrani was connected with the restaurant. However, in his opinion, that statement was not legal evidence. The person who was responsible was the man who held the licence. That being so, they were entitled to have the summons against both defendants dismissed.

Mr. Shaw submitted that no evidence had been called to disprove the fact that Mrs. Maestrani was not in partnership.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were of opinion that the summons was not vague, and that there was sufficient evidence to show that Mrs. Maestrani was in partnership with her son.

Mr. Minter thereupon submitted that there was no evidence to show that the liquid was either wine, spirit or beer, because none of the witnesses stated that they had drank the liquid.

The Chairman said the Bench had considered the cases, and had come to the conclusion that they were proved in every case. Although the penalty was in two of the cases 50, and 20 each in the other two cases, yet the Magistrates had decided to make it as light as possible. Each defendant would be fined 20s. and costs in each case.

Mr. Shaw applied for special costs as the witnesses had all come from London.

Mr. Minter said they could only plead for mercy.

The Chairman said the Court fees were 9s. in each case, which totalled up to 3 12s. Therefore they did not feel justified in allowing any further costs.

The same defendants were summoned for two similar offences in respect to the restaurant 2 and 4 South Street.

Mr. Shaw said the cases were similar to those the Magistrates had heard. The restaurant was licensed as a refreshment house in the name of Mrs. Teresa Maestrani.

Mr. Hayward said on August 15th he and Mr. Bate went into the restaurant in South Street. They went in at ten minutes past twelve. They ordered dinner and he asked for a wine list, and the waiter produced a written one. Witness ordered a large bottle of St. Julien at 12.25. The price on the list was 4s. The waiter asked for the money, and witness gave him half a sovereign, and he returned at 12.33 with the bottle of wine, handing witness 6s. change. At 12.45 Mr. Bate ordered two liqueur brandies and gave the waiter 1s. At 12.49 the brandies were served. Witness consumed one of the brandies and part of the wine.

Mr. Bate, who accompanied the last witness, corroborated what he said.

Mr. Cope said that he was with Mr. Davies keeping observation outside the restaurant. At 12.29 witness saw a waiter leave the restaurant. Witness followed him to the South Foreland public house. He received a bottle of St. Julien and placed a half sovereign on the counter and received 8s. change. The waiter took the wine into the restaurant. At 12.46 the same waiter left the restaurant and went to the public house and asked for eight pennyworth of brandy. He received it and took it to the shop. He accompanied Mr. Davies when he saw Mr. Maestrani and Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Davies said on August 15th he kept observation on the restaurant. On August 29th he went to the South Foreland and saw Mr. Jordan and took a statement from him. Mr Jordan said “I have an arrangement with Mr. Carlo Maestrani. I supply them with a small Bass at 2d. and they charge 3d. A large Bass I charge 4d. and they 6d. They get a penny a pint out of each beer transaction. I should charge Maestrani 2s. for a bottle of medoc or St. Julien, and to the public 4s. If they came to me for eight pennyworth of brandy I should serve them from the tap”. When asked about the wine list, Mr. Maestrani said he was not sure whether they had one at South Street. They did not make any profit on any of the wine, but the merchant would allow them twopence or threepence, which would depend upon what was ordered. Defendant said his mother and sister attended to that shop, and he was in partnership with them.

Mr. Pinnex said there was no entry of an excise licence to sell intoxicating liquors on the premises.

Mr. Minter said the case was a little different to the others. There was no evidence against Louis Maestrani beyond his statement that he was in partnership. Broadly, there was no evidence to show that the wine and brandy had been sold on the premises.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were of opinion that the cases were on all fours with the previous cases, and they would inflict the same penalty, 20s. fine in each case, and Court fees.

The Court then adjourned for lunch.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 November 1904.

Local News.

At the sitting of the Folkestone Bench on Tuesday, the hearing of a bunch of summonses taken out by the Excise Authorities against several local tradesmen was commenced. The Magistrates present were Alderman W.G. Herbert and Mr. J. Stainer.

The cases of Mrs. Teresa Maestrani and Mr. Louis Maestrani were taken first. The former defendant was unable to appear owing to illness, but Mr. L. Maestrani was present. Mr. J.H. Shaw, a barrister in the legal department of Somerset House, appeared for the Inland Revenue Office, and Mr. J. Minter for the defendants, who pleaded Not Guilty.

In outlining the case, Mr. Shaw said there were four informations against Mr. Louis Maestrani in respect of the Guildhall Restaurant, as follows:- 1) For retailing spirits on the 14th October at the Guildhall Restaurant, 2) For retailing wine without a licence on the 14th October at the Guildhall Restaurant, 3) For retailing beer without a licence on the 14th August at the same premises, 4) For retailing spirits on the 16th August without a licence. It had come to the notice of the officers of Inland Revenue that the law was being evaded by a certain number of restaurant keepers in the town, hence the proceedings.

James John Hayward, an officer of Inland Revenue, said that on the 14th August, in company with another officer, he went to the Guildhall Restaurant at seven minutes past eight in the evening, instructions having been given to him by Mr. Davies. Mr. Louis Maestrani held a refreshment house licence. He saw a wine list similar to that exhibited on the tables of the house. When in there he ordered supper, and at 8.20 p.m. he called the waiter and ordered a small bottle of St. Julien. The price on the wine list was 2s. The waiter asked for the money, and witness gave him a sovereign, and he (the waiter) at once went for it. He returned at 8.26, saying that he could not get St. Julien, but would a bottle of Bordeaux do? Witness replied in the affirmative, and the waiter handed him the bottle which was in his hand. He said that it was 1s. 6d., and he tendered 18s. 6d. change. At 8.37 p.m. witness's companion ordered one liqueur brandy and a bottle of Allsopp's lager beer. The waiter stated that the former would cost 6d., and the latter 3d. Mr. Bate (the witness's companion) gave the waiter 2s., and at 8.41 p.m. the waiter came back, and served them with the brandy and lager, and returned 1s. 3d. change. Three shillings and fivepence was paid for supper, and witness and his companion left at a quarter to nine. On the 16th August he went again, at 7.53 p.m., and two minutes later he ordered two black coffees and two liqueur brandies, giving the waiter one shilling for the latter. He (the waiter) left the premises, and at one minute past eight he returned, and served them with a liqueur. There was no change given out of the shilling. Sixpence was paid for the coffee, and witness left at six minutes past eight. Witness kept observation, and as he was about to leave he saw Mr. Cope, another officer, enter the place. He kept observation until he came out again.

Percy Hart Bate, an officer of the Inland Revenue, attached to the Preventive Staff of Somerset House, corroborated in every way the evidence of the last witness.

Alfred William Cope deposed that on the 14th August he was with Mr. Davies outside the Guildhall Restaurant, keeping observation from the time the last two witnesses entered till they left. At 8.21 p.m. he saw the waiter leave the restaurant, so he followed him to the Guildhall Vaults public house. There the waiter was served with a small bottle of Bordeaux, and the proprietor said, when handing it over “It's tenpence to you”. The waiter placed a sovereign on the counter, received the change, and a check till facing the counter showed that 10d. had been paid. The waiter then returned to the restaurant with the wine. At 8.37 p.m. a waiter and a boy left the restaurant, and witness followed. The boy went to the public house, and the waiter to Maestrani's licensed premises in Sandgate Road. Witness followed the waiter in. He spoke to a man behind the counter, and received from him a bottle wrapped in paper, and with that he returned to the Guildhall Restaurant. He did not pay any money at Maestrani's Restaurant in Sandgate Road. The boy joined the waiter at the shop before coming to the restaurant. He was carrying a glass, which appeared to have brandy in it. On the 16th August, witness was again stationed outside the restaurant, and at 7.56 p.m. – having previously seen Messrs. Hayward and Bate enter – a waiter left the restaurant and went to the Guildhall Vaults public house. Witness followed, and saw a waiter obtain brandy in a tumbler, place 1s. on the counter and receive two pennies in change, and then return to Maestrani's with the brandy. When witness saw Messrs. Bate and Hayward leave, he went into the restaurant, and saw a tumbler containing what appeared to be brandy standing on a shelf. He asked for a coffee and brandy. The waiter asked for the money, and was handed sixpence, which he said was the cost of the brandy. The waiter went to the tumbler, filled a liqueur glass, and served it to witness. As the waiter served the brandy, a customer sitting near him asked if he could have a brandy. He gave the waiter some money, and the waiter poured some more brandy from the same tumbler into a liqueur glass. On the 29th and 30th August witness went to see Messrs. Filmer and Louis Maestrani at their residences and obtained statements from them.

Witness, in reply to Mr. Minter, said he did not hear what the waiter said when he went to the Sandgate Road shop, but he obtained what appeared to be a beer bottle wrapped in paper.

James Blake Davies, an Inspector of Inland Revenue, stationed at Somerset House, in charge of the Preventive Department, corroborated Mr. Cope's evidence as to details. He added that when the waiter returned from the Sandgate Road shop with a bottle, and met the boy outside, he followed them in. Witness went to the counter, asked for a sponge cake, and saw the waiter take the bottle from the wrapper and place it on the counter. He then saw that it was a small bottle of Allsopp's lager beer. The boy, at the same time, handed a tumbler, containing what appeared to be brandy, and put something into the hand of the man who was there. He pulled the till out, and threw a copper into the till. The waiter placed the Allsopp's lager on a tray, poured out a portion of the brandy into a liqueur glass, placed it on the tray, and took it across to the table at which Messrs. Bate and Hayward were sitting. Witness left, and shortly afterwards the waiter came out. On the 16th he was again keeping observation, and he saw a waiter leave and go in the direction of the Guildhall Vaults, followed by Mr. Cope. On the waiter's return witness followed, and saw that he had in his hand a tumbler containing what appeared to be brandy. He pulled the till out, threw two penny pieces into it, and took down two liqueur glasses and filled each from the tumbler, leaving about half in the tumbler. The tumbler was once more placed on the shelf, the two liqueur glasses on a tray, and the waiter went across with it to Messrs. Bate and Hayward. Witness went out and gave certain directions to Mr. Cope, and remained on observation. Immediately Bate and Hayward came out, and they received certain instructions. From that time until Mr. Cope came out nobody entered or left the restaurant. On the 29th August he went to the Guildhall Vaults and saw Mr. Filmer, who made a statement, which witness took down at the time. On the 30th August he went to the defendants' house, and told them that he (witness) was a Preventive Officer, and in consequence of complaints received at Somerset House that certain steps had been taken, that officers had visited his premises, and made purchases of spirits and wines. Witness also told him that he had seen Mr. Filmer and obtained a statement from him. Witness said to Mr. Maestrani that Mr. Filmer had said “I charge over the counter 1s. for Bordeaux, but tenpence to the restaurant. I should be satisfied with a profit of threepence or fourpence per bottle. If ten pennyworth of brandy was ordered, I should say Cognac (that meaning the quality) would be served”. Defendant said “I am in partnership with my mother in the businesses at Sandgate Road, Guildhall Street, and South Street. As to Guildhall Street, if intoxicants were ordered, money would be asked for in advance, the beer would be fetched from Mr. Filmer's, next to the tobacconists, except that on Sunday the waiter would fetch beer and wine from Mr. Filmer”. Witness replied “I put it to you that a waiter has gone from Guildhall Street to Sandgate Road and brought back lager for a customer at Guildhall Street”. He said “Well, I am aware that that would be wrong”. Witness asked him which of the businesses he particularly attended to, and he said “I am chiefly at Guildhall Street”. Witness then said “I put it to you that wine has been brought from Mr. Filmer's to customers at Guildhall Street, and the customers charged much more for it than was paid at Mr. Filmer's”. He replied “I make a little profit. Perhaps he charges me 10d. for a bottle of Medoc, and I would charge the customers 1s. or else we should not get any profit”. Witness asked him what his practice with liqueur brandies was, and he said “The two liqueur brandies that were ordered we would pay 10d. for and charge 1s. We would serve the whole of the brandy to the customers. We do not keep small glasses; I mean liqueur glasses. We should serve the brandy in the tumbler”. Witness told him that ten pennyworth of brandy had been purchased, and that he knew of three liqueur glasses of brandy being supplied. He then showed Mr. Maestrani a wine list, saying that it had been obtained from the Guildhall Restaurant. He replied “We have an arrangement with Mr. Hammerton, but we have not had a settlement yet. Our arrangement was made about three months ago”. Witness pointed to Heidsieck, and he said “We should charge 11s. for it on the list, and pay Mr. Hammerton 7s. 6d. for it. We should get a profit of 1s. 6d. on a two shilling bottle of wine. That is, we should charge 3s. 6d. for it by our arrangement with Mr. Hammerton”. Witness asked him about the wine list, and he said “The Big Tree Brand Co. printed the list, and Mr. Hammerton arranged as to our profit”. Witness asked him to come down to Guildhall Street, that he would be able to show him the liqueur glasses, and this he agreed to do. There witness saw the liqueur glasses on the shelf. Witness saw Mrs. Teresa Maestrani and read over the statements, and while he interviewed her, Mrs. Josephine Roncko said that she was part proprietress of the business, adding that her husband was manager of the three shops. They had applied for wine and beer licences nine times, as it would be of convenience to the customers. Mrs. Maestrani said “I can say nothing”.

Edward Pinnix, an officer of Inland Revenue stationed at Folkestone, having given formal evidence, Mr. Minter objected to the wording of the summonses, inasmuch as they only said that wine and beer were sold in the borough of Folkestone. He might fairly say that they were insufficiently worded, and on account of their vagueness should be dismissed. Again, Mr. Shaw had said, in his opening statement, that it was a joint offence on the part of the defendants, who were supposed to be living at the shops. The evidence showed that it was not a joint offence, for there was not one tittle of evidence before them to that effect. He asserted that the only offence, if it was an offence, took place at No. 26, Guildhall Street, and only Mr. Maestrani had been connected with it. Then again, it had been said that the brothers and sister were joint partners. Why were they not all summoned? There was no proof whatever that Mrs. Maestrani had anything to do with the Guildhall Street shop. It had been proved that Mr. Maestrani held the refreshment licence, so that Mrs. Maestrani could not be connected with the matter. With regard to the case itself, Mr. Minter said that he did not think there was any law to prevent the refreshment licence holder charging something for sending out for intoxicating drinks.

The Bench overruled Mr. Minter's objections.

Mr. Minter proceeded to deal with the case of selling brandy, and said that no evidence had been given that it had been tasted. The bottle of beer was a mysterious bottle wrapped in white tissue paper. That had been said to be lager beer, but nobody had said that they tasted it. Therefore they had not proved that the actual article was an excisable article.

The Bench came to the conclusion that the cases were proved. Although the penalties were, in two cases, 50, and in the two other 20, they would make it as low as possible, and therefore ordered that the defendants each be fined 1 and 9s. Court fees on each of the four informations.

Mr. Shaw made a claim for the special costs of witnesses, who had had to journey from London, but the Bench refused to allow them.

The same defendants were then summoned in respect of alleged offences at South Street, the refreshment licence of which premises was in the name of Mrs. Teresa Maestrani. There were two summonses, one for selling wine without a licence, and the other for selling spirits.

James John Hayward said that on the 15th August he and Mr. Bate went into Maestrani's restaurant at the bottom of High Street. It was shortly after noon when they went in. He asked the waiter for a wine list, but was told that they had not got a printed one, although there was a written one. He ordered a large bottle of St. Julien at 12.28 p.m., and the waiter asked for the money, and he gave him half a sovereign, and the waiter returned five minutes later with the wine and 6s. change. His companion (Mr. Bate), at a quarter to one, ordered two liqueur brandies, tendering 1s. for the drinks, and when the waiter returned he gave him no change. He consumed one of the brandies and part of the wine, and he had no doubt as to what they were.

Mr. Bate corroborated.

Mr. Cope said that he was keeping observation outside the house during the time that the previous witnesses were inside. He proved following the waiter when he left the restaurant, to the South Foreland. The waiter spoke to the barmaid, received a bottle of St. Julien, placed half a sovereign on the counter, and received 8s. change. He took the wine to the restaurant. At 12.46 p.m. the same waiter left the restaurant, and went to the same public house, carrying an empty tumbler. He asked for eight pennyworth of brandy, tendered 1s., received 4d. change, and left the house.

Mr. J. Davies corroborated Mr. Cloke on the waiter's movements. On the 29th August he went to the South Foreland public house and took down in writing a statement, which he subsequently read over to Mr. Maestrani, as follows:- “I have an arrangement with Carlo Maestrani. I supply them with small Bass at 2d., and they charge 3d. For a large Bass I charge 4d., and they charge 6d. They get a penny a pint out of each beer transaction. I should charge Maestrani's for a quart bottle of Medoc 2s., but if charged to the public it would be 3s. 6d., or more. If they came for 8d. worth of brandy, I should charge them for ordinary tap brandy”. Mr. Maestrani said “With reference to South Street, if a customer asks for a bottle of wine the waiter would get it. It would not matter where he went; there is only one merchant. On Sunday they would get it from Mr. Jordan's public house. The waiter first asks for the money, and gets what is ordered”. In reply to witness, the defendant, Mr. Louis Maestrani, said “We make no profit. If the publican or wine merchant wishes to do us a kindness, he would allow 2d. or 3d.; it depends upon what we order”. Mrs. Meastrani, subsequently interviewed, said that they suffered from the want of a licence.

Mr. Minter asserted that there was no evidence against Mr. Louis Maestrani. The evidence did not support a charge of selling intoxicating drinks without a licence, but rather one of fraud against the proprietors for selling an inferior wine.

The Bench held that the case was on all fours with the previous one, and inflicted a fine of 1 in each case, with Court fees.

Thus the fines amounted to 17 8s.

 

Folkestone Express 7 January 1905.

Monday, January 2nd: Before J. Stainer Esq., Lieut. Col. Westropp, and G.I. Swoffer Esq.

Albert Wilkinson, a sailor, and Fidele Hart, of the 2nd Dragoons, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street, and Hart was further charged with resisting the police in the execution of their duty. Hart pleaded Guilty to both charges, and Mr. Minter, who appeared for Wilkinson, pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Boughton said at 10.10 on Saturday evening he was on duty in Rendezvous Street, where he saw the two prisoners drunk and shouting at the top of their voices. He then followed them to the Guildhall Tavern, and drew the landlord's attention to their condition. Witness left the house, and was shortly after called by the landlord to eject the prisoners, who refused to leave the premises. Witness having got them out, requested them several times to go away quietly, but they refused. Witness then took Wilkinson into custody, and Hart jumped upon witness's back and tried to release Wilkinson. With the assistance of P.C.s Sharp and Simpson witness took them both into custody.

Hart said he was very sorry; he did not know what he was doing.

Mr. Minter said Wilkinson was sorry and he (Mr. Minter) hoped the Bench would take a lenient view of the case.

Prisoners were each fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs for drunkenness, or in default seven days', and Hart was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days', for resisting the police.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 January 1905.

Monday, January 2nd: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

Albert Wilkinson, a sailor, and Fidel Hart, a private in the 2nd Dragoons, were charged with being drunk and disorderly, and Hart was further charged with resisting the police. Wilkinson, who had been called back to his ship, was represented by Mr. J. Minter.

P.C. Boughton stated that shortly after ten o'clock on Saturday evening he saw the prisoners, who were drunk, enter the Guildhall Vaults. Witness cautioned the landlord not to serve them. Prisoners refused to leave the house when requested, and had to be forcibly ejected. When outside they became very disorderly, and were taken into custody. Hart became very violent, and attempted to get Wilkinson out of custody.

Mr. Minter expressed regret on behalf of his client, and Hart likewise said he was sorry.

The Magistrates imposed a fine in each case of 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, and Hart, for resisting the police, was fined 5s., with the alternative of 14 days' hard labour. The money was paid.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 March 1905.

Local News.

It is with profound regret that we reprint the following paragraph from the London Evening News of the 16th inst.

During the inquest here today on Dudley John Jeffrey, aged 39, formerly manager of an hotel, it was stated that he had gone to his mother-in-law's house and said “See me take my last drink”.

She did not take much notice of the remark, as he had previously threatened suicide.

Subsequently arrested on a charge of being drunk, he was found dead in a police cell.

Death was found to have been caused by chloroform, of which he had taken two ounces. In the doctor's opinion life would have been saved had aid been summoned immediately after he drank the contents of the glass.

Returning a verdict of suicide, the jury said the mother-in-law should have more carefully examined the bottle which Jeffrey left on the shelf at her house.

Those who knew the deceased will be best able to link together the tragic chain of events which have had such a fatal ending. Folkestonians will remember the open-handed, generous (too generous), high spirited “Dudley”, who tried his luck at many occupations, but never struck a seam which led to success. In a minor degree the deceased was much of the calibre of the late Marquis of Anglesey – fond of outward adornment and always careless of expense.

Note: His age at death opens the question whether it WAS the same man at both the Prince Albert and the Guildhall.

 

Folkestone Daily News 3 September 1906.

Monday, September 3rd: Before Messrs. Vaughan and Fynmore.

Hugh Murray Taylor was charged with obtaining credit by fraud and larceny.

George Gray, of the Paris Hotel, deposed that prisoner came to his place on the 22nd August and took apartments, saying his father and mother were coming later on. He knew them very well. Being very full, prisoner was permitted to sleep in witness's bedroom one night, and afterwards he had a room on another floor till the 26th. He then left without paying anything. On the 29th witness missed 1 spider diamond ring, 1 with 3 diamonds, 1 gold watch, chain and pendant, 1 sapphire and diamond pin, and 1 gent's signet ring, the whole valued about 32. He last saw them safe on the 20th or 21st. Prisoner only slept in the room once. The articles produced were part of witness's property. The rings had not been recovered.

James Filmer, of the Guildhall Tavern, deposed that prisoner came to his house on Friday week, saying he had been to the races and was broke. He asked for a loan of 5s., and handed witness a lady's gold watch and chain, and also asked him to take care of a diamond pin which he said he might lose, as he had been drinking. Prisoner asked how much he owed, and witness told him 2s. He then said “Let me have another 3s., making it 10s. in all”, which he said he would get from his father on the following Saturday. Prisoner afterwards came and asked for another sovereign, but witness declined to lend it to him, but let him have 2s. 6d., making altogether 12s. 6d. Witness handed the chain and scarf pin (produced) to Sergeant Burniston, who afterwards searched prisoner in his presence and found the ring.

Prisoner was remanded till next Friday.

 

Folkestone Daily News 7 September 1906.

Friday, September 7th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Fynmore and Vaughan.

Hugh Murray Taylor was charged on remand with stealing a quantity of jewellery from the London and Paris Hotel.

G.E. Gray had the depositions of the previous hearing read over, which he signed, as did also James Filmer, of the Guildhall Tavern.

Detective Burniston said that he received a warrant to arrest prisoner on the 31st August on another charge. He found prisoner in bed at 38, Torrington Square. On hearing the warrant he replied that he was sorry that it had happened, and hoped it would be settled, as he had told Gray a lie. Witness took him to Tottenham Road police station, and from there to Folkestone, where he was charged and made no reply. He was charged with obtaining board and lodgings of G.E. Gray by a false statement. Prisoner had 8d. on him and some papers relating to horse racing, and a paper headed Guildhall Tavern, stating that he had borrowed 12s. 6d. on a scarf pin, which was to be forfeited if it was not redeemed by Sept. 1st, signed “J. Filmer”. In consequence of finding the paper, witness went to the Guildhall Tavern, and saw Filmer and found the goods produced at the last hearing. He then charged prisoner with stealing the goods as specified in this charge. The prisoner admitted taking the whole of the articles except the three stone diamond ring. One ring had been pawned for 9, and others were found in the urinal of the Guildhall Vaults. Witness found them there in the presence of Filmer. On Monday he went to London with Gray to Davis Bros., 59, Cheapside, and there saw the three stone diamond ring, which Gray identified as his property.

Mr. John Morris, pawnbroker's assistant, 59, Cheapside, London, deposed that to the best of his belief the prisoner left the ring on the 27th August, and pledged for 8 in the name of H. Harvey, of Gower Street. On the 29th he came and had a further advance of 1, and a duplicate of the ticket produced was given him. Mr. G.E. Gray identified the ring as his property.

Prisoner said he called on Mr. Gray, and was allowed to sleep in his room. He had some refreshment. While he was waiting for Mr. Gray to come up he saw the drawer was open a little, and he took the things and put them in his pocket and went to bed. At 7.30 the next morning he got up and found Mr. Gray had not slept in the room. The accused thought he was in the wrong room, and went downstairs, when Mr. Gray told him he had not been to bed. He (prisoner) had some refreshment, put his hand in his pocket, found the jewellery, and did not know what to do with it. He hid them all at first. He had no money, and asked Mr. Filmer, who lent him 12s. 6d., holding the pins as security. The other rings he pawned. Had he been sober he would not have done such a thing.

The accused was committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Bail was allowed in 50, and two sureties of 25 each.

The London pawnbroker asked to be allowed to have the ring, but it was ordered to be left in the custody of the Court.

 

Folkestone Express 8 September 1906.

Monday, September 3rd: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

Henry Murray Taylor, a respectably dressed young man of good appearance, was placed in the dock, charged with obtaining credit by fraud, and also with larceny.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was arrested on a warrant in London for obtaining credit by false pretences, but, from other enquiries made, they had found that he had stolen a quantity of jewellery from the London and Paris Hotel. He, therefore, offered no evidence in the charge of false pretences, and would only deal with the charge of theft.

Mr. G.B. Gray, the proprietor of the London and Paris Hotel, said on August 22nd the prisoner came to his place and asked for accommodation. He said he wished to stay at the hotel until the Thursday morning, when his father and mother were coming. Witness knew the prisoner's father and mother very well. He took him into the hotel, and on the first night, owing to the hotel being so full, he slept in prosecutor's bedroom. On the following night, until the 26th, he occupied another bedroom on another floor. On the 27th he left without paying his bill. On Wednesday, August 29th, prosecutor went to his own bedroom and made a search. From a drawer of the dressing table he missed one lady's five stone diamond ring, one three stone diamond ring, one gold watch chain with pendant attached, one gent's sapphire and diamond pin, and a gent's signet ring, value about 32. He last saw the jewellery safe on August 20th. Prisoner only slept in his bedroom once. The pin, chain, pendant, and ring produced he identified as part of the missing property.

James Filmer, the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, Guildhall Street, said the prisoner on August 24th came to his house and said he had been to the races and was broke. He also asked him to lend him 5s., and handed to witness the lady's gold chain. Afterwards he asked him if he would take care of a diamond ring, because he had been drinking and might lose it. He also asked how much he owed witness, and he told him 2s. Prisoner then asked him to let him have another 3s., and make it 10s., saying he would let him have it, as he was sending for it from his father. About half past ten on the following day he came to the house again, and asked him to let him have another 1. Witness declined. And told him he was not a money lender. Prisoner then said he had no money, and asked him to let him have a shilling or two. Witness gave him 2s. 6d. On Saturday last Detective Sergeant Burniston called upon him, and he handed him the diamond pin produced. He was also present when the Detective Sergeant searched Taylor and found on him the pendant and ring.

The Chief Constable said that was all the evidence he could offer that morning. It was necessary to make further enquiries with a view to recovering the missing property, therefore he asked for a remand for a few days.

The prisoner was therefore remanded until Friday.

 

Folkestone Express 15 September 1906.

Friday, September 7th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Hugh Murray Taylor, a respectably dressed young fellow, was charged on remand with stealing a quantity of jewellery, valued at 32, the property of George B. Gray, of the London and Paris Hotel.

The evidence of Mr. Gray and Mr. Filmer, given at the previous hearing on Monday, was read over.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said on Friday, August 31st, he received a warrant for the prisoner's arrest on another charge. He proceeded to London, and at 8.00 a.m. the following day he found the prisoner in bed at No. 12, Torrington Square. He read the warrant to him and told him he was a police sergeant. Prisoner replied “I am very sorry this has happened. I know I told Gray a lie, and I hope this can be settled”. He took him into custody, and afterwards to Tottenham Court Road police station, where he was detained. Later he brought him to Folkestone police station, where he was formally charged with obtaining credit from George Gray, of the London and Paris Hotel, by false pretences. He made no reply. He searched the prisoner, and found in his possession 8d. in money, some papers relating to horse racing, and also the paper on which was written in pencil “28 August 06, Guildhall Vaults, Folkestone. You owe me 12s. 6d., for which I have a diamond crusted scarf pin and a gold watch chain, to be forfeited by September 1st, 1906. Signed C. Filmer and H. Harvey”. In consequence of that paper he called on Filmer, who handed him the diamond scarf pin and also the gold watch chain produced. After they had been identified by Mr. Gray, he said to prisoner “You will be further charged with stealing between the 22nd and 26th August, from a bedroom at the London and Paris Hotel, a five stone diamond ring, a three stone diamond ring, a signet ring, a gold Albert chain and pendant, and a diamond scarf pin”. He cautioned the prisoner, who said “I admit taking the whole of the articles, except the three stone diamond ring. I pawned one ring in London for 9. You will find the other ring and gold pendant in the urinal of the Guildhall Vaults”. Witness went there, and in the presence of Filmer he found the articles on the top of the cistern. They were also identified by Gray. On Monday he proceeded to London, accompanied by Gray, and went to Davison Bros., pawnbrokers, 59, Cheapside, where he was shown the five stone diamond ring, which was identified by Mr. Gray as his property.

Walter John Morris, assistant in the employ of Davison Bros., said the prisoner, to the best of his belief, pledged the ring. Prisoner came to the shop the first time on August 27th, when he left the ring produced. Prisoner then asked for 8 on it, so he lent it to him. He gave the name of H. Harvey, of 76, Gower Street, and witness handed him a ticket. Prisoner again came on August 29th, and asked for a further loan of 1 on the ring, and he lent it to him. The man gave him the ticket he received on the Monday, and witness handed him the duplicate of the ticket produced.

Mr. Gray, re-called, identified the ring produced by Mr. Morris as his property.

Prisoner said he called at Mr. Gray's on Wednesday about half past five, and he told him he could sleep up in his room. They stayed up until the early hours of the morning, having some refreshment, and then went off to bed. He half undressed, and he saw the drawer in his room was a little open. As he waited for Mr. Gray to come up he had a look in the drawer and took the things mentioned except the three stone ring. He put them in his pocket. He got into bed and woke up about half past seven in the morning, and looked round for Mr. Gray and he found he had not slept there all night. He, therefore, thought he was in the wrong room. He put on his things and went downstairs, and Mr. Gray told him he had not been up to bed. He had a little refreshment, and put his hand in his pocket and found the jewellery. He did not know what to do with it, so he hid them all at first. He asked Mr. Filmer, as he had not got any money, and he lent him what he wanted, and he (the prisoner) asked him to keep them as security. Of course he pawned the five stone ring. If he had been sober he would not have done such a thing.

The prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, bail being offered, himself in 50, and two sureties of 25 each.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 September 1906.

Monday, September 3rd: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan and Councillor R.J. Fynmore.

Hugh Murray Taylor, a respectably dressed young man, was charged with obtaining credit by false pretences.

The Chief Constable said enquiries had been made, and it had been found that prisoner had stolen a quantity of jewellery from the London and Paris Hotel. He therefore proposed to offer no evidence in the case of false pretences, but to deal with the latter charge.

George Gray, an hotel proprietor, said he lived at the London and Paris Hotel, Harbour Street. Prisoner came there on 22nd August and asked for accommodation, saying his father and mother were coming on the Thursday morning. He knew the accused's father and mother very well. He took prisoner in the hotel, and as they were very full, the first night he slept in witness's bedroom. On the following night he slept in a bedroom on another floor, and stayed in the hotel till the Sunday following, when he left without paying his bill. On Wednesday, 29th August, from something his wife told him, he (witness) went to her bedroom and made a search. He missed from a drawer in a dressing table one lady's five stone diamond ring, one three stone diamond ring, one gold watch chain with pendant attached, one gentleman's sapphire and diamond pin, and one gentleman's signet ring, value in all 32. The two rings had not yet been discovered. He (witness) last saw the articles safe on Monday, 20th August, when they were in the drawer in the dressing table.

James Filmer, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said he knew the prisoner. On Friday night he came to his house, and said he had been at the races, and was “broke”; could witness lend him 5s.? Prisoner handed him the lady's gold chain (produced), and afterwards asked him if he would mind a diamond pin of his, saying that he had been drinking, and might lose it. He asked witness how much he owed him, and witness replied “Two shillings”. Prisoner said “Let me have another three, and make it ten”, telling him that he would get the money from his father, who would be sending it off. Next day (Saturday) at about half past ten in the evening, prisoner asked for him, and said there was not time for the letter to come back from London, so would he let him have another sovereign? Witness declined, remarking that he was not a moneylender. Prisoner said he had got no money, and asked if witness would let him have a shilling or two. Witness then gave him 2s. 6d., making a total of 12s. 6d. On Saturday last Sergt. Burniston called on him, and he (witness) handed him the scarf pin and chain (produced).

The Chief Constable said that was all the evidence he proposed to offer that morning, and as it was necessary to make further enquiries, he asked for a remand until Friday.

The accused was put back till yesterday.

At the Folkestone Borough Bench yesterday (Friday) morning, before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, and Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Hugh Murray Taylor was brought up on remand.

Detective Sergeant Burniston deposed that on Friday, 31st ult., he received a warrant for prisoner's arrest on another charge. On the following day he proceeded to London at 8 a.m., and found prisoner in bed at No. 12, Torrington Square. Witness read the warrant over to him, and he replied “I am very sorry this has happened. I knew I had told Gray a lie. I hope this can he settled”. At Folkestone he searched accused, and found on him 8d. in money, some papers relating to horse racing, and a piece of paper (produced) on which something was written in pencil. In consequence of finding the latter he called on Mr. Filmer, who handed him the diamond scarf pin, and also the gold watch chain (produced). He said to prisoner, after the articles had been identified, “You will be further charged with stealing, between the 21st and 26th August, from a bedroom at the London and Paris Hotel, one five stone diamond ring, one three stone diamond ring, one signet ring, one gold chain and pendant, and one diamond scarf pin”. He cautioned prisoner, who replied “I admit taking the whole of the articles except the three stone diamond ring. I pawned one ring in London for 9. You will find the other ring and the gold pendant in the urinal of the Guildhall Vaults”. He went to the Guildhall Vaults, and made a search in the presence of Mr. Filmer. He found on the top of the cistern, concealed, the articles, which were identified by Mr. Gray. On Monday he proceeded to London in company with Mr. Gray, and at Davidson Bros., pawnbrokers, Cheapside, was shown the five stone diamond ring, which was identified by Mr. Gray in the shop.

Walter John Morris said he was an assistant in the employ of Messrs. Davidson Bros. To the best of his belief prisoner was the man who pledged the ring. He came in on the 27th August, and had 8 on it, giving the name of Mr. H. Harvey, 76. Gower Street. Accused came in again on the 29th, and asked for a further loan of 1 on the ring. Witness lent him the money.

Mr. Gray identified the ring (produced) as his property.

Accused said he called on Mr. Gray on the Wednesday about half past five, and he told him he might sleep up in his room. They stayed up till the early hours of the morning, three or four of them having a little refreshment. Then he went to bed. He half undressed, and saw a drawer in the room just a little open. As he was waiting for Mr. Gray to come up he had a look in the drawer and took the things mentioned, except the three stone ring. He put them in his pocket and got into bed. He woke up at about half past seven in the morning, and had a look round for Mr. Gray, but finding he had not slept there all night, he thought he (prisoner) was in the wrong room. He put on his things and went downstairs. Mr. Gray told him he had not been up to bed. He had a little refreshment, and on putting his hand into his pocket, he found the jewellery. He did not know what to do with it, so he hid them at first. Then he asked Mr. Filmer, as he had no money, if he would lend him some, and as security he gave him the things. He pawned the five stone ring. If he had been sober he would never have done such a thing.

Prisoner was committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the borough, bail being offered, himself in 50, and two sureties of 25 each.

 

Folkestone Daily News 8 October 1906.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 8th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Hugh Murray Taylor, a young man very respectably connected, who was committed by the Folkestone Justices on September 7th, was charged with going to Mr. Gray's, at the Paris Hotel, for the purpose of obtaining apartments for his friends. As Mr. Gray was unable to accommodate him, being very full at the time, prisoner was allowed to sleep in the prosecutor's own bedroom. During the night accused stole a quantity of jewellery. On the next day he was accommodated with board and apartments, and shortly afterwards decamped without paying. Mr. Gray applied for a warrant to arrest him on a charge of obtaining board and lodgings under false pretences, and subsequently discovered that he had also stolen the jewellery. Hence the first charge was abandoned and the second one proceeded with.

It transpired in evidence that the prisoner had pawned one of the rings with a London jeweller, and some pins he left with Mr. Filmer, of the Guildhall Tavern, as security for some money he had borrowed. A document was found on him to the effect that he left certain goods with Mr. Filmer as security for a debt of 12s., and if the debt was not paid the goods were to be forfeited. The goods were worth several pounds.

Mr. Matthews prosecuted, and recited the facts that were heard before the Justices.

The Chief Constable deposed that the prisoner's father had given him a good education, but he had thrown his chances away, and he was forbidden in his father's house. He was the associate of prostitutes, bullies, and thieves, and had broken into his father's house and stolen plated goods.

His father had written asking for leniency, and said he would be sent to Canada.

He was sentenced to 3 months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 13 October 1906.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 8th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Hugh Murray Taylor, 22, described as a stationer, was charged with stealing a five stone diamond ring, a three stone diamond ring, a gold signet ring, a gold Albert chain, a gold tassel, and a diamond and sapphire scarf pin, to the value of 32, the property of George Barclay Gray, of the London and Paris hotel, on August 23rd. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Matthew, on behalf of the prosecution, said the prisoner seemed to have taken a room at the hotel on August 23rd. In the room he occupied there were various valuable articles of jewellery. Taylor seemed to have opened the drawer and to have taken them out, and afterwards left the hotel without paying his bill. The things were not missed for a few days, and when the prisoner was apprehended, it appeared he had handed one of the rings to a man named Filmer, the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, who lent him 12/6 on it, because the man represented he had lost his money at the races. He had also hidden some of the jewellery on the same premises, and others he pledged with a pawnbroker in London.

Prisoner handed in a statement to the Recorder, in which he said he went to Folkestone races on August 22nd. He went to the hotel, and Mr. Gray told him he could have a room. Four or five of them sat up drinking, and when he went to bed he was the worse for drink. He took the jewellery out of a drawer and put it in his pocket. He, however, did not touch the three stone diamond ring. Next morning he found the jewellery in his pocket when he got downstairs, and he did not know what to do with it. He hid some of it, and pawned some of it. He would not have done it if he had been sober. It was the first time he had been locked up. He had promised his mother and father he would turn over a new leaf. He was going abroad in order to get an honest living. He would do nothing wrong again.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner's father was a very respectable man living in London, and kept a boarding house in Torrington Square. He had given prisoner a good education, and his parents had done everything the possibly could to keep him right. Witness had learnt from the Metropolitan Police that he had been denied his own home, and that his parents would not have anything to do with him He was the associate of betting men, prostitutes, and bullies. He had been a great nuisance to his parents. A few nights before his arrest, prisoner had broken in and robbed his father's own house, and the property stolen had been found in pledge in London.

Prisoner said he was very sorry for what he had done.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said he had received a letter from his father, who asked him to deal as leniently as he could with him, and arrangements would be made to send him to Canada. Those arrangements could be made while he was in prison, and in the meantime he would be imprisoned with hard labour for three calendar months.

The pawnbroker's assistant asked if the ring was to be paid for before it was returned to the owner.

The Recorder said there were no grounds for blaming the pawnbroker in that case, and he should leave the matter to be arranged by the two parties.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 October 1906.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 8th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Hugh Murray Taylor was indicted for stealing, in the dwelling house of George Barclay Gray, one five stone diamond ring, one three stone diamond ring, one gold signet ring, one gold Albert chain, one gold tassel, and one diamond and sapphire scarf pin, together valued at 32, the property of the said George Barclay Gray, at Folkestone, on the 23rd August, 1906.

Mr. Theodore Matthew appeared for the Crown, and described how prisoner went to the London and Paris Hotel, and how, after leaving the hotel without payment, the jewellery enumerated in the charge was missed. He went on to recount how prisoner had hidden some of the articles, and how he had borrowed money from Mr. Filmer.

Prisoner handed a written statement to the Recorder. In this he said that on the 22nd August he came to Folkestone for the races, and Mr. Gray put him up. They stayed up with several others drinking, and when he went to his room he saw the articles in a drawer. He had been drinking, and put them in his pocket. Next morning he went down to breakfast and found all the articles, about which he had forgotten, in his pocket. He did not know what to do with them. That was the first time he had been in trouble. He had promised his mother to turn over a new leaf, and he was going abroad.

The Chief Constable, in reply to the Recorder, said that the prisoner's father was a very respectable man, keeping a boarding house in Torrington Square. He had given the prisoner a good education; in fact, the parents had done everything they could for him. For some considerable time he had been denied his own home. Prisoner had been the associate of betting man, prostitutes, and bullies, and was the source of great trouble to his parents. A few night before he committed the robbery in Folkestone he broke into and robbed his father's own house, and that property had since been found in pledge in London.

Prisoner said he was sorry for what he had done. It was his first offence, and he never intended to do anything of the kind again.

The Recorder: I have had a letter from your father, in which he asks me to deal as leniently as I can with you, pending your being sent to friends in Canada directly you are free. Arrangements may be made by your friends, but you will be imprisoned for three calendar months.

 

Folkestone Daily News 3 December 1906.

Monday, December 3rd: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Ames, and Linton.

A girl, evidently a stranger, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night.

P.C. Rew deposed that he was called into the Guildhall Vaults on Saturday night at about 11 o'clock, where he found the prisoner screaming at the top of her voice. Her friends got her outside, but she fell into the road, and witness, finding she was incapable, took her into custody.

The Chief Constable said the case was rather a singular one. The prisoner had stated that she had had only two glasses of stout during the whole of the evening, and that she believed some soldiers put something into the drink that she ordered at the Guildhall Vaults.

The Bench, however, inflicted a fine of 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, the Chairman advising her to keep out of public houses in future.

 

Folkestone Express 8 December 1906.

Monday, December 3rd: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggett, T. Ames, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Sarah Tindall, evidently a respectable young woman, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Saturday night near the Town Hall. She pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Rew said he was on duty outside the Town Hall on Saturday night at five minutes past eleven, when he was called to the Guildhall Vaults by the landlord. On going inside he saw the prisoner, who was screaming at the top of her voice. Her friends took her outside, and when near the Queen's Hotel she fell on her back and could not get up again. He then took her to the police station.

Prisoner said she was very sorry and hoped it would not occur again.

The Chief Constable said the young woman lived at Hythe. She assured him, and he believed her, that she went to the house and had only two glasses of stout, and she thought something was done to her drink.

The young woman informed the Magistrates that she was in the house with her sister, while the constable who gave evidence said there were several soldiers round her in the house.

The Chairman (to prisoner): You will have to pay 2s. 6d. fine and 4s. 6d. costs. For goodness sake keep out of public houses. If you had not gone into one, you would have not had this trouble.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 December 1906.

Monday, December 3rd: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and T. Ames.

Sarah Tindall was charged with being drunk and incapable in Sandgate Road on Saturday.

P.C. Rew said that at 11.05 on Saturday night he was called to the Guildhall Vaults by the landlord, and found prisoner screaming at the top of her voice. After being taken out, she fell down outside the Queen's Hotel, and as she could not move witness took her into custody.

Prisoner said she was very sorry.

The Chief Constable said it was a very extraordinary case. Prisoner, who was a Hythe girl, and had nothing previously against her, assured him that she had only had two glasses of stout, and thought something must have been put in it. He thought her story was true.

In answer to the Chairman, P.C. Rew said that there were two or three soldiers in the bar at the time, and they came to the police station afterwards, and wanted to bail prisoner out.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days', the Chairman advising her to keep away from the drink in the future.

 

Folkestone Daily News 10 December 1906.

Monday, December 10th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Herbert, Ames, Leggett, and Linton.

William John Saunders was charged with being drunk outside the Guildhall Vaults, near the Town Hall.

P.C. Johnson deposed he saw the prisoner creating a disturbance outside the Guildhall Vaults. He asked him to go away. He went away and came back, and pulled off his coat. He arrested him.

P.S. Osborne deposed that prisoner was drunk when he was brought in.

Saunders denied that he was drunk.

He was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Daily News 3 July 1907.

Wednesday, July 3rd: Before Ald. Vaughan, Messrs. Fynmore and Ames.

John McElroy pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Sales deposed he was called to the Guildhall Vaults and found the prisoner asking to be served with drink. He was already very drunk. The constable ejected him, and when outside he was very disorderly and caused a crowd to assemble. He took him into custody.

Prisoner had nothing to say, and was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour. He had no money, consequently went below.

 

Folkestone Express 6 July 1907.

Wednesday, July 3rd: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and T. Ames Esq.

William John McElroy was charged with being drunk and disorderly. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Sales stated that the prisoner was in the Guildhall Vaults and was drunk. He had his coat and hat off, and refused to leave the premises when requested by the barman. Witness ejected him and was obliged to take him into custody.

McElroy was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Daily News 18 November 1907.

Monday, November 18th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Charles Brian, a soldier in the Hussars, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Saturday night.

P.C. Johnson said he was on duty on Saturday in Guildhall Street, where he saw the prisoner go into the Guildhall Vaults, where the landlord refused to serve him. As he refused to leave the house witness went in and ejected him. He then became violent, and was taken into custody.

He had nothing to say in defence, and was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days.

 

Folkestone Express 23 November 1907.

Monday, November 18th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

A smart-looking private in the 20th Hussars, named Charles Brian, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Saturday afternoon. He pleaded Guilty to the offence.

P.C. Leonard Johnson was on Saturday, shortly after noon, in front of the Town Hall, when he saw Brian, who was very drunk, go into the Guildhall Vaults. He therefore followed, and heard the prisoner refused drink and told to leave. He assisted the barmaid to get the soldier outside, and when in the street Brian kept catching hold of his coat sleeves. He refused to go away quietly, so the constable had to take him into custody.

Prisoner had nothing to say, and an officer from the regiment informed the Bench that the man had been in the regiment six years, and had gained two good conduct stripes.

The Chief Constable said on Sunday morning Brian complained of being ill, so Dr. Bateman was sent for, and he certified that the man was suffering from the effects of an alcoholic bout.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 5s., and ordered defendant also to pay 7s. 6d. doctor's fees, and 4s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

An application was made for a slight alteration at the Guildhall Vaults, and permission was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, Messrs. W.G. Herbert and R.J. Linton.

An application in regard to alterations at the Guildhall Vaults was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 2 May 1908.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Arthur James Hogben pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly the previous evening.

P.C. Kettle said at 8.45 p.m. he was on duty in front of the Town Hall, when he saw the prisoner, who came from the urinal and went into the Guildhall Vaults. Witness, seeing prisoner's condition, advised them not to serve him. Prisoner came out, and witness advised him to go away. Hogben refused to go and became abusive, and a crowd of people beginning to gather, witness took him into custody.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner had not been there for several years.

The Bench imposed a fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'. Time was allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 May 1908.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Arthur James Hogben was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Kettle stated that at 8.45 p.m. the previous evening he was in front of the Town Hall, where he saw he saw the prisoner. Hogben went into the Guildhall public house, but witness told the landlady not to serve him. Prisoner came outside and was very abusive. He took the accused into custody.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said he was sorry.

The Chief Constable said that the accused had not been there for several years.

A fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days', was imposed. Time was allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Express 11 July 1908.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. Filmer, of the Guildhall Vaults made an application to be allowed to keep an electric gun on the premises. There was no game of chance attached to it, and the rifles had been allowed in many towns and cities in place of the cigar automatic machines. Permission was granted.

 

Folkestone Daily News 31 January 1910.

Monday, January 31st: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Linton, Stainer, and Leggett.

Sydney Arthur Smith, a tall young fellow, was charged with committing an indecent assault on Ellen Staples on Saturday night.

Prosecutrix deposed that she was the wife of Edward Staples, an engine fitter, residing at 7, Garden Road. On Saturday night at 11.30 she was going home through Bradstone Road, and when near the Viaduct she saw the prisoner coming in front of her. As he passed her he said “Goodnight” and she replied “Goodnight”. She looked round to see who it was. Prisoner was a stranger to her, and she had never seen him before. He commenced to follow her, and overtook her just through the arch. He took hold of her by the shoulder and spoke to her. She replied that it would pay him better to go about his business as she was a married woman. He then dragged her across the road towards the passage in Kent Road, near Bradstone Avenue. She resisted him, and said she was not going along there. Finding he was getting the best of her she commenced to scream and threatened to give him in charge. He then put his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, but she bit his hand, and he threatened to choke her. He then put a cap, or bag, or something in her mouth. At this time prisoner had got her near the back gates of the second house in the passage. Her clothes were disarranged. She screamed “Murder” and “Police”, and he pushed the cap further into her mouth so that she could not holler. He lifted her clothes and assaulted her. Someone then called from a house in Bradstone Avenue, asking what was the matter, and prisoner then ran away in the direction of Foord Road. Constable Waters came up, to whom she complained of what had taken place. She then saw P.C. Butler near Kain's shop in Foord Road, and asked him if he had seen a tall man about. Prisoner came up and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. She then gave him into custody. She had been down the town shopping with her husband, whom she left at 8.30 in the High Street. From that time she had been in the company of two girls who worked in the laundry with her. She left them in South Street at ten minutes to eleven, when she went to look for her husband. The whole affair of the assault lasted about ten minutes. Nobody passed along during that time.

In reply to prisoner: She did not see him in the Brewery Tap. She had never been in the Brewery Tap in her life. She denied speaking to him in Bradstone Road. She did not ask him for a shilling, and did not say she would tell his wife.

P.C. Waters deposed that he was in his bed at his lodgings, 5, Bradstone Avenue, at 11.30 on Saturday night, when he heard screaming shouts of “Murder” and Police” from the passage mentioned leading into Kent Road. He opened his window and asked what was the matter. He then heard someone run away. He also heard a woman's voice saying “Won't someone come to help me?” He dressed and went down into the passage and saw the prosecutrix, who was excited and bleeding from the lips. She complained to him of the assault, saying she did not know the man, but he had gone in the direction of Foord Road, where he accompanied her. They met P.C. Butler, whom the prosecutrix asked if he had seen a tall man go that way. Just then prisoner crossed the road and said he was the tall man they were looking for. Prosecutrix replied “That's the man”. Witness and Butler brought prisoner to the police station and charged him. He made no reply at that time. He was taken below by Butler, and on his way down he said he gave the woman a shilling to go up the passage with him. He also said he had been in the Guildhall Vaults with her during the evening.

P.C. Butler corroborated the previous witness, also testified as to the evidence of a struggle having taken place in the passage, where he found a bag belonging to prisoner. On being charged at the police station prisoner said he went out with the bag to get some coal. Prisoner's hand was bleeding. Both prosecutrix and prisoner appeared to be perfectly sober.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 5 February 1910.

Monday, January 31st: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton, and Major Legget.

A young man named Sidney Alfred Smith, married and living at Folkestone, was charged with indecently assaulting Ellen Staple on Saturday evening. The court was cleared and the case was heard in camera.

Ellen Staple said she was the wife of Edward Staple, an engine fitter, and lived at 7, Garden Road. On Saturday evening, about 11.30, she was in Bradstone Road. She was returning home alone. She was near the Viaduct, when she saw the prisoner walking towards her. As he was passing he said “Goodnight”. Witness answered “Goodnight” and looked round to see who it was. Prisoner was a stranger to her. As she looked round, prisoner also looked round, and then turned and followed her. She continued to walk on. Prisoner overtook her near the Corporation gate, just through the Viaduct, and caught hold of her by the shoulder. He said something to her, and she replied “It would pay you better to go about your business. I am a married woman”. The prisoner then dragged her across the road towards Kent Road, in the direction of the passage which runs at the rear of Bradstone Avenue. Witness resisted him, and said she was not going along there. Finding he was getting the better of her, she screamed and told prisoner if he did not let her go she would give him in charge. Prisoner then put his hand over her mouth and she bit his hand, which caused him to remove it. Prisoner then said that if she screamed he would choke her, and he placed some soft substance in her mouth. He was carrying a bag under his arm. Prisoner and witness at that time were in the passage at the rear of the second house in Bradstone Avenue. Witness screamed “Murder” and “Police”, and prisoner then pushed the soft substance further into her mouth. He then indecently assaulted her. Someone called from one of the windows of the houses in Bradstone Avenue “What's the matter over there?” and prisoner ran away in the direction of Foord Road. Witness walked to the top of the passage, where she met P.C. Waters. She made a complaint to him as to what had happened. P.C. Butler was at the corner of Kent Road and Foord Road, and witness went across to him and said “Have you seen a tall man about?” Prisoner immediately came from the direction of the Viaduct, in Foord Road, and said “I'm the tall man you're looking for”. Witness then gave him into custody. Witness had been in the town with her husband shopping, and met two young women who worked in the same laundry. She left her husband at 8.30 in High Street, and from that time until ten minutes to eleven she was in company with the two women. She left them in South Street, and then went to look for her husband, but she did not find him. The affair with the prisoner lasted about ten minutes. Nobody passed during that time.

Cross-examined by prisoner, witness said she did not see him in the Brewery Tap in the early part of the evening, and she did not ask him to treat her. She did not see him outside of his house in Bradstone Road and ask him for a shilling.

P.C. Waters said at about 11.30 on Saturday evening he was in bed at his lodgings, 5, Bradstone Avenue, when he heard screaming and shouting coming from the passage at the rear of Bradstone Avenue. He got up and opened the back window and shouted out “What's the matter out there?” He then heard footsteps running away up the passage into Kent Road. He also heard a woman's voice say “Oh, won't someone come to help me?” Witness partly dressed and ran down into the passage, and as he did so he tripped over the sack produced. He saw the last witness at the top of the passage. She was very excited and bleeding from the lips. She told him a man had dragged her up the passage and had assaulted her. Witness asked her if she knew the man, and she replied “No”. He asked her in what direction he had gone, and she replied “Out in the Foord Road”. Witness accompanied her to the Foord Road end of Kent Road, where they met P.C. Butler at the corner of Kent Road. The last witness ran across the road and asked Butler if he had seen a tall man run along that way. Almost immediately, just across Foord Road, prisoner came up to them and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. Mrs. Staple said “That's the man”, and P.C. Butler then took him into custody on the charge of indecently assaulting Staple. Prisoner made no reply. On the way to the police station prisoner said he gave the prosecutrix a shilling to go up the passage with him. He further said he had been in the Guildhall Vaults with her during the evening, and also in the Honest Lawyer public house.

P.C. Butler corroborated. He gave evidence of finding the bag, and spoke of seeing marks of a struggle in the passage in Kent Road. In reply to the charge at the police station, prisoner said he went out with his bag to get some coals. Witness noticed prisoner's clothing was disarranged, and that he had a slight cut on the knuckle of his right hand, which was covered with blood. Prosecutrix and prisoner both appeared to be perfectly sober.

The Chairman advised Smith to reserve his defence, which he did.

Prisoner asked for bail, as he had a wife and three little children. He was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail was allowed, himself in 20 and one surety in 20, or two in 10.

The Chairman commended P.C. Waters on his prompt action in the matter.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 February 1910.

Monday, January 31st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

Sidney Arthur Smith was charged with indecently assaulting Emily Ellen Staple, a married woman. The Chairman ordered the Court to be cleared.

Mrs. Staple stated that she was the wife of Edward Staple, and she lived at 17, Garden Road. Last Saturday, at about 11.30, in Bradstone Road, as she was returning home alone, prisoner, who was a stranger to her, spoke to her, caught hold of her by the shoulder, and dragged her across the road towards the passage in Kent Road. She resisted him, and finding he was getting the better of her, she commenced to scream. She said “If you don't let me go, I'll give you in charge”. He then held his hand over her mouth and tried to stop her from screaming. She bit his hand, which caused him to remove it. He said “If you scream, I'll choke you”. He then placed some soft substance in her mouth, either his bag or cap. She screamed “Murder” and “Police”. He tightened the substance which was in her mouth so that she could not scream. Prosecutrix deposed to the nature of the assault alleged, and, proceeding, said someone shouted out of a window at the back “What's the matter over there?”, which caused accused to run away. She only had time to get to the passage before P.C. Waters saw her. She then told him what had occurred, and accompanied him to the corner of Kent Road and Foord Road, where they met P.C. Butler. She said to him “Have you seen a tall man about?” Prisoner then came from the direction of Foord Road, and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. She then gave him into custody. She had been out shopping. She met two young women that worked with her in the laundry. She left her husband at 8.30 p.m. in the High Street, and she was with her companions until 10.50. She left them in South Street, and then she looked for her husband, but missed him.

In answer to the accused, Mrs. Staples said she had never seen him before. She did not ask accused to “treat” her, and she did not see him at the Brewery Tap. She did not ask accused for a shilling.

P.C. Waters stated that at about 11.30 p.m. on Saturday evening he was in bed at his lodgings, at 5, Bradstone Avenue, when he heard someone screaming “Murder”, “Help”, and “Police”. The sound came from the passage at the rear of Bradstone Avenue, at the beginning of the Kent Road. He opened his window and shouted “What is the matter out there?” He heard a woman shouting “Oh, won't someone come to help me?”, and he heard someone running away. He then partly dressed and ran down into the passage. He tripped over something which was lying there. He then saw complainant at the Kent Road end of the passage. She appeared to be very excited and was bleeding from the lips. She told him that a man had assaulted her. He asked her if she knew the man, and she replied “No”. He then asked in which direction he had gone. She replied “Out into Foord Road”. She then accompanied him to the corner of Kent Road and Foord Road, and he there met P.C. Butler. The prosecutrix asked “Have you seen a tall man run along this way?”. Almost immediately the prisoner crossed the Foord Road. He came right up to them, and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. He was then told by P.C. Butler that he would be brought to the police station and charged with indecently assaulting Mrs. Staples. Prosecutrix, when she saw the prisoner, said “That's the man”. Prisoner made no reply at the time.

Prisoner: I said I was innocent.

Witness, continuing, said that P.C. Butler took accused away, and he (witness) accompanied him. Prisoner said on the way that he gave prosecutrix a shilling. He also said that he had been in the Guildhall Vaults with complainant during the evening, and also in the Honest Lawyer public house.

Prisoner: If I was Guilty, why did I come back again? She asked me for 1s.

P.C. Butler also gave evidence. He said he went to the passage and saw evidence of a struggle. He found the bag owned by accused. In reply to the charge, accused said “I went out with my old bag to get some coal”. He noticed a slight cut on the right knuckle of prisoner's hand. His hand was covered in blood.

Prisoner, who protested his innocence, was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the borough, and was allowed bail, himself in 20, and one surety of 20, or two of 10.

The Chairman said the Bench complimented the constables on their very smart conduct.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1910.

Local News.

In reference to the charge of assault heard before the Folkestone Magistrates last week, we are requested to state that Mrs. Staple, the prosecutrix, does not live at 17, Garden Road, but at another house in the road.

 

Folkestone Daily News 2 April 1910.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, April 2nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Sidney Alfred Smith was charged on the 31st January with indecently assaulting Mrs. Ellen Staple, a married woman. He was also charged with a common assault.

Mr. Dickens, who prosecuted, elected not to proceed with the serious charge.

Mr. Pitman advised accused to plead Guilty to the common assault, which he did, and was bound over to be of good behaviour for six months.

 

Folkestone Express 9 April 1910.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, April 2nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Sidney Alfred Smith, 23, a labourer, was charged with indecently assaulting Ellen Staple on January 20th. He pleaded Guilty to a charge of common assault.

Mr. Dickens prosecuted, and Mr. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) defended.

Mr. Dickens said no doubt the Recorder had read the depositions, and he was going to suggest that owing to the various circumstances, as well as certain information above suspicion, which the Chief Constable had received from other persons, that the man and woman were seen talking quietly together before the assault, it would be advisable for him not now to press the charge of indecency against the man, for he felt it would be practically impossible under the circumstances to obtain a conviction. The prisoner, however, did assault the woman in such a way that she bit his hand enough to make it bleed. He would be satisfied with the plea that the prisoner had made, and take a verdict of Guilty of the common assault.

Mr. Pitman said, having regard to what Mr. Dickens had said, and also to certain circumstances which had impressed themselves very much on his mind, it would have resulted in a verdict which would amount to guilty of a common assault. Mr. Dickens was satisfied that the additional information the defence could bring forward could not be doubted for one moment, and that the two were seen talking together and walking quietly along to the place into which the woman alleged she was dragged could not be doubted. The case he was instructed to put forward was entirely consistent with the story told by independent witnesses, and that the suggestion of indecency came not from the man, but from the woman, he being a married man, living with his wife quite close to the spot. The prisoner absolutely denied the suggestion that he put anything into her mouth, but he pushed her away with the sack which he was carrying. He would like to point out that Smith had been four or five weeks in prison, he not being bailed out until March 7th, and he should ask the Recorder, having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, and the undoubted unreliability of the woman's story, to take a lenient course. The woman, according to his instructions, made a demand for money, and threatened to cry if he did not accede to his request. He then lost his temper.

The Recorder said at the Police Court the prisoner said he reserved his defence.

Mr. Pitman said the prisoner outlined his defence in cross-examining the witnesses, and he was beginning to make a statement, when, at the Magistrates' suggestion, he reserved his defence.

The Recorder, addressing Smith, said he had heard what both counsel had said, and he had already formed his own opinion. He did not think it desirable to go into details. The less said about the case the better. He advised him to be careful in the future. He would be bound over to be of good behaviour for six months.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 April 1910.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, April 2nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Sidney Alfred Smith, aged 23, a labourer, was indicted first for an indecent assault, and secondly for a common assault, on Ellen Staple, on January 29th, at Folkestone. He was committed for trial on the first count only on January 31st, and was not bailed out till March 7th. Mr. Dicken prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. Pitman defended.

Acting on the advice of his counsel, prisoner pleaded Guilty to a common assault, but Not Guilty to an indecent assault.

Mr. Dickens intimated that he would accept the plea of Guilty to a common assault, and not proceed with the other charge. He said that the prisoner and the woman were seen talking quietly together before the assault, by a witness who did not appear at the Police Court, and he thought it would be inadvisable for him to press the charge of indecency against the man; indeed, he might also say that it would be impossible to obtain a conviction for indecent assault. That there was a common assault there was no doubt. The prisoner put something into the woman's mouth, and as a result she bit his hand till the blood came.

The Recorder said that having regard to what Mr. Dickens had said, and to certain circumstances which had impressed themselves very much on his mind in connection with the deposition as to the time and the hours that the woman appeared to have been about the town, he thought that Mr. Dickens had taken a very proper course.

Mr. Pitman, for the defendant, said that his story was that the prisoner and the woman met, that they walked and conversed together, and that the suggestion came not from the man, but from the woman. They all knew the story of Potiphar's wife. Prisoner had been recently married, and his wife lived near. Being indignant with the woman, prisoner did push her back, and she, according to a threat she had made before, cried out for the police, and so on. Prisoner absolutely denied the suggestion that he put anything into her mouth. He was carrying a sack at the time, having been picking up coal, and that might have accidentally struck her. Prisoner had already been in prison for four or five weeks, since he was committed on January 31st, and not bailed out till March 7th. In conclusion, counsel referred to the “undoubted unreliability of the woman's story”, and said that it was a little difficult to know what a man was to do under the circumstances.

The Recorder said that in such cases he always desired to see what answer the prisoner made at the time when he was first charged. He saw that at the Police Court this man said “I reserve my defence”. Why was that?

Mr. Pitman said that the prisoner's remark was one that was often made. At the Police Court he had put a good many questions to the woman, and as those questions disclosed his defence, the Magistrates' Clerk afterwards advised him to reserve the defence.

The Recorder said that that cleared up his doubt on the point, but he always did feel himself that it was very desirable to know what the answer of the man was at the time. He thought that the less said about that case the better. He would advise prisoner to be careful in the future. He would now bind him over to be of good behaviour for six months.

 

Folkestone Express 6 August 1910.

Tuesday, August 2nd: Before Aldermen Penfold, Spurgen, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Frank George Lee, who was fined for drunkenness by the Bench on Saturday, pleaded Guilty to a similar charge.

P.C. Cox said at 9.30 the previous evening he saw the prisoner very drunk in Guildhall Street. Lee was reeling about the pavement, and when he went into the Guildhall Vaults he was turned out. As he was incapable of taking care of himself, witness took him into custody.

Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour in default.

 

Folkestone Daily News 16 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 16th: Before Justices Ward, Spurgen, and Fynmore.

Edward Stapley was fined 25s. or 14 days' for being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police.

Stapley is what might be called a “safe cop”. He is a native of the town, and was a very respectable hard working man until his wife left him a few years since. He then gave way to drink, and seemed to be somewhat queer in the head. About four years since he was charged with being drunk. He alleged he had been cruelly knocked about by the police at the police station, and his condition certainly corroborated his statement. He has also been convicted with not complying with the Hackney carriage bye-laws when he owned a charabanc.

On Tuesday he got a little drop too much, and Constable Boorn followed him into the Guildhall Tavern and warned them not to serve him; he then followed him to the Shakespeare, and eventually locked him up.

Stapley became excited, and the constable alleged that he struck him in the eye, which Stapley denied.

The Justices fined him 25s. or 14 days'. He elected to go to Canterbury.

We think it would have been better if Constable Boorn had taken Stapley home than to have dogged him from public house to public house, which is very irritating to a half-drunken man.

 

Folkestone Express 19 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 16th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Spurgen, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

Edward Stapley was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street the previous evening. He was further charged with assaulting P.C. Bourne. He denied both charges.

P.C. Bourne said at five minutes past seven he saw the prisoner in Guildhall Street, near the Town Hall, rolling from one side of the path to the other. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, and witness heard the barmaid refuse to serve him. She ordered him to leave, but he said he would not go until he had a drink. Witness also told him to get outside. When in the street Stapley commenced to shout, and said he would have some drink from somewhere. As he would not be quiet, witness took him into custody, when prisoner became very violent and struck him a severe blow on the right eye. With the assistance of P.C. Pittock he handcuffed him and brought him to the police station. On the way Stapley kicked and struggled a great deal. Witness, previous to the prisoner going into the Shakespeare Hotel, followed him into the Guildhall Vaults and told the barmaid not to serve him.

P.C. Pittock said he saw P.C. Bourne follow the prisoner into the Shakespeare, and saw both of them come out. He then saw the prisoner strike Bourne in the eye. Witness went to the other constable's assistance, and when they took him into custody he struggled violently.

P.S. Sharpe said when Stapley was brought into the police station he was drunk and very violent.

Prisoner denied being drunk and assaulting the constable.

Inspt. Swift said there were eight convictions against the prisoner, but only two for being drunk and disorderly, the last being four years ago.

A fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs was imposed for being drunk and disorderly, or seven days' hard labour in default; and for the assault a fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or a further seven days'.

Prisoner said he had no money, so the Magistrates ordered him below, the Chairman stating that the sentences would run consecutively.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 16th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward Lieut Col. Fynmore, and Alderman G. Spurgen.

Edward Stapley was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting P.C. Bourne in the execution of his duty. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty to both charges.

P.C. Bourne deposed that at 7.05 the previous evening he saw the prisoner drunk in Guildhall Street. Stapley was rolling from one side of the pavement to the other. He went along the street and entered the public bar of the Shakespeare Hotel. The barmaid refused to serve him, and requested him to leave, but he refused. Witness then told him to leave, and he did so. When outside he commenced to shout and used bad language. As he would not be quiet, witness took him into custody. He then became very violent, and struck witness in the right eye with his fist. It was a severe blow. With the assistance of P.C. Piddock, he handcuffed him and brought him to the police station. He was kicking and struggling the whole time. Witness added that at 7 o'clock accused went into the Guildhall Vaults, and he cautioned him.

Prisoner denied using bad language.

P.C. Piddock corroborated as to the prisoner shouting and using bad language, and also as to the assault.

Prisoner denied the assault.

P.S. Sharp, who was on duty at the police station when the prisoner was brought in, corroborated as to his drunken condition, and his violence in the station.

Prisoner denied being drunk. He said he never insulted anyone, and wherever he went they should not have refused him.

There were eight previous convictions against prisoner, two of which were for being drunk and disorderly.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 7 days', for being drunk and disorderly, and 10s. and 4s. 6d., or 7 days', for the assault, the sentences to run consecutively.

 

Folkestone Express 20 May 1911.

Wednesday, May 17th: Before W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Mr. Camburn produced plans on behalf of Mr. Filmer for the alteration of the front of the Guildhall Vaults. He explained the alterations to the Magistrates, and stated that they wished to carry out the work before the Coronation.

The Justices sanctioned the alteration.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 May 1911.

Wednesday, May 17th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Plans were submitted by Mr. Filmer for alterations to the front of the Guildhall Hotel, and the alterations were explained by Mr. Camburn.

The application was granted, on the condition that they were at once carried out.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Plans were passed for slight alterations to the billiard room of the Guildhall Hotel.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 May 1912.

Local News.

Geneva Association. The Club Rooms of the Folkestone-Dover Branch are now at Mr. James Filmer's Guildhall Hotel, No. 4, Guildhall Street. A meeting is held on the first Tuesday of the month in the afternoon at 3.15.

 

Folkestone Express 19 October 1912.

Tuesday, October 15th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, R.G. Wood Esq., Captain Chamier, and Colonel Owen.

John William Minter was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Saturday night. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Bourne said at five minutes to eight on Saturday evening he saw the defendant in front of the Town Hall. He was drunk, and shouting and swearing. He refused to go away, so he took him into custody.

Witness, in reply to the defendant, said he (Minter) did not say he was not drunk. He gave him every chance to go home.

P.S. Sales said when the prisoner was brought in he was drunk and most abusive.

Mr. Filmer, the licence holder of the Guildhall Vaults, called by the defendant, said he heard bad language in the bar and on going there he saw it was the defendant who was using the bad language He had to call the police constable in to eject him because he was disorderly. He would not say that Minter was drunk, although he might have been worse outside owing to his being excited.

Isabel Hambel, the barmaid, said she refused to serve the man as he was disorderly in the bar the previous Saturday.

In reply to the defendant, witness said she did not serve him. He might have taken someone else's off the counter. He had had sufficient drink.

Defendant said he was sorry. He meant to go home, and he should have gone, had not the constable taken him to the bottom. He had a good bed to go to, and he did not want their hard bed. (Laughter)

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were twelve convictions against the prisoner, eight of which were for drunkenness. The last was four years ago, however.

Defendant said he had been trying to keep himself straight. He had no work at the present time, and he was trying to get a living by selling fish.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 7s. costs, the defendant being allowed until Saturday to pay.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 October 1912.

Tuesday, October 15th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor R.G. Wood, Col. C.P. Owen, and Capt. A.C. Chamier.

John William Minter, on bail, was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Accused pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Bourne said that at bout 7.55 p.m. on Saturday he saw accused in front of the Town Hall. Defendant was drunk and shouting and swearing.

Accused: That's a lie.

Continuing, P.C. Bourne said he told defendant to go away several times and to be quiet, but he refused to, and said he did not care a ---- for anyone. Eventually witness took him to the police station, charging him with being drunk and disorderly.

In answer to prisoner, witness stated that defendant absolutely refused to go home. He was given every possible chance, but refused to go.

P.S. Sales deposed that at about 8 p.m. on Saturday he was on duty at the police station, when the prisoner was brought in and charged with being drunk and disorderly. He was excited and most abusive.

Prisoner said he had some witnesses to call, and he wished to call the landlord of the public house first.

Mr. James Filmer, the landlord of the Guildhall Hotel, deposed that at about 8 p.m. on Saturday evening he heard bad language being used in the public bar. He went there and saw prisoner, and asked him to leave the house. Defendant refused and used bad language, and finally witness obtained the services of the last witness, who put prisoner out. The policeman asked him several times to go away, but he would not. Witness did not think there was very much the matter with prisoner. He was very excited. Witness did not want him to leave the house because he thought he was drunk. He would not have been ejected, but he was using bad language.

Miss Isabel Hambel, barmaid at the Guildhall Hotel, stated that she saw prisoner at about 7.45, when he came into the bar. Witness refused to serve him, as he had given her considerable trouble the Saturday night previous. She asked him to go out, and he started to swear.

Prisoner: Lies!

Proceeding, witness said Mr. Filmer came and asked prisoner to go. Accused refused, and said he would not go out for anyone. He was in the house about ten minutes before she asked him to leave.

Prisoner questioned witness closely as to whether he had any drink or not, but she was positive that he did not have any.

Accused said he meant to go home, only the constable took him.

The Chairman: You did not go.

Defendant said he had a good bed to go to, and did not want the hard bed in the station.

The Chief Constable said there were twelve previous convictions against prisoner. Eight of them were for drunkenness. The last conviction was about four years ago.

Prisoner: I have been trying to keep myself straight.

The Chief Constable said prisoner had been fairly well behaved.

Prisoner was fined 2s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. costs, or seven days', being allowed till Saturday to pay.

 

Folkestone Daily News 1 August 1913.

Friday, August 1st: Before Messrs. Vaughan, Wood, Owen, Ward, Fynmore, and Giles.

The licence of the Guildhall Hotel was transferred from Mr. Filmer to Mr. Jacobs.

 

Folkestone Express 9 August 1913.

Friday, August 1st: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Col. Owen.

An application was made by Mr. G.W. Haines for the temporary transfer of the Guildhall Vaults from Mr. Filmer to Mr. A.M.R. Jacobs, late head waiter at the Hotel Metropole. Granted.

 

Folkestone Express 23 August 1913.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred, temporary authority having been sanctioned previously by the Magistrates: The Guildhall Vaults, from Mr. Filmer to Mr. A.R. Jacobs.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 August 1913.

Wednesday, August 20th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Capt. Chamier, and Councillor W.J. Harrison.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults was transferred from Mr. James Filmer to Mr. Jacobs.

 

Folkestone Express 2 May 1914.

Monday, April 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq. and Colonel Owen.

Robert Higgins was charged with begging in Guildhall Street on Saturday night. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Butcher said at 9.30 on Saturday evening he was in Guildhall Street when he saw the prisoner begging from customers at public houses and soldiers in the street. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, where he begged in the bar, and also went into the Guildhall Vaults, where he did the same thing. He (witness) went up to him and told him he should arrest him for begging. On being searched 11d. in bronze and two insurance cards were found upon him.

Prisoner, who spoke with a strong Scotch accent, said he only begged from soldiers who were countrymen of his own. One of them gave him sixpence. He was a fitter by trade, but he was 51 years of age and could not get any work as he was too old. He came to London to get a job in the East India Docks, but his eyesight failed him. He had done no work since last November.

The insurance cards, which were for sickness and unemployment, showed that prisoner last worked in November.

The prisoner, on promising to leave the town, he explaining that he would make his way north again, was discharged by the Magistrates.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 May 1914.

Monday, April 27th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Colonel G.P. Owen.

Robert Higgins was charged with begging, and pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson deposed that at about 9.30 p.m. on Saturday he was in Tontine Street, where he saw prisoner begging. Accused proceeded to Guildhall Street, entering the Shakespeare Hotel, and asked for money. When he came out witness stopped him, and took him to the police station. He had on him 11d. in bronze and an insurance card.

Prisoner said he was a mechanic, and had been looking for work. He was 31 years old, and had not had any regular work since November. He was born in Renfrew. He came down to London to get work at the East India Docks, but it was no good everywhere he went. He was a Scotchman, and only accosted the Seaforth Highlanders, one of whom gave him 6d.

The Bench discharged prisoner on his promising that he would leave the town.

 

From the Dover Express, Friday, 23 October, 1914

GERMAN PUBLICAN AT FOLKESTONE

THREATS TO WRECK HOUSE.

On Sunday night a disturbance, which appeared likely to develop into a serious matter occurred in the "Guildhall Hotel," Folkestone. The licensee of the house, Mr. Jacob, is a German, who, however, has been a naturalised British for eight years, and a dispute arose. Threats were made to wreck the place, but, by the persuasion of the Military and Civil police, this was prevented. On the following morning Mr. Jacob made an application for the licence to be temporarily transferred to Mr. W. H. Vicary, Messrs. Mackeson's manager at Folkestone, who explained that the application was made because of the present circumstances of the war. The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said he thought it was desirable that the transfer should be made, and explained that the conduct of the house had been satisfactory. The Magistrates agreed to the temporary transfer.

 

Folkestone Express 24 October 1914.

Local News.

On Sunday evening considerable feeling against Mr. Jacob, the landlord of the Guildhall Hotel, was shown by a number of his customers, principally soldiers, and at one time matters appeared likely to culminate in damage being done. The efforts of the civil and military police, however, calmed the spirits of those who were most bitter against the landlord, who is a German naturalised British subject.

On Monday morning Mr. Jacob appeared before the Magistrates and asked for a temporary transfer of the licence to Mr. W.H. Vicary.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the outgoing tenant was a German naturalised British subject, and owing to a strong feeling at the present moment against all Germans amongst a certain class of people, it was desirable that some other person should take over the management of the house at once. Mr. Vicary, a very respectable man, was willing to take charge of the premises at once.

The Clerk (Mr. Andrew): You consider it is urgently necessary that there should be a change, and on that account you think the ordinary notice of the application should be waived.

The Chief Constable: Yes.

The Clerk explained to the Magistrates that according to the law a protection order should not be granted unless seven days previous notice had been given. In cases of urgency they could waive that notice.

Lieut. Col. Fynmore: You recommend it?

The Chief Constable: Yes, under the special circumstances.

Mr. Vicary said it was the intention of the owners to find another competent tenant at the most convenient moment. He was manager at the branch office of Messrs. Mackeson, in Tontine Street.

The Chief Constable said it was certain there would be a suitable tenant as soon as possible.

Mr. Jacob said he had been tenant of the house since August 1st, and had been a resident in Folkestone for 16 years. He had been a naturalised British subject between seven and eight years. He thought it was desirable that he should give up the licence under the present circumstances. He would, however, like to say that there was nothing against the conduct of the house.

The Chief Constable said there was nothing against the conduct of the house.

The Chairman (Lieut. Col. Fynmore) said the Bench granted the temporary transfer.

Mr. Vicary said, on behalf of the owners of the house, he wished to say they had every confidence in Mr. Jacob and his conduct of the house. The change was through the unfortunate circumstances of the present time, and owing to the public feeling inflamed by the papers and other things. They were very sorry indeed that they had to have a change in the tenants.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 28 November 1914.

Wednesday, November 25th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines made a similar application on behalf of Mr. Vicary, of the Guildhall Hotel. He stated that they had a tenant in view.

Temporary permission was granted until the next transfer sessions.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 November 1914.

Wednesday, November 25th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Mr. J.J. Giles.

Mr. Vickery, manager of Mackeson and Son's Folkestone branch, applied for an extension of his temporary licence at the Guildhall Vaults, Guildhall Street.

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the applicant, and said there was a tenant in prospect.

The application was granted.

Note: No record of Vickery in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 16 January 1915.

Wednesday, January 13th: Before Lieut. Col.Fynmore, J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, W.G. Harrison and G. Boyd Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

A protection order in respect of the Guildhall Hotel for Mr. Cousins, of Ashford, was applied for and granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 January 1915.

Wednesday, January 13th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, and Col. G.P. Owen.

An application for a protection order for the Guildhall Hotel was granted. Mr. G.W. Haines, who appeared for applicant, said that the prospective tenant was Mr. Cousins, late landlord of the Hare and Hounds, Ashford. Mr. Cousins was an ex warrant officer of 23 years' service.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1915.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Owen, R.J. Linton, W.J. Harrison, J. Stainer, and R.G. Wood Esqs.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults, which was temporarily transferred to Mr. George B. Cozens, was confirmed.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1915.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor R.G. Wood, Councillor W.J. Harrison, and Col. G.P. Owen.

On the application of Mr. G.W. Haines, the transfer of the licence of the Guildhall Vaults to Mr. George B. Couzens was confirmed.

 

Folkestone Express 8 January 1916.

Local News.

On Monday Henry Keeling was charged with purchasing a bottle of whisky for a soldier, contrary to the Regulations.

Corpl. Knighton, of the Military Foot Police, said at 2 o'clock on Saturday he was in Guildhall Street when he saw the prisoner with a private soldier, who was in uniform. He noticed that the soldier was carrying a bottle in the right hand pocket of his overcoat. The prisoner tapped the pocket and said “Yes, it's all right. It won't be noticed”. Witness communicated with P.C. Allen, and the soldier and prisoner were stopped. Witness took the bottle from the soldier's pocket and found it contained whisky.

P.C. Allen said he saw the prisoner in Guildhall Street, and remarked to him “You have just given a soldier a bottle of whisky”. He replied “Yes, I have. I hope I have not done anything wrong”. He then said “There goes the soldier to whom I gave it”. At the police station, in reply to the charge, he said “I bought it from Pursey's Store in Tontine Street between one and two today”.

The accused said he happened to be in company with the soldier, and had a drink or two with him. He asked him to get him a bottle of whisky, which he did, thinking there was no harm in it whatever. He had not been before the Bench before, and he hoped the Magistrates would deal leniently with him. He had two sons fighting for their country out at the Front. He was a native of the town, where pretty well everyone knew him.

The Chairman (Mr. E.T. Ward) said bearing in mind the prisoner's good character, he would be sentenced only to two months' hard labour, but he must have known perfectly well it was not right to buy the whisky, and it was a practice which must be stopped.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 January 1916.

Monday, January 3rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman G. Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, Mr. J.J. Giles, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. H.C. Kirke, and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

Henry Keeling was charged with purchasing a bottle of whisky for a soldier, contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act. He pleaded Guilty.

Corpl. Knighton, of the Military Police, said he was in Guildhall Street on Saturday afternoon about 2 o'clock. He saw the prisoner leave the Guildhall Vaults with Pte. Emberson, of the 23rd Battalion, Canadians. The soldier was carrying a bottle in his right hand pocket. He heard the accuse say “Yes, it's all right; I don't think it will be noticed”. Witness then communicated with P.C. Allen, who stopped the two men. The soldier took from his pocket the bottle of whisky (produced).

P.C. Allen said he was near the Guildhall Vaults on Saturday about 1.55 p.m. He saw the prisoner, and said to him “You have just got a soldier a bottle of whisky”. The defendant replied “Yes, I have. I hope I have not done anything wrong”. Witness then spoke to the soldier, in prisoner's presence, and said to him “He says he has just got you a bottle of whisky”. The soldier then gave witness the bottle of whisky, which he took from his pocket. When charged, prisoner replied “I bought it in Pursey's Stores, in Tontine Street”.

Accused said he was very sorry indeed. He had had one or two drinks with the soldier. He bought a bottle of whisky for him, as he did not know there was any harm. He was a Folkestone man, and had two sons fighting for his country.

The Chairman said accused should have known that he must not buy whisky for soldiers. The Bench must stop it. As he had a good character, he would only be sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

Friday, January 7th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore and other Magistrates.

Daniel MaCartney was charged with purchasing a bottle of whisky for a soldier. Defendant said he did not remember anything about it. He was drunk at the time.

Corpl. Charles Frederick Price, of the C.M.P., said he saw the defendant in St. John's Street on Thursday afternoon about 4.30. He saw Corpl. McDonald hand the prisoner 4s. 6d., and, in his hearing, ask him to get a bottle of whisky. Prisoner said he would do anything for a soldier, and he went into a bar in St. John's Street. As the door was ajar, he (witness) saw the bottle handed over the counter to prisoner. Prisoner then came out and gave the bottle of whisky to the soldier.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), witness said the prisoner was not drunk, although he had had a drink.

Corpl. R. McDonald, of the 11th Battalion, Canadians, said he saw the accused in St. John's Street. He told witness that he could get him a bottle of whisky. He said he would do anything for a soldier. He then gave prisoner 4s. 6d., and he went and got the bottle of whisky produced. He had seen the man for a month or two round the town.

P.C. Arnold said that when charged at the station, accused made no reply. He was sober.

MaCartney said he did not remember getting the bottle of whisky. He remembered meeting the two fellows. He was an American citizen, and he did not know the laws of this country.

The Chairman said the accused would be sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 11 March 1916.

Local News.

Yesterday (Thursday) the Magistrates, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J.J. Giles and H.C. Kirke Esqs., heard a case under the “No treating” Order, when George Cozens, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was summoned for allowing his employee to supply intoxicating liquor to a person not having paid for it. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Sergt. G.T. Taylor, M.P., said about a quarter past seven he was in the billiard room of the Hotel when he saw five men playing snooker pool. At the close of the game the loser paid for the use of the table, and the second or third loser paid for a round of drinks. Pte. Stanley was the man who gave the order for six drinks – four crme de menthe and two mild ales. The order was given to the billiard marker, who brought the drinks and placed them together. Pte. Stanley tendered a 10/- note for the drinks.

Mr. Haines at this stage pleaded Guilty. He said the billiard marker had no authority to obtain drinks for people, or to fetch them into the billiard room. The man certainly fetched the drinks, and apparently paid for them out of his own pocket. The man thought that peppermint was non-intoxicant, and therefore was able to serve it. The defendant had had notices placed in the Hotel stating that everyone had to pay for their own drinks.

A fine of 2 was imposed.

Pte. W.J. Stanley was fined 10/- for paying for the drinks. He admitted the offence.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1916.

Thursday, March 9th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J.J. Giles, and Mr. H. Kirke.

George Bradstone Cozens, of the Guildhall Hotel, was summoned for supplying intoxicating liquor to a person who had not paid for it. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Sergt. G.W. Taylor, of the M.P., said on the 28th February he was in the billiard room of the Guildhall Hotel. Five men were playing snooker pool. At the conclusion of the game the loser paid for the use of the table, and the second or third loser paid for a round of drinks. The waiter came into the room, and the order was given by Pte. Stanley for four crme de menthes and two mild ales. Pte. Stanley gave the man a 10s. note for the drinks.

Mr. Haines, after hearing the facts, said his client wished to plead Guilty, although he did not serve the liquor. This waiter who got the drink had no authority to do so. Every precaution was taken to ensure the orders being properly carried out. They had notices printed as follows: No treating. Each person must pay for his own drink.

The Chairman said the Bench thought it was a hard case, but they must fine defendant 2.

Pte. W.J. Stanley, of the C.E.F., who ordered the drinks, was summoned for treating the other men, and was fined 10s.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, H. Kirke, and J.J. Giles Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. H. Reeve read his annual report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are within your jurisdiction 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz; Full licences 71, Beer on 7. Beer off 5, Beer and spirit dealers 15, Grocers etc., off 7, Confectioners, wine, on 3. Chemists, wine, off 6, Total 115. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons. This is the same number of licensed premises as were in existence last year.

At the adjourned licensing meeting, held on 6th March last, the licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the principal meeting of that Committee held at Canterbury on 21st June, the renewal of the licence was refused. The question as to the amount of compensation to be paid was referred to the Inland Revenue Authorities, and has not at present been determined, consequently a provisional renewal of the licence will be applied for. During the past year five of the licences have been transferred.

For the year ended 31st December last 55 persons (28 males and 27 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 32 were convicted and 23 discharged without conviction. Of the persons proceeded against 17 were residents of the Borough, 9 members of the Naval and Military Forces, 13 persons of no fixed abode and 16 residents of other districts. In the preceding year 174 persons (109 males and 65 females) were proceeded against, of whom 129 were convicted and 45 discharged.

Proceedings have been taken during the year against 14 of the licence holders for various offences, 7 of whom were convicted and 7 dismissed. The following are the cases in which convictions have been recorded, viz; 9th March, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel was fined 1 for a breach of the “No Treating” Order; 24th March, the licensee of the Mechanics Arms Inn was fined 1 for allowing a child under 14 years to be in the bar of his licensed premises; 23rd June, the licensee of the Chequers Inn was fined 1 for dispatching intoxicating liquor from his licensed premises without a licence; 30th June, the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores was fined 1 for dispatching intoxicating liquor from his licensed premises without the same having been previously paid for; 30th June, the licensee of 27 Rendezvous Street (off licence) was fined 1 for a similar offence; 1st December, the licensee of the London and Paris Hotel was fined 5 for a breach of the No Treating Order; 1st December, the licensee of the Pavilion Shades was fined 5 for a similar offence.

Nine clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 7 for music only, and 1 for public billiard playing.

The Order of the Liquor Control Board which came into operation on 10th January last year, restricting the hours of sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to 4 hours each weekday and 4 hours on Sunday remains in force, and in my opinion is mainly the cause of the decrease in the cases of drunkenness recorded.

Under Regulation 10 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, Orders have been made by the Competent Military Authority, and are still in force, closing 3 of the licensed houses to all members of H.M. Forces. The houses are the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, and the True Briton, Harbour Street.

The Chairman said with regard to the report the number of convictions was very satisfactory. Mr. Reeve said in his opinion that was due to the restricted hours. He (Mr. Ward) was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans – seven – which was a greater number than he remembered in any year. There was no doubt that publicans were faced with very great difficulties with so many restrictions placed upon them. He urged upon them the necessity of being very careful not to serve any wounded soldiers, or any soldiers waiting embarkation. There were very heavy penalties laid down for offences of such a nature – imprisonment for six weeks or 100 fine. He hoped all of them would be very careful. All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the seven against which convictions had been recorded, but those seven licences would be granted until the adjourned sessions in a month's time.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said with regard to the premises licensed for music and dancing the Magistrates had made new regulations. In future no structural alterations should be made in the licensed premises, and no alterations should be made in the stage, gangways, passageway or exits without the previous approval of the justices, and such gangways should be kept free from chairs or other obstruction during the hours of public entertainment, and all performances should be of an unobjectionable character, and good order and decent behaviour should be kept and maintained on the premises during the hours of licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.J. Giles, Mr. H. Kirke, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The Chief Constable read his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said he was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans, the greatest number he had seen for years. No doubt the difficulties of publicans were great owing to abnormal times. He would advise them to be very careful not to serve wounded soldiers or those who were soldiers about to embark. In regard to the licences, they would all be renewed, with the exception of seven, which would be considered at the adjourned sessions on March 7th.

 

Folkestone Express 10 March 1917.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Folkestone adjourned licensing sessions were held on Wednesday, Mr. E.T. Ward presiding on the Bench, when the licences of the Guildhall, the Mechanics Arms, the London and Paris Hotel, the Chequers, the Pavilion Shades, the Morehall Wine Stores, and Finn's Store, Rendezvous Street, were renewed.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1917.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. H. Kirke.

The licences of the Pavilion Shades (Mr. E. Bishopp), the Mechanics Arms (Mr. J. Lawrence), Paris Hotel (Mr. G. Gray), Guildhall Vaults (Mr. Cousins), and those of Mr. J. Kent (Morehall), and Messrs. Finn and Co. Ltd. (Rendezvous Street) were renewed.

The Chairman, addressing the licensees, impressed upon them the great necessity of taking the greatest care in the conduct of their businesses, whilst at the same time acknowledging their difficulties.

 

Folkestone Express 27 September 1924.

Tuesday, September 23rd: Before Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and W.R. Boughton, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

John Palmer, a farmer of West Hythe, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday. He pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Pittock said at 9.35 p.m. on Saturday he went into the Guildhall public house, in consequence of what he had heard. He there saw the defendant, who was drunk. He made a communication to the landlord, and Palmer went out of the house, where he was joined by six other men. They all went into the East Kent Arms, so he followed them. He told Palmer that he had had enough to drink, and that he had better get out of the house. He went outside the house, and struggled when others tried to get him away by a bus. He eventually took him into custody, and at the police station he charged him with being drunk and disorderly. At Palmer's own request a doctor was called in and examined him. The doctor issued a certificate stating that the prisoner was suffering from the effects of alcohol.

The Clerk said the certificate was given by Dr. C. Barrett.

Defendant said he was very sorry. He had been to Canterbury all day. He there bought a horse, and he had the misfortune for the animal to drop down dead. That rather upset him, so he had one or two drops of whisky. He had not been used to drink. If the Magistrates would overlook that case he would give them his promise that he would not drink anything again.

Mr. Beesley (the Chief Constable) said there were 42 previous convictions for various offences, including drunkenness, obscene language, and assaulting the police.

The Magistrates fined the defendant 2, and when he asked for time in which to pay, the Clerk said the money could be paid out of the 16 which was in the defendant's possession when taken into custody.

 

Folkestone Express 13 March 1926.

Obituary.

We regret to have to announce the death of Mr. James Tunbridge, of Laudec Villa, 74, Radnor Park Road, and which took place in the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday morning. He was 76 years of age, and had enjoyed good health until about a month ago. The deepest sympathy, we are sure, will be extended to the members of the family, who are left to mourn a very great loss. He leaves a widow, three sons and a. daughter, nine grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

Ever a fine personality, the late Mr. Tunbridge was characterised by his extreme geniality and goodwill. He was a typical old English gentleman, who had won the highest esteem of those whom he came in contact. He was ever ready to help those in distress, and some of his staunch advice proved invaluable. His kindly nature had won the admiration of his fellow men. He celebrated his golden wedding on Christmas Day, 1921, the marriage taking place at the Holy Trinity Church, Dover, on Christmas morning, 1871. He was born at Alkham, the village midwav between Folkestone and Dover, and was a son of the late Mr. Thomas Tunbridge. He was a brother of the late Mr. Tilden Tunbridge. He was a carpenter, and was employed on the South Eastern Railway for twelve years. He was one of the first to commence the work on the projected Channel Tunnel. He assisted in the building of Shorncliffe Station and was foreman-in-charge of Cheriton Arch Station, which, at the present time is known as the Central Station. He became the proprietor of the Castle Inn, Foord, and subsequently resided at the Guildhall Vaults, the Railway Bell, and the Fountain Hotel, Seabrook. He retired from business in 1917. He was the chairman of the Licensed Victuallers Society on three occasions, and was the chairman of the Licensed Victuallers’ Mineral Water Co. for six years. He was exceedingly fond of bowls, and was a member of the Hythe Bowling Club. He was quite content and happy when “trundling the woods’.” He was, in his time, an excellent shot, and was probably one of the best shots in the neighbourhood. He was greatly devoted to shooting, and with! his canine friend and a gun and cartridges, would make his way to the woods, where he spent many happy hours. He loved a game of billiards, and was known to be a very good welder of the cue, and was a rather formidable exponent of the game. He came to Folkestone 47 years ago. He was a member of the Brotherhood of the Cheerful Sparrows, and also of the Folkestone Club.

The funeral took place yesterday (Thursday), at the Folkestone Cemetery, when the Vicar of St. John’s Church (the Rev. J. B. Cowell) officiated at the Church and at the graveside in the Folkestone Cemetery.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 March 1926.

Obituary.

We regret to announce the death on Sunday of Mr. James Tunbridge, of 74, Radnor Park Road. The deceased, who was seventy four years of age was widely known in the town and district.

In his early days he followed the occupation of a carpenter and was employed on the South Eastern Railway for twelve years. He was one of the first to start on the work of the Channel tunnel, the site of which was afterwards utilised for a coal boring. He helped to build Shorncliffe Station, and was foreman-in-charge of the erection of Cheriton Arch Station, subsequently known as Radnor Park and now as the Central Station. As a licensed victualler he was in turn licensee of the Castle Inn, Foord, Guildhall Vaults, Railway Bell, and the Fountain Hotel, Seabrook. In his particular calling deceased was regarded as a model, inasmuch as he always acted strictly in accordance with the licensing laws. He was for some time Chairman of the local Licensed Victuallers' Association, and also acted in a similar capacity for the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Mineral Water and General Supply Coy., Ltd. In both these positions he enjoyed the full confidence of the members. He retired from business about nine years ago.

Decease was a great devotee of the outdoor life. He loved a game of bowls, and nothing gave him greater pleasure than to handle the “woods” on the greens of the Hythe Bowling Club, of which he was a member up to the time of his death. He found great pleasure, too, with his gun and dog amid the “wheaten stubble” on autumn and winter days. He was widely regarded as a “dead shot”. A respected member of the Folkestone Club, he also enjoyed a game of billiards, and could give a good account of himself with the cue and ivories.

The late Mr. Tunbridge was born at Alkham, but had resided in Folkestone practically all his life. He celebrated his Golden Wedding on Christmas Day, 1921, and on that occasion, with his devoted partner, was the recipient of presents from many friends. Deceased was a typical Englishman. He was outspoken to a degree, “straight as a die”, and a real manly man. As such he was regarded by all who had the privilege of his acquaintance. He was a friend to many, and did a lot of good by stealth.

To his widow and surviving family (three sons and one daughter) much sympathy is extended.

The funeral took place at the Cemetery on Thursday afternoon.

 

Folkestone Express 15 May 1926.

Saturday, May 8th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer Alderman C E. Mumford, Mr. A. Stace, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Col. Broome-Giles.

Corpl. Joseph James Newall, of the 1st Royal Warwickshire Regiment, was charged with wilfully breaking a hurricane lamp in Beach Street on Friday night, the property of the Corporation, and of the value of 2s. Prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Joseph Barrett, casual dock porter, employed by the Southern Railway Company, said he was in Beach Street on Friday night, at 9.40, and saw three soldiers, two privates and an N.C.O. As the soldiers got in line with him lie heard the remark “We will go on strike.'’ A hurricane lamp on a caution board was struck, and the glass broke. The N.C.O. struck the lamp with his cane. He reported the matter to P.C. Simpson, and the soldier was then running in the direction of Tontine Street. P.C. Simpson blew his whistle, and gave chase. Later he identified en the prisoner at the police station.

P.C. Simpson said that when lie gave led chase he missed prisoner at Harbour Street. He returned to Beach Street, and took the other two soldiers to the police station for enquiries. Later he saw defendant in the custody of Sergt. Hollands. Prisoner was paraded with other men, and in fairness to himself was allowed to wear a private’s jacket. He was identified by the last witness, and when charged made no reply.

Sergt. Holiands said he last saw prisoner at the London and Paris Hotel, and from what he was told he went up the Bayle steps, and saw defendant come from a passage at the rear of the houses. He stopped him outside the Globe Inn, and said “Where did you come from, Tommy?” He replied “I have just left my young lady in that passage”. He noticed he was out of breath, and his face was flushed. He said to him “You look like the soldier I am looking for. You come back with me, and we will find your young lady”. Prisoner indicated the place where he thought she went in, and he made enquiries but failed to find any young lady who knew prisoner.

Prisoner said he left barracks at 7-3O p.m., and came into the town. He had two drinks in the Guildhall, left there, and went to the Brewery Tap, and had about four drinks there. He came out about 9-16, and made his way down to the harbour. He went into another place. There was a girl sitting there, and, as soldiers did, he gave her the “glad-eye”. He got into conversation with her, and had a couple of drinks. It wanted about two minutes to 9.30, and he asked her if she would go for a walk round, and she said “Yes”. She took him round some steps, and he started to talk to her, and arranged things for the following night and left her. He came up the passage way, and when he had gone about fifty yards the Sergt. caught hold of him. He (prisoner) refused to go at first, and asked why he had taken him. Sergeant Hollands went to one house only, and asked if the daughter had been out with a soldier. The woman said "No”. A civilian went running up, and said he had seen a girl go down the other steps. They took him to the Station and they started to argue so he said he would make a complaint. He could not say much, because there was six speaking to him, and he kept his mouth closed He was not with the other soldiers.

An officer said prisoner’s military character was good. He had had about lour years service. He was made Lance-Corporal in 1923, and promoted to full Corporal in March, 1925. There was nothing against him at all.

The Chairman said they considered the case proved, and he would be fined 5s., 2s. the costs of the damage, and 2s. 6d. witness’ costs (9s 6d). They thanked Mr. Barrett for the trouble he had taken, and the very nice way he had given his evidence.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1926.

Saturday, May 8th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mr. A. Stace, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Corporal Joseph James Newell, of the 1st Battn. R. Warwickshire Regt. was charged with wilfully damaging a hurricane lamp, the property of the Corporation. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Joseph Barratt, a casual dock porter, employed by the Southern Railway, said the previous night about 9.30 he was in Beach Street, when he saw three soldiers – two privates and one N.C.O. There were two road notice boards, one at each end of Beach Street, and on each board were two lamps. As the soldiers came into line with him (witness) he heard the remark passed “We will go on strike”, and as soon as the remark was passed the lamp was struck. The N.C.O. who now stood in the dock did it.

P.C. Simpson deposed that at 9.40 p.m. the previous evening he was proceeding from the Fish Market into Beach Street, when he heard the last witness shout “That soldier has broken a danger lamp”. The soldier was on the run about 50 yards ahead. Witness immediately blew his whistle and gave chase. Prisoner ran into Harbour Street, where the chase was taken up by Sergt. Hollands. Prisoner was paraded in witness's presence at the police station with seven other men, and was allowed to put a private's tunic on. All the men were dressed alike. Prisoner was picked out by the last witness. When charged he made no reply.

Sergt. Hollands said he chased the prisoner, who ran round the corner of the London and Paris Hotel. From what he was told, witness continued up the Bayle Steps on to the Bayle Parade and by the Globe Inn he saw prisoner, who said he had just left his young lady. He made enquiries where prisoner said his young lady had gone, but could not find her.

Prisoner said he had had two drinks at the Guildhall, and then went to the Brewery Tap, where he had four drinks. He came out at about sixteen minutes past nine and went towards the Harbour. He went into the London and Paris, where he saw a young lady, got into conversation with her, and asked her what she would have to drink. About two minutes to half past nine they went for a walk round and the young lady took him round the back and up some steps to the very top. When they reached the top they talked and made arrangements for the next night, and he left her. When he came through the alleyway the sergt. came up to him and caught hold of him. The sergt. only went to one house, and that satisfied him. Afterwards a civilian came up the road and said a girl had come out of the alley. He (prisoner) was not with the two other soldiers.

An officer said prisoner's military character was good, and had no civil convictions.

Prisoner was fined 5/- and ordered to pay 2/- for the damage to the lamp, and 2/6 witness's expenses, making 9/6 in all.

The Chairman, calling Barratt before the Bench, said the Magistrates thanked him for the trouble he had taken.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 November 1928.

Obituary.

We regret to announce the death, on Wednesday, of Mr. George Bradstone Cozens, proprietor of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone.

Deceased, who was 63 years of age, had resided in Folkestone for 13 years, having previously held a licence at Potter's Corner, near Ashford.

Mr. Cozens served 23 years in the Army (R.A.M.C.) and saw active service in the Egyptian War (1884-6) and also throughout the Boer War. He held both the Khedive's and the Queen's Medal, and retired with the rank of Warrant Officer.

Deceased was a member of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, and also of a similar organisation in the Ashford division.

Of a gentle and retiring disposition, he won the general esteem of a large number of his fellow citizens. General sympathy is extended to his widow.

The funeral will take place at Golders Green today.

 

Folkestone Express 20 December 1930.

Local News.

At half past eight on Sunday morning the Folkestone Fire Brigade received a call by messenger to the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, the licensee of which is Mrs. E. Cozens. The fire, which was due to defective building construction, was centred in the sitting room on the first floor and the bar on the ground floor, and caused considerable damage amounting to approximately 100. Seven firemen arrived on the large motor tender at the first call, and later the motor ambulance brought three more men. There was a good water supply, and the fire was quickly in hand with the aid of hose and chemicals. The extent of the fire included the floor boards and joists, the ceiling and decoration of the sitting room, and damage to the bar by smoke and water. Further damage was also done to the adjoining premises of No. 6, Guildhall Street, where smoke and water went through the party wall where the ends of the floor joists were damaged by the fire.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 December 1930.

Local News.

Damage to the extent of about 100 was caused by a serious outbreak of fire at the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, on Sunday morning. The fire was chiefly in the sitting room on the first floor, but the damage extended to the hotel bar below, and into the next house, No. 6. Guildhall Street.

The Folkestone Fire Brigade was called by telephone at about 8.30 a.m., and a large motor tender and seven men turned out. A further call was received later from the police station and the motor ambulance and three more men proceeded to the scene of the outbreak.

The fire was extinguished by the use of water from a hydrant and chemicals. Damage was done to the floorboards and joists in the sitting room, and the ceiling, whilst the hotel bar below was damaged by water and smoke. A considerable amount of damage was also done to the house next to the hotel, by smoke and water getting through the parting wall. The joists of the floor were also damaged by fire.

The premises are owned by Messrs. Mackeson and Company, and occupied by Mrs. E. Cozens.

 

Folkestone Express 4 April 1931.

Local News.

On Tuesday at the Folkestone Police Court a protection order was granted to Mr. R. Rivers, of Wolverhampton, to sell at the Guildhall Hotel, the outgoing licensee being Mrs. Cozens.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 April 1931.

Local News.

A protection order was granted to Mr. R. Rivers, of Wolverhampton, in respect of the Guildhall Hotel, from Mrs. Cozens, at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 May 1931.

Local News.

An outbreak of fire occurred in the sitting room on the ground floor of the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, on Sunday evening, when damage to the extent of 10 was caused. The fire was extinguished by cutting away the smouldering material round the stove where the outbreak occurred.

 

Folkestone Express 7 January 1933.

Wednesday, January 4th: Before Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Mr. W. Smith.

A transfer of the licence of the Guildhall from Mr. Rivers to Mr. Anderson was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 28 October 1933.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday (Thursday), before The Mayor in the chair, Eric Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was charged with suffering his premises to be used for the purpose of betting. Charles Goddard was charged with assisting of the management, James Suggett was charged with resorting to the premises for the purpose of betting, and William Robinson was charged with using the premises. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for Mr. Anderson.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said it was proposed that summonses should be issued in respect of the alleged offences.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he was not prepared to go on with the case that day. The defendants were entitled to summonses. He was not represented that morning. The Town Clerk intended to take the prosecution. He asked for a formal adjournment until next week.

The Magistrates' Clerk said a warrant was issued to search the Guildhall Hotel, and the premises were so searched, and as a result those charges were brought.

The Magistrates decided that the summonses should be issued against the defendants, and fixed the hearing for Friday next.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 October 1933.

Local News.

Four men appeared before the Folkestone Magistrates on Thursday, three for alleged breaches of the Betting Act, and one for an alleged breach of the Licensing Act.

The four defendants were Eric Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, who was alleged to have unlawfully allowed his premises to be used for the purpose of betting; Chas. Goddard, a barman at the Guildhall Hotel, who was alleged to have assisted; William Robinson, for alleged use of the Guildhall Hotel for the purpose of betting; and James Suggett, for alleged resorting to the Guildhall Hotel for the purpose of betting with Robinson.

The Clerk to the Magistrates (Mr. C. Rootes) said he understood the Chief Constable was proposing that summonses should be issued, and was applying for these.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he was not prepared to go on with the case that morning, firstly, because the defendants were entitled to summonses, and, secondly, because he was not represented that morning. The Town Clerk, who would be taking the prosecution, was away from the town, and so he applied for an adjournment.

The Clerk said the position was that a warrant was issued to search the premises. The premises were searched, and as a result those charges were brought, and the defendants were entitled to summonses.

Mr. H.B. Bonniface said he represented Anderson.

The Chairman of the Magistrates announced that the cases would be adjourned until Friday, November 3rd. It was also stated that summonses would be issued against the defendants.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 November 1933.

Local News.

There was a sequel to a police raid on a Folkestone hotel at the Folkestone Petty Sessions yesterday (Friday), when four men were summoned, three for breaches of the Betting Act, and the other for a breach of the Licensing Act.

Eric E. Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was summoned that on October 12th and divers other dates, being the holder of a Justices' licence, suffered his premises to be used in contravention of the Betting Act, contrary to the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910.

Charles James Goddard, a barman employed by Anderson, was summoned that he on October 12th and divers other dates, when assisting in the conduct of the business of the Guildhall Hotel, used the same for the purposes of betting with persons resorting thereto.

The third defendant, William W. Robinson, stated to be a bookmaker's runner, was summoned that he on the same date and other dates, being a person using the Guildhall Hotel, unlawfully used the same for betting with persons resorting thereto.

James F. Suggett, the fourth defendant, was summoned for resorting to the premises for the purpose of betting.

Anderson pleaded Not Guilty, and was defended by Mr. B.H. Bonniface. The other defendants pleaded Guilty.

After a lengthy hearing, the Magistrates fined Anderson 5 and 2 costs, Goddard 10, Robinson 15, and bound Suggett over on condition that he did not frequent betting houses in the future.

Alderman A.E. Pepper presided. He sat with Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, and Councillor W. Hollands.

The summonses against Goddard, Robinson and Suggett were heard first.

The Town Clerk (Mr. C.F. Nicholson), who prosecuted, said the proceedings were taken under the Betting Act of 1853.

The first witness was William Hinds, of 91, Linden Crescent, a labourer, who said on October 12th he received certain instructions and he went to the Guildhall Hotel, going into the public bar. Goddard was behind the bar. Whilst he was there several men came in at 1.30 p.m. and he heard one of them say “Am I too late? Has he been in yet?” The barman replied “No, I don't think so”, and at that moment Robinson came in, walked to one corner of the bar, produced some slips of paper and some money he was carrying in a leather bag, which he had under his jacket. Robinson placed the slips on to the counter. One of the men sitting in the bar handed something to Robinson, who placed it down by his left side and operated something. He heard Goddard say to Robinson “What about Roi de Paris now?” Robinson then took some money from his bag and placed it on the counter. The slips which Robinson placed on the counter were taken by Goddard and placed under the bar on his side. Three other customers handed Robinson slips, and Goddard was present all the time. Witness said on this day he made a bet of sixpence each way on a horse called “Flying Coot”. The initial on the bottom of the slip was Goddard's. Goddard wrote it out. Witness made his bet when everybody else had finished. On October 13th he again visited the hotel at 12 noon. Goddard and a young woman were in the bar; whilst he was there Robinson entered the bar with midday editions of the Evening Standard, placed one on the counter and as he went out Goddard said “I will see you later”. Witness said he went back to the hotel again at 1.15. Goddard and two others were discussing a horse called “Daring Do”. One of the customers put 2s. on the counter, and Goddard made a slip out. Robinson came in at 1.40 p.m. He could see him in a mirror. Robinson produced some slips which he put on the counter. Goddard took them and put them behind the counter. Goddard also produced some slips and money and handed them over to Robinson.

Goddard said he never kept the slips under the counter. He always kept them in his pocket.

Witness said he could not see exactly where the slips were placed because the counter was rather high.

P.C. Charles J. Marsh, Kent County Constabulary, said on October 24th he went into the Guildhall Hotel at 12.30 p.m., in plain clothes. Goddard was behind the counter, but otherwise there was nobody in the bar. Five minutes later a man entered the saloon bar, called for a drink and said “Has Pompey been in yet?” The barman replied “No”. The man passed something to the barman, which he placed under the counter, and said “There it is, there”. Witness did not know what he was referring to. On the counter there was a glass containing slips of paper, standing near the cash register. At 12.45 the barman left the bar and took the contents of the glass with him. The glass was in full view of anyone in the bar. Witness left the premises at 1.15 and returned at 1.30. There were then six customers in the bar including a man addressed as “Pompey”, whom he now knew to be the defendant Robinson. At 1.55 p.m. the barman and Robinson commenced a conversation about football, following which the barman took a printed form from his pocket and placed it on the counter. Robinson took from his pocket what appeared to be football coupons, and the barman selected one or more of them and placed them in his pocket. He then took from his pocket a number of slips of paper; these he folded into another piece of paper and handed to Robinson. Robinson, as he left the premises, said “I expect we shall get a few more tomorrow”. On the following day witness again went into the house at 12.40 p.m. There were no customers in the bar, and there was a barmaid behind the counter. He barman appeared and left the building, and two customers entered and left immediately. The barman returned at one o'clock and shortly afterwards went outside. Later a young man entered, followed by the barman. After conversation the young man handed to the barman what appeared to be betting slips, and left the premises. The barman Goddard sat near him, produced the slips, unfolded them, and witness saw they contained money. He put them into his pocket and went outside again. At 1.40 p.m. Suggett entered the bar, called for a drink, which was served by Goddard, and said to the barman “Has Pompey been in yet?” The barman replied “No, he will not be in for a bit yet”. Suggett then passed over a slip of paper across the bar, the barman picked it up, unfolded it, looked at it, and put it in his pocket. The barman then took a piece of paper from the shelf behind him and put it on the counter. From his right hand pocket he took out what appeared to be betting slips and placed them on the counter. Then he appeared to put the details on the slips on to the piece of paper. When he had finished he put the slips into his left hand pocket and placed the piece of paper on the shelf behind him.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock, Folkestone, said on October 17th he received a warrant issued under the Betting Act to search the Guildhall Hotel. At 1.50 p.m. on October 25th he kept observation on the hotel and saw Robinson enter the public bar he followed him in immediately behind. Goddard was behind the bar. He told him he was a police officer and had a warrant to search the premises. He pointed to Marsh and said “This is a police officer too”. Marsh pointed to Suggett and said “This man has handed a slip over the bar while I have been here”, and pointing to Goddard, he said “He has some slips in his left hand jacket pocket”.

P.C. Butcher said on October 25th he went to the Guildhall Hotel with Chief Inspector Pittock, upon whose instructions he searched Goddard. He found in Goddard's outside left hand jacket pocket nine betting slips (produced), each slip wrapped round money corresponding with the value marked on the slip. There was a total of 27s. in cash. From his left hand waistcoat pocket he took one betting slip and one shilling. Each slip related to horses running in the Cambridgeshire that day. From the breast pocket he took three betting slips with which there was no money, and one football betting coupon. In the kitchen of the hotel, in a recipe book, he found three betting slips. They related to races prior to October 25th.

Inspector W. Hollands said he searched Robinson, and found hanging over his right shoulder and hidden under the left side of his jacket, a bag containing 3d. in coppers. In his left hand jacket pocket he had another bag with a clasp fitted with a watch. When the clast was closed the watch was automatically stopped, and the bag could not be unlocked except by means of a key. When the bag was unlocked the watch started again. The name on the clasp was “Tick Tack”. In the bag were 19 slips, with the names of horses running that day, and sums of money marked on them. In Robinson's inside breast pocket were some papers, including an account relating to newspapers, and papers relating to football betting coupons. In his left hand outside breast pocket were slips relating to betting on previous days. Altogether he had in his possession 2 8s. 2d. When witness produced the money Robinson said some of it was for newspapers he had sold.

This concluded the case for the prosecution, and the Magistrates retired. Upon their return the Chairman said they had decided to convict in those cases. With regard to the defendant Suggett, he would be bound over on the condition that he did not frequent betting houses in the future. With regard to the two other defendants, the Bench would reserve their judgement until they had heard the case against the licensee.

The Magistrates then considered the summons against Anderson.

Mr. Nicholson, who prosecuted, said the case would present some slight difficulty to the Magistrates in this way. He had no evidence at all that the landlord knew anything about this betting going on. He would submit to the Bench, however, that the lack of knowledge did not entitle him to be acquitted.

The witnesses who had given evidence against the other three defendants were called again.

Replying to Mr. Bonniface, Hinde said the public bar faced Guildhall Street. It would be possible for a person on either side of the bar not to be seen in another part of the premises. The barman might have put the slips into his pocket instead of behind the counter.

The Town Clerk: Did you see the licensee at all? – No, sir.

Cross-examined, Marsh said he did not see the licensee at any time. During a part of the time he was in the bar on October 25th a barmaid was present, and he saw nothing to complain of during that period.

Chief Inspector Pittock said after the raid he sent for Anderson, who came from the lounge bar at the rear of the premises on the same floor. He formally charged him and he replied “The first I know about it” or “This is news to me”.

By the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes):A number of persons on the premises were searched, but no evidence was found on them.

Mr. Bonniface submitted to the Magistrates that on a point of law and on the evidence placed before the Magistrates there was no case for him to answer. The prosecution had admitted that there was no evidence at all that the landlord knew what was going on. The Magistrates had to be satisfied that the licensee had not exercised the necessary care.

The Town Clerk contended that Goddard was in charge of the bar. It might be unfortunate for the landlord if he were convicted for something he did not see going on, but he submitted it was his business to see what was going on.

After the Magistrates had deliberated in private, the Clerk announced that on a point of law the Justices were against Mr. Bonniface, and held that there was prima facie evidence that the barman was in charge and the defendant had delegated his authority to him at the material time.

Mr. Bonniface than called Goddard, who said Anderson had never left him in charge. When he was engaged Anderson gave him orders that no betting or writing out of betting slips should be permitted on the premises. Mr. Anderson came into the bar at irregular intervals.

Cross-examined, witness said if Mr. Anderson was not there, Mrs. Anderson was.

Mr. Bonniface: ere you at once dismissed when this happened? – Yes.

Mr. Anderson also gave evidence. He stated that he had held a licence in the town for three years. He had never left his barman in charge of the premises, and in the event of his not being there his wife was. He had no knowledge whatever that this betting was going on.

By the Clerk: He knew Robinson, who came in frequently during mornings and nights. He knew him as a newsvendor.

The Magistrates retired for nearly half an hour. When they returned the Chairman said with regard to Mr. Anderson the Bench had come to the conclusion that legally he was responsible for the act of his servant, Goddard.

In regard to payment of the fines imposed on Goddard and Robinson, the Bench allowed a month for payment, or in default a month's imprisonment.

The Magistrates agreed to state a case in the event of an appeal.

 

Folkestone Express 11 November 1933.

Local News.

On Friday the Folkestone Magistrates for several hours heard evidence in a case which followed a raid by the police, in which Eric Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was one of the defendants, and was fined 5 and 2 costs. Three other men were also before the Bench, and pleaded Guilty to betting offences on the licensed premises, fines being inflicted upon two of these defendants, and the third being bound over.

The case came before Alderman A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens,, and Mr. W. Hollands.

The Magistrates first heard summonses against the three men.

Charles James Goddard, a barman employed by Mr. Anderson, was summoned that he on October 12th and divers other dates when assisting in the conduct of the business of the Guildhall Hotel, used the same for the purposes of betting with persons resorting thereto.

William Worthington Robinson, a newsvendor, was summoned that he on the same date and other dates, being a person using the Guildhall Hotel, unlawfully used the same for betting with persons resorting thereto.

James Frederick Suggett was summoned for resorting to the premises for the purposes of betting.

The three defendants elected to be tried by the Magistrates and pleaded Guilty.

Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, who prosecuted, in opening the case, said the Act under which the summonses had been issued was the Betting Act of 1853, and pointed out that the penalty was one not exceeding 100 and such costs that the Justices might deem reasonable. He added that observations were kept on the hotel, and it was found that betting was taking place there.

Mr. William Hind, of 19, Linden Crescent, Folkestone, a labourer, said on the 12th October last he received certain instructions, and went into the Guildhall Hotel, into the public bar. The barman, Goddard, was there. Several men came in at 1.30 p.m. One of them said “Am I too late? Has he been in yet?” The barman replied “No, I don't think so”. At that moment a newsvendor, Robinson, whom he knew by sight, walked to one corner of the bar, and produced some slips and some money from a leather bag which he had under his jacket. He placed them on the counter. He saw one of the men sitting in the bar hand something to Robinson, who placed it down on the left side, where the bag was, and operated something. The man said “What about Roi de Paris?” which he understood to be a horse's name. Robinson took some money from a bag and placed it on the counter. Goddard examined the slips and placed them under the bar on his side of the counter. The customers handed Robinson slips. During the time Robinson was there, Goddard was there all the time. On that day he (witness) also made a bet, which was on the slip (produced), and which was sixpence each way on “Flying Coot”. Goddard wrote it out and initialled it. He made that bet when everybody else had finished. On the following day he again visited the house at twelve noon, when Goddard was again present, and a young woman. Robinson entered the bar with midday “Standards”, placed them on the bar and left. Goddard said, as he went out, “I will see you later”. He (witness) left the bar at 12.15. He went back again at 1.15. Goddard and two customers were in the bar. They were discussing a horse, “Dering Do”, which was running at Gatwick at 2.30 p.m. that day. Goddard had a pencil and paper, and one of the customers placed a 2s. piece on the counter. Goddard wrote down “A shilling each way, “Dering Do”” and placed the slip and the money under the counter on his side of the bar. Robinson came into the bar on the opposite side of the partition at 1.40. He heard Goddard in conversation with him, and also saw Robinson, by means of a mirror at the back of the bar. Robinson produced some slips and placed them on the counter. Goddard produced some slips from under the counter, and Robinson, after examining and checking them, placed them in the bag which he carried on his left side.

Goddard said he never kept the slips under the counter. He placed them in his pocket.

Witness said he may have put the slips in his pocket when he bent down. The counter was very high.

P.C. Marsh, K.C.C., said he went to the Guildhall Hotel on the 24th October at 12.30 p.m. in plain clothes. Nobody was in there, but Goddard was behind the bar. While he was there, at 12.35 p.m., a man entered the saloon bar, and said “Has Pompey been in?” The barman replied “No”. The man passed something to the barman, who placed it under the public bar counter, and said “It is there”. He did not see what it was. He noticed, however, there was a glass containing slips near the cash register. About 12.40 the barman left the bar, taking the contents of the glass with him. The glass in which the papers were was in full view of anyone who entered the bar. He (witness) left the bar at 1.15. He returned at 1.30, and there were then six male customers in the bar, including the man whom he heard described as Pompey, and whom he now knew as Robinson. At 1.55 p.m. the barman and the defendant Robinson commenced conversation about football. Following that, the barman took a printed sheet from his pocket and placed it on the counter. The defendant Robinson took from his pocket what appeared to be football coupons, and placed them on the counter. The barman selected one or two, and placed them in his pocket. He then took from his pocket slips of paper, and put them in the sheet placed on the counter, wrapped them up in the paper, and handed them to Robinson. As Robinson then left the premises he said “I expect I shall get a few more tomorrow”. He (witness) left the premises about 2.10 p.m. On the following day he again went to the house at 12.40 p.m. At 12.50 he saw the barman leave the premises from the front saloon bar door, and he again returned at 1 p.m. During his absence two male customers entered, but they left almost immediately. About 1.05 p.m. the barman, who had returned, left the bar with a bottle and brush in his hand, and proceeded to apply the contents to the frame of the public bar window. At 1.15 a young man entered the public bar and was quickly followed by the defendant Goddard. After some conversation, the young man handed the barman what appeared to be betting slips. The young man then left the premises. Goddard then seated himself on a seat near witness, produced those slips which he still held in his hand, unfolded them, and he saw they contained money. The barman checked them, and put them into his pocket again. He then went outside and continued his work there. At 1.40 p.m. the defendant Suggett entered the bar and called for a drink, which was served by the barman. He said to the barman “Has Pompey been in yet?” The barman replied “No, he won't be in for a bit yet”. Suggett then passed a slip of paper to the barman, who unfolded it, looked at it and put it into his pocket. The barman then took a bit of paper from the shelf behind him, put it on the counter, took from his right hand pocket what appeared to be betting slips, and put them on the counter. He made a list of amounts of money on that piece of paper which he had taken from the shelf and transferred the slips to the left hand pocket. He then placed the list back on the shelf. At 1.50 p.m. the defendant Robinson entered the bar, closely followed by the Chief Inspector and other officers. Chief Inspector Pittock declared himself as a police officer, and, pointing to witness, said “This man is a police officer also”.

Chief Inspector Pittock said on the 17th October he received a warrant under the Betting Act to search the premises of the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street. At 1.50 p.m. on the 25th October he was keeping observation, and he saw the defendant Robinson enter the public bar of the Guildhall Hotel. He followed him in immediately behind, and the defendant Goddard was behind the bar. He (witness) said “We are police officers, and I hold a warrant to search these premises under the Betting Act”. He pointed to P.C. Marsh and said “This is a police officer too”. He said to Robinson “You will be arrested and charged with using these premises for the purposes of betting”. He made no reply, and was taken to the police station by Inspector Hollands. P.C. Marsh pointed to Suggett and said “This man has handed a slip over the bar while I have been here”, and pointing to the barman, Goddard, said “He has got some slips in his left hand jacket pocket”. P.C. Butcher was behind the counter with Goddard, and he instructed him to search him, and he saw him produce from the jacket pocket a small packet which he placed on the bar counter. P.C. Marsh reached behind the bar and took a slip of paper from the shelf, which he handed to him. He inspected it and brought it to the police station.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said that was the list the Bench had already had.

Proceeding, witness said that Goddard and Robinson were brought to the police station, and later he formally charged them under the Betting Act, cautioned them, and neither made any reply. Since then he had examined the slips and found they related to horses running in races at Newmarket that day.

The Chairman: Any winners?

Witness: One, sir. (Laughter)

How many officers were there? – Five, sir.

Including yourself? – Yes, sir.

Is this public bar immediately in front here? – Yes, sir.

Did you go into any other bar? – Yes, sir, every bar.

Did you search people? – Yes, I did, everybody.

P.C. Butcher said on the 25th October he accompanied the last witness and other officers into the Guildhall Hotel. He saw the defendant Goddard there, and on the instructions of the Inspector he searched him. In Goddard's left hand outside jacket pocket he found nine betting slips (produced). Each slip was wrapped round money representing the value on the slip. There was 27s. in cash. From Goddard's left hand waistcoat pocket he took one betting slip and one shilling in cash. Each slip related to horses running in a race called The Cambridgeshire at Newmarket on the 25th October. From Goddard's breast pocket he took three betting slips with which there was no money, and also one football coupon. In the kitchen at the top of the hotel, in a recipe book, he found three betting slips. They related to racing prior to the 25th October.

The Chairman: How do you know that fact? Do you know all about racing?

Witness: No, I do not know all about racing, but I examined a current newspaper to see if the horses related to those running that day, and they were not.

You do not know what they referred to? – Not definitely, sir.

The Clerk: Do you know as a matter of fact whether they are horses which have run in races previously?

Witness: Yes, sir.

That is from your own knowledge and ordinary newspaper reading? – Yes, sir.

Inspector Hollands said he took the defendant Robinson to the police station. He was wearing on his left side under his jacket a bag containing threepence in coppers. In his left hand jacket pocket he had a bag, which had a clasp fitted with a watch. When the clasp was closed the watch was stopped, and it could not be unlocked other than by means of a key. It was called a “tick-tack”. He object of the bag was that bets and slips were collected and placed in the bag, and when it was closed it stopped the watch at the same time, and it showed that all the bets and slips were placed there before the time on the watch.

The Town Clerk: That is, of course, for the protection of the bookmaker?

Witness: Yes, sir.

Proceeding, witness said there were nineteen slips (produced) in the bag, and they were all for horses running that day. In Robinson's inside breast pocket were the papers (produced) relating to a form of football betting.

The Chairman (examining the slips): I can't find a winner here.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley): There is only one, sir.

Witness, continuing, said he took some more slips from the defendant's left hand pocket. Altogether, defendant had in his possession 2 8s. 2d. As he produced the money, defendant said some of it was for newspapers which he had sold and the other was for betting. He left defendant at the police station in custody and returned to the Guildhall Hotel, and remained there until the police officers had left. Defendant Suggett then accompanied him to the police station.

The Magistrates retired.

The Chairman, when they returned, said the Bench had decided to convict in those cases. With regard to the defendant Suggett, who was charged with resorting there, he would be bound over conditionally that he did not frequent betting houses in future. With regard to the other two defendants, the Bench would give their decision after they had heard the case against Eric Anderson.

The licensee of the Guildhall, Eric Anderson, was then summoned that on the 12th October, and on divers other days since that date, being the holder of a Justices' licence, unlawfully suffered his premises to be used in contravention of the Betting Act. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for the defence, and pleaded Not. Guilty.

The Town Clerk, addressing the Bench, said that in order to prove that case, he had first of all to prove that betting had taken place in that house, and it would be necessary for the evidence which they had just heard to be re-called. That case would prove some slight difficulty to the Magistrates in this way; that he had no evidence at all that the landlord knew anything at all about that betting going on. He would have to submit to them that lack of knowledge did not entitle him to be acquitted, and he would call their attention to a number of cases which had been decided on the point. He thought there had only been one case in comparatively recent years, in 1913, and he could not find any case in the High Court on that Section since that time, and all the decisions to which references would be made by Mr. Bonniface or himself were made some considerable time ago, and indeed before the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, was passed. He would submit to them that it was not necessary to prove actual knowledge of the betting taking place on the part of the licensed persons. In other words, although he knew nothing whatever of what was going on, the prosecution were entitled to a conviction. If the licensee was to get off merely by saying that he did not know what was going on, there would scarcely be a conviction at all.

Mr. Bonniface said he would agree to the witnesses being re-called without repeating the evidence given by them in the previous case.

Hird, cross-examined, said he was in the public bar at the time in question. The bar itself was semi-circular, the right wall being practically next to the police station. If a person was near either of the partitions they could not be seen by the licensee in any way, if he were in another part of the building or in the next bar. The newsvendor came in and walked to the corner of the bar which would be out of sight from the licensee.

Mr. Bonniface: And you agree, I think, that it was very possible that the barman, when he put those slips down, as you said, under the bar, possibly put them in his pocket? You agreed in reply to him?

Witness: When he bent down, he placed the slips and paper and money down that way.

And they may have been placed in his pocket, as you told him yourself in answer to his question? – They may have been put down in his pocket and they may have been put under the counter.

The Town Clerk: You did not see the licensee at all, did you?

Witness: No, sir.

At any time? – No, sir.

P.C. Marsh then went in the box and said the evidence he had given in the case against the other defendants was correct.

Mr. Bonniface: Do you agree it is possible for the man and the bookmaker to be in this bar and for the licensee not to be able to see them at all?

Witness: If the licensee was on the ground floor, he must see them.

Would you swear that he must see them if he was on the ground floor in the next bar? – Not in the position I saw them in, sir.

Was the bookmaker then right opposite the door side, inside the door which opens to the street? – No, sir.

Well, which part of the bar was he in? – He was in the saloon bar, sir.

Who was serving them? – The barman.

Do you mean in the first bar that enters from Guildhall Street? – No, sir. It is possible for one man to serve customers in either bar.

The licensee was not in the saloon bar? – I did not see him.

What was the length of time that you were there, the longest time that you were there on any one occasion? – About an hour at the longest time, sir.

Without going out at all? - Without going out at all.

When the barman passed the slips across back to the bookmaker, he wrapped them up so that nobody could see? – Yes, I took it that was the object, sir, and also so that they would be in one parcel.

Now, on the 25th, when you went at 12.40 p.m., you say there was a barmaid behind the bar? – Yes, sir.

And while the barmaid was there, there was nothing of which you could complain, while she was behind the bar? – That is so.

Nothing whatever happened until the barman went behind? – That is so, sir.

The Town clerk: Did you on any occasion on which you went into this house see the landlord at all?

Witness: Not on any occasion, sir.

Chief Inspector Pittock, formally confirming the evidence he gave in the case, said after he went into the Guildhall Hotel, he sent for the landlord, who came from the lounge bar at the rear of the premises on the same floor.

The Chairman: Does it open into the saloon bar?

Witness: By a door, yes, sir.

The Town Clerk: But not into the public bar?

Witness: No, sir.

Proceeding, witness said he formally charged Anderson. Who said “The first I know about it” and “That is news to me”. It was repeated two or three times. He searched a number of persons on the premises.

The Chairman: Is it usual to search people in this way?

Witness: yes, sir. I was authorised by the warrant to search all persons I found there.

Mr. Bonniface: Although you searched the persons in the saloon bar and in the lounge bar, you found no evidence whatever of betting?

Witness: No, sir.

And the piece of paper referred to; if the licensee came along and saw it in the glass, there is nothing to show that there is anything to do with betting in that, is there? – No, sir.

The Town Clerk: If the licensee saw that slip of paper, do you think he would be likely to know what it meant?

Witness: I do, sir.

P.S. Butcher said he searched the chef, the waiter employed at the hotel, and also assisted in searching the lounge bar.

Inspector Hollands also confirmed the evidence he gave in the previous case.

Mr. Bonniface, addressing the Bench, submitted that so far as the licensee was concerned, on the evidence that the Town Clerk had placed before them, there was no case to answer. The Town Clerk quite clearly told them that he had no evidence at all that the landlord knew. It was true that the Town Clerk had not to go so far as to show that the landlord knew, but they had to be satisfied that the landlord did not exercise such reasonable care as he should have done in the circumstances in conducting the licensed house, and it was for the Town Clerk to prove that to them. In other words, the onus did not move. The section did not say that the licensee knowingly allowed that to go on, but the Court had held that there must be some evidence before them that the licensee knew of what was going on, some evidence from which they could infer he did. They had no evidence that the licensee's wife, who was on the premises assisting, knew what was going on. When the raid was made, there was not one single particle of betting material upon anybody but the barman and the bookmaker's runner, until they went to the chef's private quarters, and there was found in an old recipe book of the chef two betting slips for some time back. They were asked to say that the licensee must have known, because the chef had in his private quarters in his recipe book an old betting slip. If the licensee was going to be convicted on such evidence as that, then it came to this, that the licensee would be convicted upon nothing at all.

The Town Clerk submitted to the Bench that Goddard was in charge of the bar, and if he was there – and they had heard the evidence that he was actually taking part in the betting itself – that was instructive knowledge to the licensee. It might be an unfortunate thing that a licensee had to be convicted if he did not know what was going on, but it was his submission that it was his business to see what was going on.

The Clerk, after the Bench had retired to consider the question of law, said that on the point of law the Magistrates were against Mr. Bonniface in feeling that there was prima facie evidence that the barman was in charge there and that the defendant had delegated his authority to him at the material times.

Goddard, the barman, was then called by Mr. Bonniface as the first witness for the defence.

Mr. Bonniface: At the time that evidence has been given betting slips were taken by you, to your knowledge was Mrs. Anderson on the premises?

Witness: On the last occasion.

And on all occasions was Mr. Anderson on the premises? – Yes, sir.

Has he ever left you in charge at any time? – No, sir.

What have been his instructions to you with regard to betting? – At the time when he first employed me he gave definite orders that there were to be no betting or betting slips upon the premises.

Does Mrs. Anderson come to the bar at irregular intervals? – Yes, sir.

And did Mr. Anderson know, did you ever tell him or had you ever suggested to him that you were taking in betting slips upon the premises? – No, sir.

The Town clerk: The first day upon which the witness Hind went to the house was the 12th October. Do you say the landlord was present on that day?

Witness: Yes, sir.

How do you remember that? – He was in the lounge.

But how do you remember that he was present on that particular day? Is he always there? – The majority of days he is there, and if he is not there, Mrs. Anderson is on the premises.

Do you know then on the 12th October that he was definitely there? – I am sorry, sir, but I cannot really say.

Do you know that he was there on the 13th October? You cannot say? – Not definitely, sir.

You know he was there on the day of the raid? – Yes, sir.

But was he there the day before, October the 24th? You cannot say? – No, sir.

How often does he come into this bar in which you serve drinks? – Every quarter of an hour or twenty minutes.

You heard the evidence of the two witnesses who were in there, one for two days and another for three days, and they never saw the landlord at all? – Very often he does not come in, but he shouts through the lounge door if everything is O.K., sir.

Mr. Bonniface: Were you at once dismissed for this happening?

Witness: Yes, sir

Temporarily dismissed? – Yes, sir.

You won't go back when this case is over? – I don't know.

Defendant, on oath, said he had held a licence in the town three years, previously at the Black Bull and then at the Guildhall. He had never left his barman in charge. He was in charge of the premises himself, and in the event of his not being there, his wife was in charge. He paid periodical visits to the private and public bars. “I had absolutely no knowledge that anything of this kind was going on” he added. “I have given my servants definite instructions, and as a result of this I have dismissed my man”.

The Town Clerk: Don't you think if you had exercised proper control over these premises, you would have seen?

Defendant: I have exercised proper control, to the best of my ability.

You heard the evidence of the constable that certain slips were placed in the glass? – I have never seen any betting slips on my premises at any time.

If you are both out, there must be somebody in charge? – In those circumstances, if there was any trouble, the senior servant would be in charge.

The Magistrates' Clerk: And who would that be?

Defendant: I presume, in this case, Goddard.

The Town Clerk: One would assume that the man in charge of the bar, if the licensee was in another part of the house, is in charge?

Defendant: He is not in charge. I am in charge. He is serving in the bar.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Do you know Robinson?

Defendant: Yes.

Does he come in the house? – Yes, frequently.

What do you know him as? – I know him as a newsvendor.

What does he come to the house for? – Apparently to drink. I have never seen him do anything else. I regard him as a particularly good customer.

More than once in the day have you seen him there? – Yes.

The Chairman: Which bar does Robinson frequent?

Defendant: The public bar, your worship.

You have seen him there? – Yes.

Mr. Bonniface: And have you ever seen him in any way take betting slips?

Defendant: I certainly have not, at any time.

In reply to further questions, defendant said that Robinson stood right opposite his house, by the Queen's Hotel corner.

The Magistrates' Clerk: How long has Goddard been employed in this hotel?

Mr. Bonniface: My client took him over when my client first took over the Black Bull, and he came down from the Black Bull with them. That was three years ago.

He Chairman, when they returned, said that with regard to Mr. Anderson's case, the Bench had come to the conclusion that legally he was responsible for the act of his servant, Goddard, and he must be fined 5 and 2 costs. With regard to Goddard, he would be fined 10, and Robinson 15, leviable by distress, or one month's imprisonment.

Mr. Bonniface asked the Bench if they would state a case, if he was so instructed.

The Chairman: Yes.

The defendants Goddard and Robinson were allowed a month in which to pay their respective fines.

 

Folkestone Herald 27 January 1934.

Obituary.

We regret to announce the death recently, at New Malden, Surrey, of Mrs. Harriett S. Tunbridge, the widow of the late Mr. James Tunbridge, who was in turn licensee of the Railway Bell Hotel, Guildhall Hotel, Fountain Hotel (Seabrook), and the Castle Inn, Foord. Mrs. Tunbridge was respected by all who knew her. The funeral took place on Wednesday at Folkestone cemetery.

 

Folkestone Express 3 March 1934.

Local News.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates transferred the licence of the Guildhall Hotel from Mr. Anderson to Mr. P.E. Wootton, who previously had been a wholesale tobacconist at Hemsworth, Yorkshire.

 

Folkestone Express 10 March 1934.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Tuesday, March 6th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Councillor Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, Judge H. Terrell, and Councillor W. Hollands.

The Magistrates formally renewed the licence of the Guildhall Hotel, following its recent transfer.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 May 1938.

Local News.

Hidden by bushes in a coppice between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf hill, a young Folkestone woman was found dead on Thursday evening. The cause of death is believed to have been strangulation, and yesterday the Folkestone Police called in New Scotland Yard to assist them in their enquiries. It was officially stated last night that the woman was Mrs. Phyllis Butcher, aged 22, who had resided in the town for some years, living apart from her husband.

The discovery of the body was made shortly after 6 o’clock on Thursday evening by Kenneth G. Andrews, a 16 year old boy living in Ethelbert Road. He was playing about among the bushes at the foot of the hills between Holy Well and Caesar's Camp when he saw what he thought was a woman sleeping. As she did not move, however, when he spoke and touched her he realised that something was wrong and he ran back to his home and informed his father.

The police were communicated with and the Chief Constable (Mr A. S. Beesley), who was attending a Masonic function at the time, was informed. He immediately left for the scene of the tragedy and on arriving there took charge of the investigations.

Chief Inspector W. Hollands and the Police Surgeon, Dr. W.C.P. Barrett, were also summoned, and the latter made an examination of the body on the spot. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was strangulation. The body was lying on its back with the face upwards. The whole of the body was covered with a blue stuffed coat, presumed by the police to be the dead woman’s property. Throughout the night the police continued their investigations and when the Chief Constable and other senior officers left some time later, other officers were left on guard. Photographs were taken of the body and the place where it was found before the body was removed in an ambulance to the mortuary at the Cemetery.

Yesterday the Chief Constable called j in the help of New Scotland Yard and Chief Inspector W. Parker and a detective sergeant arrived in the town shortly before noon. There was no evidence of a struggle having taken place at the spot where the body was found, and the possibility of the woman having been brought there from somewhere else after death was not rejected from the line of enquiry followed by the police. The period the body had lain there was also closely investigated and the opinion formed that some hours had elapsed since death when young Andrews made his discovery. The clothing was damp and rain had fallen heavily up to early Thursday morning. Although some distance from the string of paths which run along the foot of the hills, access to the place from either Crete Road West or Hill Road would not be impossible. A field separates Hill Road from the spot, and the distance from the road is over 300 yards. This would be the more likely method of approach if a person were carrying someone.

The Chief Constable made an appeal through the Press last night asking anyone who had lodged Mrs. Butcher during the past week to get into touch with the Folkestone Police at once.

The official description of the woman is as follows: “Aged 22, height 5 feet 3 inches. Hair brown and bleached, more flaxen than brown; slim build. Dressed in a dark green frock with a scarf of similar material which was tied tightly round the neck. Blue shoes, no stockings or hat, and a blue coat which was covering the body”. Enquiries which have been made show that the woman was last seen alive on Monday evening in Folkestone. Since then the police have no trace of her movements. The police state that they have a number of lines of enquiry which are being closely followed up.

Although the name of the woman is given as Mrs. Butcher, it is believed that she had used other names, including “Mrs. Spears”.

It is believed that she was employed at a Folkestone hotel as a day cleaner last summer. The manager of the hotel said the woman was a good worker and appeared to be of a good type. “I had no complaint at all to make about her work”, he said. “She worked here most of the summer.”

Kenneth Andrews told the "Folkestone Herald” last night that he left his house at about 5.20 p.m. on Thursday and cycled up towards Caesar’s Camp. “I then walked and crawled through trees and bushes” he said, “at the bottom of the Caesar’s Camp looking for nests. I crossed a stream and as I crawled through a bush I noticed what appeared to be a bundle. I took a closer look and saw that it was a girl’s head, and part of her leg was also showing. I shouted and touched the head with the stick but nothing happened. I then went home and told my father who fetched a policeman”.

Mr. John Andrew, the father, said he had been at that spot that afternoon and must have been within a few yards of the body.

“I didn’t notice anything” he added, “as it is a place that one could only crawl into”.

 

Folkestone Express 4 June 1938.

Local News.

Where did Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22 years, the Folkestone woman found strangled not far from Holy Well in a small coppice at the foot of the hills on Thursday night in last week, stay on the Monday and Tuesday nights previous to her murder? That is a point upon which the Folkestone Police desire to have information from anyone who can assist them. Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, last night said: It is of the utmost importance that people knowing where Mrs. Spiers stayed on either of these nights should communicate with us immediately, without them waiting for the Police to call on them. It certainly would he assisting the interests of justice if anyone with information of use to the Police would get into touch with them immediately.

The body of Mrs. Spiers, a married woman separated from her husband, and a foster child of Mrs. Minter, who formerly lived at a lodging house in Radnor Street, was first discovered by Kenneth George Andrews, a sixteen year old youth residing with his parents in Ethelbert Road. He was looking for birds’ nests at the time, when he saw what appeared to be a bundle. Looking closer, he saw that a portion of a woman’s head and leg were showing. He immediately proceeded to his home and informed his father, who at once found the constable on the beat, and particulars of the discovery were telephoned to Police headquarters.

Mr. Beesley, the Chief Constable, was immediately informed and he, accompanied by Chief Inspector Hollands, Dr. W.C.P. Barrett and Det. Constable Bates, the Coroner's Officer, were speedily at the scene. They found amongst the bushes the body of a woman completely covered with her blue coat, lying on her back with her head down the sloping ground.

Dr. Barrett made an examination, and gave it as his opinion that the woman had been strangled by her green scarf which had been knotted tightly round her throat.

The body was subsequently removed to the mortuary, where a long and careful examination was made by the Chief Constable, who took charge of the case, and the Police Surgeon.

The C.I. Department worked throughout the night trying to establish her identity and making numerous other enquiries. It was clear from the first examination by Dr. Barrett that the woman had been lying where she was found at least 24 hours. Before it was taken away photographs were taken of it and the surrounding land. An intensive search for possible clues was at once commenced by detectives of the Folkestone Force.

Early on Friday morning the Chief Con stable decided to seek the assistance of Scotland Yard, and a few hours later Det. Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon, from the Yard, arrived and began investigations in conjunction with the Chief Constable and his officers. There were no signs of a struggle at the place where the body was found, and the fact that the clothing was very wet showed that it was there on the Wednesday night when there was heavy rain.

The Chief Constable, Det. Inspector Parker, and numerous officers have ceaselessly and energetically carried out investigations from the time they began them. As a result it has been established that the murder occurred about fifty feet distant from the place where Mrs. Spiers’ body was found. She had been passing in the name of Butcher for some time in Folkestone, where she had been employed at hotels and cafes.

On the Saturday previous to her death she went to a house in Garden Road, where she engaged a room, telling the landlady that her name was Minter, and that she had come from Tooting to take up a position as a waitress at a cafe on the lower sea front. She brought no luggage with her, and slept at the house on Saturday and Sunday nights. On Monday morning she left the house, apparently to go to her work, after arranging with the landlady to meet her so that she could take her to the pictures. The landlady kept the appointment, but Mrs. Spiers did not, and she did not see her again. When the landlady returned to her home she noticed that a "man without a hat and wearing a light mackintosh was apparently waiting outside. On Monday morning Mrs. Spiers walked along the Marine Promenade, for she had her photograph taken as she was doing so. From that time there seems to be no connected story of her movements. It is stated that she was seen on Tuesday night with a tall man wearing a mackintosh. So far as is known she was last seen alive on Wednesday at about a quarter to twelve in a Sandgate Road shop, and therefore the probable time of her death was between noon and three o’clock on Wednesday in last week.

The enquiries of the Police have been of a very extensive character, and have extended over a wide area of the country. Mrs. Spiers attended many dances in the district, and was known to many men, not only in Folkestone, but in the military camps at Shorncliffe and the R.A.F. at Hawkinge. Over sixty men have been interrogated by the Police, and the process of elimination is still proceeding. The men include soldiers, airmen and civilians.

On Saturday night, a report was received from the Sandwich district that a man who had been stopped in a country lane by a Kent County police officer and questioned had stated that he had come from Folkestone and that he admitted he was responsible for the murder of Mrs. Spiers. Mr. Beesley and Det.Insp. Parker, and other officers without delay motored over to Sandwich, but on questioning the man they quickly came to the conclusion that he had had nothing to do with the crime.

A section of the Force had arranged to visit Epsom to see the Derby, but in view of the crime the immediately cancelled the arrangements.

Under Inspector Heastie a number of officers, in plain clothes, have made a house-to-house visit in the Cheriton, Morehall, Foord and the surrounding streets and roads, and the East Cliff districts, and have shown a photograph of Mrs. Spiers to the occupiers. They have also asked if she was known or had stayed there. Mr. Beesley, asked last (Thursday) night if that had brought any results, replied “It has brought some crumbs of useful information”.

On Wednesday, Dr. Bernard Spilsbury, who has assisted in the unravelling of many murders, came to Folkestone at the request of the Chief Constable, and he, in company with Dr. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, and the Chief Constable, conducted a long examination of the body of the murdered woman at the mortuary. A large number of exhibits which have been collected in the investigations have ai.so been seat to London for examination by Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert.

It was at one time thought that the theft of a Harley Davidson motor cycle from a Folkestone garage during Tuesday night or Wednesday morning had some connection with the crime, and the police of the whole of the country were asked to try and trace it, but that has now been ruled out by the officers engaged in the case.

The cause of Mrs. Spiers’ death was not by asphyxiation, but the scarf having been tied so tightly the flow of blood through the carotid artery was snapped, and so her death must have been instantaneous.

The inquest was opened on Monday afternoon at the Folkestone Town Hall. Mr. G.W. Haines, the Borough Coroner, sat with a jury of ten. There was a large attendance of the public. Only three witnesses gave evidence, and the enquiry was then adjourned to July 8th.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) was the first witness. He said at 7.15 p.m. on Thursday he was called to a spot in a small coppice or wood, and was accompanied by the Coroner’s Officer. At the foot of the hill to the north of Folkestone between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill he saw a woman lying on her back covered pretty well from head to foot with a woman’s blue coat. The photograph produced was as she was found.

This photograph was handed to the members of the jury to examine.

The Chief Constable, continuing, said the woman was lying on a slight decline with the head downwards. The lower portions of both legs were exposed from a point about half-way below the knee. She had no stockings, but she wore a pair of low-heeled shoes. Her face and head were covered, but a portion of her back hair, which was flaxen in colour, was exposed, and was lying straight out behind the body. “I moved the coat”, Mr. Beesley continued, “and exposed the face and felt it. The face was quite cold, but soft to the touch. It was of good colour and in fact quite natural. I formed the opinion she was dead. Her nose was swollen and discoloured and blood was oozing from the left nostril. I completely removed the coat and found she was she was lying on her back with her arms and legs flexed, her knees drawn. She was wearing a pair of panties, which just covered her thighs. They were in good condition, but badly torn, especially at the back. Her green frock was pulled or dragged right up, back and front, level to her breasts, leaving the whole of the breasts and body bare. Very extensive bleeding scratches led from her legs right up to the thighs. They were especially numerous on the front. There were deep indentations on the lower part of the body made by pressure of the earth and dry pieces of twig and briar upon which she was lying. All clothing was saturated with rain, except the back of the dress, which was dry. The photographs put in were taken at once”.

The jury were also handed these photographs to examine.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, said he saw the body in the coppice where it was found. The woman was dead. He had since made a post mortem examination. There was a long bruise measuring four inches on the left arm. There were two large spots, dark in colour, on the chest. There were scratches on the left collar bone and there were multiple scratches on the lowerr limbs right up to the groin, but mainly on the front, but with quite a few on the back. There was a deep indentation right around the neck, front and back. The stomach contained ten small lumps of potato and brownish fluid resembling soup. The bruises and scratches were definitely ante-mortem. Death was due to strangulation caused by pressure on the main arteries to the head. Rigor mortis had set in and the limbs were rigid. The face was of a natural colour. His opinion was that she had not been dead longer than two days. Death might have occurred under that time. There was no sign of putrification.

The Coroner: There must have been considerable pressure to stop the flow of blood?

Witness: No. I tried it on myself last night and it is surprising how little pressure is needed to make you feel faint.

Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Road. Bexhill-on-Sea, said he was 27 years of age and was a milk roundsman. He was formerly in the Army, stationed at Shorncliffe. When in the Army he became acquainted with the deceased and knew her as Phyllis Minter. They were married on April 11th, 1932, at the Folkestone Register Office. On January 25th, 1933, his wife gave birth to a daughter, who was in his custody. He returned to Bexhill and got work there. On April 13th, 1934, his wife left him with the baby, following a quarrel over a letter she had received. He tried to patch it up once or twice. He last saw her alive three years and ten months ago at Hastings. In November last he applied for a Poor Persons divorce. He did not know where she was living. His application for divorce was based on desertion. She was 16 years and five months old when he married her. He visited the Folkestone mortuary on Friday afternoon and identified the body as that of his wife. He could not say whether she followed any occupation.

The Coroner said he did not propose to take any further evidence.

The Chief Constable: My application is that you should adjourn the enquiry for at least a month.

The Coroner: I will adjourn the inquest until 8th July at 2.30 p.m. The police have many enquiries to make, and the jury will have to come again.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 June 1938.

Local News.

The inquest on Mrs. Phyllis M. Spiers, who was found strangled near Caesar’s Camp last week, was opened at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Monday afternoon by the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) and after three witnesses had been called, the enquiry was adjourned until Friday, July 8th.

There were a number of members of the general public in the body of the court to listen to the proceedings, which lasted less than an hour.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) sat at a table with the Police Surgeon (Dr. W.C.P. Barrett) and Det. Sergt. Skarsdon, one of the Scotland Yard officers assisting the local police.

The Chief Constable was the first witness. “At 7.15 p.m. on Thursday last”, he said, “I was called by my chief Inspector to a small coppice or wood. I was accompanied by the Coroner’s officer. At the foot of the hills to the north of Folkestone, between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill, I saw a woman lying on her back covered pretty well from head to foot with a blue coat”.

The Chief Constable handed to the Coroner a photograph showing the dead woman as she was found. The photograph was shown to the members of the jury.

The Chief Constable, continuing, said “She was lying on a slight incline with her head downwards, the lower portion of both legs being exposed from a point about half way below the knee. She had no stockings, but was wearing a pair of low-heeled shoes. Her face and head were covered, but a portion of her back hair, which was flaxen in colour, was exposed and lying straight out behind the body. I moved the coat and exposed the face and felt it. The face was quite cold, but soft to the touch. It was a very good colour and in fact quite natural. I formed the opinion that she was dead. Her nose was swollen and discoloured, and blood was oozing from the left nostril. I completely removed the coat and found that she was lying on her back with her arms and legs flexed, her knees being drawn up, and the right ankle crossed over the left ankle”.

Describing the dead woman’s clothing, the Chief Constable said an undergarment was badly torn. “She had on a green frock, pulled or dragged right up. There were very extensive bleeding scratches leading from her legs up to the thighs. They were especially numerous on the front. There were deep indentations on the lower part of the back of the body, made by pressure on the earth and dry pieces of twig and briar on which she was lying. All the clothing was saturated i with rain except the back of the dress, which was dry. Between the back of the dress and the shoulders were maiiy pieces -of dry twig, brambles, dry earth and grass”. “Around her neck”, continued the Chief Constable, “was an old green spotted scarf. It was wound twice round and tied twice exceedingly tightly, so tight that the whole of the scarf round the neck was sunk into the indentation made. I caused it to be cut with a penknife on the opposite side of the knot. There were no signs of a struggle at this spot. The grass was not trampled, and the brambles were not broken”. The Chief Constable added that the photographs which he had produced were taken at the time of the finding of the body.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, said he saw the body at the spot where it was found. “I have since made a post mortem examination”, added the doctor, “and I found the nose flattened and exuding blood. There was a long bruise measuring four inches on the inner side of the left arm. There were two bruises on the chest. There were multiple bramble scratches on the lower limbs, these being more on the front than the back, but there were quite a few on the back. There was a deep indentation right round the whole of the neck”.

The Coroner: Would you say the bramble scratches and bruises were ante-mortem?

Witness: Definitely.

Continuing, Dr. Barrett said death was due to strangulation caused by pressure on the main arteries to the head.

The Coroner: How long do you think deceased had been dead?

Dr. Barrett: Two days or under.

The Coroner: Not longer?

Witness: No, there was no sign of putrefaction.

The Coroner: Considerable pressure would be necessary to stop the flow of blood, I suppose?

Witness: No, I tried last night in bed and was surprised how little pressure was needed to make you feel faint. It was surprising.

Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, who stated he was 27 and a milk roundsman, said he was formerly in the Army and stationed at Shorncliffe Camp. He said that he became acquainted with the deceased and knew her as Phyllis Minter. They were subsequently married at the Folkestone Registry Office on April 11th, 1932. On January 25th, 1933, his wife gave birth to a daughter, who was now in his custody. He returned to Bexhill after the marriage and got work there. On April 13th, 1934, his wife left him, leaving the baby. They had quarrelled before as a result of a letter she had received. Witness said they had tried to patch up the quarrel once or twice.

The Coroner: When did you last see her alive?

Witness: Three years and ten months ago at Hastings.

The Coroner: You have never seen her since?

Witness: No, sir.

The Coroner: In November last you applied for a poor person’s divorce? – Yes.

Did you know where she was living? – No.

A solicitor found it out for you? – That is so.

The Coroner: Your application for divorce was based on desertion?

The husband: That's right, sir.

The Coroner: How old was she when you married her?

The husband: Sixteen years and five months.

Witness said he visited the Folkestone mortuary on Friday afternoon and he there identified the body as that of his wife.

The Coroner: Do you know whether she followed any occupation after leaving you?

Witness: I could not tell you.

At this stage the inquest was adjourned.

The Chief Constable said he would like an adjournment for at least a month.

Adjourning the inquest until July 8th at 2.30 p.m., the Coroner said the police had many enquiries to make and he was afraid the jury would have to come again.

Local News.

Sir Bernard Spilsbury, the eminent pathologist, was called in by the Chief Constable of Folkestone (Mr. A.S. Beesley) this week to assist in the investigations into the death of Mrs. Phyllis Spiers, the 22 year old Folkestone woman who was found strangled between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill on Thursday last week. The inquest on the dead woman was opened at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Monday afternoon, and after three witnesses had been called, including the husband of the deceased, the enquiry was adjourned until Friday, July 8th.

The Folkestone Police, assisted by Scotland Yard officers, have continued their enquiries, working day and night during the past week, and a large number of clues have been followed up and many persons questioned.

The steps taken by the police to trace the movements of the dead woman during the last 48 hours of her life have included a door-to-door call at every house in certain districts of the town, ten plain clothes officers under Inspector Haestie having carried out this task.

A start was made at Cheriton and Morehall on Monday, followed by a comb out in the Foord district.

The officers have shown a photograph of Mrs. Spiers to householders in the hope of obtaining information which may give them an important clue.

During the weekend a young soldier in the 1st Royal Berkshire Regiment, who had moved to Aldershot from Shorncliffe earlier in the week, was among those questioned at police headquarters by the Chief Constable and Chief Inspector W. Parker, of Scotland Yard. The soldier afterwards returned to Aldershot to rejoin other members of his unit who had gone there to prepare for the Aldershot tattoo.

A report appeared on Saturday that an unclothed man had chased two young Folkestone women on the hills near the spot where Mrs. Spiers’s body was found and there was a suggestion that there might be some link with the crime, but the Chief Constable informed the Folkestone Herald that there was no truth in the report.

The exact place where the woman had been strangled has been established; it was stated to be not more than 30 feet from the spot where the body was found concealed by undergrowth. Further, the opinion was was formed that the woman had met her death probably between noon and 3 p.m. on Wednesday of last week. Statements had been made that between Monday and Wednesday Mrs. Spiers had been seen in the town, one witness placing the time as late as 11.50 a.m. on Wednesday.

Mrs. M. Wright, living in the Black Bull district, also gave valuable information to the police, for she was able to show where Mrs. Soiers had spent the previous weekend. Mrs. Wright stated that the woman had called at her house on the Saturday morning and engaged a room. She described herself as a waitress and gave her name as Miss Phyllis Minter, stating that she had just arrived from Tooting. She said that she had come to take a job in the town. Before leaving the house on Monday morning about 10.30 the woman arranged to meet Mrs. Wright in the evening to go with her to a cinema, but that appointment was not kept.

By Sunday evening the Chief Constable stated that statements had been taken from between 40 and 50 persons, and the work of questioning was continued on the subsequent days.

Late on Saturday night a report was received that a man was detained at Sandwich after making a statement confessing to the crime.

The Chief Constable and Chief Inspector Parker immediately went to Sandwich, but after questioning the man they were satisfied that he knew nothing of the murder. The man, who had been stopped by a police constable on his beat, had said that he had come from Folkestone and was responsible for the crime.

Another possible link was the disappearance of an old motor cycle combination from a lock-up garage in the town. Messages were flashed to all police forces asking for news of this machine, which had been stolen from the garage between Tuesday night and early Wednesday afternoon of last week.

No line of enquiry has been overlooked by the police and in an effort to establish where Mrs. Spiers ate a few hours before she met her death calls were made at cafes and restaurants.

Sir Bernard Spilsbury was called in by the Chief Constable on Wednesday, and he arrived at Folkestone later. Sir Bernard went to the mortuary at the Cheriton Road cemetery where he carried out a post-mortem examination on the dead woman. During the examination, part of which was carried out during a violent thunderstorm, the Chief Constable and Chief Inspector Parker were present. Later the eminent pathologist returned to London. A large number of exhibits were also sent to Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert, on Thursday.

Last night the Chief Constable stated that the line of enquiry had been considerably narrowed down and was more pronounced.

With reference to his appeal the previous week for information as to where Mrs. Spiers slept on the Monday and Tuesday, Mr. Beesley said a number of people had made statements, but none as to where she had dept. Either this information is being withheld, or Mrs. Spiers slept out on these two nights, possibly in one of the huts which are being erected on the Kent Agricultural Show ground at the back of the golf links.

The funeral of Mrs. Spiers took place quietly on Thursday morning at the Folkestone Cemetery at Hawkinge. The Vicar of Folkestone (Rev. Canon Hyla Holden) officiated. Only near relatives of the deceased attended. Wreaths were received as follows: With deepest sympathy, from your heartbroken Arthur; with deepest sympathy, “Mum”; in fond remembrance of Phyllis, from Aunt Rose, Dorothy and Iris; in loving memory, from all at Bexhill; with sincere sympathy, from her pals at the Alexandra Hotel; with sincere sympathy, Mr. and Mrs. J. Mockridge and Johnny.

The Chief Constable's Appeal.

Do you know where Mrs. Spiers stayed on Monday and Tuesday nights of last week? If you can help, communicate at once with the police.

The Chief Constable of Folkestone on Thursday evening said “It is of the utmost importance that anyone who can tell us where the dead woman stayed on the Monday or Tuesday nights before her death should communicate with me without waiting to be called upon”.

 

Folkestone Express 11 June 1938.

Local News.

The murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, a Folkestone woman living apart from her husband, is still unsolved, but the police are not relaxing in their efforts to find the person responsible for her death by strangulation on Wednesday, May 25th.

It will be remembered that her dead body was found not far from Holy Well at the foot of Caesar's Camp on the evening of Thursday, May 26th, and since then the police have prosecuted their enquiries unceasingly and vigorously.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, from the time the dead woman was found, took control immediately of the case, and Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon from Scotland Yard arrived the following day, and have had a big share of the investigations which have been carried on since it was evident that Mrs. Spiers had been murdered.

The appeal made by the Chief Constable last week for anyone who could give information concerning the dead woman resulted in a number of people coming forward, and some of the details which they supplied were undoubtedly of assistance to the officers engaged in the case. Chief Inspector Parker and the C.I.D. staff of the Folkestone Police Force working under him have interviewed quite a number of people every day. On Tuesday Chief Inspector Parker visited Scotland Yard in order to report progress to headquarters there, and he also saw Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert, with whom he conferred as to the result of his analysis of certain exhibits forwarded to him last week.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, has issued the following appeal to people to assist the Police: At about 6.10 p.m. on 26th May, 1938, a girl known as Phyllis Spiers, alias Butcher, Osborn and Wall, aged 22 years, 5ft. 5ins., eyes blue, hair bleached, medium build; Dress: full length belted blue overcoat, green frock, blue leather shoes, no hat or stockings, was found murdered at a spot known as Caesar’s Camp, Hill Road, Folkestone. It is earnestly desired to trace a woman who was in her company shortly before 12 noon on Wednesday, 25th May, 1938, at Woolworth’s Stores, Sandgate Road, Folkestone. The woman is known to have purchased a packet of grease-proof paper. It is of the utmost importance that this woman should communicate with the Chief Constable, the Town Hall, Folkestone, or with any Police Station at the earliest possible moment.

It is clear that the movements of the dead woman prior to noon on the day she met her death should be known as fully as possible, and if it is possible for any person to shed any light upon them it is their duty to get into communications with the police at once. Another direction in which great assistance can be rendered to the police is in supplying any information regarding Mrs. Spiers' whereabouts on the Monday and Tuesday nights before the day on which she was murdered. That she was in Folkestone on those two nights is known, and it is hoped that information as to where she slept then will be forthcoming.

The police, it is thought, have now decided that the theft of the Harley Davidson motorcycle from a Folkestone garage, and which they asked the police in all parts of the country to assist them tracing, had no connection with the crime.

The appeal of the Chief Constable published on Wednesday resulted in some people coming forward, as a result of which a few fresh facts came to the knowledge of the police.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 June 1938.

Local News.

During the week the Chief Constable (Mr A.S. Beesley) made a further appeal in connection with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis Spiers, who was found strangled with her own green scarf near Caesar’s Camp on Thursday, May 26th.

The police announced that it was important that they should get into touch with a woman who was seen in Mrs. Spiers’s company in Woolworth’s Stores, Sandgate Road, Folkestone, on Wednesday, May 25th, probably only a few hours before she met her death.

The statement as issued by the Chief Constable was as follows: At about 6.10 p.m. on May 26th, 1938, a girl known as Phyllis Spiers, alias Butcher, Osborn and Wall, aged 22 years, 5 feet 5 inches, eyes blue, hair bleached, medium build; dressed in full length belted blue overcoat, green frock and blue leather shoes, no hat or stockings, was found murdered at a spot known as Caesar’s Camp, Hill Road, Folkestone.

It is earnestly desired to trace a woman who was in her company shortly before 12 noon on Wednesday, May 25th, 1938, at Woolworth’s Stores, Sandgate Road, Folkestone. The woman is known to have purchased a packet of greaseproof paper. It is of the utmost importance that this woman should communicate with the Chief Constable, the Town Hall, Folkestone, or any police .station at the earliest possible moment.

This statement was issued on Tuesday night following a visit to London by Chief Inspector W. Parker, of Scotland Yard, who with Det. Sergt. Skarsdon, also of Scotland Yard, are assisting the Folkestone police in their enquiries. Inspector Parker had a consultation in London with Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office analyst, to whom a number of exhibits had been forwarded the week before for examination. During the past week statements have been taken from further people at Folkestone police headquarters and every line of enquiry has been carefully followed up.

Wednesday’s appeal brought to the Police Station several persons who were able to give information to the police, but where the dead woman slept on the Monday and Tuesday nights before her death still remains a mystery.

The police regard every piece of information as useful and any assistance that can be given should be offered without delay.

 

Folkestone Express 18 June 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone Police, assisted by Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon, of Scotland Yard, are actively pursuing enquiries concerning the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, the Folkestone woman who was found strangled at the foot of Caesar's Camp on the evening of May 26th. They have interviewed a number of people who came forward as a result of the appeal made by Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, last week, and several fresh facts regarding the mystery have come to light.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 June 1938.

Local News.

Following a further week of investigations, Chief Inspector W. Parker and Detective Sergeant Skarsdon, of Scotland Yard, who have been working on the Folkestone strangled woman case with the Folkestone Police, visited Scotland Yard on Thursday. After consultations there, the Yard officers returned to Folkestone last night. During their visit to London they were also in conference with Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office analyst.

The Folkestone Herald understands that the police enquiries have not yet been completed in connection with the death of Mrs. Phyllis Spiers.

During the week further persons have made statements and have been questioned at the Folkestone Police headquarters by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) and other officers assisting him.

 

Folkestone Express 25 June 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone Police, with the assistance of Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scardon, of Scotland Yard, are still proceeding with their enquiries concerning the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, the 22 year old Folkestone married woman found strangled on May 26th near Caesar's Camp.

On Friday in last week Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scardon were at Scotland Yard, where they were in consultation with Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert, and other officers at the Yard. Returning to Folkestone, they have since been actively engaged on the case, and no efforts are being spared by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), the Scotland Yard officers, and the C.I.D. staff of the Folkestone Police to solve the mystery of Mrs. Spiers' death.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 June 1938.

Local News.

After continuing their investigations during the past week into the death of Mrs. Phyllis Spiers, the 22 year old Folkestone woman, who was found strangled near Caesar’s Camp on Thursday, May 26th last, the two Scotland Yard officers who were called in the day after the discovery of the crime again visited London on Thursday.

There is good reason to believe that the police enquiries will be brought to a conclusion within the next few days.

 

Folkestone Express 2 July 1938.

Local News.

On Saturday, just over a month after the body of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, a Folkestone woman, had been found at the foot of Caesar’s Camp, to the north of Folkestone, Mr. A. S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, charged a Folkestone labourer, William Whiting, aged 38, giving as his address a lodging-house in Dover Street, with the wilful murder of the woman.

The dead woman was found amongst some bushes, and she had a green scarf tied round her neck, on the evening of May 26th. Since that day the Chief Constable, Chief Inspector Parker, and Det.Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, and the Folkestone Police, have been carrying out Investigations concerning the woman’s death. The accused man is a widower, and has three children. He is particularly well known in the east area of Folkestone. The Chief Constable saw him in his office on Saturday and charged him. Later he was again charged in the Police Station and then placed in the cells.

Whiting was placed in the dock at the Police Court on Monday. He was charged that on or about 23rd May of this year at Folkestone he feloniously and with malice aforethought wilfully murdered Phyllis May Spiers.

The Court was crowded to its utmost extent, and the doors had to be closed, many people being unable to gain admission.

The magistrates were Councillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Judge H. Terrell, K.C., Mrs. A.M. Saunders and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

At the Court officials’ table, in addition to the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) and the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), there were also seated Chief Inspector Parker and Det.-Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, who had been conducting investigations into the case.

The Chief Constable said it was a case in which, as the magistrates were aware, the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions was to be sought, therefore that morning he proposed only to give evidence of arrest, and then ask for a remand until Tuesday. It was a formal remand, because he was sure that the Director would not be ready by that time. They would need, he was afraid, a further remand.

The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You have, of course, made many enquiries?

The Chief Constable: There are a very large number of witnesses to be called before you.

The Chief Constable, giving evidence, said at 12.34 p.m. on June 25th he saw the prisoner in his office. He said to him “You know who I am? I am the Chief Constable of Folkestone”. Whiting replied “Yes, sir”. Proceeding, he said: “I said ‘William Whiting, I am going to arrest and formally charge you with the murder of Phyllis May Spiers on or about Monday, 23rd May, 1938, and you will be taken before the Court on that charge. I must caution you that you need not say anything unless you wish, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence. Have you anything to say?’ Whiting replied 'I do not wish to say anything. I am not guilty’”. At 1.20 p.m. the same day, continued Mr. Beesley, Whiting was formally charged by the Station officer, P.S. Butcher, with the offence. He was cautioned, and replied “I have nothing to say”. Whiting was then searched and taken to the cells.

The Clerk: Nothing was found upon him to which you wish to refer?

The Chief Constable: No.

Whiting said he did not wish to ask the Chief Constable any questions.

The Chairman said they would appoint somebody to conduct Whiting’s defence.

The Clerk: A solicitor will be assigned to conduct your defence.

The Chairman (to Whiting): You are remanded in custody until tomorrow week (Tuesday).

The prisoner was then hurried out of the dock, and without looking at the people in the Court Whiting proceeded to the Police Station below.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 July 1938.

Local News.

William Whiting, 38, a labourer, of Dover Street, Folkestone, was detained and charged on Saturday with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, 22 year old Folkestone woman, who was found dead in a coppice near the foot of Caesar’s Camp, Folkestone, on the evening of Thursday, May 26th. A green scarf was tied tightly round the dead woman’s neck and at the inquest death was stated to have been caused by strangulation. Whiting was brought before the Magistrates on Monday morning and after evidence of arrest had been given he was remanded until next Tuesday.

The Magistrates: Councillor R.G. Wood presided and there were also sitting Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mrs. R.L.T. Saunders and Judge H. Terrell, K.C.

The charge read over to Whiting was that “on or about 23rd May of this year at Folkestone feloniously with malice aforethought he murdered Phyllis May Spiers”. Chief Inspector W. Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, who had assisted the local police with the enquiries since the day following the finding of Mrs. Spiers’s body, were both present in court. A large crowd which had gathered outside rushed into the court room when the public part of the court was opened. Many were unable to gain admittance.

The Chief Constable of Folkestone (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said, as the Magistrates were aware, the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to be sought and therefore he only proposed to offer evidence of arrest that morning and then ask for a remand until Tuesday of next week. It would be a formal remand because he was quite sure the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be ready by that time to proceed with the case.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You have made many enquiries and taken many statements?

The Chief Constable: Yes, and there are a large number of witnesses to be called.

The Chief Constable then gave evidence. He said that on Saturday he saw Whiting in his office and said to him “You know who I am; I am the Chief Constable of Folkestone”. Whiting replied “Yes, sir”. He then said: “William Whiting, I am going to arrest and formally charge you with the murder of Phyllis May Spiers on or about Monday, 23rd May, 1938, and you will be taken before the Court on that charge. I must caution you that you need not say anything unless you wish, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence. Have you anything to say?” Witness said Whiting replied “I do not wish to say anything. I am not guilty”. Later Whiting was formally charged in his presence by the station sergeant and he then replied “I have nothing to say”. He was then searched in witness’s presence and taken to the cells.

The Clerk: Was anything found on him to which you wish to refer? – No.

Whiting said he had no questions to put to the Chief Constable.

Remanding Whiting until Tuesday of next week, the Chairman said they would appoint somebody to defend him.

The Clerk (to Whiting): A solicitor will be assigned to conduct your defence.

Whiting was then taken below.

 

Folkestone Express 9 July 1938.

Local News.

When William Whiting (38), a labours, of Dover Street, Folkestone. charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, appeared before the Folkestone magistrates on Tuesday, he was represented by Mr. Lloyd Bunco, a Folkestone solicitor. Whiting had been remanded eight days before, and the short time he was before the magistrates on Tuesday was taken up with formalities. He was ultimately remanded in custody until next Monday, when it is possible that the case might be opened and some evidence taken.

The public portion of the Court was crowded, many people having waited since 9 a.m. in the rain. There was a large crowd outside the Town Hall half- an-hour before the case was due to commence. One of the women who occupied leading places in the queue fainted, and was taken into the Town Hall, where she received attention.

The Magistrates were Courcillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G. . Collins, Mrs. Saunders and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he was asking for another remand. He understood the Director of Public Prosecutions would be ready on Wednesday in next week.

The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he did not think that was the most convenient day. He thought it would be bettor perhaps to remand the prisoner until Tuesday, unless the Director could commence on Monday. Continuing, he said he thought it would be better perhaps to commence the case the week commencing 18th July, and then it could be taken from day to day if so desired. They had to consider the justices available - the justices who started the case had to be available.

The Chairman, in reply to a query by Mr. Bunce, said the justices had decided that counsel should defend the prisoner.

The Chairman said Whiting would be.

The Chairman, in reply to a query by Mr. Bunce, said the Justices had decided that counsel should defend the prisoner.

The Chairman said Whiting would be remanded until Monday.

Whiting: I have an application to make. Can I have my letters and photos in possession of the police?

The Clerk: I do not think the magistrates have any power over that.

The Chief Constable said they were personal to Whiting, and he thought he would have no difficulty in complying with the request.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 July 1938.

Local News.

The inquest of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, who was found dead near Caesar’s Camp, Folkestone, on May 26th with a green scarf tied tightly round her neck, was further adjourned at the resumed inquest at the Town Hall, Folkestone, yesterday.

The Coroner (Mr. G. W. Haines) told the jury that under section 20 of the Coroners' Amendment Act, 1927, where a person was charged with murder they had to adjourn the inquest until the completion of the criminal proceedings. He therefore proposed further to adjourn the inquest until October 31st. It might be that the jury might not have to come again. The Coroner mentioned that a man had been charged before the police court with murder. Mr. Lloyd Bunce, solicitor, was present during the brief proceedings.

Local News.

William Whiting, 38, a labourer, of Dover Street, Folkestone, was again remanded, when he appeared ai the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday charged with the murder, on or about May 23rd last, of Phyllis May Spiers. Mrs. Spiers, a 22 year old Folkestone woman, was found dead at the foot of the hills near Caesar’s Camp on the evening of May 26th.

Councillor R.G. Wood again presided on the Bench, and sitting with him were Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mrs. R.L.T. Saunders.

When the case was called Whiting did not appear immediately from the cells and the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said prisoner was now represented by Mr. Lloyd Bunce and no doubt the delay was caused by Mr. Bunce interviewing him.

After Whiting had been brought into the court, the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said as he told the Magistrates last week be would ask for a further remand that day. He understood that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be ready by Wednesday of next week to proceed with the case.

The Clerk said he did not think that was the most convenient date for the Magistrates.

The Chief Constable said it might be possible to start the case on the Tuesday and then remand for a further week.

The Clerk: To the week beginning July 18th and then take the case during the week from day to day. The Clerk added that they had to consider the question of the Justices being available.

Mr. Bunce said he gathered the Justices were agreeable to Whiting being represented by counsel in that court.

The Chairman said they had given a certificate to that effect.

Whiting was then remanded until Monday next.

Prisoner asked if he could have his letters and photos which were in the possession of the police.

The Clerk: I am afraid that is not a matter for the Justices to decide.

The Chief Constable said they were personal and he did not think he would have any difficulty in complying with the request.

 

Folkestone Express 16 July 1938.

Local News.

When the case against William Whiting, aged 38, a labourer, of Dover Street, charged with the wilful murder on or about May 23rd of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, a Folkestone, woman, was opened the Folkestone Police Court on Monday, Mr. B.H. Waddy prosecuting on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, said “The motive, to put it in one word, was revenge”. Mrs. Spiers was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on the 26th May, her body being almost completely covered by her coat.

Whiting had been twice formally remanded, and the whole of Monday was occupied in hearing Mr. Waddy’s opening, and five witnesses, two of whom were Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch. The Magistrates, after a sitting of close upon five hours, again remanded Whiting until Monday next when the case will be continued on the following days until all the evidence is heard.

There was a large number of exhibits in connection with the case, and they included framed portions of a tree and a rough fence which had attached to it barbed wire. The large framed exhibit was placed on the side of the magisterial bench.

The Magistrates were Mr. R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

Mr. B. H. Waddy and Mr. F. Donal-Barry, barristers, appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel (instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce) represented Whiting. Seated at the table with the officials were Chief Inspector Parker, and Det. Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, who have been engaged with the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) and the Folkestone Police in the inquiries in connection with the case.

There was another large attendance of the public in the Court, but not so large as on Whiting’s two previous appearances.

Whiting was provided with a chair in the dock, but at first he said he did not require it, and stood during the opening statement by the prosecuting counsel and the hearing of the earlier evidence.

Mr. Waddy said he was instructed to prosecute. Before he opened the facts of the case he wanted to say he had in Court two gentlemen who would be witnesses, Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon. Chief Inspector Parker was in charge of the case, and it was absolutely necessary that he should be there to instruct him. With regard to Det. Sergt. Skardon he would be most useful to him in handling and producing the numerous exhibits he would have to put in. He suggested that he should remain in Court except when Chief Inspector Parker was giving evidence. No other witnesses were in Court.

Mr. Stuart Daniel said he did not object to that.

Mr. Waddy said on Thursday, the 26th May, somewhere about six o'clock in the afternoon, a Folkestone youth was birds’ nesting in a coppice at the foot of Castle Hill near Caesar’s Camp. Hidden in the undergrowth in that coppice he found the dead body of Phyllis May Spiers. He would call before them a body of medical evidence and other witnesses, who would tell them what was the condition and what was found in the immediate locality, and the evidence would, he thought, lead them to the conclusion that this girl met her death on May 23rd, which was a Monday, and that she met her death in this wav. She was rendered unconscious by blows in the fact and she was strangled bv hands, manual strangulation, that after her death there was put round her throat and tied tightly a green scarf with white spots on it twice round her neck, pulled tight and knotted. There were one or two possible reasons for tying that green scarf round the girl’s throat. One possibly was that the person who did it desired to make assurance doubly sure and make quite sure she died. The other possibility, which was one which would have to be considered, was that that scarf was put round her throat in the hopes that it might lead to the belief that the girl committed suicide by tying it round her throat herself. If the girl’s death, which in the view of the prosecution, took place in a little clearing in the coppice, which was visible up the hill, her body was dragged by the feet for some thirty feet or ten yards to the place where it was ultimately found. It was dragged down hill; it is quite steep, and through a barrier or an obstruction which existed between the place between the little clearing where, in the view of the prosecution, she died and the place where the body was found, that obstruction was a very rough obstruction and consisted of dead branches which were roughly fastened to a leaning post by means of barbed wire. Eventually it would appear that it was probably there to guard a bog which was at the foot of the hill to which cattle might possibly get. A great deal of importance might attach to that obstruction. That barrier had a gap in it through which it was possible for anyone to go. The obstruction was by the side of the side of the Court, and the Magistrates would see it had been framed. “You will see”,-Mr. Waddy proceeded, “there is a stout post leaning to the left and there are a number of branches, and you can see upon them some pieces of rusted barbed wire. As you look at that you will imagine that the ground you are on is a little higher and that from the other side it goes down hill. Again, the case for the prosecution is that the body of this girl was dragged by the murderer feet first through the gap, the murderer coming backwards on hands and knees. There will be given in evidence, certain evidence of a comb, certain hairs, and so on, but what is of great importance as far as that gap is concerned is that there is a piece of barbed wire to the right-hand side, which, if you were coming through the gap backwards on your hands and knees, would be about where your left shoulder would come. We are right in thinking that, if the murderer dragged the body through on his hands and knees there would be every likelihood that the point of that barbed wire would probably catch in the clothing which covered his left shoulder. Some ten yards below that point where the body was found, and opposite the body, was the girl’s handbag. In the girl’s handbag was a torn piece of a black and white scarf, quite different to the scarf knotted round her neck. The rest of that scarf had vanished. That piece of scarf was a portion of the scarf which we shall prove was given to her by a man friend, and she was wearing it on the morning she met her death. It would appear probable after her death her assailant tied her own scarf round her neck and in pulling it tight possibly ripped the end off. He then probably put the green scarf round her neck and put her own scarf in her handbag. Having put it in position he was minded to get rid of the torn scarf and took it out of the handbag again, but left behind the little bit, which he may not have noticed. Another feature of the handbag was that there was riot found in it a little green purse which, it would be proved to the magistrates, was owned and carried by her. It would appear probable the assailant, in taking out the major portion of the torn scarf, took out the green purse as well, and might have put them in his pocket”. Those were the deductions that he (Mr. Waddy) thought might be drawn from the evidence which would be called before them.

As to what was found at the site of the murder one had got to see in what way that evidence pointed to the accused as being the man who commuted the murder. “The first pointer”, he continued, “which points to the accused as having committed the murder is the evidence that on the afternoon of May 23rd he walked with this girl from somewhere in the centre of the town up over the golf links and right across it. There is a road from the right leading to the scene of the crime. So far I am in a position to say that the accused has made a statement in which his own story is that on the afternoon of May 23rd he walked with this girl over the golf course.The next pointer is that on May 31st they came into possession of everything he had on him. He was wearing a jacket. That jacket just over the left shoulder has a right angle tear, torn upwards. The evidence will be that the tear is exactly the type of tear that would he made by the barbed wire in that obstruction if he were going through the obstruction backwards. A police officer went through that gap later, and his jacket was torn in exactly the same spot. In one of the accused’s jacket pockets there were certain hairs, and I am calling evidence to show that those hairs were exactly the same as those which came from the head of the dead girl. In addition to a comb there was found in his possession a lady’s little green zip-fastener purse which was similar to one the dead girl carried in her bag. That is really another pointer. The third pointer which is perhaps more important than any of the others is the scarf which was tied round the girl’s neck. It is a very distinctive scarf. It is a green one with white spots upon it. According to what the prisoner told the police he has never had one like it and that it is not his”.

He (Mr. Waddy) thought he might call before them a host of witnesses of every kind who would tell them that they had seen Whiting wearing this green scarf with the white spots, and that he was wearing it as recently as May 20th. If that scarf is his, how came it tied tightly round the neck of the dead girl? In public houses the accused, in unguarded moments, had made remarks which were only consistent with an admission that he had strangled a blonde girl, and that the dead girl was a girl who had had her hair bleached. They would hear not one, hut several witnesses, who would speak to similar remarks. As the Bench were aware, there was no burden upon the Crown to prove motive for a crime like this, but, of course, if the Crown is in possession of evidence which points to a motive for such a crime the Crown lays such evidence before the Court. In this case they are in possession of evidence which would be laid before the Court pointing to the motive for this man murdering this girl. The motive, in a word, is revenge. Whiting knew and was for some time associated with a young woman named Rose Woodbridge. They lived together for a period, and parted shortly before Christmas last. She left him. There could be no doubt that he was not only, and was still, infatuated with Rose Woodbridge, but his mind was filled with an obsession of resentment against the person who came between him and Rose Woodbridge and caused that separation. Evidence will be called before the Court to show what his feelings were with regard to Rose Woodbridge arid what his feelings were towards the person, whoever it might have been, who caused him to lose Rose Woodbridge”. There would also be evidence before them, both from witnesses, and again on his own statement, to show that he firmly believed that Phyllis May Spiers, the girl who was murdered, was the person who had caused his separation from Rose Woodbridge.“The prosecution say”, Mr. Waddy, continuing, said “that here is a man who hated Phyllis for what she had done, or what he thought she had done, in parting him from the woman with whom he was in love”. The only other matter he had to mention was that the accused was arrested on June 26th, and that when he was arrested and charged he said “I am not guilty”.

Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, a milk roundsman, said he was shown the dead body of a woman at the mortuary. That woman was his wife, Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22 years. His wife was the woman on the left of the photograph produced. He also recognised his wife in the second and third photographs produced. He was married to his wife on the 11th April, 1932. Her name then was Phyllis May Minter. They lived together for some time, parting on the 13th April, 1934. He last saw her alive about four years ago at Hastings, after she had left him. He had recently commenced divorce proceedings against her.

Kenneth George Andrews, 23, Ethelbert Road. Folkestone, a roundsman said on Thursday, 26th May, after he had finished work he went up to Caesar’s Camp and into a coppice at the foot of the hill to get birds’ eggs. He started hunting for eggs and while there he saw something that looked like a bundle. He thought that that was approximately about six o’clock in the evening. He looked at the bundle and saw that it was a woman laying there, covered over with what looked like a dark green coat. He could just see the hair and part of the naked leg sticking out. He shouted, thinking there might be someone asleep, and touched the bundle with a stick. He then realised that it was riot a sleeping person. He went, away from the place and a little later spoke to a police officer. Some little time after tie was taken in a car back to the place with Chief Inspector Hollands and Det. Con. Bates and took them to the spot. The body was in the same position.

Chief Inspector Hollands said at about 6.20 p.m. on the 26th May he received a telephone message and in consequence went with the last witness and Det. Con. Bates to the foot of the hills between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill. The lad took them to a spot where a body was lying. The first photograph in the book showed a view of the coppice looking towards Sugar Loaf Hill. The second showed a view of the coppice from the hill above. About the centre of the picture there was a clearing. He found the body near the foot of a big tree shown in the picture. Picture No 12 in the book showed the body as he first saw it. The last photograph in the book showed where the body was found after it ha been removed. The branches-of trees ear the spot to some extent overhung, but did not completely cover it overhead. Later on the same evening the coat was removed from the body and photograph No. 13 showed the position of the body with the coat off. The next photograph showed the appearance of the body from the other side after the coat had been removed. Photograph 14 also showed a lady’s handbag. When he first went there he lifted the coat from off the face and smelt putrifaction. She was quite cold, her arms were stiff, slightly bent, her fingers were half clenched; nothing in the hands and they were stiff. The legs were covered in scratches going in all directions, and these were fresh and unhealed. He noticed her hair was drawn out straight from beyond the head. Her head was pointing towards the field and was slightly downhill. Her face was quite a normal colour and her tongue was slightly protruding between her teeth. Blood issued from the left nostril when he moved her head. The coat that was over the body was sodden wet. There was heavy rain on Wednesday, 25th, and on Tuesday it rained a little between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. It was fine in the morning on Wednesday, the rain being in the afternoon, and Monday was fine. He noticed that there was a little dirt splashed on the hands of the body, as though from heavy rain. The handbag showed rain, marks and the ground all round showed signs of heavy rain. Her frock was pulled up above the level of the breasts in front and right up to the shoulder blades at the back. Dry brumbies and leaves were in the clothing at the back and they were quite dry. She was wearing a pair of knickers, which were torn badly, and appeared to be a new pair. In all the clothing were brambles and leaves, which were also dry. He noticed the girl’s shoes, which were damp, but had no mud on them, and there was not any mud on her clothing. The body and clothing gave every appearance of the body having been dragged along by the feet while lying on the back. The ground underneath the body was dry when it was turned over. In the glade where she was lying there was no sign of a struggle and near where she was lying there was a rough footpath, rising sharply from her head towards Caesar’s Camp. The ground of the path was chalky and it was slightly damp. At the top of the footpath there was a barrier across it. The branches (produced) was the barrier. Round the neck of the body was a green spotted scarf (produced). The scarf was twisted round the neck twice and knotted as in the exhibit. The knot was on the right of the windpipe and was very tight indeed.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

Mr. Waddy, on resuming, said he wished to ask that Dr. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, should be present in Court when Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch gave evidence.

Mr. Stuart Daniel said he objected to that. Dr. Barrett made the first examination and it seemed that the opinion of the cause of death might have been changed since then.

The Chairman said the magistrates did not see why Dr. Barrett should not remain in Court.

Sir Bernard Henry Spilsbury. hon. pathologist to the Home Office, said that on the afternoon of Wednesday, 1st June, he made a post mortem examination at tie Folkestone mortuary on the body of a woman. She was a well nourished woman, about 5ft. 4ins. in height. Death stiffening was absent. There was no lividity in the face or lips and no tiny haemmorhages on the eyes or the skin of the face. He saw the mark of the ligature which encircled the neck at the level of the larynx. It was pale and there was no injury of the skin beneath it. It was about one and a quarter inches broad in front, three quarters of an inch broad at the side and slightly more than an inch broad at the back. Sir Bernard Spilsbury then described a number of external bruises he found on the face, including the jaw. Along the left collar bone, immediately above the inner end of the right collar bone, on the outer side of the right upper arm, on the inner side of the same limb, on the inner side of the right forearm, on the front of the left shoulder, on the upper part of the front of the arm, on the outer side of the right hip and on the thigh.

There were many scratches in the skin, distributed widely, through the right hip and on both thighs and legs, and others on the back of the trunk up to the lower part of the shoulders. There were also scratches on the back of the right forearm, one on the front of the left forearm one across the knuckles of the left hand. In addition he also found the following bruises, which were not visible on the surface, but were visible on cutting through the skin. There was considerable area of bruising of the spine in the lower dorsal region and a bruise one inch in diameter at the same level and one and a half inches to the right. There was a bruise one inch in diameter to the right of the spine in the upper dorsal region. On internal examination there was a small bruise on the upper part of the back of the neck and another on the left side of the forehead. The skull and the brain, with its covering and blood vessels, were healthy and free from injury. On dissecting the neck there was bruising of the left sterno mastoid muscle at its lower end. There was also slight bruising of the corresponding muscle on the right side at the lower end and bruising of the left muscle higher up at the level of the lower jaw. There was a bruise at the upper side of the left main cartilage of the larynx and bruising on either side of that cartilage at the same level. There was slight bruising behind the larynx and there was bruising along the upper edge of the same cartilage which extended upwards. The bone was free from injury. The inner surface of the larynx and trachea was reddened. The tonsils and the glands in the upper part of the neck were very congested, and other organs in the body generally were congested but healthy, and the blood throughout the body was fluid and dark in colour. The mark of the ligature which he found was consistent with the scarf (produced) having been tied tightly round the neck. The deceased was a perfectly healthy woman. The general changes of death from asphyxia were present, namely, the congested organs and the dark fluid condition of the blood. The asphyxia was not produced by the scarf which was found tied tightly round the neck when the body was found.

Mr. Waddy: If it had been tied tightly round the neck during life what would have been the condition?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: The face would have been very livid and there would have been tiny haemorrhages in the whites of the eyes and the skin of the face. The face must have been livid after death as long as the ligature remained in position.

What conclusion do you come to as to when the ligature was applied? - It was applied after death.

The bruising, he continued, on the left side at the back of the larynx indicated that death was due to strangulation by the hand. The absence of bruising and abrasions on the skin of the neck suggested that deceased had been rendered unconscious before she was strangled. If a woman was conscious while being strangled she would be likely to struggle violently. The number and distribution of the bruises over the body indicated that the deceased received a number of blows and some of these bruises, and especially those on the face, might have rendered her unconscious. Some of the smaller bruises on the arms might have been produced by forcible restraint and others on the back of the neck and front by her being pressed firmly on rough ground during the course of the struggle. The bruises were all recent and of the same age and were produced shortly before death.

Mr. Waddy: Will you speak as to the possibility of death having been produced by suicide?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: It is quite out of the question. Proceeding, he said with regard to the scratches on the body they were consistent with the body having been dragged over and through brambles. Assuming that the body was found in a coppice on May 26th and which was not fully exposed to the sun and assuming that there was an odour of putrifaction when the body was found and that rigor mortis was passing off, it was a strong presumption that death occurred not less than three days before she was found. It would be consistent with her meeting her death on the afternoon of May 23rd.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stuart Daniel, Sir Bernard Spilsbury said the absence of putrifaction might mean that the woman had been dead anything short of three or four days. The death from the stopping of an artery would not account for all the signs he found.

Dr. G. Roche Lynch, official analyst to the Home Office, said that he received the jacket (produced) from Chief Inspector Parker and examined it. At the back of the garment, eight inches from the top seam and three inches from the left side seam, then was a tear. The two parts of the tear formed a right angle, the point of which was directed down and towards the right. The fabric of the garment had been torn and not cut. In his opinion, the tear had been produced by some rigid, round, sharp-pointed article perforating the fabric and whilst in that position the jacket had been moved obliquely downward and to the right, so that one part of the tear was directed upwards and the other to the left away from the point of entrance. The tear was in the cloth of the jacket only, the lining being undamaged. A tear of that type was almost invariably produced when such a garment was caught in barbed wire, but, of course, a similar sharp-pointed article, if firmly pressed, could cause similar damage. In the photograph (produced) of a man with a coat which was torn, the coat was torn in the same position as the enlarged photograph of the tear (produced). Looking at the point of the barbed wire in the lower part of the exhibit (produced), if a man went through the gap backwards the point of the barb could produce the tear which he found. He received from Chief Inspector Parker two tubes of semi-liquid material, which appeared to be the stomach contents, which, with the exception of small lumps of fat, showed almost complete digestion. Assuming that those stomach contents were taken from the deceased the condition of them would indicate that some hours had elapsed since the taking of the last meal. On the 8th July he received from Det. Sergt. Skardon a packet of a certain butter. The tow kinds of fat that were found in the stomach and the butter showed a general similarity. He had examined the green spotted scarf (produced) and observed from one end of the scarf signs of wear. At one end, in places, there appeared to be impressions in the fabric. There was a very slight sign of wear in the other side and three small holes. He saw the pair of braces (produced) and the marks on one end of the scarf could have been made by the teeth of the clip of the braces if the end of the scarf had been pushed in between the clip and the brace material. If a man wore the scarf round his neck the tails of the scarf would have reached to the clip of the braces. The marks could not have been caused by a second pair of braces (produced), which also belonged to the prisoner. He had received some hairs from Chief Inspector Parker. The hairs bearing certain numbers closely resembled the hairs in slide No. 124. He thought that they were probably from the same head. Two of the hairs came from the inside pocket of the jacket and closely resembled those in the slide, No. 124.

The Chairman announced that Whiting would be remanded until Monday.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 July 1938.

Local News.

The case against William Whiting, 38 years old Folkestone labourer, who is charged with the murder of Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, of Folkestone, who was found dead at the foot of the hills near Caesar’s Camp on Thursday, May 26th, was opened by the Crown at the Folkestone Police Court on Monday.

Whiting was making his third appearance before the Magistrates, and after an all-day sitting the hearing was adjourned until next Monday, when further evidence will be taken.

Prosecuting for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. B. H. Waddy, in his opening, suggested revenge as a motive. Among the witnesses called last Monday were Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch.

Mr. B. H. Waddy prosecuted for the Director of Public Prosecutions with Mr. F. Donal-Barry, of the Director’s department, while Mr. J. Stuart Daniel, instructed by Mr. H. Lloyd Bunce, representing Whiting.

The case was heard by Councillor R.G. Wood (presiding), Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mrs. R.L.T. Saunders.

A large number of exhibits were in court. The public part of the court was again crowded, some of those present having waited over two hours to obtain admittance.

Opening the case, Mr. Waddy said he was instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute Whiting, who was charged with having murdered a young woman named Phyllis May Spiers on or about May 23rd last. At the present moment he had m court two gentlemen who would be witnesses, Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon. Chief Inspector Parker was in charge of the case and he thought it was absolutely necessary that he should be present in court. With regard to Det. Sergt. Skardon, he would be most useful to him (Mr. Waddy) in handling and producing numerous exhibits and he would suggest that he also remained in court.

Mr. Daniel said he did not object.

Mr. Waddy said on Thursday, May 26th, somewhere about 6 o’clock in the evening a Folkestone youth was birds’ nesting in a coppice at the foot of Castle Hill near Caesar’s Camp, when hidden in the undergrowth of the coppice he found the dead body of Phyllis May Spiers. “I shall call before you a body of medical evidence and other witnesses who will tell you what was the condition of that body”, continued Mr. Waddy, “and what was found in the immediate locality of the body. That evidence should, I think, lead you to this conclusion - that the girl met her death on May 23rd which was a Monday; that she met her death in this way - she was rendered unconscious by blows in the face and she was then strangled by hand, manual strangulation. Then, after her death, there was put round her throat and tied tightly a green scarf with white spots on it. It was put twice round her neck, pulled and knotted, but that was done after death. There are one or two possible reasons for tying the green scarf round the girl’s throat. One possibility is that the person who did it desired to make assurance doubly sure and make sure that she died. The other possibility, one which will have to be considered, is that it was put round her throat in the hope that it might lead to the belief that the girl had committed suicide by tying it round her throat herself”. Mr. Waddy, continuing, said after the girl’s death, which, in the view of the prosecution, took place in a little clearing in this coppice which was visible to anyone up the hill, her body was dragged by the feet some 30 feet to the place where it was ultimately found. It was dragged down quite a steep hill and through a barrier or obstruction which existed between the place where they said she died and the place her body was found. That obstruction was a very rough obstruction and consisted of dead branches which were roughly fastened to a leaning post by pieces of barbed wire. Mr. Waddy said that he would show photographs and a plan of the place. The obstruction, he added, was probably put there to guard a bog which was at the foot of the hill and to which cattle might get. A great deal of importance might attach to the obstruction. Mr. Waddy said on one side of the court the Magistrates would see the obstruction referred to framed. There was a stout post and to the left there was a number of branches and they could see upon them some pieces of old rusted barbed wire. As they looked at it, and if they imagined the ground they were on was higher and that from the other side it went downhill again, the case for the prosecution was that this girl was dragged feet first through the gap, the murderer going backwards on his hands and knees. There would be given in evidence certain finds which were made in the locality. For instance there was a comb, certain hairs, and so on. What was of great importance so far as the gap he had mentioned was concerned was that there was a piece of barbed wire on the right hand side which if a person were going through backwards on their hands and knees would be just about where one’s left shoulder would come. If prosecution were right in thinking that the murderer dragged the body through the gap, there would be every likelihood of a part of that barbed wire catching in the clothing which covered his left shoulder. Some ten yards below the opening the body was found. Beside the body was a girl’s handbag and in it was a torn piece of a black and white scarf, quite different from the one found knotted round her neck. The rest of the scarf had vanished. It was a scarf which had been given to her by a man friend and she was wearing it on the very morning that she met her death. It was a comparatively flimsy thing and it would appear probable that after her death her assailant tied the dead woman’s own scarf round her neck and in pulling it tight possibly ripped the end off. The suggestion was that he then put the green scarf round her neck and stuffed the torn scarf into her handbag, but after placing the handbag by the body he was minded to get rid of the tom scarf and took it out of the handbag again, leaving behind the little piece which he might not have noticed. Another important feature of the handbag was that there was not found in it a little green purse which this girl owned and carried, continued Mr. Waddy. It would appear probable that the assailant in taking out the major portion of the torn scarf possibly took out the green purse as well and may have put both in his pocket. Those were deductions which he thought might be drawn from the evidence which would be called before them as to what was found on the scene of the murder. One had then got to see in what way that evidence pointed to the accused as being the man who committed the murder. Witnesses would fall into groups and he would try as far as he could to call them according to the groups they fell into. The first pointer, which pointed to the accused as having been the man who committed the murder, was evidence that on May 23rd Whiting walked with this girl from somewhere in the centre of the town to the golf links and across those links. Not only would he be in a position to call witnesses to say that they saw Whiting on that part of the walk, but Whiting himself had made a statement in which he said that on that afternoon he walked with the dead girl to and over the golf course. When he got to the end of the golf links, if he and the girl turned right it would lead them to the foot of the other hill (Caesar’s Camp) where there was a stile. If one got over the stile and walked 200 or 300 yards along the foot of the hill they came to the coppice where the body was found. Mr. Waddy said he would call a witness who would say that he saw these two go up that road, losing them to view just by the bend where the stile was. The next pointer which pointed to Whiting was a body of evidence which would deal with his clothing. On May 31st the police came into possession of everything Whiting had on him. Included in the clothing was a jacket, and just over the left shoulder blade of that jacket was a right-angled tear tom upwards, and the evidence would be that the tear was exactly the type of tear which would be made on the barb of the wire in the obstruction if he were going through it backwards. One interesting piece of evidence which corroborated that view would be this. During the course of the investigations a police officer went through the gap backwards and his jacket was tom open by the barbed wire. They would see both jackets and see that the tears were similar and in similar places. The case for the prosecution would be that the tear which was found on prisoner’s jacket on May 31st was exactly consistent with it having been made by the point of that barbed wire. Further, a more detailed examination of the coat showed that in one of the jacket pockets there were certain hairs. He was calling evidence to say that those hairs were exactly the same as the hairs from the head of the dead girl. The significance of that was in connection with what he had already told them about the tom scarf, the portion of which was found in the handbag. If they were right in thinking the dead woman’s own scarf was used and torn, and then placed in her handbag afterwards to be removed in order to get rid of it and stuffed in the man’s pocket, they would be likely to find in the man’s pocket some of the girl’s hairs. There was also found in Whiting’s possession what was odd for a man to carry - a lady’s small green zip fastened purse which a witness would say was exactly the same as the dead girl used to own and carry. The suggestion was that possibly it came out of her handbag at the same time as the piece of her own scarf and got into the murderer’s possession. The third pointer, which was perhaps more important than any of the others, was the scarf which was round the dead girl’s neck. It was a very distinctive scarf, a green one with white spots on it, and according to what prisoner told the police he had never had it. Further, he said that he had never had one like it and it was not his. But he (Mr. Waddy) would be calling before them, he thought he might describe them as a host of witnesses, who would tell them that they had seen Whiting frequently wearing the green scarf with the white spots and that he was seen wearing it as recently as May 20th, three days before he was seen in the company of this girl. If that scarf were his, how came it to be tied tightly round the neck of the dead girl?

Mr. Waddy said so far he had been telling them of those things which had been found which pointed to Whiting being the murderer. There was another branch of evidence in respect of which he would call witnesses and they would say that after the body had been found the accused, in unguarded moments in public houses, had made remarks to them which were only consistent with an admission that he had strangled a blonde girl. The dead girl had had her hair bleached. They were remarks made in unguarded moments. That was the major point of the evidence. As they knew, there was no burden on the Crown to prove a motive in a crime like that, but in that case they were in possession of evidence pointing to a motive for Whiting murdering this girl. This motive, to put it in one word, was revenge. The accused knew and was for some time associating with a young woman named Rose Woodridge. They lived together for a period but parted shortly before last Christmas. The girl left Whiting. There could be no doubt that he was, and still was, infatuated with Rose Woodridge and his mind was filled with an obsession of resentment against the person who came between him and this woman and caused that separation.

Evidence would be called to show quite clearly what accused’s feelings were with regard to Rose Woodridge and what his feelings were to the person who caused him to lose her. There would also be evidence before them both from witnesses and Whiting’s own statement to show that he firmly believed Mrs. Spiers was the person who had caused his separation from Rose Woodridge. The prosecution said here was a man who hated Phyllis May Spiers for what she had done, or he thought she had done, in parting him from the woman with whom he was in love. It only remained for him to say that after Whiting had been arrested on June 25th and charged he said “I am not guilty”.

The first witness was Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sydney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, a milk roundsman, who said that on May 27th he went to the mortuary at Folkestone and there saw the body of a woman whom he identified as his wife. She was 22 years old. Witness then identified his wife in three photographs. Two were of his wife with another woman and one with a man. He added that they were married on April 11th, 1932 and his wife’s name was then Phyllis May Minter. They lived together for some time, but parted on April 13th, 1934. He last saw her alive about four years ago at Hastings by an appointment. That was after she had left him. He had recently commenced divorce proceedings against her.

Mr. Daniel reserved his cross-examination.

Kenneth George Andrews, 23, Ethelbert Read, Folkestone, said on Thursday, May 26th, after he had finished work he went to Caesar’s Camp and entered a coppice at the foot of the hill. He was looking for birds’ eggs. “I was looking for eggs in the coppice and while I was there I saw something that looked like a bundle”, continued witness. “It must have been 6 p.m. I went to look at the bundle and after I had had a good look I saw it was a woman. The body was covered over with a dark green coat. I could see the hair and a leg sticking out from underneath the coat. I shouted as I thought it might be somebody asleep, and touched it with a stick, but did not interfere with the position of the body. I then realised it was not a sleeping person and went away from the place. A little later that evening I spoke to a police officer. I was taken in a car back to the place with Inspector Hollands and Det. Constable Bates, and took them to the spot where I had found the woman”.

Mr. Daniel again reserved his cross- examination.

Chief Inspector W. Hollands said at about 6.30 p.m. on May 26th he received a telephone message. In consequence he went in a car and picked up the last witness and Det. Constable Bates, the Coroner’s Officer. He then went to a coppice at the foot of the hills between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill. After entering the coppice Andrews took him to the spot where there was a body lying. Witness then examined a series of photographs of the place where the body was found. The first was a view of the coppice looking towards Sugar Loaf Hill, the next a view of the coppice from the hill above. About the centre of the coppice, said witness, there was a clearing where a figure could be seen lying. He found the body in line with a tree shown on the left but further down the bank. Witness said photograph No. 12 showed the appearance of the body as he first found it and was taken a little later the same evening. Photograph No. 15 showed the place where the body was found after it had been removed. Overhead the branches to some extent overhung the glade but did not completely cover it. Witness said later that same evening the coat was removed from the body and photograph No. 13 showed the appearance of the body with the coat off. The next photograph showed the appearance of the body from the other side after the coat had been removed. It also showed lying near the girl's right hand a lady's handbag which he found there. “When I first went there I lifted the coat off the face and immediately smelt that the body was putrefying”, witness continued. “She weas quite cold, her arms were quite stiff and slightly bent and her fingers were half clenched and there was nothing in the hands. The legs were covered in scratches going in all directions. The scratches were fresh and unhealed. The hair was dragged down beyond the head. If the body had been in an upright position the hair would have been above her head. The head was pointing towards the fields and slightly downhill. Her face was a normal colour and was turned to the right. The tongue was slightly protruding and just showing between the teeth”. Witness said the condition of the coat was sodden and wet. There had been some heavy rain on Wednesday, May 21st and it rained a little on Tuesday between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. On the Monday (May 23rd) the weather had been fine. He noticed that there was a little dirt splashed up on the hands as if from heavy rain. There were also rain marks on the handbag. The ground all round the body showed signs of heavy rain. Dry bramble and leaves were in the clothing at the back. The shoes were damp, but there was no mud on them. Nor was there any mud on her clothing. The condition of the body and clothing gave the appearance that it had been dragged along by the feet while lying on the back. The ground underneath the body was dry. There was no sign of a struggle in the glade where she had been lying. Near where she was lying there was a rough footpath rising from the spot towards Caesar's Camp. The ground of the footpath was a chalky clay and when they found the body it was damp. Towards th top of the footpath there was a barrier of branches and barbed wire as produced in Court. A green spotted scarf (produced) was found around the neck. The scarf was twisted twice round the neck and knotted twice. The knot was on the right of the wind pipe. The scarf was tied very tightly.

Mr. Waddy said he proposed calling Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch, and he would like Dr. Barrett, the local Police Surgeon, to be present in court while they were giving their evidence.

Mr. Daniel said he objected. Dr. Barrett made the first examination and it seemed that the opinion as to the cause of death might have been slightly changed since then.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said it was very difficult to come to any decision without knowing what any of the witnesses were going to say. The Bench were in the dark.

The Chairman (Councillor R.G. Wood) said the Magistrates saw no reason for excluding Dr. Barrett from the Court during the hearing of the evidence.

Sir Bernard Spilsbury, Honorary Pathologist to the Home Office, who then went into the witness box, said on June 1st he made a post mortem examination at the borough mortuary on the body of a oman pointed out to him by Dr. Barrett. He saw the marks of a ligature which encircled the neck at the level of the larynx. It was pale and there was no injury of the skin beneath it. It was about one and a quarter inches broad at the front, three-quarters of an inch broad at the side and slightly more than an inch broad at the back. Sir Bernard then gave evidence of external injuries, which included a bruise across the bridge of the nose, two bruises on the right side of the forehead close to the scalp, a bruise one and a half inches long over the right low7er jaw, midway between the point of the chin and the angle of the jaw. He said there were also two bruises each about one and a quarter inches long and a third of an inch apart along the left collar bone. On dissection those bruises were more extensive than was apparent on the surface and involved the muscles immediately above and below the collar bone. Another bruise was also found immediately above the inner end of the right collar bone. There was a bruise half an inch in diameter on the outer side of the right upper arm, and two similar bruises on the inner side. There was a long bruise on the inner side of the right forearm about halfway down. Witness gave evidence of other bruises and scratches, which Sir Bernard said were distributed widely over the right hip and both sides and legs; also others on the back of the trunk up to the lower part of the shoulders. There were also scratches on the back of the right forearm, and one across the knuckles of the left hand. He added that he found other bruises which were not visible on the surface. The green scarf was produced and Sir Bernard said the mark of the ligature he found was consistent with the scarf produced having been tied tightly round the neck. Sir Bernard said the deceased was a perfectly healthy woman. The general changes of death from asphyxia were present, mainly the congested condition of the organs and the dark and fluid condition of the blood. The asphyxia was not produced by the scarf which was tied tightly round the neck when the body was found.

Mr. Waddy: If it had been tied round the neck during life what would have been the condition of the face?

Sir Bernard: The face would have been livid and there would have been tiny haemorrhages in the whites of the eyes and the skin of the face. The face must have been livid after death as long as the ligature remained in position.

Mr. Waddy: What conclusions do you draw as to when the ligature was applied?

Sir Bernard: It was applied after death. Continuing, witness said the bruising on the left side at the back of the larynx indicated that death was due to strangulation by the hand. The absence of bruising and abrasions on the skin of the neck suggested that deceased had been rendered unconscious before she was strangled.

Mr. Waddy: If a woman were conscious when she was being strangled by hand would she be likely to struggle violently? - Yes.

Sir Bernard said the number and distribution of bruises over the body indicated that deceased received a number of blows and some of these, especially those on the face, might have rendered her unconscious. Some of the smaller bruises on the arm, added witness, might have been produced by forcible restraint and others on the back of the neck and trunk by having been pressed firmly on a rough ground in the course of a struggle. The bruises were all recent and of a same age, and were produced shortly before death.

Mr. Waddy: Can you speak as to the possibility of death having been produced by suicide?

Sir Bernard: It is quite out of the question.

Continuing, witness said the scratches could be accounted for if the body were dragged through and over brambles to the place where it was found. It was a strong presumption that death occurred not fewer than three days before the body was found: it might have been longer. Assuming certain facts, it would be consistent to presume that death took place on the afternoon of May 23rd.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stuart Daniel, Sir Bernard said the absence of purification might mean that deceased had been dead anything short of three or four days. Death by the stopping of an artery would not account for all the signs that he found.

Dr. Roche Lynch, official analyst to the Home Office, said the jacket produced he received from Chief Inspector Parker. At the back of it eight inches from the left side seam there was a tear. The two points of the tear formed a right angle, the point of which was directed downwards and towards the right. The fabric had been torn and not cut. In his opinion the tear had been produced by some rigid, rounded and sharp pointed article, perforating the fabric, and whilst in that position the jacket had been moved downwards and to the right, so that one point of the tear was directed upwards and the other to the left away from the point of entrance. The tear was in the cloth of the jacket only, the lining being undamaged. A tear of that type was almost invariably produced when such a garment was caught in barbed wire, but of course any similar sharp-pointed article, if firmly fixed, could cause similar damage.

A photograph of a man wearing a coat was put in.

Dr. Roche Lynch said there was a tear in the coat of the man in a similar position to the one in the jacket produced. Dr. Lynch next examined the exhibit in court consisting of branches of a dead tree, a post and barbed wire, referred to as “The obstruction” in counsel’s opening speech. Witness said looking at the front of the exhibit he saw towards the right-hand side a piece of barbed wire going round a bough and at the lowest point there was a barb. If a man wearing the jacket he had seen were to go through the gap backwards the point of the barb could cause the tear that he found. Continuing, Dr. Roche Lynch said he received from Inspector Parker two tubes of semi-liquid material, which appeared to be stomach contents. With the exception of small lumps of fat they showed almost complete digestion.

Assuming the stomach contents were taken from the deceased the condition would show that some hours had elapsed since the last meal had been taken. The lumps of fat were butter fat. On July 8th he received from Det. Sergt. Skardon a packet of Blue Label butter. The lumps of fat and the butter showed a general similarity. On one end of the green spotted scarf there were some signs of wear and in places there appeared to be impressions in the fabric. There was a slight sign of wear on the other side and three small holes. A pair of braces were produced and Dr. Roche Lynch said the marks on the bottom of one end of the scarf could have been produced by the teeth of the clip of the braces.

Mr. Waddy said that point of evidence indicated that the green scarf was a scarf probably worn by a man, who tucked the ends of it through his brace buckle. He was going to prove that those braces belonged to Whiting. He would also produce another pair of braces belonging to the prisoner which could not have made those marks.

Dr. Roche Lynch said the pair of braces attached to the trousers produced could not have made the marks on the scarf. Dr. Roche Lynch gave evidence of receiving from Chief Inspector Parker on two different occasions envelopes containing hairs. One contained some hairs which had been subjected to some sort of bleaching process, and the other envelope contained three hairs. Witness said there was also a number of hairs which he himself took off the jacket which was sent to him for examination. Two of the hairs came from inside the left hand pocket of the jacket and they had certain characteristics which were observed in the bleached hair.

At this stage the hearing was adjourned until next Monday.

 

Folkestone Express 23 July 1938.

Local News.

Two days of this week, so far, have been occupied at the Folkestone Police Court in hearing the evidence against William Whiting, 38, a Folkestone labourer, charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, the Folkestone woman, on or about May 23rd last.

Last week, when Whiting appeared before the Court, Mr. B.H. Waddy, who appeared together with Mr. J. Donal-Barry, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opened the case, a number of witnesses, including Sir Bernard Spilsburv and Dr. Roche Lynch, were called.

Whiting appeared in the dock on Monday, and the chief evidence was that given by Chief Inspector Parker, who presented two statements alleged to have been made by the accused. One was of exceptional length, and it was stated that it occupied 2 hours to make. The second was only very short, and in the course of it Whiting was alleged to have said that Mrs Sniers had told him that she was going to do herself in, and when he asked her how she was going to do it said “Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck”. The statement also mentioned that she was wearing a green scarf round her neck. The hearing proceeded on Tuesday, and when the case was re-opened, Mr. Waddy first told the Court that one of the witnesses he proposed to call was in Hospital, unconscious and dangerously ill. When all the other witnesses had been heard, Mr. Waddy said that he understood the witness, whose name was Wanstall, would be well enough to attend the Court on Friday, when the case for the prosecution could be concluded. The magistrates thereupon remanded Whiting until to-day (Friday).

The Magistrates were Councillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

The Court was held in the large hall of the Town Hall, and when the hearing of the evidence was resumed on Monday the balcony was crowded with the general public.

Whiting was provided with a chair in the dock, but for the major portion of the clay be remained standing, and it was very rare that he spoke to his counsel, Mr. J. Stuart Daniel, who was instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett, Police Surgeon, said on Thursday, 26th May, he went to the coppice near the foot of Caesar’s Camp, where he saw the dead body of a woman. He saw a green scarf with white spots (produced) around the woman’s neck. It was round the neck twice and tied tightly with the knot pressing on the right side of the neck. It was close under the chin and above the larynx. He saw it cut and removed from the neck. The colour of the woman's face was natural, and the expression on it was peaceful. There was no blueness of the face, and the tongue was just between the teeth. It was not injured. The nose was bruised and there was blood exuding from both nostrils. It was consistent with a blow on the nose shortly before death. Rigor mortis was definitely present. He did not make a thorough examination in the coppice. The lower jaw and the fingers were stiff. When they turned the body over there were scratches on the left shoulder blade, and the position of the hair and clothing gave the impression that the body bad be on dragged by the feet. Dr. Barrett, proceeding, said later in the evening he conducted a post-mortem examination in the Folkestone mortuary. On examining the body he noticed a smell of putrifaction. All the joints were affected by rigor mortis. The head, shoulders and the hips were stiff, but they were movable. This he attributed to the body having been moved to the glade. Rigor mortis was usually complete in from ten to eighteen hours after death. The usual time was ten to twelve hours. Rigor mortis usually lasted for 48 to 72 hours. The length of rigor mortis depended on climatic conditions. Under cool conditions it lasted longer and was slower in its onset. Continuing, Dr. Barrett said there was a bruise on the lower jaw, three on the forehead, three on the inside of the right arm, one three inches in length on the inner side of the left arm, and two immediately below the collar bone. There were other bruises not evident at the time. During the post-mortem examination he found two collections of fly eggs on the body. Fly eggs were laid as soon as the body putrified. At a temperature of about 50 degrees Fahr. such eggs would take about three days to hatch. At about 8 p.m. on May 27th he saw the body again. He found, by testing, that rigor mortis had disappeared, and the body was limp. He also took the contents of the stomach at that examination. Witness said he showed the body to Sir Bernard Spilsbury on June 1st, and was present when he made his examination.

Mr. Waddy: What is your opinion as to the cause of death?

Dr. Barrett: Strangulation caused by compression of the carotid arteries, causing immediate death.

Having regard to the dissection of the neck, what is your present opinion? - Having regard to what I have seen since I think death was due to pressure on the arteries rather than obstruction of the air passages.

In all the circumstances, what do you say about how long before the time that you saw the body on the evening of May 26th do you think death took place? - At least two, or probably three, days.

Witness was cross-examined about the evidence he gave at the inquest and the opinion he expressed then as to the length of time the woman had been dead.

Mr. Stuart Daniel, referring to the evidence given at the inquest, read: "The deceased had, in my opinion, been dead not longer than two days” - you said that on oath?

Witness: Yes.

Later, witness said he could not remember what he said, but if counsel had it in writing he would admit it. Continuing, witness said the scratch on the left shoulder blade was caused after death.

Mr. Daniel: Were all the others, in your opinion, incurred before death?

Witness: Quite definitely.

As to the cause of death, do you disagree with Sir Bernard Spilsbury? - I do disagree with Bernard Spilsbury. In my opinion it was caused by the tightening of the ligature.

Mr. Stanley Seymour Harrison, a photographer, of Tontine Street, Folkestone, gave evidence of the photographs he had taken of the body in the coppice and also of others taken when a tailor’s dummy was used in connection with the obstruction, consisting of branches of trees and a portion of the fence.

Mr. Bertram Harry Bonniface, Deputy Borough Coroner, said he had in his possession a report made by Dr. Barrett to the Coroner of the post-mortem examination on a woman unknown and put in at the inquest.

Dr. Barrett, re-called by Mr. Waddy for re-examination, said the report produced was the report he made to the Coroner.

Det. Inspector James O’Brien, of New Scotland Yard, gave evidence of taking photographs of a green scarf, a pair of braces, and a handkerchief. One of the photographs showed holes in the green scarf made by the clip of the braces.

Mr. Robert Henry Bird, a photographer employed by a firm known as Holiday Snaps, said the photograph of Mrs. Spiers produced was taken on the promenade near the Royal Victoria Pier at approximately 11 a.m. on Saturday, May 21st.

Mr. Alfred James Carter, of Ramsgate, a photographer employed by the same firm, said lie took the photographs produced near the Zig-Zag Cafe on Saturday, 21st May. It was a photograph of Mrs. Spiers. The other photograph of Mrs. Spiers was taken on Monday, 23rd May, at about 11.30 to 12 a.m., judging by the shadows. He noticed that she was wearing a scarf - it might have been a lined or spotted scarf.

Mr. Geoffrey Poole, Borough Surveyor’s assistant at Folkestone, produced a plan of the coppice where the body of Mrs. Spiers was found.

Mr. Douglas S. Moncrieff, 23, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, in charge of the meteorological department of Folkestone, said on 23rd May the maximum temperature was 64 degrees Fahr. and the minimum 42 degrees Fahr. The minimum grass temperature was 36 degrees. There was no rainfall. On Tuesday, 24th May, the maximum temperature was 63 degrees, and the minimum 44. There was no rainfall recorded at 10 a.m., but at 6 p.m. there was 0.01 inches recorded. On Wednesday, 25th May, the maximum temperature was 59 degrees Fahr. and the minimum 48 degrees. There was a fall of rain of less than .005 inches at 10 a.m., and at 6 p.m. .3 inches of rain. On Thursday, May 26th, the maximum temperature was 61 degrees, and the minimum 46 degrees. The rainfall at 10 a.m. was .02 inches, and at 6 p.m. nil.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stuart Daniel, witness said there was no rainfall on Sunday, May 22nd.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

When the case was resumed, Mr. Stuart Daniel said he had a short application to make on behalf of the prisoner, who complained that he had not been given anything to drink since breakfast time.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he did not know whether it was intoxicating liquor, but if it was anything else it could be prepared for him.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: He is asking for a pint of beer.

The Clerk said that was not possible as it was intoxicating drink.

The Chairman said it was not really a matter for them to deal with Det. Con. Bates, the Coroner’s Officer, said he went to the coppice at the foot of Caesar’s Camp, where be saw the body of the dead woman. There was a smell of putrifaction. He saw the fly eggs, and collected them in a glass tube, which be placed in a drawer at the Police Station. He examined it from time to time, and on Sunday, 29th, at 9.30 a.m. be found that the eggs had hatched, and the grubs were crawling. The approximate temperature of the office was 50 degrees Fahr. Continuing, witness said he showed the body of the woman to Mr. Spiers, to a Mr. Santer and Mr. Wanstall. On 31st May, in the evening, he took the prisoner to an outfitter in Folkestone and purchased him a complete change of clothing. He changed into the new clothing at the Police Station, and witness took possession of all the clothing he had been wearing.

He was wearing a trilby hat, trousers and braces, and a jacket with a tear. These he produced. The green zip-fastener purse (produced) was found in the left-hand pocket of the jacket.

Mr. Waddy pointed out that was the pocket from which Dr. Roche Lynch had said he had taken certain hairs.

Mrs. Bernice Katherine Hegarty, 18, Mead Road, Folkestone, said she had known Mrs. Spiers as “Phyllis Minter” for about 3 years. She recognised the handbag which she knew belonged to the murdered woman. She had a green purse which was something like the one produced. Witness could not say whether it was the same one. She remembered the murdered woman wearing a scarf, a plaid sort of thing with a white and black fringe. The piece of material produced was exactly like the scarf the murdered woman used to wear. She had never seen Phyllis wearing a green spotted scarf like the one produced.

Mr. Daniel: When was the last time you saw Phyllis?

Witness: On the Saturday before she was found.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said that on the evening of the 26th May he went to the coppice at the base of Caesar’s Camp. He took possession of the handbag (produced). He examined the contents of the bag, and found the piece of scarf (produced) in the bag. On the 27th May he made a search round the site and found a comb with one end broken off. He examined the ground between the spot where he found the comb and the barrier. The ground had the appearance of having had a heavy object dragged over it in the direction of the barrier. Near the spot where he found the comb he found a long hair, which he put in an envelope. One hair was taken from inside the collar of the coat covering the body. Another hair was taken from under the left lapel of the coat, and another from the right lapel of the coat. He also found a hair on the bramble over the body. He took a hair off the fence post which formed part of an exhibit. In another envelope he placed three hairs from the prisoner’s hat. He took some hairs from the head of the deceased woman at the mortuary and placed them in an envelope. On the 11th July last, in the presence of prisoner’s solicitor, he took four hairs from the prisoner’s head. On the 31st May he went to the common lodging-house at 50, Dover Street. He then obtained from the deputy a suitcase full of property. He showed them to the prisoner. Amongst the things were some photographs which prisoner intimated he would like. He found a blue and white pair of braces in the case. There was no scarf at all. He handed all the property to Chief Inspector Parker. On the 7th July he purchased half a pound of a certain make of butter and sent it to Chief Inspector Parker.

Robert John Read, 50, Dover Street, Folkestone, said he was the deputy of the lodging-house in Dover Street. He had known Whiting well for six to eight years. Prisoner had stayed at the house and was in and out of the house about two months ago. He kept a daily record of the men who stayed in the lodging- house. On the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th of May Whiting was booked to stay the night. He was occupying bed No. 25. He had a suitcase under his bed, which he handed to a police officer. He could not remember the date, but it was about the end of the week. There was an old bus driver’s coat over the bed.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: Were there any braces lying about?

Witness: I don’t remember any.

There was a certain amount of stuff lying about belonging to various people? - Yes, various articles.

If you find things lying about, and you do not know to whom they belong, do you put them in his suitcase? - Yes, I do if the man has one.

I suppose things sometimes get into a muddle? Yes, they pretty often get into a muddle.

Chief Inspector W. Parker, New Scotland Yard, said on May 27th he went to the coppice with Det. Sergt. Skardon. They went again the following morning and examined the clearing. From the state of the ground it was quite clear that some heavy object had been dragged to the obstruction in the pathway. He saw the prisoner at the Folkestone Police Station on May 30th. He was accompanied by Det. Sergt. Skardon. He said “We are police officers from London making enquiries concerning Phyllis May Spiers who was found dead on May 26th at Caesar’s Camp. I believe you knew her.” He replied “Yes.” Witness then said “I desire you to tell me all you know about this woman and your association with her”. Whiting replied “I will tell you what I know”.

Mr. Daniel questioned Det. Inspector Parker about the circumstances and the conditions when a statement was taken from Whiting.

Mr. Daniel: What was the time when you first came in contact with him?

Det.-Inspector Parker: About ten o’clock at night.

Do you know how long he had been in the Police Station then? - No, I do not.

Would you be surprised to know that he had been there since 7.30? - No, I should not be surprised.

What time did he leave that evening? - I finished with him somewhere about two o’clock in the morning, but, of course, there were interruptions in between. I had to see other people, and he had his storv to tell me, and his statement was taken after.

Are you sure it was not later than that? - No.

It was exactly two o’clock? - Yes.

Did you make him strip at this interview?

The Magistrates’ Clerk: At what stage, in the course of making the statement?

Witness: After the statement had been taken from him in writing.

Mr. Daniel: At what time between ten and two was the statement taken?

Det.-Inspector Parker: He commenced to tell me his story about ten o’clock or shortly after, and I should think the statement was commenced round about eleven o’clock.

How long did it take to get it down? - About 2 hours. It was written down carefully and very slowly.

Did he sign it immediately? - After the statement had been read over to him.

Whiting: You never read it over to me.

Mr. Daniel: Are you sure it was read over to him?

Det. Inspector Parker: I am positive.

Did you say “Now sign here and walk out a free man.”? - No, I certainly did not.

Did you say anything of that sort? - No.

Was anything of that sort said to the prisoner in your presence? - No.

Did he have anything to drink during this time? - Whilst I was there, no.

You were there all the time? - During the time I have mentioned Whiting, in his statement, said: “I am a widower, my wife died on 3rd May, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. My wife left me in 1935.” Later, went on the statement, he lived in Dover with a Mrs. Woodbridge. She left him in November, 1937, after her mother received a letter from a landlord in Folkestone saying that her daughter was drinking in public houses. While he was living with Mrs. Woodbridge a young girl, who Mrs. Woodbridge said was named Phyllis Minter, came to see her. In his statement Whiting said he met the murdered woman on Monday, May 23rd at about 12.30 p.m., and they went to the Globe public house on The Bayle. They stayed for about ten minutes. While they were there she said she could get married again. “I said ‘Can you?’” continued Whiting’s statement, “and read the divorce papers. She said ‘Why don’t you marry me and let’s go back to Dover?’” The statement then went on to describe how Whiting and the girl went to the golf links. “We sat down on the grass”, it continued, “when she pulled out something wrapped in brown paper. Some stitches and a ring, a little bone ring. She said they were stitches which had been taken out of her operation. We were both thinking. I don't know what was the matter with her that day. She was not cheerful. She did not speak much. I believe there was something worrying her. I have seen her like it at Dover when she came in staring at me. I cannot say what was on her mind. Perhaps it was because she was down and out. I said nothing to upset her”. Continuing, the statement described how they made their way to Cherry Garden Lane and into Cheriton Road, after crossing the golf links. “I told her that I worshipped Rose”, it continued. “I said 'If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again'. I did not see Phyllis at all on Tuesday. Phyllis and I did not discuss living together before last Monday”.

Continuing his evidence, Chief Inspector Parker said he examined the prisoner's body, and there were no scratches on it. He was wearing a blue cloth jacket. At the back of the jacket, at the point of the left shoulder blade, there was a right angle tear. Witness asked him where he tore his jacket, and he replied “I don't know where or when I did it”. He showed him the green scarf and asked him if he recognised it. He replied “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that”. At about 11.15 p.m. on June 1st he, together with Det. Sergt. Skardon. saw ihe prisoner and went through the statement up to the point where he referred to sitting on the grass on the golf course on May 23rd. Whiting then made a statement which witness immediately instructed Sergt. Skardon to write down. Witness said to the prisoner after the statement had been taken “Would you care for this statement which you have just made to be taken down in writing?” He replied “Yes, it is quite true”. The prisoner was taken to the Chief Constable’s office, where he was cautioned, and the statement was read to him from Det. Sergt. Skardon’s notebook. The statement was as follows: “When we went on to the golf course on the Monday, the day I have already told you about, I mean when I was with Phyllis and when we were sitting on the grass, she was very quiet, and I said ‘What is the matter?’ She said ‘I am fed up and I am going to do myself in’. I said ‘How are you going to do it?’ and she said ‘Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck’. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. After we got up and walked across the golf links. She was very quiet and kept saying she was fed up. I have not seen her since that Monday, 22nd May, 1938.” “I might tell you that she was partly the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving me”, the statement concluded. Describing how the last sentence of the statement came out, witness said before Whiting made the last part of the statement there was some delay. He was very quiet and he appeared to be thinking very deeply.

The case was at this stage adjourned until the following day.

Before the evidence for the prosecution was continued on Tuesday Mr. Waddy referred to a witness who was unconscious and in Hospital. He said one of the witnesses he proposed to call that day was in Hospital dangerously ill. An officer was waiting to see if he regained consciousness, and if he did it might be necessary to take an examination of the witness at the Hospital, which was permissible under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1867. It was important, he continued, that if a witness was ill and not likely to recover that it should be done. The Court would adjourn to the Hospital.

The Chairman of the Magistrates: It is very unfortunate.

Mr. Waddy: I understand it was only this morning that the witness was admitted to the Hospital unconscious.

When the day’s proceedings were brought to a close, Mr. Waddy said he could have completed all the evidence had it not been for the unfortunate illness of the witness, Wanstall, who was still in Hospital. He was told that Wanstall was expected to be there to give evidence on Friday.

It is understood that a man named Frederick Wanstall, of Invicta Road, an employee of the Folkestone Golf Club, was found unconscious at the edge of a pond on the golf links on Tuesday morning. His clothing was wet, and he was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital, where he was detained.

Chief Inspector Parker went into the box for the purpose of Mr. Stuart Daniel continuing his cross-examination.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: Why did you read through his statement?

Witness: I was endeavouring to test the accuracy of his statement.

During the interview was it you that first mentioned suicide? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon, New Scotland Yard, said on the afternoon of 27th May, 1938, he went with Chief Inspector Parker to a coppice near Caesar’s Camp. It was raining heavily at the time. He noticed a clearing to the west of the barrier which was an exhibit. There were signs as if some heavy object had been dragged towards the barrier from a spot about ten to fifteen feet away. He was present when the statement was made by Whiting. Prisoner was wearing a blue jacket which had a right-angle tear. Chief Inspector Parker said “Where did you tear your jacket?” and be replied "I don’t know where or when I did it”. He saw Chief Inspector Pinker produce the scarf and said “Do you recognise the scarf?” Whiting said “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that”. On the 1st June he was present throughout the interview in which the second statement was made. On the fourth June he posed for the photograph (produced). On the 8th June he posed for a second photograph. He went through the barrier backwards, the only practical way, wearing a blue tunic. He tore his tunic on the barb of wire which he saw in the exhibit. He tore it on the left shoulder blade. That tear was quite accidental though he Knew there was a barb there and there was a chance of tearing it.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: You have seen both these tears, have you?

Witness: Yes.

They are quite a different shape? - 'Yes, they are different materials.

The weave in the two coats runs at the same angle from the shoulder? - Yes.

Was it not you or Inspector Parker who first suggested suicide? - No.

Did you say to the prisoner “He is trying to help you”? - No.

Pte. Harold Wall, of the 1st Bn. Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe, said that he recognised a girl in the photograph (produced) as Phyllis Butcher. He met her first about last March. He became friendly with her, and they lived together as man and wife from about 15th to the 19th May in Sandgate. In the photograph he saw that Phyllis was wearing a scarf. It was his scarf. The piece of scarf (produced) was part of his scarf. On two sides it was plain and on the other two a sort of fringe. He had the fringe cut off and the ends bound over. One side of the material produced showed where it had been bound over. He last saw her on the 19th May, and he left the scarf behind him. He went to Aldershot. He had never seen the green scarf (produced) in Phyllis’ possession.

Mr. John Joseph Hearst, 100, Joyes Road, Folkestone, manager of Messrs. Hepworth’s, Folkestone, said they stocked a similar scarf to the one produced. They stocked them from October, 1936, to November, 1937. He might have had them in stock after that date, but could not say definitely. They were definitely again in stock from October, 1937, to February or March, 1938.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: It’s a very common type of scarf isn’t it?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Joseph Charles Kember, 4, Shakespeare Road, Dover, employed at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he knew the prisoner by sight, and had interviewed him in connection with his duties. He last sent him to work on the 19th April to the Esplanade Hotel. He noticed he was wearing round his neck a scarf or neckerchief. It was dark green with white spots. The green scarf (produced) was very similar to the one he wore. It was tied at the left-hand side of the throat. He would think that it was wound twice round the neck and then tied. It appeared to be in a reef knot. He saw him wearing the scarf on the 21st April. On the 16th to 20th May, to the best of his recollection, Whiting was wearing the scarf. That was the last time he saw him wearing the scarf. He next saw him on the 30th May, but he could not say whether he was wearing a scarf at all.

P.C. Pearce, Dover Borough Police, said on the 9th April last the prisoner was in his charge at Dover for about three-quarters of an hour. He noticed that he was wearing a bottle green scarf with dirty white spots around his neck. The green scarf (produced) was very similar to the one that lie saw. The scarf was wound round prisoner's neck twice and tied in a small knot on the left-hand side of his neck.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: I want to get it quite clear it was not in connection with any criminal offence that he was in your charge?

Witness: No.

Mr. John McKinnon Taylor, 24, Walton Gardens, Folkestone, a clerk in the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said that he knew the prisoner by sight. He went on leave on the 21st May and returned on the 30th May. He last saw the accused on Friday, the 20th May, before he went on leave. On that occasion Whiting was wearing a green scarf with white spots round his neck quite similar to the one produced. He had frequently seen him wearing the green scarf. He saw the prisoner on the 30th May, and he was not wearing any scarf then, and he had never seen him wearing a scarf since that date.

Mrs. A.M. Wright, of 9, Garden Road, Folkestone, said she recognised Mrs. Spiers in the photograph. She came to her house on Saturday, 21st May, and witness let her a room in the name of Phyllis Minter, She stayed in the house on Saturday night, and on the Sunday night, and witness took her bread and butter and tea into her room on Monday morning. She used a certain kind of butter. On Monday morning witness went out with Phyllis, and they walked into the town. They did some shopping and left each other at 10.25 a.m., when witness caught a bus in Sandgate Road. She had not seen Mrs. Spiers since, but she had an appointment to meet her at the Lido at 7.45 p.m. on the Monday. Witness kept the appointment, but Mrs. Spiers did not arrive. Witness went home and waited for Mrs. Spiers. The comb produced belonged to Mrs. Spiers. She saw it on the chest of drawers by the side of her bed. As far as she could see Phyllis did not have a green scarf similar to the one produced.

Mr. Hubert Pynaert, a waiter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he first saw Mrs. Spiers at the hotel, where she was working, about a year ago. He had only seen her once this year, on May 23rd, at 9.40 a.m., and he was with her until 12.30 p.m. During that time they walked by the beach. She was wearing a dark scarf with light lines in it. The piece of material produced was similar to the scarf.

Mr. Charles Leonard Varrier, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, said he knew the prisoner and Mrs. Spiers. He knew her as the “Minter girl”. He last saw her on May 23rd at about 1.30 p.m. or 1.40 p.m. on the corner of New Street. He saw Whiting come out of a shop and go over to her. They both turned the corner of Bradstone Road together.

Mrs. Lilian Maude Varrier, wife of the previous witness, said she knew the prisoner. She saw him on Monday, May 23rd. He went to the corner of Bradstone Road and New Street, where he met a girl wearing a long blue coat.

Mrs. Norah Laws, of 68, Foord Road, said she knew the dead woman as Mrs. Butcher. She came to her house on a Thursday in May and took a room. She stayed for two nights, Thursday and Friday nights. She left without paying witness. Continuing, witness said she saw Mrs. Spiers the following Monday at dinner time. She was with a man. Mrs. Spiers ran after her and spoke to her. She saw Mrs. Spiers and the man cross over by the Foord baths. That was the last she saw of her.

Mr. William David Marsh, of 18, Clarence Street, Folkestone, a Folkestone Corporation employee, said he had to do some repair work to paving stones in Radnor Park Avenue, opposite the Peter Pan Pool. On Monday, May 23rd, he saw Whiting and a woman pass, going in the direction of the golf links. He did not know the woman.

William J. Harbird, of 23. Allendale Street, Folkestone, a gardener, employed at 7, Julian Road, said he saw Whiting in Radnor Park Avenue either on May 23rd or 24th with a woman. They were going towards the golf links. The woman was wearing a blue coat and was hatless. He recognised the young lady in the photograph produced.

Mr. Harry James Santer, of 5, Pavilion Road, Folkestone, a groundsman employed by the Folkestone Golf Club, said on June 1st he was shown the dead body of a young woman. He had seen her before on May 23rd at about 1.20 p.m. on the beach road at the Folkestone golf links. Whiting was with her. He saw the girl sit down on the bank and Whiting standing about nine feet away from her. He noticed that the girl was very red under the eyes, and it appeared to him as if she had been crying.

Mr. Waddy said the next witness he wanted to call was the one in the Hospital.

Mrs. Florence Thompson, of 19, Hamilton Road, Dover, said she knew the dead woman, Phyllis, and Whiting. She had noticed that the prisoner wore a green scarf similar to the one produced. She had seen him wearing the scarf at Dover on several occasions. Once, when she came over to Folkestone she saw Whiting at the Guildhall Hotel a day or two before May 30th. She went to various places, and eventually to the South Foreland public house with Whiting. Witness mentioned she knew a girl called Rose. Whiting told her that he thought a lot of Rose, and he did not know the reason why she left him. Witness said she happened to mention Phyllis' name in Jordan's public house, and Whiting said “If you don't keep your mouth shut I will put you on the spot”. Witness said it was a shame Phyllis was murdered, as she was a decent girl. Whiting asked her how she would like a scarf round her neck. “He said 'You can do a murder without finding the print marks or the foot marks'”, continued witness. “I said 'No, it would not pay you to'”, added witness.

Mr. Robert William Weatherhead, of 35, Darlington Street, Folkestone, said he knew Whiting well. He remembered a “noisy” evening at the Guildhall public house on a Friday about 23rd or 24th June. Whiting was in the saloon bar and came round to the public bar and played a game of darts with witness as his partner. Whiting was abusive to the landlord, and witness tried to pacify him. Whiting tucked up his sleeves and rushed towards the counter. Witness tried to pull him back, and he said “You ----. I will serve you the same as I served the blondie”.

Mr. Daniel: I think I will have an objection to this evidence.

Mr. Waddy: How can there be any objection?

Witness said that Whiting had had one or two drinks.

Mr. Daniel said he did object to the evidence. It was not admissible against him unless it amounted to a confession or admission of facts which tended to prove that he committed the crime. Taken at its worst, the evidence amounted to nothing more than the admission of a violent act on an unspecified person.

The Chairman of the Magistrates said they did not find any grounds on which they could object to the evidence going in.

Mr. William W.H. Hall, of 16, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said he had seen Whiting with Rose Milton (Mrs. Woodbridge) at the Elham Institution. Whiting stayed with witness in March for about two weeks. He said he wished he was back with Rose, and if she ever wanted to, he was willing to start a home. Witness knew they had been living together. Whiting used to talk about her a lot. Whiting wore a green scarf with white spots on it. He wore it twice round his neck and tucked inside his jersey.

Mrs. Daisy E.C. Hall, wife of the last witness, said Whiting seemed very upset that Rose had left him, and blamed the girl’s mother. She did the prisoner’s washing, and she remembered that he had a green scarf with white spots on it.

Cross-examined, witness agreed that Whiting had only one pair of braces.

Mrs. Elvey Flynn, of 21, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Minter. She also knew Rose Milton, Whiting and Mr. and Mrs. Hall.

Whiting asked her on one occasion if she had seen Rose. She replied she had not seen her since the time she came out of the pictures. He said “Have you said anything to her?” and she replied “No”. He then asked her if she knew anyone who had, and did she think Phyllis had said anything? He said if he did find out anybody who did tell her anything he would strangle them. Witness noted that the prisoner wore a green scarf with white spots on it. The scarf produced was the scarf. She had seen him put it on. He knotted it in front and twisted each end round his braces.

Mrs. Rose Cathleen Woodbridge, of the Eight Bells lodging house, King Street, Canterbury, said she knew a man named Milton, and for a time lived with him as his wife. While she was living with Milton she got to know a girl named Phyllis Minter. On 4th September, 1935, she married Mr. Woodbridge and lived with him for nearly a year. After she had separated from him she lived with the prisoner. At that time she had known Whiting for just over a year. She lived with him until a fortnight before Christmas, when she went home. She had been to the Alexandra public house, Folkestone, with Phyllis while she was living with Whiting. When she got home she told Whiting about two fellows who had asked her and Phyllis to go away with them. Whiting started to get a bit rough over it. He said “If you don't stop going about with Phyllis I shall do something wrong”. He said he would try to strangle her (Phyllis), and witness told him to be careful as walls might have ears. Later on her (witness’) mother came and took her home, and Whiting was quite upset. She had not seen him since she left him.

While Whiting lived with her he wore a green scarf with white spots round his neck. It was similar to the scarf produced. She had worn the scarf which he had said he had purchased from Hepburn’s near the Savoy Picture Theatre.

Mrs. Woodbridge, accompanied by Mr. Lloyd Bunce and Det. Segrt. Skardon, was taken out to identify the shop. When she returned she said it was Lewis and Hyland's.

Cross-examined, witness said Whiting had only one pair of braces.

Alfred James Moore, of 10, Dale Street, Chiswick, said in the early part of the year he was employed as a clerk in the Public Assistance Department at Folkestone. He had seen the prisoner on several occasions in the middle of March and he noticed that he was wearing a green scarf with white spots.

Mr. Waddy said had it not been for the unfortunate illness of an important witness he could easily have finished. He was unable to call a man named Wanstall, who was in Hospital. He was told that they expected to have Wanstall there to give evidence by Friday. It was just possible that in calling him he might have to call one more witness to fix a certain place and date.

Whiting was remanded in custody until today (Friday).

 

Folkestone Herald 23 July 1938.

Local News.

William Whiting, aged 38, a general labourer, of Folkestone, charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, a Folkestone woman, was committed to take his trial at the Central Criminal Court next September, when the case for the Crown was concluded at the Folkestone Police Court yesterday.

After two all-day sittings on Monday and Tuesday, the hearing was adjourned until yesterday owing to the illness of a witness, who was found unconscious near a pond on the golf links early on Tuesday morning. During the hearings earlier in the week the case for the prosecution had been continued, a large number of witnesses being called. On Monday two alleged statements made by Whiting to Chief Inspector W. Parker, of Scotland Yard, were read. On Tuesday witnesses gave evidence of alleged statements which had been made by the accused in local public houses on occasions since the finding of Mrs. Spiers’s body in a coppice near Caesar’s Camp, Folkestone, on the evening of Thursday, May 26th. There was much public interest in the proceedings.

The magistrates were: Councillor R.G. Wood (presiding), Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer, and Mrs. R.L.T. Saunders.

Mr. Benjamin H. Waddy conducted the case for the Director of Public Prosecutions with Mr. F. Donal-Barry, and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel, instructed by Mr. H. Lloyd Bunce, defended.

Dr. William. Claude Percy Barrett, Police Surgeon, was the first witness when the case was continued on Monday. He said that on Thursday, May 26th at about 6.30 p.m. he went to a coppice at the foot of Caesars Camp. Chief Inspector Hollands was there with other officers. Witness saw there the body of a woman. There was a green scarf with white spots around the neck. It was wound around twice and tied very tightly with the knot pressing on the right side of the neck. It was above the larynx and close under the chin. The colour of the face was natural and the expression was peaceful. There was no blueness or lividity of the face. The tongue was just between the teeth and it was not injured. The nose was bruised and there was blood exuding from both nostrils. The condition of the nose was consistent with a blow shortly before death. The lower jaw was stiff when examined in the glade and the fingers were also stiff. The appearance of the scratches on the left shoulder blade and the position of the hair pointed to the fact that the body had been dragged by the feet. Later that evening witness conducted a post mortem at the Folkestone Mortuary. On entering the mortuary there was a distinct smell of putrefaction. He noticed one bruise on the lower jaw and three bruises on the forehead. There were also three distinct bruises on the inner side of the right arm, and two immediately below the collar bone, one the size of a threepenny bit and the other the size of a shilling. There were multiple other bruises which were not visible at the time. He discovered two fly eggs on the body. Fly eggs were normally laid on the flesh as soon as it putrefied. At a temperature of about 50 degrees Fahrenheit they would take about three days to hatch. On July 1st he showed the body to Sir Bernard Spilsbury and was present when he made his examination. In his (witness’s) opinion the cause of death was strangulation caused by compression of the carotid arteries causing immediate death. After what he had subsequently seen he was still of the opinion that death was due to the compression of the arteries rather than the obstruction of the air passage. Death took place at least two, and probably three days, before the evening of May 26th.

Mr. Daniel: That is quite different from the opinion you held formerly.

Dr. Barrett: I presume you are referring to the short report I made at 2 a.m. for the Coroner. I had had no time to consider it fully then.

Mr. Daniel: I have the evidence you gave at the inquest. That was not at 2 a.m.

Witness said since then other information had come to hand.

Mr. Daniel: Were not the full facts before you? - No, I don’t think so. The fly eggs had not hatched then and that was a factor that helped. Furthermore, on Saturday there were signs of putrefaction which I did not know until after the inquest. There were no such signs when I examined it.

Mr. Daniel: You found scratches on the left shoulder blade. Were they made in your opinion after or before death? - After death. The mark was not a bramble scratch. All the others occurred before death.

Mr. Daniel: I take, it as to the cause of death, you disagree with Sir Bernard Spilsbury?

Dr. Barrett said he did disagree as to the cause of death.

(At the previous hearing Sir Bernard gave the cause of death as manual strangulation.)

Stanley S. Harrison, a professional photographer, gave evidence of photographs he had taken of the place where the body was found.

Mr. Waddy said he understood that the Coroner had raised some objection as to the report made by Dr. Barrett to him being produced there. He wanted the report put in because counsel for the defence had asked about it: if necessary he would have to call the Coroner to produce the document and then put it to Dr. Barrett.

The Chairman: I should have thought he would have preferred to let you have the report.

Mr. Waddy then called Mr. Bertram Harry Bonniface, Deputy Coroner, who said he had in his possession a report made by Dr. Barrett to the Coroner with regard to his post mortem and put in at the inquest held on May 30th.

Dr. Barrett was then re-called by Mr. Waddy and asked to look at the report he made to the Coroner.

Mr. Waddy: In the last paragraph of the report you say: “Death occurred at least 48 hours before the body was found and very likely 72 hours, i.e., Monday night, May 23rd, or Tuesday night, May 24th”.

Dr. Barrett: That is so.

Mr. Daniel said his questions were in regard to the evidence Dr. Barrett gave at the inquest. He then found deceased had not been dead longer than two days.

Det. Inspector J. O’Brien, New Scotland Yard, said on July 1st he made photographs of a green scarf, a pair of braces, and a handkerchief.

Robert H. Bird, a photographer employed by Holiday Snaps, gave evidence of taking a photograph of Mrs. Spiers on Saturday, May 21st on the promenade near the Victoria Pier.

Alfred James Carter, another photographer employed by the same firm, also gave evidence of taking two pictures of deceased, one on the Saturday, May 21st, and the other on Monday, May 23rd. The second picture was taken about 11.30 to 12 o’clock near the Zig Zag cafe on the promenade. He could not describe the scarf Mrs. Spiers was wearing: it might have been a lined or spotted scarf.

Geoffrey Poole, assistant to the Borough Surveyor of Folkestone, produced a plan of the coppice and country surrounding it.

Douglas S. Moncrieff, in charge of the Meteorological Department, Folkestone, said on May 23rd there was no rainfall. At 6 p.m. on May 24th there was recorded one-hundredth of an inch of rain. On May 25th there was recorded .3 inches of rain, and at 10 a.m. on the following day .02 inches of rain.

When the hearing was resumed after lunch, Mr. Daniel said the accused had a complaint to make. He had had nothing to drink since he had been there.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he did not know whether it was intoxicating liquor prisoner wanted, but if it was anything else it could be prepared for him.

Mr. Daniel said the prisoner was asking for a pint of beer.

The Chairman said they could not give permission for that.

Det. Constable Bates, Coroner’s Officer, gave evidence of proceeding to the spot where the woman’s body was found. Witness said he put the fly eggs referred to by Dr. Barrett in a glass tube and left it at the Police Station. He examined the tube from time to time. At 10.30 p.m. on Saturday, May 28th there was no sign of life, but on the following morning at 9.30 a.m. he found that the eggs had hatched and the grubs were crawling. The temperature of the room was approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit. On May 31st, in the evening, he took the prisoner to an outfitter in Folkestone and purchased for him a complete change of clothing. He then went with him to the Police Station where he changed into the new clothing. Witness took possession of all the clothing Whiting had been wearing. The hat, trousers with braces attached, and a jacket were produced. Witness said there was a tear in the jacket. The green zip-fastener purse was in the left hand pocket of the jacket.

Mr. Waddy: That was the pocket from which. Dr. Roche Lynch said he took certain hairs.

Bernice Katharine Hegarty, 18, Mead Road, Folkestone, who said that she had known Mrs. Spiers as Phyllis Minter for three and a half years, stated that she recognised the handbag produced as belonging to the dead woman. She also had a green purse. Witness could not say whether the purse produced was the one: it was something like the one Phyllis had. She had seen the dead woman wearing a scarf—a plaid sort of thing with a white and black fringe. The pieces of material (produced) were like the scarf she used to wear. Witness had never seen Phyllis wearing a scarf like the green one with white spots.

Mr. Daniel: When did you last see Phyllis?

Witness: On the Saturday before she was found.

Robert John Read, 50, Dover Street, Folkestone, said he was the deputy of a lodging house at that address. He had known Whiting well for six or eight weeks. He had known him for 15 years as a Folkestone man. He kept a daily record of the men who stayed at the house. On May 23rd Whiting was booked as having stayed there the night. He had also stayed there on May 24th, 25th and 26th. He was occupying a bed at the top of the house. He had a suitcase under his bed which witness handed to a police officer at the end of the week. Whiting had an old bus driver’s coat hanging over the bed, but practically everything he had was in the suitcase.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not put anything into the suitcase. There was often something left behind by other people when they went out and the beds were so close together that it was difficult to tell whose it was. If he found things lying about and knew to whom they belonged he put them into a suitcase.

Mr. Daniel: I suppose things sometimes get into a bit of a muddle?

Witness: Pretty often.

Mr. Daniel: Is it common for men who come to the house to have two pairs of braces? - It is seldom that the men have two suits let alone two pairs of braces.

Det. Sergeant Johnson said on the evening of May 26th he went to the coppice at the base of Caesar’s Camp. He took possession of a handbag and examined the contents. He found a piece of scarf material in the handbag.

On May 27th he made a search around the spot where the body was found during the evening. He found a comb with one broken end in the clearing. He examined the ground between the spot where he found the comb and the barrier of boughs. It had the appearance of having had a heavy object dragged over it in the direction of the barrier. He also found a long hair close to the spot where he found the comb. On May 26th witness obtained a hair from inside the collar of the coat covering the body. Another hair he found on the left lapel of the coat and he also discovered a further hair on the right lapel. He found another hair on the bramble over the body. He took a hair off the post of the barrier. He also took three hairs from inside Whiting’s hat. He obtained other hairs from the head of the deceased on June 1st at the mortuary. In the presence of prisoner’s solicitor, on July 11th, witness obtained four hairs from his head and handed those with the others to Chief Inspector Parker. On May 31st he went to a lodging house, 50, Dover Street, Folkestone, and there obtained from the deputy a suitcase of clothes, the property of the prisoner. Whiting later saw it at the Police Station and he made some remarks about some photographs which were amongst the clothes. He said he would like to have them. In that suitcase there were a pair of blue and white braces. There was no scarf in the case. Witness said on July 7th he purchased lb. of Blue Label butter which he sent to Chief Inspector Parker.

Mr. Daniel did not ask any questions.

Det. Inspector William Parker, New Scotland Yard, said on May 27th he went with Det. Sergeant Skardon to the coppice near Caesar’s Camp.

He returned there on the morning of May 28th and examined the clearing. It was quite clear that some heavy object had been dragged to the obstruction in the pathway. On May 30th at 10 p.m. with Det. Sergeant Skardon he saw Whiting at the Police Station. He said to prisoner “We are police officers from London making enquiries concerning Phyllis May Spiers who was found dead on May 26th at Caesar’s Camp. I believe you knew her”. He said “Yes”. Witness then said “I desire you to tell me all you know about this woman and your association with her”. He replied “I will tell you what I know”.

Mr. Daniel: Was this the occasion when prisoner came to the Police Station from Woolworths?

Witness: I could not say.

Mr. Daniel: What time was it you came into contact with him? - About 10 o’clock at night.

Did you know how long he had been in the Police Station? - I did not.

Would you be surprised to know he had been there since 7.30? - No, I should not be surprised.

What time did he leave? - I finished with him somewhere about 2 o’clock in the morning. There were interruptions in between.

Are you sure it was not actually rather later than that? - No.

Did you make him strip at this interview? - Yes.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): At what stage?

Witness: After the statement had been taken from him.

Mr. Daniel: At what time between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. was the statement taken? - Round about 11 o’clock.

How long did it take to get the statement? - About two and three-quarter hours.

Did he sign it immediately? - After the statement had been read over to him.

You are quite sure it was read over to him? - He signed it.

Did you say “Now sign here and walk out a free man”? - No, I certainly did not.

Did you say “Sign here and you can go”? - No.

Did you say anything of that sort? - No.

Did he have anything to drink all this time? - While I was there, no.

The question whether the alleged statement was admissible was raised and the Magistrates decided that it was quite admissible.

The alleged statement was then read by Mr. Barry. It commenced: “I am a widower. My wife died on May 3rd, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from wife”. The statement went on to say that his (Whiting’s) wife left him in 1935. Later he had lived in Dover with a Mrs. Woodridge, who left him in November, 1937, after her mother had received a letter from a landlord in Folkestone saying that her daughter was drinking in public houses. While they (Whiting and Woodridge) were living at Dover a young girl, whom Mrs. Woodridge said was Phyllis Minter, came to see Mrs. Woodridge. Coming to Monday, May 23rd, the alleged statement described how Whiting met Mrs. Spiers about 12.30 p.m. and they went to the Globe Hotel on The Bayle. “We stayed there about 10 minutes", the alleged statement continued, “and she said she had something to show me, and she showed me some divorce papers. She said ‘I can get married again’. I said 'Can you?’ and read the divorce papers . . . She said ‘Why don’t you many me and let’s go back to Dover?’ “ The alleged statement next described how they went together to the golf links, and added “We sat down on the grass when she pulled out something wrapped in brown paper, some stitches and a ring, a little bone ring. She said that they were stitches which she had had taken out after her operation. We were both thinking. I don’t know what was the matter with her that day; she was not cheerful. She did not speak much. I believe there was something worrying her. I have seen her like it at Dover when she came in staring at me. I cannot say what she had on her mind. Perhaps it was because she was down and out. I said nothing to upset her”.

The alleged statement went on to say that they crossed the golf links and then went up Cherry Garden Lane, by the War Memorial, and into Cheriton Road. I again told her I worshipped Rose (Mrs. Woodridge)”, continued the statement. “I said if Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again”. The alleged statement next dealt with Tuesday and the Wednesday, and in it Whiting said that he did not see Phyllis on the Tuesday. It also stated that before the Monday (May 23rd) they had not discussed living together before. Continuing, witness said he examined defendant’s body and there were no scratches or injuries on it. He noticed on the defendant’s jacket at the back, at the point of the loft shoulder blade, there was a right angle tear. He said to Whiting “Where did you tear your jacket?” and he replied “I don’t know where or when I did it”. Witness said “Do you recognise this scarf?” He replied “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that”. About 11.15 p.m. on June 1st he saw Whiting again at the Police Station and went through the statement with him up to the point where he spoke about sitting on the grass on the golf course. Whiting then made a statement. Afterwards witness said to prisoner “Would you care for the statement you have just made to be taken down in writing?’' He said “Yes, it is quite true”. Witness then cautioned Whiting. Witness then dictated to prisoner the statement Det. Sergeant Skardon had written down.

The alleged statement was then read as follows: “When we went to the golf course on the Monday, the day I have already told you about, I mean when I was with Phyllis and when we, sat on the grass, she was very quiet and I said 'What is the matter?'” “She said 'I am fed up and I am going to do myself in.’” I said “How are you going to do it?” and she said 'Strangle myself with a scarf, round my neck’”. “She was wearing a green spotted scarf. After we got up and walked across the golf links she was very quiet and kept on saying she was fed up. I have not seen her since Monday, May 23rd. I might tell you she was partly the cause of Rose Woodridge leaving me".

Inspector Parker said before Whiting made the last part of the statement there was some delay, he was very quiet, and he appeared to be thinking very deeply The hearing was then adjourned until Tuesday.

When the hearing was continued on Tuesday morning, Mr. Waddy, prosecuting, said one of the witnesses he had proposed to call that day was in hospital dangerously ill. “We have an officer there watching to see whether this witness recovers consciousness”, he said. “I understand he is unconscious. If a message comes through that the witness recovers consciousness it will be necessary to take an examination at the hospital under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1867. It is important if a witness were likely to recover that that should be done”.

The Chairman (Mr. R.G. Wood): The court would be adjourned during that period.

Mr. Waddy: It would be adjourned to the hospital. I understand only this morning this witness was admitted to the hospital unconscious.

Later it was stated by Mr. Waddy that he hoped the witness would able to give evidence on the Friday (yesterday).

Chief Inspector Parker was cross-examined by Mr. Daniel, who asked him how long the interview on June 1st lasted.

Inspector Parker: You mean prior to the statement?

Mr. Daniel: Yes.

Witness: About 15 minutes.

Mr. Daniel: Why did you read over the first statement? - There was some discrepancy in the dates in the first place.

You went on far beyond any question of dates in the statement? - Yes.

Why was that? - I was endeavouring to test the accuracy of his statement.

Was he then with you for some time after the statement was given that night? - No.

During the interview was it not you who first mentioned the word suicide? - No.

Did Det. Sergeant Skardon? - No.

Det. Sergeant Skardon, New Scotland Yard, was the next witness. He said on the afternoon of Friday, May 27th, he went with Chief Inspector Parker to a coppice near Caesar’s Camp. It was raining heavily at the time. He noticed a clearing to the west of the barrier (produced) and there were signs on the ground that a heavy object had been dragged towards the barrier from a spot about 10 to 15 feet away. He was present with Chief Inspector Parker on May 30th when the prisoner made his statement. He (prisoner) was then wearing a blue jacket which had a right angle tear. Witness said on June 4th he posed whilst a photograph was taken and he also did so on June 8th. On the second occasion he went through the barrier backwards dragging a tailor’s dummy. He was wearing a police serge tunic. As he went through backwards he tore the tunic on the barbed wire of the obstruction. Witness pointed out the barb on the exhibit in court. The tear was on the left shoulder blade. He knew there was a barb there and that there was a chance of tearing the tunic, but it was quite accidental.

Mr. Daniel: You did mean to tear your coat, didn’t you?

Witness: No.

You knew the barb was standing up vertically? - Yes.

Mr. Daniel: The tears are of a different shape? - Yes, but the materials are different.

The weave of the two coats runs in the same angle from the shoulder? - I had not noticed that, but I am prepared to agree.

Mr. Daniel: When the second statement was given how long was the prisoner with you?

Witness: Half an hour to three-quarters of an hour.

Mr. Daniel: Wasn’t it you or Inspector Parker who first used the word “suicide”? - No.

Pte. Harold Wall, 1st Batt. Royal Berkshire Regiment, Shomcliffe, recognised the dead woman in a photograph and said he knew her as “Phyllis Butcher”. He first met her in March of this year. He became friendly with her. They lived together from May 15th to 19th as man and wife. He recognised the scarf Phyllis was wearing in a photograph as his. The scarf was plain on two sides and on the other two had a fringe. Witness had the fringe cut off and the end bound over. He last saw Phyllis on May 19th. Witness went to Aldershot on that day and left his scarf behind. He had never seen the green scarf with white spots in Phyllis’s possession.

John Joseph Hurst, 100, Joyes Road, the manager of J. Hepworth and Son’s shop, Sandgate Road, Folkestone, said he stocked a scarf similar to the green one from October, 1936, to February, 1937, and again from October, 1937 to February or March, 1938.

Mr. Daniel: It’s a very common type of scarf?

Witness: Yes.

Charles Joseph Kimber, 4, Shakespeare Road, Dover, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, Ingles Lane, Folkestone, said he knew prisoner by sight and had interviewed him in connection with his duties. He last sent him to a job on April 19th. He (prisoner) was wearing a scarf or neckerchief of dark green with white spots. The green scarf (produced) was very similar to the one Whiting was wearing. The scarf was tied on the left hand side of the throat. Witness thought the scarf was put round the throat twice and then tied with a reef knot. He saw Whiting again on April 21st and he was wearing the scarf then. He saw prisoner again between May 16th and 19th and to the best of his recollection Whiting was still wearing the green scarf. He saw Whiting next on May 30th but he could not see whether he was wearing a scarf then as he had on a coat.

P.C. Pearce, of the Dover Borough Police, said on April 9th prisoner was in witness’s charge at Dover for about three-quarters of an hour. He was wearing a bottle green scarf with dirty white spots. The green scarf (produced) was very similar. The scarf Whiting was wearing was wound round his neck twice and tied with a small knot on the left hand side.

Cross-examined, witness said it was not in connection with any criminal offence that Whiting was in his charge.

John McKinnan Taylor, 24. Walton Gardens, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he saw Whiting on Friday, May 20th. He remembered that he was wearing a green scarf with white spots, similar to the one produced. He usually had it tied with a double knot on the left hand side. He had seen Whiting wearing the scarf on several occasions. He saw Whiting on May 30th, after witness had returned from leave, and he was not wearing any scarf then.

Mrs. Adelaide Maude Wright, 9, Garden Road, Folkestone, recognised Mrs. Spiers from a photograph and said that she knew her as Phyllis Minter. She came to witness on Saturday, May 21st and she let her a room. She stayed in the house on the Saturday and Sunday nights. She took her bread and butter and tea on the Monday morning. Witness said she used Blue Label butter. Phyllis came out with witness on the Monday morning. They did some shopping together and they left each other at 10.25 a.m. She did not see her again. She had arranged to meet Phyllis at 7.45 that evening outside the Lido. Witness kept the appointment, but Phyllis did not come. She expected her to sleep at the house that night, and she waited up for her. The comb produced belonged to Phyllis. She had not seen her with the green scarf (produced).

Hubert Pynaera, a waiter employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he first saw Mrs. Spiers at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, where she was working about a year ago. He saw her again this year, and from 10.40 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on Monday. May 23rd, he was in her company. She was wearing a dark scarf with lighter lines in it.

Charles Leonard Varner, 13, New Street, Folkestone, said he knew deceased as the “Minter girl.” He last saw her on May 23rd at the corner of New Street about 1.30 or 1.40 p.m. He saw Whiting come out of a shop and go over to her. He saw them turn and go into Bradstone Road.

Lillian Maude Varrier, the husband of the last witness, said she saw Whiting in Philpott’s shop in New Street about 1.30 p.m. on May 23rd. He went to Bradstone Road where he met a girl.

Mrs. Norah Laws, 68, Foord Road, Folkestone, said she knew the deceased as “Miss Butcher”. She came to the house of the witness on a Thursday morning in the middle of May and she let her a room. She stayed there two nights only and left without paying. Witness again saw “Miss Butcher” on the following Monday at dinner time. She “bumped into her” at the comer of Kent Road and Bradstone Avenue. Previously a friend of hers came in and spoke to her and it was in consequence of that that she went to the corner. She was with a man, but witness did not look at the man enough to recognise him again. Mrs. Spiers ran after her and spoke to her and then crossed over Foord Road by the Baths with the man.

William. David Marsh, 18, Clarence Street, Folkestone, said he was a pavior working for the Folkestone Corporation. On Monday, May 23rd, he had some repairs to do in Radnor Park Avenue opposite the Peter Pan Pool and he finished on the following Thursday. He knew the prisoner and while he was working there he saw Whiting pass about midday on Monday. He had a woman with him and was going towards the golf links. Witness did not know the woman.

William J. Harbird, 23, Allendale Street, Folkestone, a gardener employed at 7, Julian Road, Folkestone, said he knew the last witness and Whiting. He saw Whiting in Radnor Park Avenue on either May 23rd or 24th. Whiting had a woman with him and they were going towards the golf links. The woman was not wearing a hat and had on a navy blue coat. He recognised the young lady in the photograph as the woman Whiting was with.

Harry James Santer, 5, Pavilion Road, Folkestone, a groundsman employed by the Folkestone Golf Club, said on June 1st Det. Constable Bates showed him the body of a young woman in the mortuary. He had seen her on May 23rd about 1.20 p.m. on the beach road of the Folkestone golf links. She was accompanied by Whiting. He saw the girl sit down on a bank on the grass. Whiting was standing about nine feet away. She was very red under the eyes and it appeared as though she had been crying.

Florence Thompson, 19, Hamilton Road, Dover, said she knew the young woman in a photograph as “Phyllis’’. She also knew Whiting: she had seen him wearing a green scarf similar to the one produced. She saw him wearing the scarf in Dover several times. She had seen Whiting in the Guildhall public house, Folkestone, a day or two before May 30th. Later she went to the South Foreland public house. Witness knew a girl named Rose. Whiting said he thought a lot of Rose and did not know the reason why she left him. Witness happened to mention to Whiting Phyllis’s name in another public house. She said that it was a shame she was murdered because she was a decent girl. Whiting then said “If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis I will put you on the spot”. He then asked her how she would like a scarf round her neck. He said “You could do a murder without finding the print marks or footmarks”. She said “It would not pay you to”.

Robert William Weatherhead, 35, Darlington Street, Folkestone, said he knew Whiting well. He remembered a “noisy evening” at the Guildhall public house some little time ago. Whiting was there. Witness said it was a Friday; he believed it was June 23rd or 24th. He played darts with Whiting, who got very abusive with the landlord. Witness tried to pacify Whiting. Whiting tucked up his sleeves and rushed to the counter. Witness tried to pull him back and Whiting said "You ----.I will serve you the same as I served the blondie”.

Mr. Daniel: I think I shall have an objection to this evidence.

Mr. Waddy: How can there be an objection?

Witness said Whiting had had one or two drinks.

Mr. Daniel said he objected to the evidence on the grounds that evidence of what prisoner said on other occasions was not admissible unless it amounted to a confession or an admission of the facts which tended to prove that he committed the crime. Taking it at its worst, this statement amounted to nothing more than an admission of a violent act against some unspecified person.

The Chairman said the Magistrates did not see why the evidence should not go in.

William W. H. Hall, 16, Great Fenchurch Street. Folkestone, said he had seen Whiting with Rose Milton (Mrs. Woodridge) on one occasion, at the Institution at Etchinghill. Whiting stayed with witness in March of this year for about two weeks. He said that he wished Rose was back with him and that if she ever wanted to make a home he was willing to start another one. Witness knew that they had been living together. Whiting talked about Rose a lot. Whiting wore a green scarf with white spots, exactly the same as the one produced. He wore it twice round his neck and tucked inside his jersey.

Mrs. Daisy Emily Hall, the wife of the last witness, said Whiting often spoke about Rose and blamed her (Rose’s) mother for her leaving him. She remembered that Whiting had a green scarf with white spots on it.

Cross-examined, witness said prisoner had only one pair of braces.

Elvey Flynn, 21, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said she knew the deceased as Miss Phyllis Minter. She also knew Rose Milton, Whiting and Mr. and Mrs. Hall. Whiting asked her if she had seen Rose, and she said that she had not since the time that she had seen her coming out of the pictures. He said: “Have you said anything to her” and witness said “No”. He then asked if she knew anyone who had; did she think that Phyllis had said anything; and said that if he found out anyone who did tell her anything he would strangle them. Whiting wore a green handkerchief with white spots on it round his neck. She had seen him put it on. He twisted it round his neck, knotted it in front, and put the comers of the scarf round his braces.

Rose Cathleen Woodridge, Eight Bells Lodging House, King Street, Canterbury, said she knew a man named Milton and for a time she lived with him as his wife. While she was living with Milton she got to know a girl named Phyllis Minter. She married a Mr. Woodridge on September 4th, 1935, and she lived with him not quite a year. After she separated from him she went to live with Whiting, whom she had known just a year. They lived in Dover until a fortnight before last Christmas when she went home. She knew the Alexandra public house, Folkestone, and she had gone there with Phyllis. When she got home she told Whiting that two fellows had asked her and Phyllis to go away with them. Whiting started getting a bit rough over it, and said that if she did not stop going about with Phyllis he would do something wrong - he would try to strangle her (Phyllis). Witness told him to be careful because walls might have ears. Later her (witness’s) mother took her home. Whiting was upset. She had not seen Whiting since she had left him. While Whiting was with her he wore a green scarf with white spots round his neck. The scarf was like the one produced. She had worn the scarf. Whiting said he had got the scarf from “Hepburn’s, near the Savoy Picture House”. Mrs. Woodridge was taken out of the court to see the shop and on her return said it was Lewis and Hyland’s.

Cross-examined, witness said Whiting only had one pair of braces when she was living with him.

Clifford James Moore, Ten Dials Street, Chiswick, said early this year he was employed as a clerk in the Public Assistance Department at Folkestone. He had seen Whiting on several occasions. On one occasion, in the middle of March, he noticed that prisoner was wearing a green scarf with white spots.

Mr. Waddy said but for the illness of the witness he had referred to he could have completed his case. He said that the hospital authorities expected to have Wanstall (the name of the witness) fit to give evidence by Friday. It was just possible that in calling him he might have to call one more witness.

The hearing was adjourned to yesterday.

(The witness referred, to was found early on Tuesday unconscious at the side of a pond on the golf links. His clothing was wet. He was taken to the Folkestone Hospital).

At yesterday’s hearing, when the case was continued, Whiting was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court in London next September. The proceedings did not last more than 20 minutes. Prisoner reserved his defence and stated that he would call witnesses at his trial.

When the hearing was resumed Mr. Waddy first re-called Mr. Kimber, who, he said, was not satisfied with one of the dates he gave in his evidence. “I understand you are not satisfied with one of the dates you gave”, he said. Witness replied that that was so and said that he last sent Whiting to a job on March 19th and not April 19th.

The witness who was unable to appear on Tuesday was then called. He was Frederick Wanstall, of 17, Invicta Road, Folkestone, a groundsman employed by the Folkestone Golf Club.

Wanstall said he knew Whiting. At the beginning of June he was taken to the mortuary and shown the dead body of a girl. He had seen the girl on Monday, May 23rd, between 2 and 2.30 p.m. when he was cutting the grass of the 16th tee on the golf course. The tee was close to the road called “Cherry Garden Avenue” or the “New Road”. She was accompanied by Whiting, and they passed four or five yards from witness. They were going towards Caesar’s Camp. Witness went on with his work and then when he looked up again he saw them going up Waterworks Hill. He saw them up to the bend where they disappeared from view. Some way beyond the bend was a sort of stile, and from there there was a track going round the foot of Caesar’s Camp to Sugar Loaf Hill and the New Road.

Mr. Waddy: That is the evidence for the prosecution and upon that evidence I shall ask for prisoner to be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court. There are no Kent Assizes for many months, but there will be a sessions of the Central Criminal Court in the early part of September.

Whiting said he reserved his defence, adding “I will call witnesses at my trial”.

The Chairman then announced that the Magistrates committed Whiting for trial at the Central Criminal Court.

Mr. Bunce (defending) asked for a defence certificate to allow for a solicitor and two counsel at the trial.

The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 30 July 1938.

Local News.

The evidence for the prosecution in the case known as the green scarf murder case was completed at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, when William Whiting (38), a labourer, of Dover Street, Folkestone, charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, who was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on May 26th, was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court.

The case would have been completed earlier in the week, but Mr. B H. Waddy, for the prosecution, was unable to call Frederick Wanstall, an important witness, who was stated to be unconscious in the Royal Victoria Hospital.

First of all on Friday Mr. Waddy recalled Mr. J.C. Kember, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, who corrected a date he gave in evidence at the previous hearing. He said he sent Whiting for a job on March 19th, and not April 19th.

Frederick Wanstall, 17, Invicta Road, Folkestone, a groundsman employed by the Folkestone Golf Club, said at the beginning of June he was taken to the mortuary and shown the dead body of a girl. He saw the girl on Monday, 23rd May, at about 2.30 p.m. Witness was cutting the 16th tee on the golf course, which was close to the road known as Cherry Garden Avenue or the New Road. The girl was accompanied by Whiting, and they passed within four or five yards of him going towards Caesar’s Camp. He went on with his work and saw the couple going up Waterworks Hill. He saw them up to the bend, when they disappeared from view.

Beyond the bend there was a stile, and by getting over it a person could follow a cow track round the foot of Caesar’s Camp to Sugar Loaf Hill and into the New Road again.

Mr. Waddy said that was the evidence he called for the prosecution, and upon that evidence he would ask the magistrates to commit the prisoner for trial at the next session at the Central Criminal Court. There was no Kent Assizes for many months. There would he a session of the Central Criminal Court in the early part of September.

The prisoner reserved his defence, and said he would call witnesses at his trial.

The Chairman (Councillor R. G. Wood) said Whiting would be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court.

 

Folkestone Express 6 August 1938.

Local News.

We understand that Mr. St. John Hutchinson, K.C., has been retained as leading counsel to defend William Whiting, the Folkestone man charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, on his trial at the Central Criminal Court, in September.

 

Folkestone Express 10 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder charge will open at the Old Bailey, London, on Monday, that day having been fixed after the opening of the Sessions on Tuesday. The case will, it is expected, last for at least two days.

William Whiting, a Folkestone 38 year old widower, is charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, who was found dead at the foot of Caesar’s Camp with a green scarf round her neck. It was stated at the Police Court proceedings in July that she had been strangled.

Amongst the witnesses for the prosecution will be Sir Bernard Spilsbury, Dr. Roche Lynch, Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon, two officers sent down by Scotland Yard, to carry out the investigations into the crime.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., the Recorder of Folkestone, will appear for the prosecution, and Mr. St. J. Hutchinson, K.C., will be the leading counsel for the defence.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 September 1938.

Local News.

The trial of William Whiting, 38, a general labourer, of Folkestone, who was committed for trial by the Folkestone Magistrates in July on a charge of murdering Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, a Folkestone woman, will open at the Central Criminal Court next Monday.

The Folkestone Herald understands that the Recorder of Folkestone (Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C.) will conduct the case for the Crown, and Mr. St. John Hutchinson, K.C., will lead the defence.

A large number of witnesses from Folkestone will give evidence.

 

Folkestone Express 17 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder trial at the Old Bailey has occupied three days this week, and last (Thursday) evening, when the Court rose shortly before six o’clock, all the evidence for the prosecution and defence and the counsels’ closing speeches bad been heard. Mr. Justice Wrottesley, before whom the case is being heard, will give his summing up this (Friday) morning, and it is expected that the jury, of whom three are women, will give their verdict today.

The large number of exhibits were displayed in the Court, and the branches of a tree in a frame were placed in front of the dock. This was closely inspected by the jury on Wednesday when the Court rose for luncheon. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused man came through the branches backwards, dragging the body of the murdered woman, and that a barb in a portion of the wire fence tore his coat on the shoulder.

The case was fixed to start on Monday, but owing to another case, which was not finished last week, occupying the greater portion of the day, it was decided that a start should not be made until the following day.

When Mrs. Rose Woodbridge was giving evidence on Wednesday the accused man cried in the dock.

The trial opened on Tuesday, when William Whiting, aged 38, a well-known Folkestone labourer, was placed in the dock on the charge of the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, of Folkestone, on or about May 23rd, near Caesar’s Camp. She was found lying dead, covered with a coat, having apparently been strangled, on the evening of May 26th. When the charge was put to him Whiting pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., the Recorder of Folkestone, and Mr. B.H. Waddy were for the prosecution, and Mr. St. J. Hutchinson, K.C., and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel appeared on Whiting’s behalf.

Mr. Roland Oliver said the object of his opening speech was to try to place the story before the jury so that they could have the general case of the prosecution. The best way, he said, was to put before the jury plans. At the top of one they would see marked three hills, forming the prominent feature of the landscape. A dotted line marked a line of thickets expanding the whole length of the foot of the hills. In places the thicket was extremely thick. Continuing, he said one way of getting to the thickets would be to go through various streets of the town. When they arrived at the golf course they walked to the left, which brought them into a road called Cherry Garden Avenue. When they got to Cherry Garden Avenue they turned to their right and went up towards Castle Hill. There was a stile which they could get over, and in that way walk along the hill side of the thicket. It was a very solitary place, and a very secluded place. The body was found some three-quarters of a mile round the thicket in the neighbourhood of Sugar Loaf Hill. She, and presumably her murderer, must have walked along that track to the secluded spot where she was murdered. It was a rough walk, and the jury would probably come to the conclusion that a man and woman would not go to such a place as that on a mere pleasure walk. Several reasons might occur to them. From that point of view it was right that they should know something about the woman. Mrs. Spiers was 22, and was married before she was 17. She lived with her husband for two years, until 1934, and then they parted, and her husband had never seen her again. “I am afraid there is no doubt that she was a young woman who was of an extremely immoral character’,’ continued Mr. Oliver. “She had affairs with a great many men, and was, therefore, a young woman who might have gone to that place with almost any type of man, certainly a good many. The prisoner knew her quite well”. Mrs. Spiers, he said, was practically destitute. She made a practice of staying a night or two at lodgings, without any luggage, and invariably disappeared without paying. The manner of her murder, explained Mr. Oliver, was apparently plainly written on the scene of the crime and on her body. She had obviously been violently attacked, probably with fists, and beaten into a state of unconsciousness before she was actually murdered. After that she had been dragged further into the thicket, because the place where she was first attacked could be seen from part of one of the hills that overlooked the thicket. The body was dragged by the murderer deeper into the thicket to a place where it could not be seen unless somebody went right into the thing. “Our case is that, the body lay there from May 23rd to the 26th”, he added. A blue coat was thrown over the body, and round the neck, tied twice and tightly knotted, was a green scarf which was one of the salient pieces of evidence in the case. Whether the scarf was tied round after or before death did not matter. Whether the scarf murdered her or bare hands, it did not matter. The murderer had to drag the body, and he, presumably, walked backwards, dragging the body by the feet. He had to go past a piece of barbed wire in an obstruction, and the jury would see that someone walking backwards dragging a body must run a considerable chance of damaging his clothing in the spikes of barbed wire. It was clear that the woman’s body had been dragged. The whole of her clothing had been torn up and filled with twigs and brambles. Her hair was pulled right out behind her head as it had been dragged along the ground. Round the woman’s neck was tied the scarf, and the members of the jury would be asked by the prosecution to say whether or not they were satisfied that the green scarf belonged to the man who murdered her. They had a quantity of evidence that she never had such a scarf herself. She was, by a curious coincidence, snap-shotted on that very day of her death, walking with another man in Folkestone, and the scarf that the photograph depicted her wearing was quite obviously nothing like the green scarf. In her handbag, when the body was discovered, was found a piece of the scarf she was wearing. Most of it had disappeared, but a little piece had been pushed in her handbag. There was conclusive evidence that she was wearing that scarf on that day, and that the green scarf was not hers, but the murderer’s. The prosecution said the murder took place on May 23rd sometime after 2.30 p.m. He was aware that there were witnesses who were coming to say that she was alive after May 23rd. The jury would have to consider very carefully their evidence when they came. They would be glad to hear that those witnesses were found by the police. So far as they could tell, he went on, the people who knew her best, people who were habitually seeing her, said that was the last day they ever saw her. They had been unable to find any place where she stopped after May 23rd. They would have in evidence that when the body was discovered there was a smell of decomposition. If she had died on May 25th or 26th that would be very unlikely. The last known meal the woman had was breakfast consisting of bread find butter on Monday, May 23rd at about nine o’clock. On the Sunday morning she bad deposited her luggage at the offices of the East Kent Road Car Company in Sandgate Road. If May 23rd was accepted as the day on which the young woman was murdered the last person she was seen alive with was the prisoner, walking in the direction of the stile that led to the scene of the crime. Mr. Oliver said Whiting had associated with a woman named Rose Woodbridge, a married woman, who left her husband in September, 1936, and went to live with the prisoner at Dover. She lived with him until somewhere about November last. Phyllis Spiers was a very close friend of Rose Woodbridge, and saw a lot of her and the prisoner at the time. Whiting did not approve of Phyllis' association with Rose. One evening Rose came home and told him she had been out with Phyllis and had met a couple of men who had asked the two of them to go and live with them. Whiting told Rose that if she did not stop sroing about with Phyllis he would do something wron.tr. Then he threatened he would strangle Phyllis. "Beware of Rose Woodbridge. You may not think her a very reliable sort of witness, but that does not mean she cannot tell the truth. It is for you to determine the value of these things”, added Mr. Oliver. “It was quite clear the prisoner was very fond of her. Whiting and Mrs. Woodbridge separated - her mother, I think, took her away - and this made him very jealous. He was anxious to find out who had brought about the separation. He was desperately in love with her. In a statement to the police he said he worshipped her, and in his mind Phyllis was the person really responsible for coming between them”. Concerning the green scarf, Mr. Oliver said it was probably the most reliable piece of evidence in that case Whiting had denied not only that it was not his scarf, but that he had never had a scarf like it. He has asserted that he was not wearing a scarf on the day of the murder. The prosecution had evidence that right up to the day of the murder he was wearing a similar green scarf, but that on the day of the murder he was not. Another piece of evidence, found on a post in the thicket, was a hair similar to Whiting's. On July 1st Whiting made a long statement to the police in which he said that he and Phyllis walked to the golf course and sat on the grass. Phyllis was very quiet. “I said, ‘What is the matter?' the statement proceeded She said 'I am fed up, and am going to do myself in.’ I said 'How are you going to do it?’ and she said, 'Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck.’ She was wearing a green spotted scarf.” He contended that Mrs. Spiers could not have strangled herself.

Kenneth George Andrews (16), of 23, Ethelbert Road, Folkestone, a grocer’s roundsman, said on Thursday, 26th May, fee went to a coppice at the foot of Caesar’s Camp bird-nesting. At about 6 p.m. he saw what appeared to be a bundle, but, looking closer, he saw it was a body of a woman covered with a coat. He shouted, and touched the head with & stick. He realised the woman was not sleeping, and later spoke to a police officer. He saw the body again, and it had not been interfered with.

Mr. Geoffrey Poole, an assistant in the Borough Surveyor’s office, produced a street plan of Folkestone. He said he went to the scene and took measurements of the gap and checked the position of the gap after it was framed. It was the same as it was when growing.

Cross-examined, witness said standing on the sixteenth tee of the golf course it was possible to see up Castle Hill. There was a hut connected with the Kent Agricultural Show and some trees on the corner, but it was possible to see past them.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett, said Stanley Seymour Harrison, a photographer, was a patient of his, and was so ill as not to be able to travel.

Mr. Roland Oliver read the deposition of Mr. Harrison’s evidence given at the Police Court proceedings.

Mr. Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, a milk roundsman, said on May 27th he identified the body Of his wife, aged 22 years. In the photographs produced he recognised his wife as the young woman wearing a dark coat. They were married on April 11th, 1932, ad parted on April 13th, 1934. He last saw his wife alive in August, 1934, at Hastings. Before her death he had commenced divorce proceedings against her.

Chief Inspector Hollands said he went with the witness Andrews and the Coroner’s Officer to the coppice, where the body was found, and caused the book of photographs to be taken. The body had apparently been dragged to the place through the gap framed in Court. When he raised the coat from the body he noticed a strong smell of putrefaction. On Monday, 23rrd, it was a fine day, but on Tuesday it rained from 1.30 to 2.30 p.m. On Wednesday it rained all the afternoon. On the day when the body was found it was fine. The coat over the body was damp, and there were rain marks on the handbag. There were little pitmarks on the ground, and there were dirt marks on the woman’s hand and arms where the rain had splashed up. The ground under the body was dry. In the place where he found the body there was no sign of a struggle. Round the woman’s neck was tied the green-spotted scarf. It was twisted round twice very tightly, and knotted.

Mr. Hutchinson: Whoever it was who pulled this body through all these brambles, you would expect their coat to be very much scratched with brambles?

Witness: No.

How can you push through these sort of brambles without any mark, tear, scratch, or any result on your coat? - I went through them, and my coat did not get scratched with brambles.

Dealing with the question of the tear In the prisoner’s coat, Mr. Hutchinson asked: When the man made the experiment he knew there was a tear in the left-hand shoulder of the defendant’s coat?

Chief Inspector Hollands: Yes.

Did you think that was very much use as an experiment? When you went through you did not tear yours? - When I felt it tearing I went down and wriggled through.

Did you smell putrefaction? - Yes.

Did you see any signs of putrefaction? - No.

One man confessed he had done the murder? - Not to me.

He confessed, and police enquired into it, but took no further steps? - I do not know.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on the evening of May 26th he saw the body at the coppice. He took possession of the handbag produced and examined its contents. He found the piece of material (produced) in the handbag. If it had been torn from a large piece he could find no trace of the larger piece. The following day he made a search of the place and found a broken comb. He examined the ground from the spot where he found the comb to the barrier, and it had the appearance of having had a heavy object dragged over it. He also found a long hair.

Mr. Roland Oliver said they had eliminated a great deal of evidence about the hairs, and they were dealing with only one or two.

Continuing, witness said he found another hair on the back of the post which formed part of the barrier. He also took three hairs from a hat, and other hairs from the head of the dead woman. On July 11th he obtained four hairs from the head of the prisoner. He handed the hairs to Chief Inspector Parker. Continuing, Det. Sergt. Johnson said he went to a common lodging-house in Dover Street on May 31st and obtained a suitcase of property from the man in charge. He found the pair of braces (produced) in the suitcase. On July 7th he purchased half a pound of butter.

Mr. Hutchinson: After you get through the gap, how far was it, to the other gap where the body was found?

Det. Sergt. Johnson: Ten or eleven yards.

It is a very low tunnel? - Not when you get through the tunnel.

Bits would catch your coat? - Possibly.

Mr. Hutchinson suggested it was impossible that the hair found on the post of the barrier had anything to do with the murder. He submitted it was a wild deduction, because anyone going through the barrier backwards could not have got into such a position to leave a hair in that spot.

Mr. Roland Oliver; It has been suggested that his head could not have touched that post. Do you agree that it could or could not have touched it?

Witness: I say it could have touched it.

Mr. Roland Oliver said he had had an opportunity of getting information from Sir Bernard Spilsbury and there was no point in the fly eggs at all and he was not calling any evidence about it.

The Coroner’s Officer, Det. Con. Bates, said at 6.30 p.m. on May 26th he went to the coppice and saw the body. There was a smell of putrefaction. He later showed the body to a Mr. Spiers, Mr. Santer and Mr. Wanstall. On May 31st he purchased a complete change of clothing for the prisoner and took possession of all the clothing Whiting was wearing. The hat, trousers, braces and jacket with the tear produced all belonged to the prisoner. A small green zip fastener purse was found in the left hand pocket of the jacket.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you notice any signs of putrefaction?

Witness: No, but the smell was very strong.

He was not arrested until June 25th? - I think that was the date.

You will agree that the tear you have pointed out might have been caused by anything? - The tear was on the jacket when I took it from the prisoner.

You do not suggest it could only be done by barbed wire? - No.

Mr. Douglas Scott Moncrieff, in charge of the Meteorological Department at Folkestone, said on May 23rd the maximum temperature was 60 deg. F. and the minimum 42 deg. F. The minimum grass temperature was 36 deg. There was no rainfall. On the Tuesday the maximum temperature was 63 deg. F. and the minimum grass temperature was 38. There was no rainfall at 10 a.m., but at 6 p.m. there was .01 inch recorded. On the Wednesday the maximum temperature was 59 deg. and the minimum 48. There was a fair amount of rain, less than .005 inches at 10 a.m., and at 6 p.m, .3 inch. On the Thursday the rainfall at 10 a.m. was .02 inches, and at 6 p.m. nil.

Robert John Reid, the deputy of a lodging house in Dover Street, Folkestone, said he had known the prisoner for about 19 to 20 years. He had stayed at his house for about three months. On May 23rd the prisoner spent the night at the lodging-house. He remained there until May 26th. He handed the prisoner’s suitcase to a police officer.

Mr. Hutchinson: How many men are there in the same room?

Witness: Five.

It would be quite fair to say that people’s properly gets mixed up sometimes? - Yes.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett said on May 26th at 7.30 p.m. he went to the coppice and saw the body. The position was consistent with the body having been dragged on its back. He did not notice any smell from the body, which was covered. At 9.10 p.m. the same night he saw the body in the mortuary, and there was a definite smell of putrefaction. He would not expect any smell from a body under the conditions present for at least three days. He would expect rigor mortis to set in after 12 to 18 hours and last from 48 to 72 hours. Of that body in those circumstances it would be 72 hours. When he saw the body in the thicket there was rigor mortis. At 8.30 p.m. on Friday, May 27th, the rigor mortis had completely gone. There were several bruises on the face and front of the body. The nose had been flattened by a violent blow. He was present when Sir Bernard Spilsbury made his examination, which revealed bruises in the neck. Dr. Barrett said he considered that the bruises were due to the ligature and death, in his view, was by garrotting with the scarf.

Mr. Oliver: How long before you saw the body do you think it likely that the woman met her death?

Witness: Forty-eight to seventy-two hours.

Mr. Hutchinson questioned witness about his report of the post-mortem examination to the Coroner.

Did you say the stomach contained ten lumps of potatoes?

Dr. Barrett: I did.

Is that correct? - Apparently no, when the lumps were put under the microscope.

And the brownish fluid? - There was a brownish fund in the stomach.

At the inquest, when you were on oath, you said “The deceased, in my opinion, had been dead not longer than two days”; what did you mean by that?

Witness: I rather expected the Coroner to take the question further, to tell you the truth.

Why did you tell him that; it must have been what you thought? – Why? Because I had heard rumours that she had been seen shopping. It seemed rattier absurd to certify somebody dead if she had been seen shopping.

Because of the chit-chat you heard you altered your opinion? - Put it that way if you like.

Are you changing your opinion because Sir Bernard Spilsbury has said anything different? - No.

You were the only one who gave evidence about this matter to the Coroner, and you said “The deceased, in my opinion, had been dead not longer than two days”, and you now tell us you did not honestly say that. Do you deny saying that? - No, I do not. I cannot swear to saying that.

Did you tell the Coroner something that is not your honest opinion on the chance of the Coroner asking you something more? - No.

Do you think that the woman was more likely to have been killed on the 24th than the 23rd? - I still think it was 23rd.

You agree that it is a matter of opinion? - Absolutely a matter of opinion.

She certainly may have been living on the 24th? - It is possible, but I do not think it is at all likely.

Supposing twelve witnesses come here and say so, would that make you think she was probably alive on the 24th? - No.

You say she died from garrotting? - I consider it so.

You know Sir Bernard Spilsbury does not agree? - I know.

You thought the scratches were caused before death, and Sir Bernard after death? - The scratches on the legs.

You agree that all these questions are matters of grave difficulty where people may honestly make a mistake? - Yes. I agree that Sir Bernard Spilsbury’s experience must be greater than mine. I have only had two cases of murder.

Sir Bernard Spilbury said he made a post-mortem examination with Dr. Barrett. He found the body was that of a well-nourished young woman. He saw the mark of the ligature round the neck and a number of external injuries on the face and body. He examined the tissues of the neck and found bruising, just such as would be caused by the grip of the hand in manual strangulation. Strangulation in some form caused her death, and in his view it was manual strangulation. He would not have expected her to have been dead for three days, but he could not say definitely within 24 hours.

Mr. Roland Oliver: Is it, in your opinion, possible that this young woman, in the circumstances in which you saw her, had committed suicide by strangling herself with the scarf?

Witness: Quite out of the question.

Mr. Hutchinson: Supposing she had had a long walk, little food, and a terrible struggle, would that bring on rigor mortis very quickly?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: Much more quickly.

Is not putrefaction caused or stimulated by the passing of rigor mortis? - It happens to be coincidal.

Supposing rigor mortis was accelerated, would that accelerate putrefaction? - Not necessarily.

Would you go as far as to say it was impossible for her to be alive on the 24th? - I hardly think it is possible.

Dr. Roche Lynch, Senior Official Analyst to the Home Office, described the tear on the prisoner’s coat. At the apex of the tear, he said, there was a tiny round hole as though a round sharp pointed object had gone through the fabric before it had been torn. The tear must have been downwards and to the right. When the tear was made the coat would be on a man who was going backwards. Witness said he had looked at the barrier (produced), and part of the barbed wire could have made a similar tear as the one in the coat. Continuing, he said the woman’s stomach contained butter fat. The last meal was taken at least three hours before death. He was shown the green scarf. The ends of it showed signs of wear, and there were marks which could have been accounted for by the ends of the scarf being made fast in the braces produced. He compared the hairs from the girl’s head with the hair found near the comb, and they closely resembled each other. Both were bleached. The accused’s hair and the hair from the post on the barrier closely resembled each other. The hair on the post could have come from anybody who had similar hair.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you examine the coat by any chance to see if there were any scratches? - The tear was the only item of note. Dealing with the braces Mr. Hutchinson said the braces which could have made the marks on the scarf might have been a new pair. There were no signs of them being used.

Dr. Roche Lynch said there were signs that they had been used.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am suggesting that they might be a new pair, and in any case have hardly been used at all?

Witness: They have had some wear.

People who go to common lodging-houses do not have a couple of pairs of braces? -I bow to your superior knowledge.

To leave the marks that you found, or some of the marks, it must have been worn very often in that way? - If holes had been produced in the way I mentioned they must have been worn several times, but the linear marks could be produced in twenty minutes.

Robert Henry Rird, of Margate, and Alfred James Carter, of Ramsgate, employed by a firm of holiday snaps, gave evidence of taking photographs of the murdered woman.

Bernice C. Hegarty, of Mead Road, Folkestone, said she recognised one of the women in the holiday snaps (produced) as Phyllis Minter, whom she had known for 3 years. She spoke to Phyllis at 9.45 a.m. on Monday, and recognised the handbag (produced) as hers. The green zip fastener purse (produced) was very like the dead woman’s purse. Continuing she said the deceased had a dark check scarf similar to the piece of material (produced), but she had never seen her wearing a green spotted scarf.

Cross-examined, witness said the purse was something like the one Phyllis had.

Mr. Hutchinson: About the scarf, you say there was a fringe on it? - There was.

When was it you last saw Phyllis? - Monday morning at about a quarter to ten.

Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that the witness said she had last seen the murdered woman on Saturday morning.

The witness then explained that she had seen her on both days.

Pte. Harold Wall, of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe, said he lived with the murdered woman from May 15th to the 19th, at Sandgate. He first saw her in February or the beginning of March, and gave her the scarf somewhere about April. Originally, it had a fringe on it, hut he cut it off before he gave it to her. The piece of material produced was part of the scarf he gave to Phyllis. He had never seen her wearing the green spotted scarf. Continuing, witness said some of the letters in the suitcase (produced) were written by him to the murdered woman.

Mr. Hutchinson: What sort of place did you stay with her at?

Pte. Wall: It was a one room affair.

Did either of you have any luggage? - I was living at the camp. She had no luggage.

How many days were you there? - Four days.

Mr. Hutchinson went on to question the witness about statements that were taken from him.

Was it found that you had scratches? - One on the arm.

Did not the police discover that a car had been taken from Aldershot and taken back that night, the 23rd or 24th? - I heard something about it.

You do not know the distance shown on that car was exactly the distance from Aldershot to Folkestone? - No.

Mr. Hutchinson said he was not suggesting the witness committed the murder, but he did suggest that there was just as much evidence in some ways against others as against the prisoner.

The witness said he had nothing to do with taking the car from Aldershot, and the scratches on his arm happened while he was carrying meat.

Mr. Roland Oliver: Did you leave Aldershot at all between May 19th and the date of the discovery of the body?

Pte. Wall: No.

At this stage the Court rose until the following day.

The case was resumed at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday.

Mr. Harold Henry Parker, 73, Dover Rood, Folkestone, a Press photographer, said the previous day he took a photograph from the sixteenth tee on Folkestone golf course. It was possible to see the junction of Cherry Garden Avenue and Cherry Garden Lane and to see people going towards Caesar’s Camp over the hedge. After a fleeting glance of people walking along Cherry Garden Avenue, a person on the sixteenth tee would see them when they reached the junction of the two roads.

It was decided by both defence and prosecution to have witnesses make observations from the sixteenth tee.

Chief Inspector Hollands, re-called, said the suitcase produced he got from the East Kent Road Car Company’s office at Folkestone on June 1st. He made a list of the contents, which included a packet of letters, all addressed to Miss P. Butcher.

Mr. Ernest Edward Curtis an Inspector employed by the East Kent Road Car Company, said the blue case produced was like a case he saw on May 22nd or 23rd. On that occasion a young lady asked the next through bus to Margate and then left the office. After she had gone he noticed a dark bag there.

Pte. Harold Wall, re-called, said three of the letters produced were written by him to the murdered woman. They were addressed to Miss Phyllis Butcher, the name he knew her by.

Cross-examined, witness said he wrote the letters before May 19th, when she was in hospital. After he left her in May she gave him “G.P.O., Folkestone”, as her address.

Chief Inspector W. Parker, New Scotland Yard, said on the afternoon of May 27th, he went to the coppice near Caesar’s Camp. He supervised the framing of the barrier produced in the Court. On the side of the coppice nearer Folkestone there was an agricultural field. On May 30th, with Det. Sgt. Skardon, he interviewed the prisoner at Folkestone Police Station. He admitted that he knew the murdered woman. He said he would tell them what he knew and he made a long statement, which he made willingly. Witness said he was endeavouring to find out the prisoner’s movements for several days. The statement was read and during the course of it Whiting stated: “I am a widower, my wife died on 3rd May, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. . . My wife left me in 1935”. Later, went on the statement, he lived in Dover with a Mrs. Woodbridge. She left him in November, 1937, after her mother received a letter from a landlord in Folkestone saying that her daughter was drinking in public houses. While he was living with Mrs. Woodbridge a young girl, who Mrs. Woodbridge said was named Phyllis Minter, came to see her. In his statement Whiting said he met the murdered woman on Monday, May 23rd, at about 12.30 p.m., and they went to the Globe public house on The Bayle. They stayed for about ten minutes. While they were there she said she could get married again. "I said ‘Can you?’”, continued Whiting’s statement, “and read the divorce papers. She said ‘Why don’t you marry me and let’s go back to Dover?' ” The statement then went on to describe how Whiting and the girl went to the golf links. “We sat down on the grass”, it continued, when she pulled out something wrapped in brown paper Some stitches and a ring, a little bone ring She said they were stitches which had been taken out of her operation. We were both thinking. I don’t know what was the matter with her that day. She was not cheerful. She did not speak much. I believe there was something worrying her. I have seen her like it at Dover when she came in staring at me. I cannot say what was on her mind. Perhaps it was because she was down and out. I said nothing to upset her”. Continuing, the statement described how they made their way to Cherry Garden Lane and into Cheriton Road, after crossing the golf links. "I told her that I worshipped Rose”, it continued, “I said ‘If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again’. ... I did not see Phyllis at all on Tuesday. . . Phyllis and I did not discuss living together before last Monday”. Continuing, witness said after the statement had been taken the matter of the jacket was mentioned. He noticed there was a tear in the prisoner’s jacket on the left shoulder. He said “I don’t know where or when I did it." He was asked about the green spotted scarf, and be said “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that.” Whiting made another statement on June 1st, in which he said: “When we went on to the golf course on the Monday, thee day I have already told you about, I mean when I was with Phyllis and when we were sitting on the grass, she was very quiet, and I said ‘What is the matter?’ She said 'I am fed up and I am going to do myself in’. I said 'How are you going to do it?’ and she said ‘Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck’. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. After we got up and walked across the golf links. She was very quiet, and kept saying she was fed up. I have not seen her since that Monday, 23rd May, 1938. . . . I might tell you that she was partly the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving me.” Continuing, witness said he showed the contents of the suit-case to the prisoner. The suitcase was taken from the lodging-house in Dover Street, and Whiting said the articles in the case belonged to him.

Mr. Oliver: Did you endeavour to find out in Folkestone any house at which Phyllis had slept after May 23rd?

Witness: Yes.

Were you unsuccessful? - Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: This man is a very uneducated man?

Witness Yes.

Why was it necessary to take a statement from him, you a trained police officer, from ten o’clock at night as you say, and I say later, until 2 in the morning? - I wanted to get as much detail on this man as possible.

Do you think that it is a usual time to take a statement fairly? - It was the most convenient time at that stage of the enquiry.

He was arrested on June 25th? - Yes.

Do you mean to say that you were in such a hurry that it had to be taken from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m.? - Yes.

"Why? - There were quite a number of people waiting at the Police Station to be seen on that particular evening.

Do you think it fair? Have you not heard of it being done in third degree in other countries? - I was endeavouring to discover who perpetrated this crime.

Surely it was not necessary to take a man at 10 at night and cross-examine him till 2 a.m. Did he get into a muddle? - No.

Did not he get ready to agree to any thing you put to him? - No.

Did you ask whether he had had any food? - Yes.

Had he? - I was told he had been given refreshment.

You examined him very severely? - Yes. I asked him numerous questions.

Is not that third degree?

Judge Wrottesley: I do not know strictly what third degree means.

Mr. Hutchinson (to Chief Inspector Parker): Do you know what it means when people say third degree?

Witness: I have heard of the term, but I do not know what it means.

Chief Inspector Parker said neither he nor Det. Sergt. Skardon suggested it was a case of suicide and that if it was it would let the prisoner out.

Mr. Hutchinson: What happened was on 27th or 28th he had an interview with the Chief Constable? - Yes.

Then he had this long sojourn at the Police Station on the 30th, leaving round about three, I am suggesting, in the morning, and the next day he was taken again and his clothes were taken away from him, and the next day he was sent for again? - Yes.

Witness said there were no scratches on the prisoner’s body, and none, beyond the tear, on his coat. Continuing, witness said there were a whole lot of brambles around the branches produced.

The two nights preceding the murder she was with Mrs. Wright?

Witness: Yes.

Had you in your possession on May 30th anything like the whole of the evidence that has been called in this case? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon said he was present when the two statements wore taken from prisoner, and actually wrote them down. The suggestion of suicide came from the prisoner.

Mr. Oliver: Did you or Chief Inspector Parker ever put the suggestion into the prisoner’s mind about suicide?

Witness: No.

Continuing, witness said he went through the gap backwards and tore his jacket. He knew the barb of wire was there. Apart from the tear in his jacket he did not tear his clothes with the brambles as he walked about.

Cross-examined, witness said the brambles pulled at the fabric of his clothes. The tear in his coat was not very like the tear in the other coat.

Mr. Hutchinson: There were, of course a good many brambles about?

Witness: Yes.

Anyone going where you did would get their clothes, not torn, but scratched? - Possibly, it would depend on the material.

Witness said when he went through the barrier he knew the barb was there, and that the prisoner was supposed to have torn his coat. He (witness) could not have gone through the barrier, pulling the dummy, without tearing his coat.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am suggesting that the suggestion was made to him that this might have been suicide, and that would clear him?

Witness: It was not made.

You are sure? - Quite positive.

Neither directly nor indirectly? - Neither.

Neither by hint nor suggestion? - No.

Are you quite certain of that? - Quite certain.

John Joseph Hurst, of Joyes Road, Folkestone, manager of Messrs. Hepworth. Ltd., of Folkestone, said he stocked scarves similar to the one produced from October, 1936, to February, 1937, and again from October, 1937, to February or March, 1938.

Cross-examined, witness admitted it was quite a popular scarf.

In reply to Mr. Oliver, witness said all the scarves were not green. They were in four different shades.

Mr. Joseph Charles Kember, an employment clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he had interviewed the prisoner in connection with his duty. He last sent the prisoner on a job of work on March 19th. At the time he was wearing a green scarf with white spots. The scarf produced was similar to the scarf the prisoner was wearing. Witness said he saw the prisoner again March 21st and between the 16th and 19th May. He wore the scarf knotted on the left-hand side of the neck, and it appeared to be wound twice round his neck.

Cross-examined, witness said he could see the ends of the scarf.

P.C. Pearce, Dover Borough Police said on April 9th the accused was in his charge at Dover for something like three-quarters of an hour. He was wearing a green scarf with dirty white spots. It was wound twice round the neck and knotted on the left-hand side.

Mr. John McKinnon Taylor, 24, Walton Gardens, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he went on leave on May 23rd to the following Saturday. Before he went on leave he saw the prisoner on May 20th, and he was wearing a green scarf tied with a double knot on one side. After returning from his leave he saw the prisoner on May 30th, and he was not wearing the scarf. He had not seen him wearing the scarf since. The one produced was similar to the scarf the prisoner was wearing on May 20th.

Det. Sergt. Johnson, re-called, said lie made a list of the contents of the handbag found beside the body Among the articles in the bag was a piece of a cigarette packet with the name “H. Pyneart,” printed on it in pencil.

Cross-examined, witness said there were a great many statements taken before 30th May.

Mrs. Adelaide Maude Wright, a widow, of 9, Garden Road, Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Minter. She let her a room on May 21st. On Monday, the 23rd, the woman had bread and butter and a cup of tea for breakfast. The woman had nothing more than what she stood up in. On May 23rd she went into the town with Phyllis. They went into Woolworth’s at about 10 a.m., and witness bought a roll of white paper. Phyllis was wearing a blue coat and a grey coloured scarf. She had never seen her wearing a green scarf. Phyllis had a brown comb with a piece broken off the end. She was able to pick out the girl who served in Woolworth’s.

Cross-examined, witness said Phyllis told her that she came from Tooting, and that she had a job at The Lido. She said she had left her luggage with friends, and witness was surprised when she did not return on the Monday. When witness arrived home on Monday night she saw a man without a hat and wearing a mackintosh waiting outside her house.

When the proceedings were continued in the afternoon the jury wished to know whether the barbed wire on the barrier was the same height from the ground as it was from the floor of the Court. The jury had examined the barrier during the luncheon adjournment.

Det. Sergt. Skardon said the heights were the same. According to the theory of the prosecution the murderer dragged the body downhill through the gap. The gradient was one in four.

Mr. Hubert Pyneart, a waiter employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, said he knew Mrs. Spiers by sight. A year ago she worked at the hotel. He met her on the morning of May 23rd at about 10.40 and walked with her round Folkestone. He was with her until 12.30 p.m., and during the morning walked with her in Sandgate Road. He had never walked with her before in the morning. While he was with her he wrote his name on a piece of card and gave it. to the murdered woman. Witness said the scarf Mrs. Spiers was wearing was of a dark colour, very similar to the piece of material produced.

Mr. Charles Leonard Varner, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, said he knew the accused and also the murdered woman. He knew her as Minter, and he last saw her on the Monday before her body was found. She was at the corner of New Street. He saw prisoner enter Philpott’s shop and then go over to the girl and give her a cigarette. They both went up Bradstone Road.

Cross-examined, witness said Weatherhead had not asked him to say anything about Longley.

Mrs. Lilian Maude Varrier the wife of the last witness, said on Monday, May 23rd, she saw the prisoner in Philpott’s shop at about 1.20 p.m. She saw him leave the shop and meet the murdered woman. They went together towards Bradstone Road.

Mrs. Laura Laws, of 68, Foord Road Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Butcher. She let her a room on May 18th. She stayed there on Thursday and Friday, and left without paying. Witness saw the deceased on the following Monday in Bradstone Avenue. There was a man with her, but she ran after and spoke to witness. Afterwards the deceased went back to the man, and they walked towards the Public Baths.

Cross-examined, witness said the deceased told her that she was a maid at the Longford Hotel. She had no luggage, but she said she came from London.

Mr. William David Marsh, of Clarence Road, Folkestone, a pavior employed by the Folkestone Corporation, said on Monday, May 23rd, he was working in Radnor Park Avenue, and saw the prisoner pass with a young woman. They were walking in the direction of the golf course.

Mr. William John Harbird said he saw the prisoner with a young woman by the Peter Pan’s Pool on May 23rd.

Mr. Hutchinson: At the Police Court you said it was the 23rd or 24th.

Witness: I was wrong on the dates.

Are you still certain it was not the 24th? - Yes, now.

Mr. Harry James Santer, of 5, Pavilion Road, a groundsman employed at the Folkestone golf course, said on Monday, May 23rd, at 1.35 p.m., he saw the murdered woman with the prisoner walking along the road across the golf course. The woman looked as though she had been crying.

Frederick Wanstall, of Invicta Road, Folkestone, a gardener at the Folkestone golf course, said he saw the body of a girl at the mortuary. He saw her on Monday, May 23rd, with the prisoner. When he saw them, he was cutting the 16th tee near Cherry Garden Avenue. The prisoner and the girl were walking towards Caesar’s Camp. He saw them as far as the point where the road they were walking on joined Cherry Garden Lane. The time was somewhere about two, or just after.

Mr. Hutchinson: You were not certain about the date?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: What you mean is that you saw this man with some girl. You saw him walking along this lane on some day that you are not really certain. Is that what it comes to? Has it weighed on your mind very much, this case? - It has.

You did try to kill yourself because of it? - No. I do not think it was because of that. It was because I had left my wife because she had treated me unfairly.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, Chief Constable of Folkestone, said on June 25th, when he cautioned the prisoner, he said he was not guilty.

Mr. Hutchinson: On 4th June you were trying to find where Mrs. Spiers stayed on Tuesday?

Witness: Yes.

Florence Thompson, of 19, Hamilton Road, Dover, said she had a conversation with the prisoner about Phyllis. She told him that it was a shame that Phyllis was murdered. The prisoner asked her if she would like a scarf round her neck. He told her that if she did not keep her mouth shut about Phyllis he would put her on the spot. He said “You can do a murder without leaving finger prints and foot marks”. They went to three public-houses together.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not have a great deal to drink. She never got drunk.

Mr. Hutchinson : I am suggesting that this man never said this to you at all. Did he?

Witness: He did.

There was nothing to call forth this man’s anger in what you said? - I do not know.

Did he really say “You can murder without leaving linger prints or loot marks”? - Yes.

You are not a friend of his? - No.

Hardly know him? - Only by sight.

Robert William Weatherhead, of 35, Darlington Street, Folkestone, said he remembered a day when there was a row at the Guildhall public house. It must have been after May 31st. Witness took the prisoner as a partner at darts. Whiting was abusive to the landlord, who came round to put him out. The prisoner said to the landlord “I will serve you as I served the blondie”. Whiting had had enough drink to make him talk.

Mr. Hutchinson: I suggest he did not say that?

Witness: I say he did.

Percy Ernest Wootton, licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone, said on Friday, 3rd June, there was a row, arid he had occasion to caution the prisoner, who begged him to let him stay, and he did so. He did not hear the prisoner say anything else.

Mr. William Hall, of 16, Great, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said he knew the murdered woman, Rose Woodbridge and the prisoner.

In March the prisoner stayed at his house for two weeks. While he was there he said if Rose was willing to come back to him he was willing to make a home for her. He said he worshipped her. In fact he often mentioned her.

Mrs. Daisy Emily Hall, wife of the previous witness, said in March the prisoner lived at her house for a time. While he was there he said he was sorry Rose had left him. He often spoke of her.

Cross-examined, witness said the prisoner did not like Mrs. Flynn, and she did not like him. She never saw the prisoner with two pairs of braces while he was at her house.

In reply to Mr. Oliver witness said Mrs. Flynn came to see her “now and again”.

Mrs. Elvey Flynn, of 21, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said she knew Rose and the prisoner. She went sometimes to Mr. and Mrs. Hall's place, and remembered the time when the prisoner was staying there. When she went there the prisoner asked her if she knew any body who told Rose Woodbridge anything about him. He said when he found out anyone who had told Rose Wood bridge anything about him he would strangle them.

Cross-examined, witness said on one occasion the prisoner jumped up and ran upstairs when she went into the house, but on another occasion he spoke to her.

Mrs. Rose Woodbridge, Eight Bells lodging-house, King Street, Canterbury said she was married on September 4th, 1935. She lived with her husband for a month or two, and after leaving him she lived with Whiting for a year, and left him a fortnight before last Christmas.

Phyllis was a great friend of hers. Whiting told her that she must stop going about with Phyllis when she told him about two fellows arranging to take them to London. Whiting said if she did not keep away from Phyllis he would do something wrong. She told him that walls had ears.

The prisoner was present when her mother took her away.

This concluded the case for the Crown.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson, in opening the case for the defence, said one of the essential points of the prosecution was that the woman was killed on May 23rd. The accused was walking with the deceased, and was seen by many people with her on that day. If the jury thought the evidence was so strong that she was undoubtedly killed on the 23rd, they would probably find Whiting guilty. Would it be possible for them to honestly say to themselves “I have no reasonable doubt that the day this woman was killed was on the 23rd May and not on the 24th”? This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Sometimes a case of circumstantial evidence could be the strongest they could have, and sometimes it could be the weakest. They could imagine sometimes it might be one of the most difficult to have to decide. He suggested that that case would be very difficult for the jury to decide. Dealing with the green scarf, Mr. Hutchinson said Whiting lied when he told the police he had never had a green scarf and that he knew nothing about it. The fact that he has told such a lie showed in no way that he was a guilty man. It was only by the help of the State that the prisoner could be defended. He was a man of no position and no education. He was taken to the Police Station. The murder was well known in Folkestone, and the jury could realise that it caused a tremendous sensation. The scarf, which he knew was his, he knew J was found on the dead woman. Was it, therefore, extraordinary for a man like that to deny the scarf was his? It was not very extraordinary for him to think if he admitted the scarf was his he was "done for”. “Looking at it from a common-sense point of view”, Mr. St. J. Hutchinson continued, “did they really think any murderer was such a fool when this woman has a scarf of her own, to deliberately take away that scarf, for that is what he must have done, and substitute it with his own scarf - leave one of his visiting cards, as it were, upon the corpse - after strangling her with his own hands deliberately take his own scarf and bind it round her throat for no apparent reason unless than for the reason to make people think she had committed suicide? He tied it like that, and no one out of Bedlam would think she had committed suicide. The prisoner was going to tell them that he gave her the green scarf. Whiting was a man who was in a desperate position, who was literally fighting for his life. What they had to ask themselves was, was the evidence of the prosecution true; were they reasonably convinced of the truth of the evidence? That was what they had to say before they acted upon the evidence of the prosecution. With regard to the evidence for the defence they had to ask themselves whether it was reasonably true. “There might he many with a motive against this unhappy girl on the flotsam and jetsam of life”, he said. “Supposing she was killed by someone else on May 24th or 25th, that she was wearing a green scarf, then the murderer would probably leave it tied round her neck. That is much more likely than that this man would”. He did not know whether the jury noticed the prisoner crying when Rose Woodbridge gave evidence and also when he (Mr. Hutchinson) was cross-examining her. His affection for her was real; perhaps a decent thing. His affection for her was now being used as evidence of motive. Of course it was not necessary to prove any motive at all, but most juries did look for some motive. The prisoner might have been annoyed with this woman, but what a gulf lay between annoyance and murder. With regard to the taking of the statements, he said, was he exaggerating when he said that that was as near third degree as they were ever likely to get in that country? The police, of course, at that time were trying to find a murderer, and they had tried to find a motive. He asked the jury if they were really going to act on that statement. They would hear from the defendant that he had nothing to do with it. People who knew her well would say they saw her on the 24th. Some would say they saw her on the 25th. Was that not going to raise a reasonable doubt in their minds? One witness was going to say she saw her with a green scarf on May 25th.

Whiting then went into the witness box, and Mr. Hutchinson’s first question to him was “Did you murder this girl?”

Whiting: No, sir.

You had lived with Mrs. Woodbridge? - Yes.

You were very fond of her? - Yes.

Are you still desperately fond of her? - Yes.

She left you, did she not? - Yes.

She was taken away by her mother? - Yes.

How much did you know Phyllis? - I did not know her hardly at all.

Had she been over to see you when you and Rose lived together? - She used to come and see Rose now and again.

When did you see Phyllis at Folkestone? - On the Friday.

The Friday before the Monday when you saw her again? – Yes.

Tell us what happened on that Friday? - I came out of the Guildhall at about ten past ten in the evening I was walking towards home, and I saw Phyllis on the corner. Continuing, Whiting said Phyllis said “Hello, Bill, do you miss Flo much?” He said “Yes, and I would like to have her back.” She told him that she was down and out and hungry. He gave her half-a-crown, for she said she had had some trouble with the Labour Exchange.

The scarf produced was his property, and he was wearing it on the Friday, when he gave it to Phyllis. She had an open-necked blouse, and she had just come out of the Savoy Picture Palace. She was cold, and asked for his scarf, which he took off and gave to her. She thanked him for it. He had no idea that Phyllis tried to take Rose from him. She was a good little soul. He next saw Phyllis on the Monday, May 23rd, at about 12.30 p.m. She was looking at some postcards in South Street. He had seen her before with the Belgian at 10.30 a.m. before going up Sandgate Road. When he saw her in South Street she asked if he was going to treat her. She said “Let’s go up to the Globe”, a public house on The Bayle. When they got to the Globe she had a brown ale, and he had a pint of beer. She then showed him some divorce papers in her handbag. She said “Why don’t you get married, Bill?” He said “I will do, but I have got to get a job first”. She said ’’Let’s go to Dover and live, and got married afterwards.” He was not in love with Phyllis, but he was alone, and wanted a home. He also wanted his daughter and eldest boy home. He told her that he would marry her, but he had to have a job first. She was not wearing his green scarf that day. From the Globe they went to the Public Library, and then into New Street, where he bought a box of matches at Philpott’s. Going along Sussex Road Phyllis met Mrs. Laws and spoke to her. When she returned he asked her where she was going, and she said “Home”. He asked her where her home was, and she said "89, Ashley Avenue”. They went along and stopped opposite the Baths to look at the pictures. She said she was going to the pictures that evening with her landlady. She then said "Come on, let’s go home”. Continuing, prisoner said they went up St. John’s Church Road and past the Hospital. She pointed to a room in the Hospital and she said she would show him something. They went along to the golf links and sat on a bank. She kept talking about getting married, and showed him some stitches and a bone ring. She said the stitches were from her operation. They then got up and walked across the golf links and got into Cherry Garden Avenue. They crossed the road and went round to the left into Cherry Garden Lane, and then into Cherry Garden Avenue again. They turned right into Cheriton Road, but she did not want him to go where she lived. A fellow went past on a motor bike, and she waved to him and he to her. She said he was one of her boys. She asked him not to come any further with her, as she did not want her landlady to see him. She kissed him and walked on. That was the last he saw of her.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you take her up to Caesar’s Camp and along there and strangle her?

Whiting: No.

A few clays afterwards he went along to the Chief Constable. He was kept at the Police Station all that day and next night.

On May 30th he was told that Inspector Hollands wished to see him He went to the Police Station at about six o’clock. He was not given any food. Chief Inspector Parker commenced taking the statement at about eight o’clock. Before that he was kept in a room for about two hours. They then took him upstairs, where he saw Mr. Skardon, who said “Come into the torture chamber”.

Mr. Hutchinson: He was being funny?

Witness: I suppose he was?

Continuing, witness said he was asked to sit down by Chief Inspector Parker, who had entered the room with him. He made a statement, and they kept putting questions to him. They took a statement and then put him below again for about half-an-hour, and then took him back into the room. Chief Inspector Parker, Det. Sergt. Skardon and Chief Inspector Hollands were there, and they kept questioning him until about a quarter or half-past two. They never read anything out to him, but said “Just sign here and walk out a free man”. He had been at the Police Station since six o’clock, examined verbally for four hours, and then stripped and examined physically.

Mr. Hutchinson: What was in your mind at 2.20 m the morning? How were you feeling?

Whiting: I was beat.

Whiting further said he did not think that Phyllis wanted to take Rose away from him, and he had no reason to think that Phyllis was the cause of the trouble between him and Rose. He denied that the scarf was his because he had read in the paper that she was strangled with a green scarf.

With regard to the second statement, when he went into the room Chief Inspector Parker asked him to sit down. He took hold of the scarf, tied it twice round his neck and knotted it. Chief Inspector Parker said suicide could easily be done. Witness replied “No, it was not suicide. Whoever done that was the murderer”.

Continuing, Whiting said Chief Inspector Parker kept leaving the room and going into the Chief Constable’s office. When he came back he asked him whether he had made his mind up. In the intervals Det. Sergt. Skardon said “Come on, Bill, tell him. Don’t be a damn fool; he is trying to help you. You won’t have any more trouble. You will walk out a free man. We can go back to London, and our case is settled”.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you think you would be able to walk out a free man?

Whiting: Yes.

Prisoner said Chief Inspector Parker said “You don’t know what I am. I don’t want to be rough. I am going to help you”. Det.-Sergt. Skardon kept saying “Go on, tell him. Tell him it is a case of suicide. We want our case cleared up. You were the last man seen with her; we don’t want to charge you with minder”. He handed prisoner his hat and said “Sign this and walk out”.

Mr. Hutchinson: You did sign it and walk out.

Judge Wrottesly: You had nothing to do with the wording of the statement?

Whiting: I simply said “Yes”.

They invented the story and you signed it? - Yes.

With regard to the incident in the Guildhall public house, he was singing, and the landlord caught hold of him. He (prisoner) said “I will handle you the same as you handle me outside.” He denied saying he would serve him as he served the blondie. Whiting admitted that he hated the sight of Mrs. Thompson. He denied saying he would put her on the spot, but said he told her that he loved Mrs. Woodbridge. He bought the green purse at Dover Woolworth’s before Christmas.

Mr. Hutchinson: Had you any feeling of hatred or revenge against Phyllis at all?

Whiting: No. She was a good little soul.

This concluded the examination of the prisoner, and the Court rose at twenty minutes to seven.

When the hearing was resumed yesterday (Thursday) Whiting was cross- examined by Mr. Roland Oliver.

Mr. Oliver: Will you look at the scarf - look at it carefully - is that actually your scarf?

Whiting: Yes.

When did you tell anybody that the scarf round this murdered woman’s neck was yours? - I told my counsel.

When? - Two or three days ago.

Mr. Hutchinson said he had been told before Wednesday morning.

Mr. Oliver: Two or three days ago you told your counsel that it was your scarf. You did not tell anybody before then?

Whiting: Yes.

You see the ends of your scarf are frayed as if they had been in contact with some hard object? - Yes.

Can you tell the jury how that happened to your scarf? - It was never there when I had that scarf.

You mean those frayed marks were not there at all? - They were not there.

Since you gave it to her that came about - Yes.

Did you ever put the ends of your scarf in the clip of any braces to hold it? - No.

You say you gave her that scarf on Friday, May 20th? - Yes.

You heard a landlady say she had never seen any such scarf? - Yes.

You last saw her with it when she put It round, her neck on Friday? - Yes.

You never saw that scarf again, did you, according to your case? – No.

She did not wear it on the Monday when you went for a walk with her? – No.

She was wearing a different scarf? – I did not notice.

You are a Folkestone man, aren't you? – Yes.

You know these three beehive-looking hills? – Yes.

Did you know there was a thicket along the bottom of them? - No, I never go up there.

You have never been up there in your life? - No.

Have you ever been up as far as the stile along the road called Castle Hill? - I came down that road last August, past that stile.

This girl Phyllis was a loose sort of girl? - According to what some people say.

She would have gone to a place like that with a good number of men if they had asked her, according to your knowledge of her? - Yes, she would.

You knew she would have gone with you if you had asked her? - I do not think she would.

In reply to other questions, Whiting said he loved Rose Woodbridge and he was sorry when she left him.

You thought some interfering person brought about Rose Woodbridge leaving you? - Something about a letter the landlord sent to her mother.

Were you anxious to find out who made that mischief? - No.

You never tried to find out who had done that? - No.

Would you have been angry with the person who had done that? - I would have asked them what they had done it for, that is all.

Can you tell the jury at all when your jacket got torn? It was the only jacket you wore on every day? - I never noticed it.

That purse which was in your pocket, you said you bought that before Christmas and had had it for months and months? - Yes.

A good many people might have seen you with it if it was yours? - I expect so.

Replying to a question by Mr. Justice Wrottesley, the prisoner said when he was in London he kept cigarette ends and papers in the purse. He also used it for money.

Mr. Oliver: You know Elvey Flynn?

Whiting: Yes.

Did you have any conversation with her about Rose Woodbridge? - I would not speak to her at all.

Why would you not speak to her? - Because I don’t like her. She is mischief making and always has been.

Did you never ask her if she knew anything about Rose Woodbridge, or whether anybody had made mischief about Rose Woodbridge? - No.

You said you hated and detested Florence Thompson. Is that right? - Yes.

Were you with her one afternoon in the Guildhall? - She came in there.

Were you afterwards with her in Jordan’s? - Yes.

Did you talk to her? - Yes. She asked me if I would treat her to a dinner in the South Foreland.

Did Mrs. Thompson say to you “It is a shame Phyllis has been murdered”? - She did not say anything like that.

Did you say “If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis I will put you on the spot? - No.

It is sheer invention? - Yes.

Did you say “How would you like a scarf round your neck?” - Pure invention.

Weatherhead is a friend of yours? - No friend of mine.

Is that an invention of his? - Absolutely.

You never said you would serve anyone like you served the blondie? - No. There were other people in the bar.

Mr. Oliver then questioned Whiting about the long statement he had made.

Mr. Oliver; Do you say that the police wrote down things you did not say?

Whiting: Yes.

They invented things, and then you say they wrote them down, and you never said them at all? - Yes.

You gave them, no doubt, in answer to questions getting a detailed account of your movements with Phyllis on 23rd May? - Yes.

Is that part of the statement right? Did you tell them those things? - Yes.

They have written down a lot of things you have said about Mrs. Woodbridge. Did you say anything about Mrs. Woodbridge? - They put it to me that I had been living with Mrs. Woodbridge and I told them I had been living with her. They said “When you were there did a young girl named Phyllis Minter come there?” and I said “Yes”. They said “You say Phyllis was the cause of Mrs. Woodbridge leaving you?” They kept on putting that to me and I suppose I must have said “Yes”. Continuing, Whiting said he did not hear that she had been in hospital.

Can you think why the police should talk about her being in hospital? Are you sure you did not say that? - I am sure I did not.

Continuing, Whiting said he did say that he would be annoyed with anyone who led Rose astray. The police kept putting it to him and he said “Yes”. He did not say he thought Phyllis was the cause of the trouble between Rose and him.

Mr. Oliver: What the police have done, according to you, is to write down a lot you did say and put in little bits they invented themselves? - Yes.

If you wanted to get Phyllis to that thicket for immoral purposes you may have talked about marrying her and living with her? - It never entered my mind.

After saying you would marry her on the afternoon of Monday. May 23rd, and knowing where you thought she lived, 89, Ashley Avenue, did you make any attempt to see her again after that Monday? - No.

You were lonely and wanted to marry; you had arranged to marry this woman. She had told you her address where you thought she lived. How came it you never tried to find her until her body was discovered? - She said she would see me next day in the Library. She never turned up and I forgot all about her.

Did you say to the police “I am always worried since Mrs. Woodbridge left me”? - Yes.

Whiting said the statement was not read over to him and the statement “This statement has been read over to me and is true”, was put in after his signature was put on it. With regard to the second statement dealing with the question of suicide, Whiting said he did not see Phyllis wearing the green scarf on the Monday evening.

Mr. Oliver: Every word in that is a lie invented by the police?

Whiting: They kept saying it themselves.

Mr. Oliver asked Whiting to look at the scarf and said “Was that how it was when the police showed it to you?”

Whiting: Yes.

Mr. Oliver then reminded Whiting what he had said the previous day about Chief Inspector Parker tying the scarf twice round his neck, knotting it and saying “Look Bill, easy”. “You show the jury what Chief Inspector Parker did with that scarf”, added Mr. Oliver.

Whiting took the scarf, wound it twice round his neck and knotted it in the front.

Mr. Hutchinson: In this statement the police nut questions to you?

Whiting: Yes.

You say it is the answers to these questions that they put down in some instances wrong? - Yes.

Mr. Henry Allen, of 4, Margaret Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he made a statement to the police on June 2nd. He had known the murdered woman well by sight for about eight years. He saw her on May 24th at 9.30 p.m. in Margaret Street smoking a cigarette.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw Phyllis practically every day.

Mr. John Brookes, of 4, Margaret Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he made a statement to the police on June 2nd. He knew the murdered woman by sight and saw her on May 24th between 9.30 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. in Margaret Street, when he was with the previous witness.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw the murdered woman practically every weekend in a public-house. He did not see her every day.

Mrs. Ella Hall, of Station Cottages, Folkestone, said the police sent for her and she told them she went to Sainsbury’s on the 24th or 25th of May at about 10 a.m. She got off the bus at West Cliff Gardens and saw the murdered woman talking to two men. She said “Hello” to her.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not see Phyllis very often. She was not sure whether it was the 24th or 25th, but she knew it would not be the Monday.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley: Are you sure it was not the 17th or 18th that you saw Phyllis?

Witness: It was not as far back as that.

Miss Hilda Miller, of 28, Harvey Street Folkestone, a shop assistant at the Folkestone Woolworth’s, said the police sent for her on May 28th. She knew Phyllis by sight and last saw her on May 25th between 11.30 and 12 noon in the store. She was with another woman, who bought a roll of greaseproof paper. Phyllis was wearing a navy blue coat and a green scarf similar to the one produced. She had seen the murdered woman the day before and she was wearing the same coat. She was able to fix the dates because it was the same week the woman was murdered.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not remember the murdered woman coming with Mrs. Wright to the shop on Monday. She first knew that the murdered woman had a green scarf tied round her neck when she heard the other girls talking about it. Witness said she was serving on a counter where paper was sold.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you notice anything about Phyllis? What drew your attention to her?

Witness: I looked at her hair.

What did you notice about her hair? - It had been dyed.

Mrs. Wright, re-called, said she recognised Miss Miller as the young lady from whom she made her purchase on the Monday at Woolworth’s.

Mr. Edward Marwood, a newsvendor, of 29. Tontine Street, Folkestone, said he was sent for by the police on May 29th. During the week previous, on the Wednesday morning, at about 9.50, he saw the murdered woman near Milky Way. She had a book in her hand. He was able to fix the time because he was going to the Labour Exchange to sign on. He had seen the girl on Monday at about 10.50 a.m. or 11 a.m. outside Wood’s, in Tontine Street. She was then talking to a big, stout lady. He had also seen her on the Sunday morning, when she asked him where the East Kent booking office was. She had a case in her hand and said she was going to Margate.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw Phyllis a good many times during a week.

Mr. Hutchinson: Are you certain after you had seen her on Sunday that you saw her on two days after?

Witness: On Monday and Wednesday.

Mr. John Henry Turner, of 8, Mill Bay, Folkestone, a newsvendor, said on May 29th he gave a statement to the police. He knew Phyllis Minter by sight and saw her on Wednesday, May 25th. He was locking the “Star” office up at about 7.45 a.m., when Phyllis said “Good morning” to him. He walked with her as far as the Shakespeare public house. He saw her again at 8.20 a.m. and she said she was waiting for her pal.

Miss Lucille Godden, of 43, Bridge Street, Folkestone, a waitress, said she was sent for by the police. She had known the murdered woman all her life. On May 22nd she saw Phyllis in the Alexandra Hotel. Phyllis said she had had a phone call from somebody and did not know who it was. She next saw Phyllis again on the Wednesday evening in Dover Road, between 10.30 and 11 at night. She saw Phyllis coming up the road on the pillion seat of a motor cycle. She was wearing a navy blue coat and green scarf, but no hat. A medium aged man was driving the motor cycle. He was wearing a light raincoat, but no hat. She was able to fix the date because on the Monday and Tuesday she went to a dance arid did not leave until 12 o’clock.

Mr. Oliver: I am going to suggest you are quite mistaken that you saw Phyllis between 10.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Wednesday.

Mr. Oliver: You are able to say she was dressed in a blue coat?

Witness: Yes.

And a green scarf? - Yes.

When did you first remember seeing her wearing a green scarf? - Different times I saw she was wearing a green scarf.

How long before this Wednesday had you seen her with a green scarf? - On Sunday.

Did you ever see her before with that green scarf? - I cannot remember what day.

A week before? - About that.

Did the police ask you how this woman was dressed? - Yes.

Why did you not tell them amongst other things she had a green scarf? - I thought I told them she had a green scarf on.

Has not your imagination been getting to work? - No.

In reply to a question by Mr. Justice Wrottesley, witness said she thought the scarf Phyllis was wearing was darker than the one produced.

Miss Lilian Beasley, of 37, Marshall Street, Folkestone, said she was with Miss Godden on the Wednesday when they saw Phyllis on the back of a motor cycle in Dover Road. She only saw the back of the murdered girl, but knew her because of her coat and hair.

Cross-examined, witness said she would not have seen Phyllis unless Miss Godden had said “There is Phyllis Minter”.

Mr. Charles Butler, of 23, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, a fisherman, said he had known the girl known as Phyllis Minter since she was three or four years of age. On May 27th he saw a newspaper photograph of the murdered girl. He had seen her on Wednesday, May 25th at the Dover bus stop at the top of Tontine Street. Witness said it was the 24th or the 25th when he saw the girl. She was talking to a man about six feet tall, who looked like a soldier. They appeared to be quarrelling and Phyllis looked to be on the point of crying.

Cross-examined, witness said he came ashore at about 10.05 p.m. and saw Phyllis at 10.35 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: You had just come from the sea every evening that week, including Monday?

Witness: Yes.

After the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Justice Wrottesley said that he had received a note from the jury. “If I thought it possible to do what is asked in accordance with the administration of justice in this country”, he said, “I would do so, but it is quite impossible. I can only say ‘No'”.

The contents of the note were not made public.

Mr. Richard Brazier, of 23, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, a platelayer, said he lodged with Butler. He had known Phyllis Minter by sight for six months at the most. Looking at the photograph (produced) witness said he could not say he knew either of the girls depicted, but he knew Rose Woodbridge. On the Tuesday he met Mr. Butler at the bottom of Tontine Street. They passed the Congregational Church and he saw a woman and man standing on the kerb having a row. The man was tall and wore a light raincoat.

Mr. Hutchinson: You would not give the defence a statement?

Witness: I have been away working for the last 16 weeks.

Did you tell everything you could remember to the police – Yes.

Did you tell them more than you could remember? - No.

Mr. Hutchinson asked leave to treat Brazier as a hostile witness and asked Mr. Justice Wrottesley to read the statement given by the witness to the police.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley said he could see no signs of hostility.

In reply to his lordship, witness said he did not recognise the man or woman ho saw at the bus stop.

Mr. Hutchinson: How do you know they were having a row?

Witness: They were arguing.

Cross-examined, witness said the incident happened on the Tuesday. He never went out on the Wednesday. He had only seen Phyllis once before.

Mr. Oliver: Is your memory a rather weak one?

Witness: No.

Mr. George Neville, of Dudley Road, Folkestone, said he had known the murdered girl for seven or eight years. He heard about her death on May 26th. He last saw her on May 25th at the bottom of Tontine Street at about 11.15 a.m. She was with two other women, and was wearing a blue coat with white spots on it and had no stockings on. He had no doubt at all that the girl was Phyllis.

Cross-examined, witness said the blue coat produced was not the coat he saw Phyllis wearing.

Mr. William Alfred Richards, of 60, Dover Street, Folkestone, a mechanic, said he had known the murdered woman ever since she was quite a small girl. On May 22nd he bought a rowing boat at Dover and on the Tuesday he rowed it from Dover to Folkestone. He reached Folkestone at 5.30 p.m. and he worked on it until about 9 p.m. The next day, Wednesday, he went to his father’s house in Foord Road, and on the way passed Phyllis by Messrs. Rye's stores at about 10.15 a.m. He had no doubt at all that the girl was Phyllis Minter.

Mr. William Knott, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he knew Whiting and Weatherhead. On the Friday night, when there was a row in the Guildhall, he was in the public bar. The landlord told Whiting that if he did not keep quiet he would put him out. He heard no threats.

Cross-examined, witness said there was not a great deal of noise, although it was a bit “jangley”.

Miss Iris Horton, of 114, Buckland Avenue, Dover, employed by Messrs. Woolworth’s, at Dover, said she had been in charge of the leather counter since before September, 1937. They sold many purses like the green purse produced.

Cross-examined, witness said that it was very rare they sold such a purse to a man.

Closing the case for the defence, Mr. Hutchinson, addressing the jury, said it was a very terrible murder. A young girl on the threshold of life had been done to death very brutally. “My submission is going to be”, he continued, “that throughout this case there is not enough evidence here for you to say that the prosecution have done what they are bound to do. That is to prove to you beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the prisoner”. There was one point for them, he said, in that case. Had it been proved to them beyond all reasonable doubt that the girl was killed on May 23rd? If they thought the evidence was so overwhelming as to be safe to act upon, that the woman was killed on May 23rd, they would get a very long way towards proving the guilt of the prisoner. Twelve reputable people had all given evidence that they had seen the woman alive after May 23rd. If they found that those twelve people must have been mistaken, they need not attend to any other part of the case at all. Continuing, he said the prisoner denied it-was his scarf, but he was lying. There was no doubt about that. Were they surprised that he told lies about it? It was wrong for him to tell lies. It would be dangerous if people were convicted merely because they told untruths to themselves out of trouble. Dealing with the statement about suicide, Mr. Hutchinson said it was one of the most extraordinary parts of the case. They knew the prisoner made a statement to the Chief Constable, but he never made any suggestion that the murdered woman was depressed or likely to commit suicide. He then made a statement of four hours, and he never breathed that she was going to commit suicide; in fact, he said he was going to marry her. Did it not seem extraordinary that he next suddenly evolved that theory? Were not four hours taken up by this wretched man being cross-examined by a clever police officer? “Really, I do protest as strongly as I can against that form of statement”, he added. Continuing, Mr. Hutchinson said why not let the man write it himself; there was plenty of time? They kept him in the Police Station for four or five hours without food before they asked him a single question. Next day the man’s clothes were taken from him, and he was given others. The next night he was sent for again, and at 11.15 he was cross-examined again. Why on earth did that man, out of the blue, suddenly make that suggestion of suicide?

Mr. Oliver, addressing the jury, said it was the prosecution’s case that the woman was murdered on Monday, May 23rd. Since then no one could be found at whose house she had slept or in whose presence she had eaten. One suggestion came from a witness that she might have slept out. Did the jury think it at all likely that she would leave her belongings at the bus office unclaimed? When the body was found on May 26th at six o’clock it was smelling of decomposition. Did they require scientists to tell them that the girl was not living at ten o’clock the previous evening as some of those reliable witnesses say? Were they impressed by Sir Bernard Spilsbury when he said could not be alive on Wednesday? It was possible that she was alive on Tuesday, but riot probable. That she died on May 23rd was consistent with her disappearing from any house where she lived.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 September 1938.

Local News.

William Whiting (38), a labourer, of Folkestone, was found Not Guilty at the Old Bailey yesterday of the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, whose body was found in a coppice at the bottom of Caesar's Camp, with a green scarf round the neck, on the evening of May 26th.

The trial, before Mr. Justice Wrottesley, lasted four days and at its conclusion, when the foreman of the jury announced the verdict, there was some applause in Court. This was at once suppressed by Mr. Justice Wrottesley. Whiting was discharged shortly after the jury, upon which three women served, had given their verdict.

During the trial Whiting stated that certain passages in an alleged statement to the police had not been made by him. He admitted that the green scarf found round the neck of the murdered woman was his, but said that he had given it to Mrs. Spiers some days before her body was found. Four branches of a tree were exhibited in Court. They were enclosed in a frame along the front of the dock and beside them were four suitcases.

Whiting, who pleaded Not Guilty, went into the witness box on Wednesday and in answer to his Counsel’s question “Did you murder this girl?” said in quiet tones “No, sir”. He was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination by Counsel for the prosecution.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., and Mr. B.M. Waddy prosecuted, and Mr. St. John Hutchinson and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel were for the defence.

Mr. Oliver said on the evening of May 26th, a boy of 16, named Andrews, was bird-nesting in a remote thicket near Folkestone when he came across the body of a woman. The police found that she had been strangled, and, he would ask the jury to say, murdered by a man. It was a case that might cause them a good deal of anxiety. There were a great many witnesses and the case in the main was one of circumstantial evidence. It was a murder of great brutality. The woman had received the most ferocious violence from her assailant. Mr Oliver said that the path to the thicket was very rough, more like a cattle track than a path. Mrs. Spiers was 22, and was married before she was 17. She lived with her husband for two years until 1934, and then they parted and her husband had never seen her again. “I am afraid there is no doubt she was a woman of immoral habits”, continued Mr. Oliver. “She had affairs with many men and was therefore a young woman who might have gone to that place with a good many men. Whiting knew her quite well. Mrs. Spiers was practically destitute. She had twice stayed at lodgings with luggage and left without paying. The manner of her murder was fairly plainly written on the scene of the crime and on her body. She had obviously been violently attacked, perhaps with fists, and beaten into a state of unconsciousness. The murderer must have then dragged her further into the thicket. A blue coat was thrown over her, and tied and knotted tightly around her neck was a green scarf. That scarf is one of the most salient pieces of evidence in this case. Whether she was strangled by it, by the hands, or died in some other way is not known, but it was clear she was murdered. The scarf might have belonged to the murderer”. By a curious coincidence, continued Mr. Oliver, Mrs. Spiers was “snapped” on the Folkestone front on the day of her death and the scarf she was wearing was obviously nothing like the green scarf. One portion of what the prosecution said was her own scarf was found in her handbag. The rest disappeared – they might think with the murderer. It was the case for the prosecution that her death took place on May 23rd, although he understood witnesses were to be called to say they saw her after that date. If the jury accepted that date it was quite significant that the last person who was seen with her was Whiting. Mr. Oliver then came to the question of motive. Whiting, he said, had lived at Dover for about a year with a married woman named Rose Woodbridge. She was a close friend of Mrs. Spiers, and Whiting did not approve of the association. One evening when Mrs. Woodbridge came home she told Whiting she had been out with “Phyllis”, and that they met a couple of men who asked the women to live with them. That, according to Mrs. Woodbridge, made Whiting angry, and he said “If you don't stop going about with Phyllis I shall do something wrong”. He threatened he would strangle Phyllis. “Be careful of Mrs. Woodbridge’s evidence”, Mr. Oliver warned the jury. “You may not think her a very reliable sort of woman, but that does not mean she cannot tell the truth. Whiting and Mrs. Woodbridge separated - her mother, I think, took her away - and this made him very jealous. He was anxious to find out who had brought about the separation. He was desperately in love with her. In a statement to the police he said he worshipped her and in his mind Phyllis was the person really responsible for coming between them”. Mr. Oliver returned to the green scarf – “perhaps the most important piece of evidence in the case”. Whiting had denied that it was his scarf, or that he ever had one like it. The prosecution had evidence that right up to the day of the murder he was wearing a similar green scarf, but on the day of the murder he was not. Another piece of evidence, found on a post in the thicket, was a hair similar to Whiting's. On July ist Whiting made a long statement to the police, in which he said that he and Phyllis walked to the golf course and sat on the grass. Phyllis was very quiet. “I said 'What is the matter?'”, the alleged statement proceeded. She said “I am fed up and I am going to do myself in” I said “How are you going to do it?”, and she said “Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck”. She was wearing a green scarf. Mr. Oliver submitted that Mrs. Spiers could not have strangled herself; she was murdered by someone. “How could she have said to anybody 'I am going to strangle myself with a green scarf'” he concluded, “and then someone have come along and murdered her with a green scarf?”

Evidence was then called for the prosecution.

Arthur Charles Spiers, husband of the dead woman, living at Bexhill-on-Sea, said that shortly before her death he began divorce proceedings against her.

Inspector Johnson, of Folkestone, was asked by Mr. Hutchinson whether a man had confessed to the police that he had committed the crime and that the police, after making enquiries, took no further steps with regard to the man.

The officer said that he did not know. It was not a matter that he dealt with.

Dr. W. C. P. Barrett, the Folkestone police surgeon, expressed the view that the woman's death was caused by garrotting. He agreed that before the Coroner he gave his opinion that she had not been dead longer than two days when the body was found. He had heard “chit-chat” that Mrs. Spiers had been seen shopping after May 23rd. His original opinion and his present opinion were that death had taken place within two or three days.

Mr. Hutchinson: Do you know that Sir Bernard Spilsbury does not agree with your opinion about garrotting?

Dr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: You thought scratches were cause before death, and Sir Bernard after death?

Dr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: You agree that all these questions are matters of grave difficulty in which people may honestly make mistakes?

Dr. Barrett: Yes, and Sir Bernard's experience is much greater than mine. I have only had two cases of murder.

Sir Bernard Spilsbury said that he thought death was due to manual strangulation rather than garrotting with the green scarf.

Mr. Oliver: I don't think it matters whether it was manual strangulation or strangulation with a ligature. There is no doubt it was strangulation?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: None at all.

Mr. Oliver: Is it in your opinion possible that she committed suicide by strangling herself with a scarf?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: No, that it quite out of the question, in my view.

Replying to Mr. Hutchinson, Sir Bernard agreed that it was very difficult to fix the exact time of death. It might have been on May 23rd or May 24th.

Mr. Hutchinson: The police have told us of people who thought they saw Mrs. Spiers alive on May 25th. Could you go so far as to say she could not have been alive on the 25th?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: I hardly think it possible.

Does that mean it is just possible, but very unlikely? – It is very difficult indeed to say.

When the case was resumed on Wednesday the jury asked if they might have an opportunity of examining more closely the tree branches which formed an exhibit.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley agreed to the request, and said they could be taken to the jury room and examined during the luncheon interval.

Chief Inspector Parker produced a long statement alleged to have been made by Whiting on May 30th. It began “I am a widower and my wife died on May 3rd, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. She left me in December, 1935”. The alleged statement went on to tell of his association with a young married woman named Rose Woodbridge, and of Mrs. Woodbridge leaving him in November last, and added “I loved Rose, and in my mind I thought Phyllis Spiers was the cause of the trouble between us. I worshipped Rose”. On May 23rd he had a drink with Mrs. Spiers, and she showed him some divorce papers and said that she could get married again. The alleged statement continued “She asked me ‘Why don’t you marry me and let us go back to Dover?’ I said ‘I want to get married, and have some of my children home’”. They walked to the golf links. Something seemed to be worrying her, “perhaps because she was down and out. If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again”.

Inspector Parker said that he showed a green scarf to Whiting and he declared that he had never seen it before and had never had one like it.

Later Whiting made another alleged statement, said the witness, in which he said that while on the golf links Mrs. Spiers said she would “Do herself in”. He (Whiting) asked how, and she replied “Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck”. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. Inspector Parker said that he had tried to find any place where Mrs. Spiers might have slept or taken a meal after May 23rd, but had been unsuccessful.

Mr. Hutchinson: That did not surprise you, did it? She was continually in different places?

Inspector Parker: She was a resident of Folkestone, and I expected she would have been found after May 23rd had she been alive.

Asked why the alleged statement should have taken from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m., Inspector Parker said that he was endeavouring to discover the perpetrator of a crime. He agreed that he asked Whiting a good many questions.

Mr. Hutchinson: Can you tell me the difference between that and third degree methods?

Mr. Justice Wrottesley: I don’t know what third degree means.

Mr. Hutchinson: I thought a police officer would know (to Inspector Parker): Do you know?

Inspector Parker: I have heard of the term but I do not know what it means.

Mr. Hutchinson: Do you generally, when making inquiries, cross-examine a man not only on what he is saying but on statements by other people? - I did not ask him about other people’s statements. I was endeavouring to test the accuracy of his statement.

Inspector Parker agreed that there were no scratches on Whiting. There was a tear on his coat but no scratches on it. Several other men were examined by the police, he said.

Mr. Hutchinson: And there was the usual fake confession by a lunatic? – Yes.

A representative of a firm of outfitters at Folkestone said that during the winters of 1936 and 1937 his firm sold two or three dozen green scarves.

When evidence was called as to Whiting having worn a green scarf on various dates up to May 20th, Mr. Hutchinson said that it was not disputed.

The jury, during the luncheon interval, examined the tree branches and on their return discussed a point with counsel and the Judge as to the position of a piece of barbed wire.

Mrs. Wright, of Garden Road, Folkestone, said that Mrs. Spiers took a room at her house on May 21st in the name of Phyllis Minter. She had no luggage and said she came from Tooting and had a job at the Lido, Folkestone.

Mr. Hutchinson: Were you surprised she did not turn up on the night of May 23rd?

Witness: I was.

You know she has gone off before without paying? - I know that now.

Mrs. Wright added that later that night she saw a man without a hat and wearing a light mackintosh, apparently waiting outside her house.

Alfred Sidney Beesley, Chief Constable of Folkestone, agreed, in reply to Mr. Hutchinson, that in June he caused an inquiry to be made as to where Mrs. Spiers stayed on May 23rd and 24th. He explained that he had had statements that Mrs. Spiers had been seen on May 24th and he had done all he could to find out if it were correct. He could not find any place where she had stayed although she was supposed to have been seen in Folkestone.

Florence Thompson, who described herself as a friend of Mrs. Spiers, said that she had some drinks with Whiting on May 28th. “I remarked that it was a shame that Phyllis had been murdered”, she continued, “and he asked me how I would like a scarf round my neck”. “He said 'If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis, I will put you on the spot. You can do a murder without finding fingerprints or foot marks’. I said: ‘No. Wherever you go they will always trace you’”.

Mr. Oliver: What was his manner? - He was quite quiet.

Replying to Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Thompson said that she had come over for the day from Dover. She and Whiting went to three public houses. She had a gin and peppermint in one; a port wine and a cherry wine in another, and a port and a cocktail at the third.

Mr. Hutchinson: Were you not a little imaginative? - No. I never get drunk.

I suggest he never said this at all? - He did.

Why should he say it? - Phyllis happened to be a friend of mine.

Robert William Weatherhead, a seaman, spoke of an alleged incident in a public house. Whiting, he said, became abusive and when the landlord came round to put him out he swore and said “I will serve you the same as I served the blondie”.

Mr. Hutchinson: He had had a drink or two? – He had had enough to make him talk.

Rose Woodbridge, who said that she was living in a lodging house in Canterbury, gave evidence that she knew Phyllis Spiers as “Phyllis Minter”. Mrs. Woodbridge said she (witness) was married in September, 1935, and parted from her husband a month later. Subsequently she lived with Whiting, leaving him a fortnight before last Christmas. Phyllis Spiers lived in the same street at Dover, and they were very friendly. Mrs. Woodbridge said that one day she told Whiting about “two fellows” arranging to take her and Phyllis to London. He was very angry and said that he would do something wrong if she did not keep away from Phyllis. He did not say what he meant by it.

The Judge: What did you say? - “Walls have ears”. She added that her mother took her away from Whiting. He was there, and she gave him a reason.

Mr. Oliver: Did you hear your mother’s reason for taking you away? - No.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Hutchinson, opening the case for the defence, said that Whiting was a man of no education and it was only by the help of the State that he was defended. That he had lied when he said he had never had a green scarf was true but because he told a lie about that it did not show he was guilty. They could imagine his feelings when he heard that a green scarf had been found round the woman’s neck and his saying “If I admit the scarf is mine I am done for”. “Would a man be such a fool as to take away a woman’s scarf and substitute his own to strangle a woman?” asked Mr. Hutchinson. Whiting would tell the jury that, not on Monday, May 23rd but on the previous Friday, he gave Mrs. Spiers the scarf he was wearing. He did not think she was wearing it on the Monday when he went out with her. “Supposing someone else was with her - and there might be many with a motive against this unhappy girl on the Flotsam and Jetsam of life. Supposing she was killed by someone else on May 24th or May 25th, that she was then wearing a green scarf, then the murderer would probably leave it tied round her neck. That is much more likely than that this man would”. There would be evidence by people who knew her well, who would swear that they saw Mrs. Spiers on May 24th, and some on May 25th. One of them would say that she was then wearing a green scarf.

Whiting then went into the witness box.

Mr. Hutchinson’s first question to him was “Did you murder this girl?” “No, sir”, he replied quietly. Whiting said that he was a married man, and that his wife was murdered and a man named Bryant was hanged for it. He (Whiting) lived with Mrs. Woodbridge. He was very fond of her then and he was now. After Mrs. Woodbridge had left him he met Mrs. Spiers on one occasion. She asked him if he missed Rose, and he said he did, and would like her back. On May 20th she asked him for his scarf, saying that she felt cold, and he gave it to her.

Mr. Hutchinson: Had you any idea that Phyllis, wanted to take Rose away from you? - No, she was a good little soul, and would not do it.
Describing his meeting with Mrs. Spiers on May 23rrd, he said she showed him some divorce papers and said to him “Why not get married?” He said that he would marry her, but he had to get a job first.

Mr. Hutchinson: You were not in love with Phyllis? – No, but I wanted a home and my two children back. I was alone.

Whiting said that on this day Phyllis was not wearing the green scarf which he had given her. They went for a walk, and near the golf links she waved to a young man on a motorcycle, saying that he was “one of her boys”. Soon afterwards she kissed him, and they parted. That was the last he saw of her.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you take her by Caesar’s Camp and strangle her? - No, sir.

Asked about his alleged statement, Whiting said the police officers kept asking him questions and he hardly knew what he was saying. He had denied that the green scarf was his because he had read about the scarf in the paper and he was frightened. Asked why he had suggested that Mrs. Spiers had committed suicide, Whiting replied “Inspector Parker put it to me telling me that if I told him that, I would walk out a free man - if I told him about it being a suicide with a green scarf”.

Whiting continued: “Inspector Parker said ‘Sit down, Bill’. He got the scarf, tied it twice round his neck, knotted it and said ‘Quite easy, Bill. A case of suicide. It could easily be done.’I said ‘ No, it is not suicide, whatever it was it was murder’. He kept pressing me for nearly two hours and saying ‘Have you made up your mind?’” “While he was away, Sergeant Scarden said ‘Go on Bill, tell him. Don’t be a damned fool. He is trying to help you. You will have no more trouble. You will walk out free. We will go back to London and our case is settled'”. Whiting said that Mrs. Spiers was a “happy-go-lucky girl and would not commit suicide”.

Mr. Hutchinson: Are you a friend of Mrs. Thompson?

Whiting: I hate the sight of her.

Whiting denied having said either that a murder could be done without leaving footmarks, or anything to the landlord of the public house about “Blondie”. He concluded by saying that he bore no animosity towards Phyllis.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., began his cross-examination on Thursday morning. His first question to Whiting was “When did you first tell anybody the scarf round Mrs. Spiers’ neck was yours?” Whiting replied: I told my counsel two or three days ago”.

Mr. Oliver: Did you hear your counsel ask a witness yesterday about scores of scarves being sold in Folkestone? - Yes.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson said he did not wish to interrupt but in justice to the prisoner he did not want a false deduction to be made. He had been told about the scarf before yesterday, but until he had specific instructions about the matter he thought it right to put the questions about the sale of scarves.

Mr. Oliver: Two or three days ago you told your counsel it was your scarf and you had not told anyone before that. Is that right?

Whiting: Yes.

At counsel’s request Whiting took the green scarf from the cardboard box in which it had been placed as an exhibit and examined it closely. The frayed end was not there, he said, when he gave it to Mrs. Spiers.

Mr. Oliver: It has become frayed since you gave it to her? - Yes, sir.

Did you ever put the end of your scarf into the clip of your braces to hold it?

Whiting said he had not, adding “I will demonstrate how I put my scarf on, if you like, sir’'.

Mr. Oliver: You say you gave her that scarf on Friday, May 20th? - Yes.

You heard her landlady say she had never seen any such scarf in her possession? - Yes sir.

You last saw her with it round her neck on the Friday? – Yes.

She was not wearing it on the Monday when you went for a walk with her? - No, sir.

Was she wearing a different scarf? - I didn’t notice whether she had a scarf at all.

You are a Folkestone man? - Bred and born from good people at Folkestone.

Whiting said he did not know which of three hills was Caesar’s Camp.

Mr. Oliver: Did you know there was a thicket at the bottom? - No, sir. I have never been there.

Mr. Oliver: It would be a pretty lonely place in that thicket, wouldn’t it? - That I can’t say, sir.

This girl Phyllis was a loose-living sort of girl, wasn’t she? - So some people say. I can’t say.

She would have gone to a place like that with quite a number of men if they had asked her? - Yes, she would do.

She would have gone there with you if you had asked her, wouldn’t she? - Yes, I suppose so.

You knew where Ashley Avenue was. If she wanted to go home when you met her she would never have gone on to the golf links? She would have gone straight along Cheriton Road? - Not necessarily.

It would have been the ordinary way to go home? - I suppose it would.

Mr. Oliver: You were devoted to Rose Woodbridge? - Yes, I love her.

You were bitterly sorry when Rose Woodbridge left you, weren’t you? - Yes.

You thought that some interfering person was responsible for her leaving you? - There was something about a letter through her landlord sent to her mother.

You thought the landlord or someone had sent a letter to her mother, and that is why her mother took her away? - Her mother did not explain to me why she had taken her away.

Were you anxious to find out who had done that? - No, sir.

And you never tried to find out? - No, sir.

Would you have been angry with whoever did that? - I would have just told him off about it.

How many coats had you in May? - I had a jacket - you have got it - and the light grey overcoat.

You were wearing that on May 21st? - Yes, sir.

When did it get torn? - It could have got torn anytime when I was out for mushrooms in the country.

You say it is your only jacket. Can you tell the jury how long it has been torn? - I never noticed it, sir.

You bought the purse before Christmas and had it for months. A good many people must have seen you with it? - I expect so, yes, sir.

Answering the Judge, Whiting said when he was in London he used the purse for cigarette ends, papers and money.

The Judge: So you took money out of the purse to pay people? - Sometimes I used it for money and sometimes I had not much money.

Mr. Oliver: Did you ever have conversation with a woman named Flynn about Rose Woodbridge? - No conversation at all. I would not speak to her because I don’t like the woman. She is a mischief making woman - always has been.

Did you never ask her if she knew anything about Rose Woodbridge or whether anyone had made mischief about Rose? - No, sir.

Did you never ask her whether she thought Phyllis made mischief about Rose? - No, sir.

The woman Florence Thompson said you hated and detested her. Is that right? - Yes.

Were you with her one night at the Guildhall public house? - I was never with her.

In the afternoon? - The public house was full of men and she came in there.

In answer to further questions, Whiting said he was in the “South Foreland” at dinner time and was conversing with people when she asked him to treat her to a dinner.

Mr. Oliver: Did you hear there that the body of this woman who had been murdered, had been found? Did not Mrs. Thompson say to you ‘It is a shame Phyllis has been murdered’? - No.

She did not say anything like that? - No.

Did you say “If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis I will put you on the spot”? - No.

Nothing like it? - No.

Sheer invention? - Yes, sir.

Did you say “How would you like a scarf round your neck?” - It is a pure invention.

Weatherhead is a friend of yours? - No.

You never said to him anything about “serving anyone as you served the blonde?” - No.

You had had some drinks? - I had had a drink or two.

Mr. Oliver then questioned Whiting at length about his alleged statement and asked “Do you say that the police wrote down things that you did not say?” - Yes, sir.

They actually invented things and said you said them and wrote them down? - Yes.

You gave them, in answer to questions, quite a detailed account of your movements with Phyllis on May 23rd? - Yes.

Is that part of the statement, stating where you met her, where you went and what you talked about, correct? - Yes.

Whiting, answering further questions, said “The police kept on and on saying 'You say Phyllis was the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving?’ They kept on putting that to me and I suppose I must have said 'Yes'”.

Mr. Oliver: Did you say that the first time you saw Phyllis was when you returned to Folkestone? - I don’t know, I can’t remember.

Whiting said he did not discuss the letters which led to Woodbridge leaving. He had not heard that she had been in hospital.

Later the Judge asked Whiting: You say the police put down correctly a part of the sentence and not the other. Is that right?

Whiting: Yes.

Mr. Oliver: Would you have been annoyed if Phyllis led Rose astray?

Whiting: I would certainly have been annoyed with anybody who led Rose astray.

Mr. Oliver: Did you say that? - The police kept putting that to me.

Did you tell Rose that she was not to have anything more to do with Phyllis? - I said I could not keep her in food.

Did Rose and Phyllis get drunk and were they ordered out of a public house? - They were merry but they were not ordered out.

Whiting added “I have been through so much. Part of the statement is true but it is not true that they were intoxicated”. He denied that he said that Phyllis was really responsible for coming between Rose and him.

Mr. Oliver: Having said you would marry Phyllis on Monday, May 23rd, did you make any attempt whatever to see her again? - No, sir.

You had arranged to marry this girl. She had told you her address. How is it that you never tried to find her until her body was discovered? - Because she was a girl who went with anybody.

It is not a question of what sort of girl she was, but what sort of man you are? - She said she would be at the library next day but she did not turn up and I forgot all about her.

Whiting said when he walked with Mrs. Spiers on May 23rd she was not wearing a green scarf.

Mr. Oliver: If she was not murdered that afternoon she must have had your scarf somewhere about her? - I don't know that she was murdered.

Your scarf was round her neck. If she was murdered that afternoon she must have had it somewhere about her for the murderer to have put it round her neck? - I don’t know, sir.

Mr. Hutchinson (re-examining : Why did you sign the statement? - Because the officers said it would finish their case and they were going back to London.

This concluded Whiting’s evidence and he returned to the dock.

Henry Allen, a general labourer, of Margaret Street, Folkestone said he had known Phyllis Minter by sight for eight years.

Mr. Hutchinson : It is suggested that she was murdered on May 23rd? - I saw her on May 24th at 9.30 p.m.

Allen said he fixed the date because on Tuesdays he looked after his children while his wife went to the pictures. She had just returned, and he had just come out. He was walking with Brooks in Margaret Street when they saw Phyllis. She was walking on the other side of the road smoking a cigarette. Allen continued “My friend whistled to her. She walked towards us, and I told my friend I did not want to be seen talking to her. I made a statement to the police on June 2nd”. Phyllis, he added, was a familiar figure about the streets of Folkestone. He saw her about practically every day.

John Joseph Brooks, a labourer, and lodger at Allen’s address, said he was with Allen when they saw Phyllis Minter. He knew Phyllis by sight by going in and out of public houses. Brooks added “I was going to speak to her and my landlord said ‘Don’t speak to her. If my missus comes along there will be a row'”. He did not go of his own accord to the police. They sent for him.

Mrs. Ella Hall, of Station Cottages, Folkestone, wife of a station porter at Folkestone Junction, said she saw Phyllis on May 24th or 25th when witness was going by bus to Sainsbury’s shop in Sandgate Road. Mrs. Hall said she knew that it was on the Tuesday or Wednesday that she saw Phyllis because she did not go into the town for meat on Mondays. She saw Phyllis talking to two men. Mrs. Hall said she knew her because she worked with her six or seven years. “I have no doubt that this girl was Phyllis Minter”, she said. “She said ‘Hello’ to me as I passed her, and I said ‘Hello’ back”.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley: How do you know it was not the Tuesday or Wednesday of the week before?

Mrs. Hall: Because it would be too far back.

Edward Marwood, a newsvendor, of Tontine Street, Folkestone, who made a statement to the police on May 29th, described how he saw Phyllis on the Sunday, Monday and Wednesday of the previous week, between the 23rd and 24th. On Wednesday, he said, he was walking up the “Milky Way” towards the “Bulldog steps ” when he saw her. He had known Phyllis for years and fixed the time because he was going to the Labour Exchange to sign on. He went to the .Exchange on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and on Mondays he did not go that way.

Marwood continued that he saw Phyllis on the Monday previous also, about 11 a.m. in Tontine Street when she was talking to a big, stout woman. She was not wearing a hat.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson: Did you see her the day before, on the Sunday?

Marwood replied he saw Phyllis between 9.30 and 10 a.m. She came over to West Terrace where he was selling papers and asked to be directed to a bus office because, she said, she was going to Margate to work.

John Henry Turner, of Millbay, Folkestone, another newsvendor, said he saw Phyllis Minter twice on the Wednesday morning.

Lucille Georgina Godden, a waitress, of Bridge Street, Folkestone, who said she had known Phyllis nearly all her life, described how she and a friend saw her in the Alexandra public house on the Sunday evening. A little girl called Phyllis out of the public house. She returned, borrowed the telephone book from the proprietor and said she had had a call from someone she did not know. Miss Godden said she next saw Phyllis on the Wednesday night between 10.30 and 11 o’clock in the Dover Road on the pillion seat of a motorcycle. She was dressed in a blue coat and a green scarf. She had no hat. The machine was driven by a medium aged man in a light raincoat.

Answering Mr. Oliver, Miss Godden said she was certain it was Phyllis.

Mr. Oliver: Do you know that when the body was found it was already decomposing?

Miss Godden repeated that she was certain she saw Phyllis. She saw her face in the light of a street lamp. She did not put it in her statement about the scarf because she was not asked about that. Miss Godden was shown a scarf and in answer to the Judge said that was not the scarf Phyllis was wearing on the two occasions she saw her. The scarf in Court was of a darker shade.

Lilian Beasley, of Marshall Street, Folkestone, said that while with Miss Godden she saw Phyllis in the public house on the Sunday and a girl on a motor cycle on the Wednesday. Miss Godden told her it was Phyllis. Witness saw the colour of her hair and her coat but could not see her face.

Charles Butler, a fisherman, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, who said he had known Phyllis since she was three or four, said he saw her in Tontine Street on the night of May 24th or 25th. It was recalled to his mind directly he saw her photograph. Witness added: “She was talking to a soldier about 6 feet tall and they appeared to be quarrelling. The man was in mufti but I know he was a soldier. She looked as if she was on the point of crying”.

Richard Brazier a platelayer, also of St. John s Street, said on May 24th he saw a man and woman standing on the kerb “having a row”. He was a tall man.

George Robert Neville, a motor driver, of Dudley Road, Folkestone, said he saw Phyllis, whom he had known about seven or eight years, on May 25th, in a street near the Harbour. The woman looked as if she had been sleeping out. She was dirty and tired looking, as if she had not washed.

Hilda Miller, a shop assistant at Woolworth’s, Folkestone, said she knew Phyllis Spiers by sight. On May 25th she came to the shop accompanied by a woman who bought a roll of grease-proof paper. Phyllis was wearing a navy bluecoat, a blue-green dress and a green scarf. She had also seen her the day before. The woman with her was not Mrs. Wright.

Mr. Oliver: Mrs. Wright pointed you out in the street as the girl from whom she bought something on the 23rd and you said you hadn’t sold her anything? - Yes.

When did you first hear this gin had a green scarf round her neck? - When I read it in the paper.

Do you think you imagined the green scarf? - No.

Do you know anyone in the world who saw her in a green scarf? - No.

How well do you know her? - Very well, but not to talk to.

Have you ever seen her with a green scarf before? - No. I had not seen her for two or three years.

If Mrs. Wright bought paper May 23rd she would come to your counter? - Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: Was there anything which drew your particular attention to this girl? - I noticed her hair had been dyed.

Have you any doubt it was Phyllis you saw? - No.

Have you a fianc, a police officer? - Yes, sir.

Did you mention it to him?

Mr. Oliver objected to the question, and the witness did not answer it.

William Knott, a labourer, of New Street, Folkestone, said he was in the public house at the time of the incident spoken to by Weatherhead, but he did not hear any threats by Whiting.

Mr. Oliver: Was there a lot of noise that night? - Not particularly, it was a bit jangly.

In his address to the Jury, Mr. St. John Hutchinson submitted that there was not enough evidence to prove that the girl was killed on May 23rd, and if they came to that conclusion, it was their duty to acquit. Criticising the action of the police regarding Whiting’s alleged statement he said “I hope it will go forth that the police should not take statements like this from a man of this character after questioning him for five hours without food.” He said that it was a very evil day when in a crime like murder, they could take a man, shut him up for hours and cross-examine him, without his being able to write his own statement, to try to make a motive. It was wrong for officers to cross- examine a man of Whiting’s mentality at 10.30 or 11 o’clock at night, without protection.Mr. Oliver, replying for the prosecution, referred to the witnesses for the defence who stated that they saw Mrs. Spiers after May 23rd. He said he was not suggesting that they came to say what was untrue but that they were genuinely mistaken as to the date.

When the trial started no one knew it was Whiting’s scarf. It was a terrible fact. It involved that somehow or other it passed to the possession of the man who murdered her. It was said a man must not be convicted because he told lies, but if a man lied on a vital matter did it not destroy his evidence? Whiting had previously denied emphatically that the scarf was his. “If you seek to pass criticism on the police with regard to the statement”, said Mr. Oliver, “You will remember their duty. Here was a brutal murder and for the protection of all of us they had to find out who did it. Can you believe that two experienced police officers could have been guilty of a tithe of what Whiting alleged against them? If he had not invented it would not these officers have been asked about it when they were in the witness box?”

The Judge, summing up, said there were certain facts that had not been disputed and these formed an admitted background as to which the Jury need not concern themselves. It was clear that Phyllis Spiers was first battered, possibly into insensibility, and then strangled. It was clear that this happened near the place where the body was found. It was clear that she was dragged to a comparatively open glade through the gap in the hedge into some bushes. She met her death sometime between the early afternoon of May 23rd and May 26th when her body was found. How long before May 26th was in dispute. It was clear that she was alone in the company of the accused man nn May 23rd and that they were going in the direction of the spot where she was murdered. How came these two together? Was there anything in the relationship of the dead woman and the accused which might explain the murder? They knew he had lived with Rose Woodbridge until November, 1937, that he was very much attached to her and that when she left him it was to his great sorrow. If the jury accepted Ills signed statements - and these were challenged - he had said he disapproved of Rose meeting Phyllis at one time, and that Phyllis was the cause of trouble between him and Rose. Accused now denied that, and said in the witness box that that statement was put in his mouth by the police. They had heard the evidence of Sir Bernard Spilsbury, probably the most experienced man in these matters in the country, and he was of opinion that she had been dead approximately for three days when she was found. It was fair to sum up his opinion, said the Judge, by saying that Sir Bernard thought three days the most probable date; four days the next probable, and then two days in order of probability, and he thought they could rule out the probability of one day. If the case rested merely on suspicion that Whiting had the opportunity of murdering the girl it would be far from enough, but it led them to look into the matter further, and the other evidence. If accused did murder the girl on the afternoon of May 23rd, the Jury might expect to find, and might well ask, whether anything of his was found near the body. First and foremost there was the green scarf found tied tightly round her neck. Where did it come from? At one stage of the trial it seemed to be suggested it was not Whiting’s property at all. He had told the police he had never seen it before. Two or three days ago he decided to abandon that denial and admit that the scarf was his. He now said that he had given it to the girl on May 20th. The Judge referred to the finding of a purse in Whiting's pocket resembling one which Mrs. Spiers had had. Dealing with the difficulty which the murderer would have in dragging the body through the gap, the Judge said that in the urgency of the moment, he would probably not notice some barbed wire. He might well tear his coat in doing so, and Whiting’s coat was torn. Whiting said he had done it while mushrooming. By itself, continued the Judge, the tear was not of much value. But it was a remarkable coincidence, and things were accumulating. There was the green scarf, the purse and a tear-mark, which would correspond with the crime as it was reconstructed. Another coincidence was the finding of a human hair resembling that of Whiting’s on a post in the gap. Science, said the Judge, had not yet, he understood, reached the pitch when it could be said with certainty that a hair found “is my hair”. The most that could be said was that “It was similar to my hair or your hair”. The girl, continued the Judge, disappeared from everyone’s view until the following day, when it was said by a number of witnesses for the defence that she was seen. “I could not recall any evidence that she was known to have slept anywhere indoors or to have sought shelter”, he added. Referring to the evidence of Florence Thompson, the Judge continued, “I think we are apt to be censorious about people going to public houses. There is clearly nothing-wrong about people going to one, two or three public houses. On the other hand the memory of such people may not be so valuable as people who have not had drinks”. The Judge advised the Jury to be careful of Weatherhead’s evidence in which he said Whiting had remarked “I will serve you the same as blondie”. “This was at a time’’, said the Judge, “when everyone knew that this girl was murdered, and it would not take very much for that sentence to have been ‘I will serve you the same as the blondie was served’. I should not attach too much importance to that evidence although it has been said that truth sometimes does come out when a man is in his cups”. By itself the evidence of Flynn was of no value but with the other the Jury might think that it did something to bear out some of the things in accused’s original written statement. The Judge then referred to the third degree which had been mentioned in that case. “Third degree is rather a dangerous word to use. We have probably read something about it - of prisoners being locked up, hurt and damaged, and awakened in the middle of the night. That is not the kind of thing suggested here. What is said is that the first statement took a very long time - from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. That was recorded in the statement. A statement might take a long time when you have a not very clever man to deal with. Because it takes a long time it does not follow that it is untruthful. You have to remember that when one of us - a member of society - is found dead, it is the duty of the police to pursue their investigations with efficiency and rapidity. Close questioning is not a dangerous ordeal to an innocent person and it will not have escaped you that in the course of this trial a great many innocent persons have had to be closely questioned. The detection of crime - particularly serious crime - is more likely to be successful if the police work rapidly and do not let the grass grow under their feet”. What was most strongly relied on by the defence was the evidence of witnesses who said they had seen Mrs. Spiers after the time the Crown said she was killed. After having been in accused’s company on May 23rd she disappeared. No one could say where she slept or bought any food afterwards. The Jury must remember, he said, that she had no settled home and she was a bird of passage, here today and gone tomorrow. They must also remember these witnesses were found by the police themselves and honestly believed what they saw. The Crown, he continued, said it was a case of people making a mistake, as people did, when asked to recall when they had last seen a person whom they did not know very well. But if the Jury thought only one of these witnesses was not making a mistake and that the girl was seen alive after May 23rd, they had no choice but to find Whiting not guilty. Mr. Justice Wrottesley said he had prepared a time table showing the days and times when these witnesses said they saw her. In some cases their evidence might be open to criticism on the ground that they had made a mistake in identity, in others that they had got the wrong date. The jury would not attach too much importance to the accused's alleged statements. They would give their attention to more serious and weighty matters. At the same time they had got to remember that if in any way they fell short of satisfying themselves beyond reasonable doubt that this man committed the murder on Monday they had to find him Not Guilty at that stage. If they did not accept the story that he gave this young woman that scarf there was serious material there which might lead them to bring in a verdict of Guilty, putting aside, for the moment, the other evidence. Regarding the bulk of the evidence of the people who said they saw Phyllis Minter on the Tuesday and Wednesday, the evidence that the young woman was seen on Tuesday would probably occur to the jury as being more likely than the evidence of the two young women who said they saw her as late as 10.30 p.m. on Wednesday. But if the Jury accepted the evidence of even one of those persons who said they saw her on Tuesday or Wednesday there would be a doubt which should lead them to find the man Not Guilty, because it was tantamount to destroying the whole fabric of the case. It was not necessary for the defence to establish to their satisfaction that accused did not do it. The Judge continued “Persons will in this country, I am afraid - I am not afraid, indeed I am glad - will continue to be found not guilty of a crime which very likely they did because it cannot be proved against them. It is far more important that there should be no risk of a person who is not guilty being found guilty. So let my last words be for you to consider whether, apart from the people who saw this young woman alive, the prosecution’s case is enough to justify you saying whether you are really certain that this man did it. If you get as far as that you must consider the numerous body of evidence that this young woman was not dead when the prosecution say she was and if there survives anyone whom you believe was right that the girl was alive, then clearly on that ground alone you shall say Not Guilty.

As stated, the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

 

Folkestone Express 24 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder trial at the Old Bailey, occupying four days last week, ended on Friday with the jury returning a verdict of “Not Guilty’’ against William Whiting (38), the Folkestone labourer, who was charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, (22), a Folkestone woman. Mrs. Spiers was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on May 26th, and the prosecution alleged that the crime had been committed on May 23rd.

All the evidence and the closing Speeches of counsel had been given by the time the Court rose on Thursday evening, and this only left the summing up of Mr. Justice Wrottesley, who had heard the case, and the consideration by the jury of their verdict on Friday. The summing up occupied nearly two hours, and the jury were absent for about two hours and twenty minutes in arriving at their decision. When the foreman announced that their verdict was “Not Guilty”, there was applause in the Court, but it was immediately subdued, and after Whiting had been discharged and left the dock, some of the women witnesses kissed him, while some of the men congratulated him and shook him by the hand.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., and Mr. B.H Waddy appeared on behalf of the Crown to prosecute, and Mr. St. J. Hutchison, K.C., and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel (instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce, of Folkestone) were for the defence.

The Judge, in the course of his summing up, said certain facts had not been disputed, and these formed an admitted background over which the jury need not concern themselves. Phyllis Spiers was undoubtedly first battered, possibly into insensibility, and then strangled. It was clear that this happened near the place where the body was found. It was also clear that she was dragged to a comparatively open glade through the gap in the hedge into some bushes. She met her death sometime between the early afternoon of May 23rd and May 26th, when her body was found. How long before May 26th was in dispute. It was clear that she was alive in the company of the accused man on May 23rd, and that they were going in the direction of the place of the murder. How came those two together? Was there anything in the relationship of the dead woman and the accused which might explain the murder? They knew he had lived with Rose Woodbridge until November, 1937, that he was very much attached to her and that when she left him it was to his great sorrow. If the jury accepted his signed statements - and these were challenged by the defence - he said he disapproved of Rose meeting Phyllis at one time, and that Phyllis was the cause of trouble between him and Rose. Accused now denied that, arid he said in the witness box that that statement was put in his mouth by the police. They had heard the evidence of Sir Bernard Spilsbury, probably the most experienced man in these matters in the country, and he was of opinion that she had been dead approximately for three days when she was found. It was fair to sum up his opinion, said the Judge, by saying that Sir Bernard thought three days the most probable date; four days the next probable, and then two days in order of probability, and he thought they could rule out the probability of one day. If the case rested merely on suspicion that Whiting had the opportunity of murdering the girl, it would be far from enough, but it led them to look into the matter further, and the other evidence. If Whiting murdered the girl on the afternoon of May 23rd, the jury might well ask themselves whether anything of his was found near the body. First and foremost there was the green scarf found tied tightly round her neck. Where did it come from? At one stage of the trial it seemed to be suggested it was not Whiting’s property at all. He told the police he had never seen it before. Two or three days ago he decided to abandon that denial, and admit that the scarf was his. He now said that he had given it to the girl an May 20th. A purse was found in WliitingTs pocket and this, the Judge said, resembled one which Mrs. Spiers had had. Mr. Justice Wrottesley then proceeded to refer to the difficulty which the murderer would have in dragging the body through the gap, and said in the urgency of the moment he would probably not notice some barbed wire. He might well tear his coat in doing so, and Whiting’s coat was torn. Whiting said he had done it while mushrooming. By itself the tear in his coat was not of much, value. But it was a remarkable coincidence, and things were accumulating. There was the green scarf, the purse and a tear-mark, which would correspond with the crime as it was reconstructed. Another coincidence was the finding of a human hair resembling that of Whiting's on a post in the gap. Science had not yet reached the pitch when it could be said with certainty that a hair found “is my hair”. The most that could be said was that “It is similar to my hair or your hair”. The Judge then commented upon the evidence given by Mrs. Thompson, Weatherhead and Mrs. Flynn. With regard to that of Weatherhead, he suggested that the jury would not attach too much importance to it when he said that Whiting had said to him “I will serve you the same as the blondie was served”, although it had been said that truth sometimes did come out when a man was in his cups. Regarding the questions of the defending counsel concerning “Third degree”, Mr, Justice Wrottesley said “'Third degree ‘ is rather a dangerous word to use. We have probably read something about prisoners being locked up, hurt and damaged, and woke up in the middle of the night. That is not the kind of thing suggested here. What is said is that the first statement took a very long time, from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. That is recorded on the statement. A statement may take a long time when you have not a clever man to deal with, but because it takes a long time it does not follow that it is untruthful”. The judge, continuing, said what was most strongly relied on hy the defence was the evidence of the witnesses who said they had seen Mrs. Spiers after the time the Crown said she was killed. After being in Whiting’s company on May 23rd she disappeared. No one could say where she slept or bought any food afterwards. The jury must remember that she had no settled home. She was a bird of passage, here today and gone tomorrow. They must also remember that these witnesses were found by the police themselves and honestly believed what they saw. The Crown said it was the case of people making a mistake, as people did when asked to recall when they last saw a person they did not know very well. But if the jury thought only one of these witnesses was not making a mistake, and that the girl was seen alive after May 23rd, they had no choice but to find Whiting not guilty. He had prepared a time-table showing the days and times when those witnesses said they saw the girl. In some cases their evidence might be open to criticism on the ground that they had made a mistake in identity; in other cases that they had got the wrong date.

The jury would not attach too much importance, he was sure, to the accused’s alleged statements, but they would give their attention to more serious and weighty questions. At the same time they had got to remember that if in any way they fell short of satisfying themselves beyond reasonable doubt that this man committed the murder on Monday they had to find him not guilty at that stage. If they did not accept the story that he gave this young woman that scarf there was serious material there which might lead them to bring in a verdict of guilty, putting aside, for the moment, the other evidence. Concerning the bulk of the evidence of the people who said they saw Phyllis Minter on the Tuesday and Wednesday, the evidence that the young woman was seen on Tuesday would probably occur to the jury as being more likely than the evidence of the two young women who said they saw her as late as 10.30 p.m. on Wednesday.

If the jury accepted the evidence of even one of those persons who said they saw her on Tuesday or Wednesday there would he a doubt which should lead them to find the man not guilty, because it was tantamount to destroying the whole fabric of the case. It was not necessary for the defence to establish to their satisfaction that the accused did not do it.

The jury returned the verdict of “Not guilty ’’ as stated earlier.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 November 1938.

Local News.

The inquest on Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, 21 years old Folkestone woman, who was found strangled with a green scarf at the foot of the hills, near Caesar’s Camp, Folkestone, on May 26th last, had been adjourned to last Monday, but the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) decided to close the enquiry without taking any further evidence.

Acting in accordance with section 20 of the Coroners’ Amendment Act, 1928, Mr. Haines forwarded to the Registrar, as required, a certificate as to the cause of death (strangulation).

He told a Folkestone Herald representative that he was not bound to record a verdict.

Members of the jury and witnesses were informed beforehand that they need not attend at the Town Hall on Monday afternoon for the adjourned inquest.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 September 1940.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday the Magistrates granted a protection order to Mr. P. E. Wootton, of the "Guildhall Hotel," Folkestone, in respect of the "Martello Hotel," Dover Road. It was stated that Mr. R. L. Chapman, the licensee of the Martello, would shortly be going into the Army.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 April 1943.

Local News.

At Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, the Magistrates agreed to the transfer of the licence of the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, from Mr. P.E. Wooton to Mr. R.P. Rawlings, of Messrs. Mackeson's, Ltd.

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

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 July 1943.

Local News.

For a breach of the Lighting Restriction Order, Mrs. Amy Wootton, of the Guildhall Hotel, was fined 1 by the Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 January 1945.

Local News.

Four members of the R.A.F. Regiment who stole a firkin of beer from a Folkestone hotel were fined at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court last Friday. Alfred Jennings, Samuel Campbell, Stanley Jones and Stanley Kempson Boyle pleaded guilty to the theft of the barrel of beer, valued 2 12/6, the property of Mr. Ev P. Woottcn, licensee of the Guildhall Hotel. Jennings, who was further charged with stealing a glass tankard, valued at 2/3, denied the theft.

P.C. Farrier said at 10 p.m. on December 23rd he was in Rendezvous Street when he heard a disturbance coming from the passage by Messrs. Lewis Hyland's premises. By the light of his torch he saw two airmen, one carrying a firkin of beer on his back. He challenged them and the one who was carrying the beer dropped it and ran into Rendezvous Street. He caught the other man (Jennings) and asked him where they had obtained the beer, and he replied “I will show you”. At the Police Station he searched Jennings and in his right hand overcoat pocket he found a mug which was later identified by Mr. Wootton as his property. Later he charged Jennings with stealing the mug and he replied "All I can say is this; in the pub I took off my overcoat and before leaving put it on again. I did not know the glass was in my pocket”.

Percy E. Wootton, licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, said shortly after 10 o’clock on December 23rd he found the firkin of beer was missing from the saloon on the public side of the bar. There was an exit from the saloon bar to the back of the Town Hall.

D. Sergt. Bates said on December 24th he saw Jennings and told him that he was making enquiries about the theft of the brer. Defendant replied ‘’Yes. I was helping Campbell to take it away when the policeman came along”. Later he interviewed Campbell, and he said "During the evening I went down to the lavatory in the pub and helped some other men to take the beer outside. I don’t know who the other men were. I later told Jennings about it and we were taking it away when the policeman stopped us”. Witness next saw Jones, who said “I was in the pub with Campbell and Boyle and took the barrel from the bar and took it outside”. Later he saw Boyle, who said “Yes. I was with them. We took the barrel from the bar”.

Campbell said they had had some drinks that evening and what they did was more of a seasonable prank than anything else.

An officer said all the men had good characters.

The Chairman (Alderman N.O. Baker): You regard it more or less as a seasonable occurrence than anything else?

The officer: Yes, a seasonable prank.

The Chairman told the defendants they had done a very silly thing. Everybody knew it was Christmastime, but they belonged to the Air Force and should have thought before doing such a thing. They had given a lot of trouble, and had deprived the licensee of the beer at a time when it was in short supply.

Each would be fined 1, and Jennings a further 5/- for the theft of the mug.

Alderman Baker sat with Dr. Esme Stuart.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 March 1945.

Local News.

Two R.N. Commandos, Frederick James Edwards and Thomas Lee, appeared before the Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday charged with robbing with violence from L.A.C. Alfred Williams, and stealing his wallet containing 1, correspondence and a cigarette case, altogether valued at 2.

Defendants appeared before Alderman W. Hollands (presiding), Alderman N.O. Baker and Dr. Esme Stuart.

After evidence had been given by a detective officer, accused were remanded in custody until next Tuesday.

D. Const. Peck said on Saturday last at 11 p.m. he went to a billet in company with an officer, who checked the roll. On a landing he saw Edwards, dressed in underclothing, come out of his room and go to the lavatory. Shortly after Edwards returned to his room. A quarter of an hour later, accompanied by a duty officer and L.A.C. Williams, the complainant, witness again visited the billet, and in the seventh room they entered Williams pointed to three men, two of them being Edwards and Lee. Williams said “These are three of the men who were in the public house”, and indicating Edwards and Lee, he said “These are the two men who assaulted me”. Witness told defendants that the airman who had just been in the room had been assaulted and robbed of his wallet and cigarette case and that he had pointed them out as the persons responsible. Edwards immediately said “I don't know anything about it”. Lee said “Nor me”. Witness then went to the lavatory to which he had seen Edwards go, and on the top of the cistern he recovered an empty wallet and a handkerchief. He showed the wallet to Williams and then went back into the room to show it to Edwards, telling him where he had found it, and that he had seen him (Edwards) go to the lavatory. Edwards said “I didn't put it there”. The following day he charged defendants, and Edwards said “I had nothing to do with it because I was with Lee all the time, and we came back together. I never saw the airman after we left the Guildhall”. Lee said “I know nothing about it. I left the pub at closing time and we went back aboard with Edwards and the other two of our boys. I never saw the airman when I left the pub”.

As stated, defendants were remanded for a week.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 March 1945.

Local News.

Two R.N. Commandos were committed for trial at the next Kent Assizes when they appeared before Folkestone Magistrates' Court again on Tuesday, charged with robbing with violence Leading Aircraftsman Williams, R.A.F. Accused were Frederick James Edwards and Thomas Lee.

Mr. T.T. Cropper, who prosecuted, said it was alleged that defendants robbed Williams of a wallet containing 1 and a cigarette case. At the first hearing, added Mr. Cropper, D. Const. Peck gave evidence that he went to defendants' billet the same night, and there L.A.C. Williams identified defendants as the two men who had assaulted him. The Magistrates would also remember that while the detective was standing on a landing Williams, it was alleged, came out of his room and went across to a lavatory. Later in the lavatory an empty wallet was found.

L.A.C. Alfred Williams, R.A.F., said on March 17th at 9.10 p.m. he went to the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone. Among those in the public bar were four R.N. Commandos, Edwards and Lee being among them. Witness was accompanied by L.A.C. Hignell. He left the hotel at 10 o'clock, hignell being in front, and Edwards was behind following Lee. He (Williams) was going to the Central Station to get a taxi. Edwards, who was standing outside with witness, called Lee, and the three of them walked along Guildhall Street. He was in the centre, and Edwards and Lee had an arm linked with his on either side. After they passed Moncrieff's shop Edwards pushed him into a doorway. Holding witness, Edwards told Lee “to give it to him”. Edwards held him and Lee started hitting him about the face and head with his fist. Edwards's arms were round him. Witness's eye was blackened, and he was marked on the nose and the other eye by Lee's blows. Edwards then said to Lee “Have you got the lot?”, referring to his wallet and cigarette case. Lee replied “Yes”. The case and wallet were taken from his tunic pockets. The wallet contained a 1 note. Edwards and Lee afterwards made off. As witness came out of the doorway he contacted a soldier, and about four minutes later he saw P.C. Harman to whom he reported what had happened. At the police station he received attention for his injuries. At about 11.30 that night he went with a detective to a building in which he visited several rooms. In one of them he identified Edwards, Lee and another Commando as having been in the Guildhall Hotel earlier. He also picked out Edwards and Lee as the men who had attacked him; neither defendant said anything. Afterwards he was shown his empty wallet by the detective.

By Edwards: From the time they left the public house to the end of the attack about 15 minutes had elapsed.

L.A.C. John Q. Hignell, R.A.F., said on the following day he attended an identification parade at the Town Hall. There were about eight R.N. Commandos lined up and he picked out two who were in the Guildhall Hotel the previous night. Edwards was one of those, but he could not be quite definite. Witness said he left the room and returned again later. On that occasion he picked out Edwards, Lee and another as having been in the public house the night before.

Able Seaman J. Kelly, R.N. Commando, said on the night of March 17th he was in the Guildhall Hotel. Defendants were also there. He left at 10 p.m., and as he was coming out of the bar a soldier pushed him. There was an argument for a time, and then witness started making his way back. He had walked about 30 yards from the public house when defendants came up behind him. On arriving at their billet they all turned in. Later a police officer visited the room. Before that witness had left the room, but he could not be sure whether anyone else had done so.

Replying to Edwards, witness said it was a fairly dark night.

P.C. Harman said at 10.10 p.m. on March 17th he was on duty in Sandgate Road when he was approached by Williams, who was bleeding from a cut on the bridge of his nose, and from another cut under the right eye.

Both defendants said they did not wish to make any statement at that stage.

The Magistrates committed defendants for trial at Kent Assizes, granting legal aid.

Alderman W. Hollands presided, with Alderman N.O. Baker and Dr. Esme Stuart.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 October 1945.

Local News.

The following licence was transferred at a sitting of the Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday last week: Guildhall Hotel, from Mr. Percy Ernest Wooton to Mr. Alfred George Copson.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 July 1951.

Local News.

Seven Folkestone public houses were granted an extension of licence on weekdays until 11 p.m. and on Sundays to 10.30 p.m. until September 30th at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Mr. W.J. Mason, appearing for the applicants, said a similar application had been granted to a number of hotels for the summer season and Festival of Britain. At Eastbourne 44 applications of the same kind had been granted and 115 at Hastings. The extension had been granted to all those who desired it in the other two towns.

The application was granted in respect of the Star Inn, Bouverie Hotel, Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Hotel, Prince Albert Hotel, Globe Inn, and George Inn.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 April 1952.

Local News.

Approval of plans for alterations to the saloon bar at the Guildhall Hotel was given by Folkestone Licensing Justices on Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Gazette 1 October 1952.

Obituary.

Mr. Horace Thomas Lewis, licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone, died in the early hours of Sunday morning, less than a month after becoming proprietor of the hotel. He appeared to be enjoying customary health on Friday, but complained of feeling unwell on Saturday. His condition, however, gave no cause for anxiety, and he expected to resume his usual duties on the day of his death.

Mr. Lewis, who was 49, was born in London and joined the Metropolitan Police when a young man. He served for 10 years in the Tottenham Court Road area, and then became licensee of the Prince of Wales at Herne Bay, where he stayed for 12 years. He next became proprietor of a cafe and garage at Cliffsand, near Ramsgate, and then returned to the licensed trade by becoming proprietor of the Green Man at Plumstead.

He again took over his former cafe and garage business at Cliffsand before coming to Folkestone at the beginning of September.

Mr. Lewis was a Freemason, a member of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association and an honorary member of Plumstead Branch, of the British Legion. He leaves a widow and two daughters, with whom much sympathy has been expressed.

The funeral will take place at Herne Bay tomorrow, following a service at the local Congregational Church.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 October 1952.

Obituary.

Only three weeks after he had taken over the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, Mr. Horace Thomas Lewis has died. He appeared to be enjoying his customary health on Friday, but complained of feeling unwell on Saturday. Although no alarm was felt at the time, his condition became worse towards evening and he died in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Mr. Lewis, who was 49, was born in London and joined the Metropolitan Police when a young man. He served for 10 years in the Tottenham Court Road area, and then became licensee of the Prince of Wales at Herne Bay, where he stayed for 12 years. He became proprietor of a cafe and garage at Cliffsend, near Ramsgate, but later returned to the licensed trade as proprietor of the Green Man at Plumstead. He again took over his former cafe and garage business at Cliffsend before coming to Folkestone at the beginning of September.

The funeral took place at Herne Bay on Thursday. A service was held at the Congregational Church, and the interment at Eddington Cemetery followed.

Local News.

A protection order was granted at Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Tuesday in respect of the transfer of the licence of the Guildhall Hotel to Mrs. Maud Mary Lewis.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 November 1952.

Local News.

Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday approved the transfer of licence as follows: Guildhall Hotel from Mr. J.W. Dawkins to Maud Lewis.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 March 1958.

Local News.

A young soldier who went into an empty bar at a Folkestone hotel and stole a bottle of creme-de-menthe and 30 cigarettes was fined 5 at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on Friday.

Fus. William Anderson Gordon (20), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Napier Barracks, Shorncliffe, who pleaded Guilty to stealing the bottle of liqueur and cigarettes, worth 2 9/- from the Guildhall Hotel, was told by the Chairman (Ald. N.O. Baker) that there was no excuse for what he had done. “You do not even plead that you were in liquor”, he said. “In fact, you stole liquor to drink”.

Inspector W. Hack said there were three bars at the hotel, but on the night of February 13th the lounge was not in use. At 10.30 p.m. a customer left the saloon bar and went to a toilet in the passage running from the saloon bar to the lounge. He saw two men standing at the entrance to the lounge. When he left the toilet the men, who appeared to be acting suspiciously, were still there. The customer knew that the lounge was not in use and went back into the saloon where he tried to attract the attention of the licensee, Mrs. M.M. Lewis. The Inspector said the two men came into the saloon and walked out of the premises. The customer noticed that Gordon appeared to be concealing something under a coat over his arm. Mrs. Lewis checked the stock and a bottle of creme-de-menthe and 30 cigarettes were missing.

D.C. Holdaway said at 4 p.m. on February 14th he saw Gordon, who denied any knowledge of the theft. Later he was seen again and stated “Yes, I did it. I threw the bottle away”. The detective said Gordon made a statement in which he admitted being in the public house. He saw the lounge bar was empty and went in. He took the bottle and cigarettes from a shelf behind the bar. He drank the crme-de-menthe and put the bottle in a dustbin near his barrack room; the cigarettes he smoked.

A lieutenant of the Royal Scots Fusiliers said Gordon was a satisfactory soldier and had a good character.

 

Folkestone Gazette 30 July 1958.

Local News.

Two men charged with the murder of a 19-year-old soldier outside Folkestone Town Hall late on Saturday night were remanded in custody for eight days when they appeared before a special Court on Monday afternoon. The accused were Fus. John Devine (19), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Napier Barracks, Shorncliffe, and Martin Russell (20), railway fireman, of Tormore Street, Drumoyne, Glasgow. They were alleged to have murdered James Hamilton Murray (19), of Ferguslie Park Avenue, Paisley, a private in the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, stationed at Dover Castle.

D. Sgt. Alexander Young said at 11.45 p.m. on Saturday he was on duty with Inspector Floydd in Risborough Lane where he saw the two prisoners walking towards Shorncliffe Camp. “Devine was wearing a hat of the Cameron Highlanders and had a slight cut on his face”, continued the detective. “Russell had cuts on his right hand. I told them a man had been seriously injured in Folkestone and I was going to take them to Folkestone police station for further enquiries”. The officer said he charged Russell with the offence at 9.30 p.m. on Sunday, and Devine at 10.10 p.m. Both men were cautioned.

D. Inspector W. Hutchins, who asked that the accused be remanded in custody until August 5th, told the Chairman (Ald. N.O. Baker) that it would not be possible to proceed with the case on that date, but a further remand would be sought.

Devine, who was dressed in a khaki shirt, battledress trousers and plimsoles, and Russell, who was wearing a plum-coloured shirt and blue jeans, and was in his stockinged feet, applied for legal aid. Their application was granted.

The inquest on Murray was opened by the Folkestone Borough Coroner (Mr. Norman Franks) at Folkestone Town Hall yesterday afternoon. It was adjourned after the Coroner had heard evidence of identification and medical evidence.

 

Folkestone Gazette 6 August 1958.

Local News.

Appearing on remand at Folkestone Magistrates' Court yesterday, charged with the murder on July 26th of Pte. James Hamilton Murray (18), Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, stationed at Dover Castle, Fus. John Devine (19), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe, and Martin Russell (20), railway fireman, of Tormore Street, Drumoyne, Glasgow, were remanded in custody for a further week.

 

Folkestone Gazette 13 August 1958.

Local News.

Making their third appearance before Folkestone Magistrates yesterday, charged with the murder on July 26th of Pte. James Hamilton Murray (18), Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders, stationed at Dover Castle, Pte, John Devine (19), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe, and Martin Russell (20), a railway fireman, of Tormore Street, Drumoyne, Glasgow, were remanded in custody for a further seven days.

Chief Inspector L.A. Hadlow said the matter was in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, was not yet ready to proceed with the case.

Mr. C.M.P. Burgess, instructed for the defence, asked if it would be possible to state next Tuesday when the case would proceed.

Chief Inspector Hadlow replied that the prosecution hoped that on Tuesday they would be able to state when the case would proceed, but he could not guarantee that it would be heard next week.

 

Folkestone Gazette 20 August 1958.

Local News.

Pte. John Devine (19), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe, and Martin Russell (20), a railway fireman, of Tormore Street, Drumoyne, Glasgow, were further remanded at Folkestone yesterday on a charge of murdering Pte. James Hamilton Murray (18), Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders. Making their fourth appearance before Folkestone Magistrates they were remanded in custody for a further eight days.

Chief Inspector L.A. Hadlow made an application for a remand in custody until next Wednesday, when, he said, he hoped the case would be started.

Officers in the case were with the Director of Public Prosecutions that day endeavouring to fix when the case would be heard.

 

Folkestone Gazette 27 August 1958.

Local News.

A fourth man to be charged with the murder at Folkestone on July 26th of Pte. James Hamilton Murray (18), 1st Bn. Q.O. Cameron Highlanders, Dover Castle, appeared at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on Friday.

He was James Davidson, 18-year-old apprentice fitter, of 214, Brockburn Road, Glasgow, S.W.3. Davidson was remanded in custody until today, when he will appear before the court with Cpl. Robert Earle Ashbridge (23), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe, whose home is at Gateshead, Co. Durham; Pte. John Devine (19), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe, and Martin Russell (20), railway fireman, of Drumoyne. Glasgow.

D. Sgt. A. Young said that at 9.50 a.m. on Thursday he saw Davidson at the police station at Govan, Glasgow. He told the accused that he had a warrant for his arrest and read it. When he charged Davidson at 9.15 p.m. the same day at Folkestone, he replied “Nothing to say”. Applying for a remand in custody, the detective said he understood the prosecution would proceed with the case today.

An application by Davidson for legal aid was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 August 1958.

Local News.

Two of the four men accused at Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Wednesday of the murder of a young soldier outside Folkestone Town Hall were discharged after the magistrates had accepted a defence submission that a prima facie case had not been made out by the prosecution.

The men discharged were Cpl. Robert Earle Ashbridge (23), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe Camp, whose home is at Hendon Road, Gateshead, County Durham, and James Davidson (19), apprentice fitter, Brockburn Road, Glasgow, S.W.3. The other two accused, committed for trial at the next Kent Assizes, were Fus. John Devine (19), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe, who lives at Merryland Street, Govan, Glasgow, and Martin Russell (20), railway fireman, Tormore Street, Drumoyne, Glasgow. All four were charged with the murder on July 26th of Pte. James Hamilton Murray, 1st Bn. Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, stationed at Dover Castle. Murray's home was at Ferguslie Park, Paisley, Renfrewshire. Mr. R.G. Marsh appeared for Davidson and Ashbridge, and Mr. C.M.P. Burgess for Devine and Russell.

Mr. D. Hopkin, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, told the Magistrates that Murray died on July 26th after he had been attacked by the four accused, one of whom struck him on the head with a bottle. After outlining the events leading to the arrest of Devine, Mr. Hopkin referred to a statement made by Devine. Accused was alleged to have said that on the previous Friday night one of his mates, named Campbell, had been into Folkestone and had been beaten up badly by seven or eight Camerons. “I went down the town with the idea that it was not going to happen to me”, he added. In his statement, Devine went on to describe how he started arguing with the Cameron, who grabbed him by the lapels of his jacket. He hit the Cameron, who struck him back. He hit the Cameron again and he fell. He had nothing else to do with it and went away. Russell was alleged to have told the police the following day “I have been thinking of it all night. I know I was with Devine, but I cannot mind a fight”. Mr. Hopkin said when Davidson was interviewed he told D. Sgt. Young “I was at the Town Hall, but I had nothing to do with it”. In the course of an alleged statement he said he could see a scuffle by the pillars of the Town Hall, but could not make out exactly what was going on. He saw a Cameron on the pavement, but could not see if he was bleeding. He was also alleged to have said that when Devine and Russell came back from the scuffle one of them, he was not sure which, had a Cameron's hat. When Devine and Russell were scuffling with the Cameron he heard the smash of a bottle. He thought Devine and Russell had full bottles in their pockets when they walked across the road towards the Town Hall. Mr. Hopkin told the Magistrates that when Devine was formally charged on July 27th with the murder of Murray he was cautioned and said he would tell the police a bit more. He then made a further statement in which he was alleged to have said that when the Cameron got hold of him by the lapels somebody hit him with a bottle. “I don't know whether it was meant for him or whether it was meant for me”, he was alleged to have stated. He added that his face was cut with glass when somebody hit the Cameron with the bottle. Then the four of them, who had been drinking all night, joined up on the other side of the road. On July 28th Ashbridge was interviewed by D.C. Holdaway. He said he was known by the nickname of “Beaver”. He said he was at a dance at the Majestic Hotel until 9.45 p.m.. After having a drink at the Prince Albert he went to Morelli's. He saw Devine and Russell, who were being refused admission. They were in drink, but not abusive. Later he went through the alley by the Town Hall. Russell and Devine went back to the Town Hall. He did not go after them. He and another chap started walking up Sandgate Road and were joined by Devine and Russell when they reached the Odeon Cinema. Mr. Hopkin said Ashbridge was arrested and charged on August 19th. On August 25th he made a further statement. He said when he made his previous statement he knew he had nothing to do with the fight, but did not want to say anything which would make trouble for Devine and Russell. He said that after being charged with murder he had been advised to tell everything he could remember. He went on to allege that he tried to persuade Devine and Russell to go back to Camp. Then Davidson joined them. They all went up the steps into Guildhall Street and went to the entrance to the Town hall. There were two civilians on the other side of the road. Devine, who said they were Camerons, crossed over the road towards the men. Ashbridge said Davidson followed, but he hesitated on the edge of the pavement trying to decide whether to let them get out of their own trouble or follow them and prevent any trouble. He shouted to them to come back; it was possible that he mentioned “Cameron”. He went on to allege that Devine and Russell came back across the road, past him and turned left past the pillars of the Town Hall. He saw Devine catch hold of a soldier in Cameron uniform. As Devine passed him he shouted out “There is a Cameron”. Devine and the Cameron were struggling together near the pillar and he heard some glass break and saw the Cameron sliding against the pillar towards the ground. As his head came down he saw Devine take a kick at him, but he did not see it land. He thought that if it did land it would have hit his body rather than his head. Mr. Hopkin said Ashbridge alleged in his statement that Davidson crossed the road and stood by him. Just before he heard the breaking of glass, Russell appeared to jump forward to help Devine. Earlier he had seen Russell with a half pint bottle in his pocket. He thought the bottle must have been broken on the Cameron as beer was running down the right side of his head and his right shoulder. They left the Cameron lying at the foot of the pillar. Davidson was seen again, continued Mr. Hopkin, and made a statement in which he was alleged to have said he saw Devine and Russell go back towards the Town Hall and followed them. They had just gone between the pillars when he saw Devine stop a soldier dressed in Cameron uniform. Devine pushed the Cameron against the pillar. Russell brought a half pint bottle of beer down on the Cameron's head. As he was going down, Devine took a kick at him, but he did not see where it landed. Davidson stated that while the fight was going on he was standing by the other pillar with Ashbridge.

Thomas Taylor Murray, of 274, Ferguslie Park Avenue, Paisley, cotton blender, said the deceased man was his son. He neither drank nor smoked, and was a quiet follow.

Mr. Hopkin: Have you ever known him to be engaged in a fight?

Witness: No.

Miss Theodora Rosalind Durban, laundry worker, of 22, St. Francis Road, Folkestone, said at about 9.30 p.m. on July 26th she saw Devine and Russell with John Mooney, Hannah and two other girls leaving Morelli's. Witness said she went to Michael's fish and chip shop with Devine, Russell and another man. Devine asked her to pay for four meals but she agreed to pay for two. Russell, however, paid for all of them. Witness said she left the fish shop because Devine swore at her.

Miss Eileen Lewis, Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, said at about 10 p.m. on July 26th Devine, Russell and another man came into the public house. She was serving in the bar. They were quite quiet, but she had to speak to them about swearing. “That is a normal thing with that Regiment; it comes naturally”, said witness, who added that the men left promptly at 10.30 p.m. They had one gin, and were not drunk.

Alan John Dean, a stall attendant, of 11, Grimston Gardens, Folkestone, said about 11 p.m. on July 26th he got off a bus in Bouverie Square and walked down Sandgate Road on the queen's Hotel side towards the Town Hall. He saw a Scotsman in uniform walking along Guildhall Street towards the Town Hall. Four men walked into the road opposite the passage by the side of the Town Hall. One of them pointed at the Scotsman and said “There is one of them”. “One of the men walked towards the soldier, followed by another and then the other two”, said witness. “They all went behind the pillars outside the Town Hall nearest Guildhall Street. The pillars were in my way. All I could see was a bit of movement; it was dark. I heard a kind of grunt, a sound like glass breaking, and then something like s subdued scream”. Witness said he could not recognise any of the four men.

A 12-year-old girl said on the night of July 26th she was in bed in a flat above a shop in Sandgate Road. She looked out of the window and saw four men by the Town Hall. At the same time she saw a soldier in uniform in Guildhall Street walking towards the Town hall. Two of the men started walking up Sandgate Road, leaving the other two outside the Town Hall. One of them called the other two back and pointed towards the soldier. By that time the soldier was close to the Town Hall and the four men stopped him close to the pillar nearest Guildhall Street. “They pushed the soldier behind the pillar and that is all I saw”, said the girl, “but I heard a bottle go”.

Dr. Francis Edward Camps, who conducted an autopsy on the body of the dead man, gave details of the injuries. He said there were two bruises in the middle of his back, lacerations to the right side of the nose, with bruising and scratch abrasion running down towards the nostrils. His nose was broken. There was severe bruising, with imprint abrasions above the right ear. Underneath there was bruising of the covering of the skull. The blow, which must have been severe, appeared to have been delivered through some cloth-like substance. Looking at a Cameron bonnet, the doctor said the pattern on the inside of the cap could have caused the imprint. He said there was bruising on the brain beneath the bruising on the scalp, with a collection of blood over the right side of the brain and blood in the lining of the membrane of the brain. That caused swelling of the brain, which caused breathing failure, leading to death.

Asked his conclusion on some of the injuries, Dr. Camps said cuts on Murray's cheek were consistent, in his opinion, with having been caused by broken glass. The bruising of the back was consistent with a blow on the back or striking some localised object with moderate force. The broken nose and injuries were consistent with the nose being struck, or striking some hard, rough object. The most probable cause was some rough surface, such as a portion of one of the pillars.

Miss Doreen Irene Dryman, an usherette, of 21a, Connaught Road, Folkestone, said at about 11 p.m. she was standing with two soldiers outside Blair's coffee bar when she heard a bottle smash. “I looked towards the Town Hall”, continued witness, “and saw a group of about four men by the pillar nearest to me”. Witness said she thought one of the men was blond but she could not be sure. They were in a kind of semi-circle round the pillar. Three walked away and a man in uniform fell to the ground. The fourth man was still there and it looked as though he kicked the man on the ground. She thought it was the one who was blond. Miss Dryman said the fourth man followed the others up Sandgate Road. On July 28th she attended an identification parade and failed to pick out the blond-haired man.

P.C. Login said at 10.55 p.m. he saw Devine and Russell in Rendezvous Street. They had been drinking but were not drunk.

D.C. Holdaway said when he saw Ashbridge at Shorncliffe Camp on July 28th he asked who was with him on the previous Saturday and he replied “I was with Devine, Russell and Russell's mate”. When Ashbridge was charged with murder, he replied “I have nothing to say”.

D. Sgt. Alexander Young said at 11.45 p.m. on July 28th he was being driven by Inspector Floydd towards Folkestone from the direction of Shorncliffe. He saw Devme and Russell walking along the road. Devine was wearing a Cameron cap. The men had their arms around one another but apart from that appeared to be walking quite normally. Inspector Floydd took the cap from Divine and asked him where he had got it. Devine replied “Down the road. I picked it up”. Witness said the blue hackle was missing from the cap. At the police station Russell turned out his pockets and a blue hackle was found. Asked about the hackle, Russell answered “I don't mind” (meaning “I don't remember”). Later Devine said the hat was given to him in a pub. Referring to the mark on his face, accused said “I did it shaving before I left barracks tonight”. D. Sgt Young went on to say how the same day he saw Davidson in a tent at Killick's Corner. The accused was alleged to have said “I was at the Town Hall but I had nothing to do with it”. The detective sergeant said he found an army belt in some bushes about 12ft. from the tent occupied by Russell, Davidson and another man.

Mr. Marsh, submitting there was no prima facie case against Ashbridge and Davidson to put before a jury, said the prosecution must have a case and not mere suspicion. Ashbridge and Davidson denied most strongly that they had anything to do with the fight. They had made statements and they had admitted that they were very close to the scene of the fight. The evidence had shown that Ashbridge did not come across the other men until shortly before eleven o’clock. Davidson’s statement showed that he lost the others somewhere between 9 p.m. and 9.30 p m. Both his clients admitted in their statements that they were outside the Town Hall near other pillars but there was a gap of 6ft. 10in. between the two sets of pillars. Mr. Marsh said the duration of the tight was probably about a minute: there were probably only one or two blows struck. He submitted that none of the prosecution’s witnesses had shown that his clients were with the other two accused when the blows were struck.

The magistrates retired to consider the submission and when they returned the Chairman (Ald. N.O. Baker) said they considered there was a case to answer as far as Devine and Russell were concerned.

They had listened very carefully to Mr. Marsh and had come to a very definite conclusion that so far as Ashbridge and Davidson were concerned there was no case to answer and they would be discharged.

Committing Devine and Russell to Kent Assizes, the Chairman said they would remain in custody.

 

Folkestone Gazette 3 September 1958.

Local News.

Cpl. Robert Earle Ashbridge (23), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe Camp, whose home is at Hendon Road, Gateshead, and James Davidson (19), apprentice fitter, Brockburn Road, Glasgow S.W.3, charged with the murder at Folkestone on July 26th of Pte. James Hamilton Murray (18), Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders, stationed at Dover Castle, were discharged at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court last Wednesday.

The magistrates agreed with a defence submission by Mr. R.G. Marsh, appearing for the two men, that there was no prima facie case on which to commit them for trial.

The Chairman (Ald. N.O. Baker) said the Magistrates had come to a very definite conclusion that as far as Ashbridge and Davidson were concerned there was no case to answer.

Also charged with the murder were Fus. John Devine (19), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe Camp, who lives at Merryland Street, Govan, Glasgow, and Martin Russell (20), railway fireman, Tormore Street, Drumoyne, Glasgow. They were committed for trial at the next Kent Assizes.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 November 1958.

Local News.

A soldier and a civilian who were concerned in a fracas which resulted in the death of another soldier at Folkestone were each sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for manslaughter at Kent Assizes at Maidstone on Thursday. They had been charged with murder. Mr. Justice Salmon, in his summing up, expressed astonishment that on the evidence before the Folkestone magistrates, they should have made “the shocking mistake of refusing to commit the other two men”.

The accused were Fus. John Devine (19), 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, Shorncliffe Camp, and Martin Russell (30), a railway fireman, who formerly served in the same battalion. Both have their homes in Glasgow. Devine and Russell pleaded not guilty to murdering Pte. James Hamilton Murray (18), 1st Bn. Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders, at Folkestone on July 26th. Murray, a teetotaller and non-smoker, lived at Paisley, Renfrewshire.

Prominent witnesses for the Prosecution, which was conducted by Mr. Tristram Beresford Q.C., with Mr. Anthony Harmsworth, were two friend of the accused men, who were charged with the latter at Folkestone with being concerned in the murder. It was then held, however, that they had no case to answer. Russell was defended by Mr. Donald McIntyre Q.C., assisted by Mr. Alan Lipfriend. Devine was represented by Mr. Stanley Rees Q.C., with Mr. Richard DuCann. It was an all male jury.

Murray's death, it was alleged, was caused by a blow from a bottle during a late night scene outside the Town hall, Folkestone. He was rushed to hospital, where he died shortly afterwards. When the case for the prosecution ended on Wednesday, the defence called only one witness, Devine. Russell was not put in the box. Evidence for the prosecution was given by D.C. Wilcox, P. Sgt. R.W. Forsyth (Dover), Ian George Holden, a Doctor of Philosophy, Alan John Dean, then residing at Grimston Gardens, Folkestone, 13-year-old Pamela Lilian Cocks, 3, Sandgate Road, Folkestone, who witnessed incidents from her bedroom window, Miss Doreen Irene Dryman, Connaught Road, Folkestone, Gnr. Walter Bennett, R.A., D. Sgt. A Young, and D.C. Holdaway. Their evidence was first taken when the accused appeared at Folkestone Magistrates' Court in August.

Cpl. Robert Earle Ashbridge, 1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers, underwent lengthy cross-examination. Giving evidence he said that on July 26th he went to a dance at Folkestone with another soldier, and left at 9.45 p.m. He then went to the Town Hall and to a public house, where he stayed until closing time, and next visited a coffee bar. There he met Devine and Russell. Later they were joined by a civilian named Davidson. There were two civilians opposite the Town Hall and Devine and Russell went across to them. Witness, continuing, stated that Davidson also started to cross the road. He (witness) called out to the three to come back, which they did. He saw a Cameron Highlander walking towards the Town Hall, and also saw Devine and Russell going towards the pillars there. Devine said something to the Cameron, then there was a kind of struggle and he heard a bottle breaking.

Mr. Beresford: Who had the bottle in his hand? Did anyone have it before the struggle started?

Witness: No, sir.

He added that he saw Murray slide down a pillar to the ground. Devine appeared to be kicking him.

The Judge: Where were you? – A few yards away.

Replying to Mr. Beresford, witness said Russell had a bottle of beer in his pocket a little earlier.

Mr. Beresford: After the attack was finished you walked off and left the Cameron lying at the foot of the pillar? – Yes.

Witness denied that he shouted “Here's a Cameron” or “Here's a ----“.

Ashbridge, cross-examined by Mr. Mcintyre, said that he did not see anyone hit the Cameron on the head.

Mr. McIntyre: Did you see the Cameron kicked at all?

Witness: I saw no attempt to kick him, but I was less than three yards away from the Cameron.

Mr. McIntyre: There is no doubt is there that this unfortunate young man was in a serious condition when the gentlemen left him. Did you know that? – No.

Mr. McIntyre: You made no attempt to assist him while he was on the ground? – No.

Mr. McIntyre: Is that because you knew perfectly well that you were the one who kicked him? – I did not kick him.

Ashbridge further said that he saw Russell “jumping in” but he did not see him do anything to the Cameron.

Mr. McIntyre: You must have looked away.

Ashbridge's cross-examination was continued by Mr. Rees.

Ashbridge said he was not the man who took his jacket off. It was Devine.

Mr. Rees: Did you have in your possession a Cameron's hat? – Yes.

Mr. Rees: How did you get it? – I got it from a civilian.

Mr. Rees: You were fighting with the Camerons on Thursday night? – No.

Mr. Rees: You were with a man named Campbell who was badly injured by Camerons? – No.

Mr. Rees: This man Campbell had to go to have medical treatment? – Yes.

Mr. Rees: Is it right that you were looking for Camerons that night? – No.

Dr. Francis Edward Camps, Pathologist at the University of London, said that Murray had a number of small bruises on his body. There were two outstanding injuries. One was a small bruise on the top of his head, and the other was a severe blow just below the right ear, that could have been consistent with being kicked on the head. Death was due to haemorrhage of the brain.

James Davidson (19), an apprentice fitter, of Glasgow, who was one of the four men originally charged with the murder of Murray, was the next witness. He said that at about 11 o'clock on the night of July 26th there was an affray outside the Town Hall. A Cameron came along to the Town Hall and Devine caught hold of him. They started arguing and Devine said something about “You are one of those who attacked one of my mates”. There was a struggle which Devine started by grabbing hold of the lapels of the Cameron's jacket. Russell hit the Cameron with a bottle.

Devine, giving evidence, said that on July 26th he left barracks and went to Folkestone in civilian clothes and met a girl friend at 12 noon. At 1 o'clock he met Russell, who he knew had been in the army. “We spent the day going about Folkestone and had a good deal to drink. I was drinking vintage cider”, he stated. Devine, describing movements he and his companion made that evening, then referred to the incident which happened outside the Town Hall, and which led to Murray's death. He said that Murray caught hold of the lapels of his jacket and he forced his hand away. A bottle was smashed and he (Devine) got covered with glass. He did not see who struck the blow with the bottle.

Mr. Beresford (to Devine): You were quite determined not to be set on by any Camerons that night when you went into Folkestone. You told the police that.

Devine: Maybe.

Mr. Beresford: You told the police that you hit Murray?

Devine: That was a lie. I was trying to cover up.

Mr. Beresford: You knew there was a fairly good chance of your being charged with the murder of this man? – Yes.

Mr. Beresford: Would it be fair to say that you and Russell were with the party looking for some Camerons to beat up because of what happened the night before? – No.

In his summing up, Mr. Justice Salmon said to the jury “You may think it is very unfortunate that Ashbridge and Davidson are not sitting in the box with these two. You may think it would have been much fairer if they had been. It is regrettable that they are not. If these thoughts are passing through your mind, and if it is of any satisfaction, I would agree whole-heartedly. It seems to me astonishing that on the evidence before the Folkestone Magistrates, especially after the splendid examples they have had at Borough Quarter Sessions and County Quarter Sessions for all these years, that they should have made the shocking mistake of refusing to commit the other two men”.

After a 20 minute retirement the jury returned. Their verdict was that Russell and Devine were Not Guilty of murder, but Guilty of manslaughter.

Mr. Justice Salmon said to the prisoners “The jury have found you Guilty, on the clearest possible evidence, of manslaughter, which is a very grave crime. This is a very serious case; you two set upon that boy who was peaceably walking along the road and attacked him. As a result of that attack the boy died. The least sentence I can pass upon you each is one of four years' imprisonment”.

 

Folkestone Gazette 23 December 1959.

Local News.

A sum of 15, product of a pile of pennies which had been gradually built up on a bar counter at the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone, was taken to the Cranboure Home for Children at Cheriton on Sunday. The money was delivered personally by Mrs. M. Lewis, proprietress of the hotel. While the main purpose of the contribution was to provide extra comforts for the children over Christmas, the exact disposal of the money was left to the discretion of the Superintendent and Matron of the Home.

 

Folkestone Gazette 20 December 1961.

Local News.

On Monday the Cranbourne Children's Home, Cheriton, received a cheque for 22, with no stipulation as to how it should be spent on the youngsters’ behalf. Money totalling this amount was dropped into an outsize whisky bottle, at least 2ft. high, standing on a bar at the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone. Customers were mutely invited to put their odd coppers into the bottle, and not only coppers were received. In fact, the customers, with hearts just as big as the bottle, have already commenced refilling it for Christmas, 1962.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 November 1964.

Local News.

Third prize in a Mackeson display competition, sponsored by Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., of Hythe Brewery, has been awarded to Mrs. M.M. Lewis, of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone.

The London area was included in the competition, which took the form of a bar display advertising the properties of the firm's well-known and very popular stout.

At the Guildhall Hotel, Miss Eileen Lewis, elder daughter of Mrs. Lewis, prepared a very attractive and topical saloon bar panel featuring an airborne bottle of stout travelling through a starlit, cloud-flecked sky. It was shown bypassing the Earth though “The Macky Way” en route for the Moon, for “there is always space for a Macky”.

Freely displayed in the bar were popular nursery rhymes paraphrased to include references to the product being advertised. Dividing its time between the front of the hotel and the lounge bar was a life-sized model of a barmaid, one hand holding a bottle of stout and the other pointing to a churn of milk, one of its ingredients.

Two other top prizes went to houses in Kent, namely: Second, Pearson's Arms, Whitstable; fourth, Duke of Cumberland, Barham. The prizes will be presented at a reception at Messrs. Whitbread and Co.'s city cellars at their Chiswell Street, London, brewery on Thursday, December 3rd. A buffet supper will follow.

 

Folkestone Gazette 16 December 1964.

Local News.

Fifi, a 12-year-old blind poodle, saved the Guildhall Hotel public house, next to Folkestone’s Town Hall, from serious damage by fire early yesterday. Fifi smelt burning cable at 4.30 a.m. and yapped until her mistress, Mrs. Maud Lewis, the licensee, went downstairs to see what was wrong. She saw that water from an overflowing sink upstairs had soaked through the floorboards, short-circuiting the electric current and causing the wire to smoulder. She called Folkestone Fire Brigade, who rushed to Guildhall Street with three engines. But the fire was put out by turning off the electricity at the mains. Mrs. Lewis's daughter, Eileen, said afterwards “It was all my fault. I left a tap running upstairs. I feel most apologetic now. Fifi was wonderful. It would all have gone up in flames if it had not been for her”.

The brewers had to deliver by candle-light when they arrived with supplies after the fire - because the electricity was still cut off.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1965.

Local News.

Police statements about the responsibility of publicans towards drunken drivers have brought protests from local landlords. Superintendent Frederick Coatsworth said at Seabrook last week that licensees exerted a tremendous influence on their customers and had a vital role to play in the prevention of offences involving drink, especially where motorists were concerned.

Reaction from Mr. Reg. Gard, landlord of the George Inn in George Lane, Folkestone, was “It just doesn’t make sense. We’re supposed to be mind- readers now, asking customers their age to see if they are over 18. The only thing we can do is to refuse to serve drinks to anyone who has obviously had too much. And, of course, thirsty motorists could always wear a ticket around their necks saying “I’m a driver. Please can I have a drink?””

Mr. Ron Letts, licensee of the Globe on The Bayle, said “It’s ludicrous. Our job is to sell drinks. A fair proportion of my customers are drivers, and in the nine years I have been here I have found they are generally responsible people. On the odd occasion, when you know your customer, it’s O.K. to say “Give me your keys—you’d better take a taxi home”. But how can you say that to a perfect stranger?”

Mr. Alec Wales, of the London and Paris, near the Harbour, who is chairman of Folkestone, Hythe and District Licensed Victuallers’ Association, put most of the blame on restaurants. “You cannot hold a publican responsible for what customers drink”, he declared. “I don’t allow anyone who is obviously drunk in my house, but when they can get served at a restaurant, what can you do? I certainly don't think the majority of drunks come from pubs”.

At Folkestone Brewster Sessions on Wednesday Supt. Coats worth reiterated his opinion. “Licensees, particularly those whose premises attract what is known as the motor car trade, have a vital contribution to pay in regard to safety on the roads”, he said. The police are the first to realise in a town such as Folkestone that all persons do not obtain their liquor in licensed premises. But, as responsible citizens, licensees can exert a great influence on their customers by always bearing in mind the effect which alcohol taken in excess might have on drivers of a motor vehicle”.

The last word came from Mrs. Maud Lewis, licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, chairman of the Women’s Auxiliary of the local L.V.A. After Brewster Sessions she told the Herald “We all try to do our stuff. If we think customers have had enough we tell them so. Irrespective of whether they're driving or not, I'm firm with them on the question of drink”.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 January 1966.

Local News.

The Cranbourne Home for Children at Cheriton has benefitted by more than 150 in the last two years through the generosity of the patrons of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone.

It is perhaps astonishing to recall that 20 of this admirable total was the direct result of a burglary. Each year a huge whisky bottle is placed upon the counter of the saloon bar of the Guildhall, and throughout the year customers place loose change in it. Shortly before Christmas, 1963, the hotel was forcibly entered, and the bottle, containing an estimated 30, was stolen. Customers who had already subscribed rallied round, and within a few hours the magnificent total of 50 was subscribed for the home. In 1964 the total in a new bottle was 25, which was sent to the home. A little later a customer, imposing a condition that he should remain anonymous, wrote a cheque for 50 for the fund. Last Christmas the amount in the bottle was 28 (not 10 as stated in the Herald last week). This was sent to Cranbourne by the proprietress of the Guildhall Hotel, Mrs. M. Lewis.

Thanks for the money were expressed in a letter from Joyce and Basil Frear, who run the home, to Mrs. Lewis. They stated “The money will go to each of our five cottages as and when they need it for outings or holidays. In this way everyone gets a fair share”. The letter was written on behalf of the children and staff.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 May 1971.

Local News.

When 1,400 continentals visit Folkestone next Thursday the doors of local pubs will be open to them all afternoon. On Tuesday local Magistrates decided in favour of a second application to allow 17 pubs to remain open especially for the visitors. They had vetoed a previous application. The second made by publicans was amended to allow for a half-hour break at 5.30 p.m. before their premises opened for the evening session.

Mr. J. Medlicott, for the publicans, told the Magistrates that the visitors were delegates attending a conference in Bruges. One of its highlights was to be a visit to England. He referred to a letter received by Folkestone Corporation from the British Tourist Authority supporting the publicans' application. The visit – by Dutch, Swiss, Belgians and Germans – was a special occasion, not just a shopping expedition, said Mr. Medlicott. It had been arranged by a Bruges tourist organisation which had particularly asked that pubs should be open in the afternoon.

Police Inspector R. Sanders made no formal objection to the application – but doubted whether the visit was a special occasion.

The Chairman of Folkestone Chamber of Trade, Mr. Alan Stephenson, said later “The cross-Channel visitors' committee of this Chamber is very pleased that this has been seen as a special occasion by the Justices. When one is reminded that this extension is no more than happens in many market towns every week of the year, it seems a fair request, especially as Folkestone’s image abroad could be much influenced by the original decision not to allow the pubs to open”.

The pubs which will stay open are; Jubilee, Ship, Oddfellows, Royal George, London and Paris, True Briton, Harbour Inn, Princess Royal, Clarendon, Brewery Tap, Earl Grey, Prince Albert, George, Globe, East Kent Arms, Guildhall and Shakespeare.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 May 1971.

Local News.

About 1,400 Germans successfully invaded Folkestone on Thursday to enjoy themselves. The visitors - members of the BMW enthusiasts’ club - strolled about the town shooting local scenes with their cine cameras and went shopping. Many bought driving gear, ranging from tyres to goggles and crash helmets - but fewer than expected went to the pubs. They were visiting Folkestone during an international convention of their club, held this week at Bruges, in Belgium. Local licensees had gained extensions of opening hours to cater for them. But it was the locals who patronised some of the 17 town centre and harbour area pubs that stayed open.

At the Shakespeare, in Guildhall Street, Mr. Ron Balsom, said “It was a complete waste of time staying open. I only had 13 Germans in all day”.

Mr. John Tobin, landlord of the East Kent Arms, in Sandgate Road, said most of his customers had been regulars.

The Oddfellows Arms, in The Stade, was closed by 3.15 p.m. A spokesman there said “It was a complete and utter waste of time”.

At the True Briton a spokesman said “We did very well - thanks largely to our regulars”.

The London and Paris, at the harbour, was busy, but a spokesman said the pub had not taken a great deal of money.

However, one very pleased landlady was Mrs. M.M. Lewis, at The Guildhall. “It has been absolutely fantastic”, she said, "We have teen completely packed out with both German visitors and regulars".

Folkestone's publicity officer, Mr. Charles McDougal, said “The original letter we received from Belgium about this visit gave the departure time as 6 p.m. It was not until two days before the visit that we learned otherwise".

Mr. Alan Stephenson, chairman of Folkestone Chamber of Trade, said “These people wanted to come to Folkestone, and their visit gave them an opportunity to sample the pleasures of the town as a holiday resort rather than just a shopping centre”.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 June 1977.

Local News.

Last Monday and Tuesday may have been the Jubilee days – but for the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone, the big day of the week was Wednesday. The hotel, in Guildhall Street, was judged to have the best Jubilee decorations in the whole of Kent and Sussex. Mr. A.J. Wyman, tied trade director of Whitbread-Fremlin, presented a cheque for 250 to the licensee, Mrs. Maud Lewis, and her daughter Eileen, who helps her in the business. The impressive decorations have, in fact, won a total of 400 – because the Guildhall had previously won a 50 area prize and a 100 regional prize. The hotel had been specially decorated with bunting, flowers and, of course, Union Jacks. One feature is a collection of old (.s.d.) money and a collection of royal stamps.

The Guildhall is looking forward to celebrating another jubilee. In September, Mrs. Lewis and her daughter will have been there for 25 years.

 

Folkestone Herald 2 September 1983.

Local News.

A modern pizza restaurant could replace Folkestone's Guildhall pub. Pizza Hut (U.K.) Limited have submitted a planning application to Shepway District Council. A spokesman said if the company gets the go-ahead it will preserve the character of the pub when installing oak booths and tables. The company has 26 Pizza Huts in London and is searching for new sites all over the country. It is not a fast food chain but a full service restaurant which caters for 20-year-olds to families with young children, said the spokesman.

But the plans mean that landlady Mrs. Maude Lewis and her daughter Eileen will have to leave the Guildhall's bar and move to the nearby Globe in The Bayle, Folkestone. The pair were told about a month ago that after 31 years they would have to move. The pub's brewery is Whitbread, of which Pizza Hut (U.K.) Limited is a subsidiary. “It was quite a shock”, said Eileen, but added “If it had to happen at least we are lucky enough to go to The Globe”.

The Globe's present landlord, Mr. Ron Letts, is retiring in September.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1983.

Local News.

Real ale drinkers are furious about plans to close a town centre pub. Members of the Campaign For Real Ale are set to lodge official objections to a proposal to shut down one of Folkestone's oldest pubs, The Guildhall Hotel, and replace it with a pizza house. They say that if Whitbread Fremlin, the brewery who own the Guildhall, don't want the pub then they should sell, either as a free house or to another brewery. Instead, a planning application has been submitted to Shepway District Council by Pizza Hut (U.K.) Limited – a subsidiary of Whitbreads – seeking permission to convert the building into a restaurant. The company, which is currently searching the country for possible sites, says that, if it gets the go-ahead, it will preserve the character of the Guildhall and install oak booths and tables.

But CAMRA members seem singularly unimpressed. Speaking for the Ashford and Shepway Branch this week, Mr. Jan Pedersen said that the move was typical of Whitbread Fremlin's apparent policy of closures in the town. He said that since 1982 one Whitbread pub in the town had closed permanently, two others had been merged and another three had been shut for a long period of time before being re-opened. “The loss of a traditional pub if these proposals go ahead will also mean the loss of an amenity”, said Mr. Pedersen, who asked “When did you last try holding a meeting or a darts or cribbage match in a restaurant?” He added that Guildhall Street already had plenty of restaurants. Mr. Pedersen urged people to support CAMRA in its objections to the Pizza Hut scheme. “We will be objecting but it is doubtful that we can win alone”, he said. “If you would be sorry to see the loss of yet another pub, write to the council telling them so. You elected them as your representatives, so now is your chance to see if they listen to the people they are meant to represent”.

But on Monday a spokesman for Whitbread Fremlins, Mr. Geoff King, said “These CAMRA people have got it completely wrong. The Guildhall is going to be closed for improvements and, when it re-opens, it will include a Pizza Hut operation but it will also be a pub selling real ales”.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 September 1983.

Local News.

After 27 years as landlords of the Globe pub, Ron and Barbara Letts are set to enjoy life on the other side of the bar. The couple bade farewell to their regulars at a retirement party on Monday but said they would more than likely pop back now and then. It was a hectic day as Ron and Barbara prepared to move out and new landladies Miss Eileen Lewis and her mother Mrs. Maude Lewis, of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone, took over. Neither Ron nor Barbara were sorry to leave the pub in The Bayle, Folkestone, and said they were looking forward to doing nothing. The couple moved to a flat in Guildhall Street. A decanter and six glasses was presented by Mr. John Norton, area manager with Whitbread Fremlins.

The Guildhall Hotel is closing, but a company called Pizza Hut (U.K.) Limited has submitted a planning application to Shepway District Council for permission to turn the pub into a modern pizza house.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 February 1984.

Local News.

The towels have gone up over a century of pub history as regulars supped their last pint and turned their eyes to watering holes anew. After more years than the most devout regular cares to remember the proprietors of the Guildhall in Folkestone have sounded the final bell on the old pub, and what was once the delight of the drinking classes is to be turned into a licensed pizzeria.

Pubs may come and fads may go, but British landladies live on forever and although it's time at the Guildhall the licensee Mrs. Maud Lewis will continue serving pints at The Globe in The Bayle, assisting her daughter Eileen, who is licensee there. “I have been here 32 years and there have been some good times. It's sad the old place will not be as it was but I shall be helping my daughter at The Globe and I expect to see many old friends there”, said Maud who is now 73.

On Friday Mr. John Kidson, managing director of Whitbread Fremlins, presented Maud with a cut glass decanter and glasses to mark her long service at the Guildhall. During the lunchtime ceremony she was also presented with a colour television, given as a mark of appreciation by Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association and Ladies' Auxiliary. Mr. Kidson praised the 50 years of service Maud had given to the licensed trade and in particular to her 32 years behind the bar of the Guildhall.

But the highest praise of all came from locals who thronged the bar on Friday and also attended a wake on Sunday evening. "I have been coming in here ever since Maud took over. Now Maud is going to help out over at The Globe I shall be going over there”, said Mrs. Audrey Brandon. who works at a nearby furniture store. “It’s another landmark gone but at least we shall be able to preserve some of the pub’s atmosphere. It is the people that make that”.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 September 1986.

Local News.

The funeral service of Folkestone’s most famous former pub landlady, Maud Lewis, took place on Wednesday. Maud - who died last week aged 75 - was landlady at the old Guildhall pub, until it closed in 1984, for 32 years. For much of the last two years of her life she helped her daughter Eileen at the Globe on The Bayle. In all, she gave over 50 years' service to the licensed trade. When she retired from the Guildhall, Maud received many gifts and presentations from grateful regulars and friends. Members of the Guildhall Street Traders’ Association gave her an inscribed powder compact and the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers Association presented a colour television. She built up a solid following during her time at the pub. As one regular said when the Guildhall closed “I have been coming here ever since Maud took over. Now she is going to the Globe I shall be going over there. It is people that make a pub’s atmosphere”. Maud was buried at Herne Bay following a funeral service at Folkestone Parish Church.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 July 1987.

Local News.

Folkestone now has two Guildhalls. One, the historic former Town Hall – the other, the town's newest pub. The Globe public house in The Bayle has been renamed The Guildhall. In a brief and very damp xceremony the Mayor, Kelland Bowden, unveiled the new Guildhall sign to the cheers of revellers and a trumpeter, before going upstairs to make a closer inspection of the sign.

The mother of landlady Eileen Lewis, Maud, used to run the old Guildhall pub, in Guildhall Street, which is now a Pizza Hut restaurant.

Mr. Bowden said “I think it is appropriate that the name of the old pub should follow Eileen. I used to use the old pub when I was young”.

Landlady Eileen said “It's a dream come true to have the Guildhall back. I'm just pleased the opening went without a hitch. I was sure that the curtain was going to get stuck on the sign”.

Local News.

An application has been put forward for a restaurant licence by the management of the Victoria Hotel, in Middelburg Square.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 August 1987.

Letter.

I was most interested to read your report on the renaming of the Globe, and in particular reference to “the town's newest pub”.

Whilst I appreciate Eileen Lewis' nostalgia for the old Guildhall which she and her mother ran admirably for many years, I do feel that the end result is wrong. I, like many others, regret the passing of the Guildhall, but cannot help but feel that it would be better to have put the Globe on the map, so to speak, which I am sure Eileen was capable of. Call it what you will, it will always be the Globe, a much older “house” than the Guildhall was, and can never be the Guildhall.

The earliest reference to the Guildhall is in August, 1870, when the then occupant Mr. Andrews applied for a spirit licence, and it was quoted in evidence that he had occupied the house for two years without complaint, thus giving us 1868 as the earliest known date for the Guildhall. The Globe, however, could boast a much older history. The earliest reference to it is in 1855, and two years later there is reference to the licence being transferred to Sarah Hambrook from Thomas Maycock. This Mr. Maycock ran the Globe as a wine and spirit merchant, but had a room referred to as the public room, where drink could be consumed on the premises (this can be verified), and there is evidence that he had done so since 1848, when the premises were erected. Incidentally, there are still descendants of Mr. Maycock living in Folkestone today. Indeed, Dr. C.H. Bishop states that the Globe is probably built on the site of a much older inn.

So, to quote a reference elsewhere, it was felt by Eileen’s “locals” that “a slice of history” had been lost with the closure of the Guildhall, a much older “slice of history” has been lost with the passing of the name of the Globe.

E. D. Rooney,

Mead Road,

Folkestone.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

ANDREWS Arthur 1868-73 BastionsPost Office Directory 1874

ANDREWS Henry 1873-77

HARVEY Thomas 1877-81 Bastions

HARVEY Eleanor (later HOAD)1881-82 (age 35 in 1881Census) Bastions

HOAD James E 1882-88 BastionsPost Office Directory 1882

Last pub licensee had TUNBRIDGE James 1888-1902 Next pub licensee had (age 41 in 1891Census) BastionsKelly's 1899

Last pub licensee had JEFFREY Dudley 1902-03 BastionsPost Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903

FILMER James 1903 1913 BastionsPost Office Directory 1913

JACOBS Richard 1913 Oct/1914 Dover Express

VICARY Mr W H Oct/1914-15 Dover Express

COZENS George Oct/1915-28 BastionsPost Office Directory 1922

COZENS Eileen 1928-31 Bastions

RIVERS Richard 1931-33 Bastions

Last pub licensee had ANDERSON Eric 1933-34 Bastions

WOOTTEN Percy 1934-45 BastionsPost Office Directory 1938 Also "Martello Hotel."

COPSON Alfred 1945-51 Bastions

DAWKINS John 1951-52 Bastions

LEWIS Maud 1952-84 Bastions

 

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

Dover ExpressFrom the Dover Express

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid XTHML Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room