LONDON STORES Pubs of Folkestone

DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2025.

Page Updated:- Thursday, 25 September, 2025.

PUB LIST

PUBLIC HOUSES

Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1854

(Name to)

London Stores

Latest 1870

(Name to)

78 Bail Street

Folkestone

Formerly the "Cooper's Arms" this pub was serving ale under the reign of Henry Murphy in 1860, but by 1870 it had changed names again, this time to the "Druid's Arms." It appears that during the early 1850s it was still being referred to the "Cooper's Arms" as well as the "London Stores."

In 1858 John Dent, of London, applied for a licence for the "London Stores" described as a wine and spirit vaults, Bail Street, but was refused, he having failed to comply with the requirements of the Bench in producing a certificate of character from where he last resided.

Southeastern Gazette 9 May 1854.

Advertisement: Wholesale and retail wine and spirit business for sale, by order of the assignees of William John Ward, a bankrupt, the very desirable wholesale and retail wine, spirit and ale stores, known as the "London Stores," Bail Street, Folkestone, comprising valuable freehold premises, with the goodwill and fittings, furniture, and stock therein.

For particulars apply to Mr. John Grant, Gabriel's Hill, Maidstone, Solicitor to the Assignees, or to Mr. Tolputt, House Agent, Folkestone.

Canterbury Journal 1 June 1854.

On Saturday W. J. Ward, of the "Clarendon Hotel" and "London Stores," Folkestone, wine and spirit merchant, applied in bankruptcy for his certificate. The assignees did not oppose, and His Honour granted a third class certificate.

Dover Telegraph 9 September 1854.

Advertisement: Mr. J.J. Orgill begs to announce that he will sell by public auction, at Garraway's, on Monday, Sept. 18, at 12 for 1, by order of the mortgagee, a newly constructed and well arranged Wine and Spirit Establishment, designated the "London Stores," admirably suited for trade, in the centre of Bale Street (sic), Folkestone.

The above premises have recently undergone an extensive and judicious outlay, thereby rendering them adequate to a business of any extent; they are placed in the most bustling part of this thriving town, and under efficient management a large and lucrative trade must always be maintained. They are freehold, and immediate possession can be given. Can be viewed 10 days prior to the sale, and particulars then obtained on the premises; at Garraway's; of T.J. Jerwood Esq., solicitor to the mortgagees; at the "Clarendon Hotel," Folkestone; and at the auctioneer's offices, 551, New Oxford Street, corner of Tottenham Court Road.

Note: Earlier date for London Stores.

Folkestone Chronicle 13 October 1855.

Tuesday October 9th:- Present W. Major Esq., G. Kennicott Esq., and J. Kelcey Esq.

The Adjourned General Licensing Meeting was held this day, when the following licence was granted: William Samuel How, Cooper's Arms.

Note: More Bastions lists How as first licensee at London Stores.

Folkestone Chronicle 2 October 1858.

Wednesday September 29th:- Before the Mayor, G. Kennicott and W. Major esqs.

This was the adjourned licensing day. John Dent, of London, applied for a licence for the London Stores wine and spirit vaults, Bail Street, but was refused, he having failed to comply with the requirements of the Bench in producing a certificate of character from where he last resided.

Southeastern Gazette 5 October 1858.

Victuallers’ Licenses.

At the sitting of the magistrates on Wednesday, John Dent, of London, applied for a license for the “London Stores”, wine and spirit vaults, Bail Street, but was refused, he having failed to comply with the requirements of the Bench, in producing a certificate of character from where he last resided.

Note: Date for Dent is at variance with More Bastions.

Southeastern Gazette 26 October 1858.

Local News.

The license of the Coopers' Arms was transferred to Philip Brown, of Clerkenwell. Last year the same license was granted to Mr. Brown, who transferred it to Mr. Dent, but on his application, and refusing to produce a character from where he had been residing, the license was refused.

Note: Dates and names are at variance with More Bastions.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 25 August, 1860.

DAMAGING WINDOW

Friday August 24th:- Before W.F. Browell and R.W. Boarer esqs.

John How, alias Lord Howe, charged with wilfully damaging a window at the "London Stores." Fined 10s. and costs, which was paid.

Folkestone Chronicle 3 November 1860.

DAMAGING BEER PUMP

Thursday November 1st:- Present, the Mayor, James Tolputt, Wm. Major and A.M. Leith esqs.

James Sharkery and James Gilbert, of the 18th Regt., and Lawrence Whalem of the 16th Regt., were brought up in custody, charged with committing wilful damage to a beer engine, and assaulting a civilian, and Sharkery with violently assaulting the police, and damaging their clothing. The case was fully proved, and Sharkery was committed for one month, Whelam for seven days, and Gilbert was ordered to be sent to the Camp under escort.

Patrick Murphy, of the London Stores, has received a summons for refusing to aid and assist the police when called upon, in arresting the prisoner Sharkery.

Note: Murphy's date at London Stores differs from More Bastions.

Southeastern Gazette 6 November 1860.

Local News.

Three soldiers, named James Sharkery, James Gilbert, and Lawrence Wheelam, were charged at the police court on Wednesday, with committing wilful damage to property in public houses, and assaulting the police and tearing their clothing.

Their conduct was most violent, and one of them bit P.C. Smith’s leg, after he was handcuffed. The superintendent also received a severe blow on the nose.

Sharkery was sentenced to one month’s hard labour; Wheelam to seven days’, and Gilbert sent to the Camp under escort.

Patrick Murphy, landlord of the London Stores, who was called upon to assist the police and refused, has received a summons to appear before the magistrates.

Folkestone Observer 13 July 1861.

Disorderly conduct in a public house.

Tuesday July 9th:- Before Captain Kennicott, R.N.

Filmer Tyas, on bail, was charged with disorderly conduct in the Cooper's Arms, The Bayle, on the previous evening.

According to the evidence of Mr. Murphy, the landlord, and Sergeant Newman, the defendant came into the house on Monday evening, at a quarter to eleven, and having called for some drink, addressed the landlord in very offensive language, asserting that he would do what he liked in the house, and he'd be ------ if they should turn him out. When Sergeant Newman came to the house, he at first refused to leave with him, but ultimately went out, and was then given into custody. Mr. Murphy said his object was not to punish Tyas, but to obtain protection. If Tyas would promise not to come to his house again he would be satisfied. But Tyas was not disposed to get off in that way, and proceeded with a narrative of the delinquencies of the landlord, who kept his house open all night, played at dominoes with his customers, and got up the dispute on the previous evening because he lost with defendant at the game of “coddle”, and then abused him, taunting him with having been in Canterbury jail. Defendant called John Whittle to support his statement. The bench, as there had been irregularities on both sides, would not impose a fine, if defendant would pay the costs; and Murphy promptly offered to pay the costs, defendant repaying at his convenience, providing he would promise not to trouble him with his company again. Defendant would, however, have no such kindness. He had not a penny about him, and there was no money at home; he would go to prison, as he had been so treated. At length, by persuasion of his employer he said he would take Murphy's offer, but as Murphy had by this time left the court, his employer advanced the money.

Note: This case appears some years after the house had apparently been renamed as London Stores!

Folkestone Chronicle 27 July 1861.

Monday July 22nd:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer, and W.F. Browell esqs.

Patrick Murphy, landlord of the Cooper's Arms, Bayle Street, appeared on a summons, obtained against him by P.C. Swain, on the charge of letting a dog go abroad, on the 16th July, after a notice of canine madness had been issued, unmuzzled.

Ingram Swain, being sworn, said he was a police constable. On the 16th July, was on duty in High Street. He saw a large dog, which he had known to be on the premises of defendant, called the Cooper's Arms, for the last six months. On Friday last witness saw the dog on High Street and Broad Street, at large without a muzzle, no person having care of it. Knew the dog to be in a state of disease on that day. Had heard defendant call the dog into his house at different times of the night, and lock the door after. Had seen defendant's wife's sister with the dog. Had also seen defendant with the dog in Sandgate, and coming back, in the month of May.

The defendant in defence said that the dog was not his own; it belonged to a person in Dover. He said that he offered to purchase poison necessary to destroy it, only he did not think he had authority to do so. He was, however, quite willing to have the dog destroyed if the magistrates wished. He could not understand why he was called up before them, when there were 50 dogs running about daily, without muzzles. There were two dogs in the court, since the magistrates had been sitting, who were unmuzzled.

The Mayor said the case was dismissed, Mr. Murphy not being proved the owner of the dog.

Note: This case appears some years after the house had apparently been renamed as London Stores!

Folkestone Observer 27 July 1861.

An Unmuzzled Dog.

Monday July 22nd:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and R.F. Browell Esqs.

Patrick Murphy, Cooper's Arms, was summoned for suffering his dog to go at large. Evidence was given as to the dog being at large in the streets, and being cared for during the last six months by the defendant; who, however, denied his ownership, saying it had been brought to his house for another person, who had gone away, and he was himself afraid of an action for damages should he destroy it. The bench dismissed the case.

Note: This case appears some years after the house had apparently been renamed as London Stores!

Folkestone Observer 26 October 1861.

Transfer of Licence.

Tuesday October 22nd:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and James Tolputt Esq.

The following licences was transferred on Wednesday, namely, The Coopers Arms, the Bayle, from Philip Brown to Patrick Murphy.

Note: More Bastions has this change taking place at London Stores.

Folkestone Chronicle 3 October 1863

Advertisement: Richard Oliver, wine and spirit merchant, London Stores, Bail Street, Folkestone. Fine ales and London porter, Bass's ales and Guinness's stout. Families supplied.

Folkestone Observer 28 May 1864.

Local Intelligence.

Mr. Walsh has lately taken the London Stores on The Bayle, and the house being now re-furbished and re-decorated, about fifty of his friends sat down last night in the large room to supper, under the presidency of Mr. George Hills. The viands were of excellent quality, and after the cloth was drawn the party enjoyed themselves with toast and song to a late hour.

Folkestone Chronicle 20 January 1866

Police Court, Thursday, January 18th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Pledge, a young man, was brought up under a warrant charging him with having stolen, on December 25th, a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher. After a lengthened enquiry he was sent for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Dover Chronicle 20 January 1866

Police Court, Wednesday, January 17th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

George Pledge did not appear in answer to a summons charging him with having stolen a silver brooch value 10s. 6d., the property of Wm. Pilcher, on Christmas Day. Service of summons having been proved, a warrant was granted for his apprehension.

Police Court, Thursday January 18th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

George Pledge, a young man, was brought up under a warrant charging him with having stolen, on December 25th, a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher.

Elizabeth Pilcher, wife of Wm. Pilcher, painter, North Street, said that on Christmas Day she went for dinner at her father-in-law's, who kept an eating house in Seagate Street. While there she missed a silver brooch from the mantelpiece; the brooch she should know again, as it was made in coils. She had put it on the mantelpiece about an hour and a half before she missed it. After she missed it she asked her mother whether she had taken it, but when her mother said she knew nothing about it, she suspected that a man named James Jacobs had taken it, as he was in the room and because she saw him leave the room and come back again. She gave information to the police, and on Friday last Police constable Smith showed her a brooch which she identified as the one she had lost by the pin and by a hole in the back of it; she valued the brooch at 10s. 6d.

By the prisoner: Are you sure it was on Christmas Day that you missed the brooch?

Witness: Yes, I am sure it was.

Prisoner: was it before or after you gave information to the police that you heard the brooch had been exposed for sale at the "Prince Albert" public house?

Witness: It was afterwards.

Prisoner: Did you hear who had offered it for sale?

Witness: Yes, a man named James Jacobs; the man I had previously suspected of stealing it.

The prisoner was about to ask another question when he was cautioned by the Bench as to the course he had adopted when there was nothing in the evidence to connect him to the charge.

Charles Frederick Mills said he was a licensed victualler, and kept the "London Stores" in Bayle Street. He knew the prisoner perfectly well. About a fortnight ago he brought a brooch to his house and asked him to buy it. It was in the evening because he had to go into the large room to look at it. Prisoner said he had picked it up in Mill Lane. He used the words “You don't often pick up such things as these (producing a brooch) but I picked this up in Mill Lane.” He asked witness to buy it as it was of no use to him. Witness said that it was almost sure to be cried and told prisoner if it was cried or if he could find an owner for it if they came to him he would give it up; he then gave prisoner half a crown for the brooch, which he handed over to his wife.

Prisoner: Was anyone with me when I came to your house?

Witness: There was.

Prisoner: What kind of man was he?

Witness: A man with sandy-coloured moustache and whiskers.

Lucy Mills, wife of last witness, said that she received the brooch from her husband the day after Christmas Day. On Friday last she gave it up to Police constable Smith. When prisoner sold the brooch to her husband she heard him say he had picked it up in Mill Lane.

Prisoner: Last Friday morning did I not come to your house and want you to give up the brooch to me, because I said I had heard it had been stolen?

Witness: You did.

Prisoner: Was it from me you first heard that the brooch had been stolen?

Witness: Yes, it was.

Police constable Smith said that last Monday week he received information that a brooch had been stolen, and on Friday last he found that it had been sold to Mr. Mills at the London Stores. He went there and received the brooch produced.

Witness asked Mills of whom he had bought the brooch, and he said he bought it of George Pledge, the prisoner. The prisoner did not attend in answer to a summons, and he apprehended him on a warrant at 1.50 on Wednesday. He asked prisoner where he got the brooch from, and he said he picked it up in Mill Lane.

Cross-examined by the prisoner: First received information about the loss of the brooch last Monday week. Did not go to the Prince Albert last Monday to make enquiries there; the information which he got on Friday was given to him by the prisoner himself; prisoner asked him whether he was looking for a man who had stolen a brooch, and said he could give him some information respecting it. He then said he had sold it to Mr. Mills at the London Stores.

Prisoner was cautioned in the usual manner, after which he pleaded not guilty, and made the following statement: “This man Jacobs – I don't know that his name is Jacobs, but that is the name he is known by here – became acquainted with me at Mr. Faulkner's coffee house. He told me he was hard up and asked me to give him some work, as I had a vessel at that time unloading in the harbour, and I was giving hands employment. I gave him employment on board this ship, and he was there for three or four days. I think a day or two preceding this charge he was locked up; at any rate it was the night after I paid him off the ship. He came to me again and wanted me to lend him some money, as all his money had been detained here, and he had been turned out without a single farthing. I lent him some money; this was on Saturday, and I asked him to come and have some dinner with me on Sunday, knowing that he was short of money. He did not come on Sunday, but on Christmas Day he came to the house, in South Street, where I was lodging. There was a wedding in the house that day, so that I could not ask him to dinner, but told him he could get a very good dinner at Faulkner's. He went away, but I don't know where he went to, and I did not see any more of him till eight o'clock at night, when I went up to the Prince Albert public house and saw him sitting there. I asked him how he got on for dinner, and he said “Pretty well,” or something of that kind, and that he had found something to make up for dinner. He then showed me a brooch which he said he had picked up near the church in Mill Lane. I said “What a lucky fellow you are,” or something of that kind. He wanted me to sell the brooch for half a crown, but I told him it was sure to be cried, that he would get more than half a crown for it, and advised him to keep it. He put it into his pocket again, and I heard no more about it that night. The next day he came again to my house in South Street, and said he had had no breakfast, and asked me to give him some. We went for a walk, and as we were coming home he asked me whether I could sell the brooch for him as he wanted the money to pay for his bed. He said he had offered it to several parties, but they would not buy it of him. I said “If you'll come with me, I'll see what I can do for you.” I took it to Mr. Mills, and he bought it for half a crown. I used the same assertion the man had made – that I had picked it up in Mill Lane; because they would not have bought the brooch of him if he had offered it, but would of me because they knew me. I told them if it was cried I should want it again. Last Friday I heard that the brooch had been enquired for at the Prince Albert public house, and went to the police station and told them where it was. Until then I did not know the brooch had been stolen.”

Prisoner said he had some witnesses, if he might call them. He called Thomas Clark, who said: I am a carpenter, but was formerly landlord of the Prince Albert public house, which I left last Friday. On Christmas Day a brooch was offered for sale at my house by a man they called Mr. Jacobs, but he was a stranger to me. The brooch produced is the same one. He offered to sell it to two or three people and wanted half a crown for it. It was some time in the evening; did not see prisoner there at the time. The man said he picked it up near the old church – the parish church, and he made the remark that it was a wonder the person who lost it did not hear it fall on the pavement.

In answer to the Bench witness said he did not know the names of any of the people to whom the man offered the brooch for sale – he could not remember even one.

Prisoner said Mrs. Clark and the servant knew their names, but they were not in court. As he had been away from home for a day or two he knew nothing about the summons till he was apprehended yesterday, and had no time to get witnesses, and the policeman would not let him have any writing paper. Mrs. Hunter, the person at whose house he lodged, could prove that he did not go out at all on Christmas Day till the evening.

Superintendent Martin said that both Mrs. Hunter and Mrs. Clark had been asked to attend, but they refused to do so.

The Clerk told prisoner he could summon them, but he must pay for the summonses.

Prisoner said he could not do so, as he had no money.

The magistrates committed prisoner for trial to the quarter sessions, but were willing to liberate him on bail on his own recognisance of £50 and two sureties of £25 each.

Folkestone Observer 20 January 1866.

Thursday January 19th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

George Pledge was brought up in custody on a warrant issued the day previously charged with stealing a brooch.

Elizabeth, wife of William Pilcher, residing in Beach Street, said: On Christmas Day I missed a silver brooch from a mantelpiece in Mr. Faulkner's Coffee House, in Seagate Street. Mr. Faulkner is my brother-in-law, and I was there that day on a visit. I put the brooch on the mantelpiece about an hour and a half before I missed it. A fortnight after I gave information to the police, and P.C. Smith brought the brooch to me last Friday. The brooch produced is the one I lost. The value of it is 10s.

Prisoner: It was on Christmas Day that you missed the brooch?

Witness: Yes.

Prisoner: Did you see me in the house on that day?

Witness: No, I did not.

Prisoner: Did you hear that the brooch had been offered for sale at the Prince Albert public house before or after you gave information to the police?

Witness: After I gave the information.

Prisoner: And who did you hear had offered it for sale there?

Witness: A man called James Jacobs.

Charles Frederick Mills, licensed victualler keeping the house called The London Stores, said: I know the prisoner perfectly well. About a fortnight ago he came to my house towards the evening and said “You don't often pick up a thing such as this”. I said “What is it?”. He said “A brooch”, and added that he had picked it up in Mill Lane. He also further said that it was of no use to him, and asked me if I would buy it of him. He said that it would no doubt be cried, and in that case they could come to my place for it. I gave him half a crown for it. I told him if it was cried I should give it up, or if anyone owned it I should give it up. The brooch produced is the same I bought of the prisoner.

Prisoner: Was there not someone with me on that day?

Witness: There was, but I did not know the man.

Macy Mills, the wife of the last witness, said: I received the brooch produced from my husband I believe the day after Christmas Day. On Friday afternoon last I gave it up to P.C. Smith.

The Clerk: Did you have a conversation with the prisoner at any time?

Witness: No, but I heard him say that he had picked it up in Mill Lane.

Prisoner: On Friday last did I not come and tell you that I had heard the brooch had been stolen?

Witness: You did.

Prisoner: And did I not tell you that I was going to give information to the police?

Witness: You did, and I told you it would be given directly they came for it.

P.C. Smith said: Last Monday week from information I received respecting a brooch having been stolen from Mr. Faulkner's Coffee House, Seagate Street, I made inquiries, but could not trace it until last Friday, when I heard it had been sold to Mr. Mills, at the London Stores. I went there and received the brooch now produced from Mrs. Mills. I asked her who they bought it of, and she said George Pledge, the prisoner. The prisoner not attending on a summons, I apprehended him yesterday afternoon. I asked him where he got the brooch from, and he told me he picked it up in Mill Lane. I took the brooch to the prosecutrix, and she identified it as her property.

Prisoner: When did you first receive information about the brooch being lost?

Witness: Last Monday week.

Prisoner: On Monday last did you not go to the Prince Albert public house and make inquiries about the brooch?

Witness: I did not.

Prisoner: Who first told you where the brooch was?

Witness: You did yourself, on Friday last, and I then went to Mrs. Mills and got it.

Prisoner: Did I not ask you if you were looking for a man who had stolen a brooch?

Witness: You did.

Prisoner: Did I not tell you I could give you some information respecting it?

Witness: You did.

Prisoner: I told you where you could get the brooch, did I not?

Witness: You told me you had sold the brooch to Mr. Mills, at the London Stores.

Prisoner: Did I not tell you – now mark my words – that I had found it?

Witness: You did.

The charge was then read over to the prisoner and the usual caution given, when he pleaded Not Guilty.

The prisoner then made the following statement:- The man Jacobs – I don't know that his name is Jacobs, but that is the name he is known by here – became acquainted with me at Mr. Faulkner's Coffee House. He told me he was hard up, or something of that sort, and asked me to give him work, as at that time I was unloading a vessel in the harbour and giving hands employment. I gave him employment on board the ship, and he was there for three or four days. I believe the night after I paid him off he was locked up. The money it appears was stripped from him and he was turned out without a penny. He came to me again and wanted me to lend him some money. I did so. That was on the Saturday preceding Christmas Day, and on the Sunday I asked him to come and have dinner with me, knowing he was rather short. He didn't come till the following day – Christmas Day – when he came to the house where I lodged, and I told him I could not ask him to dinner as there was a wedding in the house, but he could get a very good dinner at Faulkner's. He then went away, but where he went to I don't know. I did not see any more of him until seven or eight o'clock at night, when I saw him sitting in the Prince Albert public house. I asked him how he got on for a dinner, or something like that, and he said he did pretty well, for he had found something to make up for dinner. I asked him what he had found and then he showed me the brooch. I asked him where he found it and he said “By the church”. I said “What church?” and he said “In Mill Lane”. I said “What a lucky fellow you are”, or something of that sort. He offered to sell it to me for half a crown. I told him he had better keep it for it would be sure to be cried, and he would get more for it. So he put it in his pocket, and I heard no more about it that night. The next day he came again to my house in South Street, and said he had had no breakfast and wanted me to give him a breakfast. We went for a walk together, and he then asked me if I could not sell the brooch for him as he had got no money to get a bed. He said he had offered it for sale himself to several parties, but they would not buy it of him. I said if he would come with me I would see if I could sell it. I went up to Mr. Mills and used the man's words, and said that I had picked it up, as they, knowing me, I thought would buy it of me. I believed the man's assertion that he had picked it up, and I told them that it would sure to be cried and that I would then want it again. I heard no more about it until last Friday, and I was sitting down in the Prince Albert public house when I heard that the constable had been there enquiring for this man. I then came up immediately and told the constable where to go and get the brooch. I told him the whole of the circumstances as they occurred. Until then I did not know the brooch had been stolen.

Thomas Clarke was then called by the prisoner, who said: I occupied the Prince Albert public house up to Friday last.

Prisoner: On Christmas Day did you have a brooch offered for sale in your house?

Witness: Yes.

Prisoner: Who offered it to you?

Witness: A man called Jacobs. I didn't know who the man was – he was a stranger to me.

Prisoner: You heard him offer it to other persons besides yourself, did you not?

Witness: Yes, he offered it to two or three persons.

Prisoner: Was I in the house at the time?

Witness: I did not see you.

The Clerk: What kind of brooch was it?

Witness: The brooch produced is the same; I had it in my hands some little time looking at it.

The Clerk: Who was there in the room besides yourself when it was offered fro sale?

Witness: There were several there, but I did not know them.

The Clerk: Surely you can tell us one man?

Witness: I do not know their names.

Mr. Leith: Do you wish the magistrates to understand that you did not know one single person there?

Witness: I did not; I should know them again if I were to see them, but I do not know their names.

Prisoner: Did he say where he picked it up?

Witness: Yes, by the Old Church.

Capt. Kennicott: You are positive he said the Old Church?

Witness: Yes.

Prisoner remarked there were two other witnesses who could give evidence in his favour if they were sent for.

The constable said he had been for two he had named, but they had declined to come.

The Clerk said they could be summoned if the prisoner liked.

Prisoner said he was not in a position to do that.

The magistrates then committed the prisoner for trial at the next Quarter Sessions of the borough.

Prisoner asked for bail, and the magistrates consented – himself in £25 and two sureties of £25 each, which not being forthcoming he was removed in custody.

Southeastern Gazette 23 January 1866.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Thursday, a young man named George Pledge was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day.

It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, of North Street, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate-street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the Albert public house. Next day the prisoner went to the London Stores, Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it.

The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

Kentish Gazette 23 January 1866

Police Court, Thursday:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.N. Leith Esqs.

George Pledge, a young man, was brought up under a warrant charging him with having stolen, on December 25th, a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher, a painter.

It appeared from the statement of Mrs. Pilcher that on Christmas Day she went to dinner at her father-in-law's house in Seagate Street, and while there she placed her brooch on the mantelpiece. About half an hour afterwards she missed it, and suspected a man named James Jacobs, who had been in the room, had taken it. She gave information to the police and on Friday last police constable Smith showed her the brooch produced, which she identified as her property.

Mr. Charles Frederick Mills, who keeps the "London Stores" in Bayle Street, stated that he bought the brooch a fortnight since of the prisoner, who told him he had picked it up in Mill Lane.

Mrs. Mills gave confirmatory testimony, and in reply to prisoner, said he came to her on Friday morning, and asked her to give up the brooch because he had heard it had been stolen. It was from him that she first heard it had been stolen.

Police constable Smith stated that he received the brooch from Mr. Mills, and afterwards apprehended the prisoner, who said he picked it up in Mill Lane. In reply to prisoner, witness said it was he (prisoner) who told him that he had sold the brooch to Mr. Mills.

The prisoner made a long defence, the substance of which was that having made the acquaintance of the man Jacobs, before alluded to, at Faulkner's Coffee Rooms, he gave him employment in loading a vessel, and afterwards treated him kindly, as he represented himself as being destitute. A day or two after Christmas he again came in contact with the prisoner, who said he had not got anything to eat, and produced the brooch in question, which he said he had picked up near the church in Mill Lane. He (defendant) recommended him to keep it and see if a reward was offered, but on the following day Jacobs prevailed on him to try to sell the brooch. He took it to Mr. Mills, and used the assertion Jacobs had made, thinking he would buy it of him because he knew him. He told them, however, that if it was cried he should want it again, and on Friday last, hearing that the brooch had been enquired for at the "Prince Albert" public house, he went to the police station and gave information of where it was to be found.

He then called evidence in corroboration of his statement, but the magistrates committed prisoner for trial at the Quarter Sessions. He was admitted to bail.

Canterbury Weekly Journal 27 January 1866

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Thursday, a young man, named George Pledge, was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day. It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, of North Street, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate Street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the "Albert" public house. Next day the prisoner went to the "London Stores," on Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it. The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the Bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

Dover Express 27 January 1866

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions, on Thursday, a young man named George Pledge was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day. It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate Street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the "Albert" public house. Next day the prisoner went to the "London Stores," on Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it. The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the Bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

Faversham Mercury 27 January 1866

Kentish Express 27 January 1866

Folkestone County Court, Wednesday: Before C. Harwood Esq.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Thursday, a young man, named George Pledge, was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day. It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, of North Street, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate Street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the "Albert" public house. Next day the prisoner went to the "London Stores," Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it. The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the Bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

Dover Chronicle 4 April 1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

The Deputy Recorder addressed the Grand Jury: The first case was that of George Pledge, indicted for stealing a brooch, value 10s., the property of William Pilcher, on the 25th December last, and there was another count on the indictment charging him with receiving the brooch knowing it to have been stolen. The circumstances attending this case were rather curious. It appeared that a brooch belonging to the prosecutor was missed on Christmas Day, and the prisoner was afterwards found to have sold it, but from the evidence of a witness it appeared that the prisoner made some remarks at that time which, in his mind, were hardly consistent with the fact that he had stolen the brooch, and they ought to take a fair and common-sense view of what he then said. It certainly was in favour of the prisoner that at the time he sold the brooch he said it was sure to be cried, or something of that kind, and that he made some provision for having it returned in such a case. Another witness said that a man named Jacobs offered the brooch for sale, and said that he picked it up, which corroborated the statement made by the prisoner that Jacobs picked it up and gave it to him to sell for him, and whether Jacobs picked the brooch up or Pledge stole it was for them to determine. He did not see but that the whole of the evidence taken before the Magistrates applied as much to Jacobs as it did to the prisoner, and he did not think, under the circumstances, it would be necessary for them to find a true bill against Pledge; but before they came to that conclusion he should advise them to have such witnesses before them in order to determine in their own minds whether there was or was not a prima facie case against him. In a very short time afterwards the foreman came into court and said that the Grand Jury had found “no true bill” against George Pledge.

Dover Express 6 April 1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

The Deputy Recorder addressed the Grand Jury: The first case was that of George Pledge, indicted for stealing a brooch, value 10s., the property of Wm. Pilcher, on Christmas Day last, and there was another count on the indictment charging him with receiving the brooch knowing it to have been stolen. The circumstances attending this case were rather curious. It appeared that a brooch belonging to the prosecutor was missed on Christmas Day, and the prisoner was afterwards found to have sold it, but from the evidence of a witness it appeared that the prisoner made some remarks at that time which in his mind were hardly consistent with the fact that he had stolen the brooch, and they ought to take a fair and common-sense view of what he then said. It certainly was in favour of the prisoner that at the time he sold the brooch he said it was sure to be cried, or something of that kind, and that he made some provision for having it returned in such a case. Another witness said that a man named Jacobs offered the brooch for sale, and said that he picked it up, which corroborated the statement made by the prisoner that Jacobs picked it up and gave it to him to sell for him, and whether Jacobs picked the brooch up or Pledge stole it was for them to determine. He did not see but that the whole of the evidence taken before the Magistrates applied as much to Jacobs as it did to the prisoner, and he did not think, under the circumstances, it would be necessary for them to find a true bill against Pledge; but before they came to that conclusion he should advise them to have such witnesses before them in order to determine in their own minds whether there was or was not a prima facie case against him. In a very short time afterwards the foreman came into court and said that the Grand Jury had found “no true bill” against George Pledge.

Folkestone Observer 6 April 1866.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday 2nd April:- Before A. Biron Esq, Deputy Recorder.

Extract from Mr. Biron's preliminary address: Of the two prisoners for trial that day, the charge against Pledge exhibited some singular circumstances. He was charged on two indictments, one with having stolen a brooch, and the other with receiving it knowing it to have been stolen. It would be their duty to say whether the bill against him was true or not. It appeared that on Christmas Day last a brooch was missing from the house of the prosecutor, Mr. William Pilcher, of Folkestone, and the prisoner Pledge was known to have offered it for sale to a man for 2s 6d, but at the same time making use of most curious expressions, cautioning the man to whom he offered the brooch that it might be cried, and if it were he might give it up. The presumptive evidence was decidedly in Pledge's favour. According to the evidence of another witness it appeared that the brooch was offered for sale at another place by Pledge, saying he had picked it up. It was for them to say how Pledge got the brooch into his possession. He thought under the circumstances it would be better for them not to return a true bill in Pledge's case.

After some time the foreman of the grand jury returned into court, having found no true bill against George Pledge. Who was discharged from custody.

Kentish Express 7 April 1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

The Deputy Recorder addressed the Grand Jury: The first case was that of George Pledge, indicted for stealing a brooch, value 10s., the property of Wm. Pilcher, on the 25th December last, and there was another count on the indictment charging him with receiving the brooch knowing it to have been stolen. The circumstances attending this case were rather curious. It appeared that a brooch belonging to the prosecutor was missed on Christmas Day, and the prisoner was afterwards found to have sold it, but from the evidence of a witness it appeared that the prisoner made some remarks at that time which in his mind were hardly consistent with the fact that he had stolen the brooch, and they ought to take a fair and common-sense view of what he then said. It certainly was in favour of the prisoner that at the time he sold the brooch he said it was sure to be cried, or something of that kind, and that he made some provision for having it returned in such a case. Another witness said that a man named Jacobs offered the brooch for sale, and said that he picked it up, which corroborated the statement made by the prisoner that Jacobs picked it up and gave it to him to sell for him, and whether Jacobs picked the brooch up or Pledge stole it was for them to determine. He did not see but that the whole of the evidence taken before the Magistrates applied as much to Jacobs as it did to the prisoner, and he did not think, under the circumstances, it would be necessary for them to find a true bill against Pledge; but before they came to that conclusion he should advise them to have such witnesses before them in order to determine in their own minds whether there was or was not a prima facie case against him. In a very short time afterwards the foreman came into court and said that the Grand Jury had found “no true bill” against George Pledge.

Folkestone Chronicle 7 April 1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

Kentish Express 21 April 1866

County Court, Wednesday: Before C. Harwood Esq.

Interpleader Case: In this case Messrs. Leney and Evenden were the plaintiffs, Charles Mills the defendant, and Messrs. George and Henry Hills the claimants. The case stands adjourned to the next court for the claimants to file particulars of their claim, in default of the plaintiffs in the action giving up their claim, in which case the sum in hand is to be paid over to the claimants.

Note: George Hills had the Atlas Steam Brewery in Tontine Street. Mills was landlord of the London Stores.

Folkestone Chronicle 21 April 1866.

County Court.

Interpleader Case.

Wednesday April 18th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

In this case Messrs. Leney and Evenden were the plaintiffs, Charles Mills the defendant, and Messrs. George and Henry Hills the claimants. The case stands adjourned to the next court for the claimants to file particulars of their claim, in default of the plaintiffs in the action giving up their claim, in which case the sum in hand is to be paid over to the claimants.

Note: George Hills had the Atlas Steam Brewery in Tontine Street. Mills was landlord of the London Stores.

Dover Chronicle 9 May 1866

A temporary license was granted to Louis Herwig to sell excisable articles at the "London Stores" public house, Bayle Street, lately occupied by Mr. Charles Mills, who disappeared on a summons being taken out against him by the police for having kept a disorderly house.

Folkestone Observer 11 May 1866.

Transfer Of License.

Monday May 7th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

Henry A. Herwigg applied for a temporary authority to sell excisable liquors at the London Stores, in Bayle Street, until the next licensing day. It was granted.

Note: This transfer takes place only shortly after Herwigg's bankruptcy.

Dover Express 11 May 1866

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

Kentish Express 12 May 1866

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

Kentish Express 19 May 1866

A temporary license granted on May 7th to Louis Herwig for the "London Stores," Bayle Street, was extended to the next licensing day, in order to give him time to ascertain the whereabouts of the late landlord, Charles Mills (who absconded on a summons being taken out against him for having kept a disorderly house), whose signature is necessary to legalise a transfer

Dover Chronicle 19 May 1866

Louis Herring (sic) applied to have the license of the "London Stores," Bayle Street, transferred to him. This house has long been a nuisance to the locality, and was the favourite resort of prostitutes and the lowest classes of the community, for whose amusement dancing used to take place in a long room at the back, usually finishing in a fight and scenes of the greatest disorder. The house had been reported several times by the police, and a summons was taken out by Mr. Superintendent Martin against the landlord, Charles Mills, a musician, who used to play the pianoforte at Rigden's Concert Room, at Sandgate. Mills got an inkling of what was coming, and the next morning the house was closed, and Mr. Martin found that he had “made tracks” out of his jurisdiction. Till within a few days the house has been shut up, the applicant in the present instance having obtained a temporary license to sell on the 7th inst. The Clerk informed the Bench that they had been unable to find the late landlord, whose signature was necessary before the transfer could be effected.

Dover Chronicle 19 May 1866

The Chairman remarked that they knew the character of the "London Stores," and should not go out of the way with respect to the license. Superintendent Martin stated that as far as the applicant was concerned, he believed that he would keep the house tolerably well. The Chairman said the house had been a constant trouble to the police, and the landlord had run the risk of losing his license altogether. Under these circumstances the Clerk informed the Bench that the only plan they could adopt would be to grant an extension of the temporary authority to sell, which was accordingly done.

Dover Chronicle 23 May 1866

County Court, Monday: Before Charles Harwood Esq.

Interpleader Summons: Leney and Evenden, plaintiffs; Charles Mills, defendant; George and Henry Hills, claimants.

This case was adjourned from the last court for claimant to file particulars of their claim. Mr. John Minter appeared for the claimants, Mr. T. Fox, of Dover, for Messrs. Leney and Evenden. The sum claimed was £6 5s., the price of furniture which had been seized and sold.

George Hills said he was a brewer at Folkestone. In September, 1863, he purchased from Thomas Cobb the whole of the articles mentioned in the particulars of the claim. Thomas Cobb was the former tenant of the "London Stores" in Bayle Street, Folkestone. Witness took possession of the premises and let them out to Richard Oliver as a weekly tenant. Oliver left, and he then let the house and furniture to Charles Welch on the same terms, and when he left he let them to the defendant Charles Mills. Mills took possession of the house on the 1st January. Witness turned him out about a month ago, when he left the goods in the house.

In answer to Mr. Fox: Witness was now the actual owner of the goods. Mills' tenancy commenced about January 6th, and not about the beginning of the quarter. Would not say that he knew Mills was drawing Leney and Evenden's beer on the 17th January. So long as witness brewed any beer he supplied Mills. Had an agreement about the furniture. Mills was to pay 16s. a week for the house and furniture.

His Honour ordered the amount claimed to be returned to the claimants.

Dover Express 25 May 1866

County Court, Monday: Before Charles Harwood Esq.

Interpleader Summons: Leney and Evenden, plaintiffs; Charles Mills, defendant; George and Henry Hills, claimants.

His Honour ordered the amount claimed to be returned to the claimants.

Kentish Express 26 May 1866

County Court, Monday: Before Charles Harwood Esq.

Interpleader Summons: Leney and Evenden, plaintiffs; Charles Mills, defendant; George and Henry Hills, claimants.

George Hills said he was a brewer at Folkestone. In September, 1863, he purchased from Thomas Cobb the whole of the articles mentioned in the particulars of the claim. Thomas Cobb was the former tenant of the London Stores in Bayle Street, Folkestone. Witness took possession of the premises and let them to Richard Oliver as a weekly tenant. Oliver left, and he then let the house and furniture to Charles Welch on the same terms, and when he left he let them to the defendant Charles Mills. Mills took possession of the house on the 1st January. Witness turned him out about a month ago, when he left the goods in the house.

His Honour ordered the amount claimed to be returned to the claimants.

Folkestone Observer 25 May 1866.

County Court.

Interpleader Summons.

Monday May 21st:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Mr. George Hills claimed goods in the London Stores, Bayle Street, seized by Messrs. Leney and Evenden on judgement against Charles Mills.

Mr. Minter for claimant.

Mr. Fox for Leney and Evenden.

George Hills said he was a brewer in Folkestone. In September, 1863, purchased from Thomas Cobb the whole of the articles stated in the claim, together with other articles, situated in the London Stores, Bayle Street. Cobb was a former tenant and sold them to claimant on the 22nd September, 1863. Took possession of the premises at the time. Let the premises to Richard Oliver, with the furniture, as a weekly tenant. When Oliver left he let the same goods to Charles Walsh, on the same terms, as a weekly tenant. Next let them to Charles Frederick Mills, who is the defendant in the action. Let the furniture and premises to Mills at a weekly rent. He began in January 1866. Mills had paid eight or nine weeks' rent. Witness turned him out about a month ago. Gave him notice to leave. Mills was in possession when the levy was made. He left the goods in witness's possession, and witness had since contracted to sell them.

By Mr. Fox: Was the actual owner of the things, but refused to supply Mills when the brewhouse stopped, which was in January. Could not say that he knew Mills was drawing other persons' beer in the house, because after he (witness) refused to supply, he did not trouble to know how Mills was doing. Did not know he was drawing Leney and Evenden's beer on the 7th of January. Could produce the agreement as to the furniture, but it was not in court. Mr. Banks drew it up. Mills was to pay 16s a week. Had not sold the things. They were his things now. Had a partner. His name was Henry. Was no partner in this matter. The house was purchased by Mr. Henry in his own name. Do not produce the receipt from Mr. Cobb.

Mr. Fox said it seemed rather extraordinary that Mills should go in about the quarter, and should go to his client about the 6th of January.

Mr. Hills, to the judge: Mills has left Folkestone since the execution.

The High Bailiff said that when he levied, Mills was in possession, and he asserted that the property was his landlord's.

His Honour: The property is the property of the claimant, certainly.

Note: No mention of Cobb in More Bastions. Walsh is listed as being Richard Walsh. Hills had been owner of the Atlas Steam Brewery, Tontine Street.

Folkestone Chronicle 26 May 1866.

County Court.

Interpleader Summons.

Monday May 21st:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Messrs. Leney and Evenden, plaintiffs, Charles Mills, defendant, Henry and George Hills, claimants. The ground of claim was that the goods which had been seized and sold by the plaintiffs in discharge of a debt for beer, had been purchased by the claimants.

Mr. Minter for the claimants.

George Hills said he was a brewer at Folkestone. In September, 1863, he purchased from Thomas Cobb the whole of the articles mentioned in the particulars of his claim. Cobb was formerly his tenant of the London Stores, in Bayle Street. Purchased the goods on September 20th, 1863, and took possession of them and of the premises. Afterwards let them to Richard Oliver as weekly tenant. After Oliver left he again let the house and goods to Charles Welch on the same terms, and after he left he again let the house and goods to Charles Mills, who is the defendant in this action. Mills took the house on the 1st January last. Turned him out of the house about a month since, when he left the goods in his (Mr. Hills') possession.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fox, of Dover, who appeared for the plaintiffs: Witness was the actual owner of the goods at the present time. Mills's tenancy commenced about the 6th of January, and not about the commencement of the quarter. Could not say he knew that Mills was drawing Leney and Evenden's beer on January 17th. So long as he had beer to supply him with he did so. Had an agreement with Mills; J. Banks drew it up. Had not sold the goods to any person. Took a receipt from Cobb for the money paid for the things.

Mr. Fox said it was rather odd that defendant should leave Mr. Hills about the end of the quarter and come to his clients for beer on the 16th January.

Judgement for claimants.

Folkestone Observer 3 August 1866.

Assaulting A Publican.

Thursday August 2nd:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

Richard Tyas was charged with assaulting John Floyd. Prisoner pleaded guilty. Prosecutor keeps the London Stores, Bayle Street. Tyas came in and wanted the landlord to play at cards, which the landlord refused to do. A dispute then arose respecting money said to be owing on both sides, and Tyas then knocked off Floyd's hat. The bench imposed a fine of 1s, with 8s costs.

Note: Indicates that Henry Herwigg was only at the London Stores a VERY short time.

Dover Chronicle 4 August 1866

Police Court, Thursday, August 2nd: Before Captain Kennicott and J. Tolputt Esq.

A fly driver, named Richard Tyas, pleaded guilty to assaulting the landlord of the "London Stores" on Wednesday night. It appeared that defendant and complainant were together in a public house, when the latter reminded the former that he owed him 8d. Some words followed, when, according to complainant, defendant struck him. The latter denied this, and said he merely knocked off his hat, and did not intend to injure him.

The magistrates ordered him to pay a fine of 1s., and 8s. costs, in default 7 days.

Kentish Express 4 August 1866

Police Court, Thursday, Aug. 2nd: Before Captain Kennicott and J. Tolputt Esq.

A fly driver, named Richard Tyas, pleaded guilty to assaulting the landlord of the London Stores on Wednesday night. It appeared that defendant and complainant were together in a public house, when the latter reminded the former that he owed him 8d. Some words followed, when, according to complainant, defendant struck him. The latter denied this, and said he merely knocked off his hat, and did not intend to injure him.

The magistrates ordered him to pay a fine of 1s., and costs 8s., in default 7 days.

Kentish Gazette 7 August 1866.

Borough Police Court: At this Court on Thursday, before Capt. Kennicott and J. Tolputt Esq., a fly driver named Richard Tyas pleaded Guilty to assaulting the landlord of the London Stores on Wednesday night. It appeared that defendant and complainant were together in a public house when the latter reminded the former that he owed him 8d. Some words followed when, according to complainant, defendant struck him. The latter denied this and said he merely knocked off his hat and did not intend to injure him. The Magistrates ordered him to pay a fine of 1s., and costs, 8s.; in default seven days' imprisonment.

Dover Chronicle 27 October 1866

Police Court, Wednesday, Oct 24th: Before C. Doridant Esq., Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Temporary licenses were granted to Robert Nelson Stratton for the "Royal George" under the license granted to Charles Plater; to Louis Furminger for the "Two Bells" under the license granted to William White; to John Davis, for the "Wheatsheaf" under the license granted to Louis Furminger; to Frederick Toghill for the "London Stores" under the license granted to Henry August Herwig; and to Matilda Macdonald for the "Princess Royal" under the license granted to Alfred Pennington.

Kentish Express 27 October 1866

Police Court, Wednesday, Oct 24th: Before C. Doridant Esq., Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Temporary licenses were granted to Frederick Toghill for the "London Stores" under the license granted to Auguste Herwig.

Folkestone Chronicle 27 October 1866.

Wednesday October 24th: Before the Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and R. W. Boarer Esqs.

Temporary license was granted to Frederick Toghill for the London Stores.

Dover Chronicle 27 February 1867

Police Court, Saturday: Before Capt. Kennicott and Mr. J. Tolputt

Frederick Toghill, landlord of the "London Stores," was summoned for allowing fighting, drinking, and disorderly conduct in his house. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Police constable Reynolds said that on Friday week, the 15th inst., he was on duty at the top of High Street, and heard loud talking in the London Stores, Bayle Street, at a quarter to twelve o’clock. In company with police constable Hills he went into the house and found several drunken sailors and prostitutes in the bar, talking loudly; defendant was there, and his attention was drawn to them. In the back room there were five or six men and women sitting down talking, but there was nothing in their conduct to find fault with. The constables came out of the house, and about five minutes afterwards four of the sailors were fighting. Defendant turned them out, and at the request of the witness cleared the house.

Police constable Hills was called to corroborate the evidence, but Mr. Minter objected. He was prepared to admit all that the witnesses had stated to be true, and argued that no case had been made out. He was charged with allowing fighting, because drinking was not an offence, and there was no disorderly conduct according to the constables’ own evidence. Now the constable said that the men were fighting, and the landlord turned them out of the house; was that allowing fighting in the house? If defendant harboured prostitutes a summons could be taken out against him for that offence. He could not be convicted on this charge.

After a very long consultation, with the court cleared, the public were readmitted, and the defendant fined 5s. and costs, with the right of appeal, the magistrates’ clerk remarking that Quarter Sessions might inflict a penalty of £100.

Joseph Faulkner, landlord of the Star Coffee House, Beach Street, having a beer license, was summoned for having his house opened after the legal hours.

Police sergeant Newman said that he was on duty at one o’clock on the morning of the 16th inst., and heard music and dancing in defendant’s house. He went to the side door, which was not fast, and on going in found several persons in the bar, with 3 or 4 glasses, one of them apparently containing beer. Defendant said he had a private party there and that no beer would be supplied – only tea and coffee. In a room upstairs were twelve or fourteen persons without hats or bonnets dancing to the sound of a fiddle. They were all orderly and respectable. He saw no beer about. Downstairs, by the bar, there was a table laid as though for supper.

P.C. Reynolds corroborated the evidence of the sergeant. He had seen the house closed at 11 o’clock.

The Bench said defendant had complied with the terms of his license, which provided that his house should be closed at eleven. They did not wish to prevent him from enjoying himself, but this must not occur again. If he wanted to have a party he had better speak to the Superintendent of Police. The case would be dismissed.

Dover Express 1 March 1867

Police Court, Saturday: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Gambrill, C. Doridant, A.W. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Conley was charged with assaulting Albert James Stevenson on the 19th instant.

Complainant said he saw defendant at half past seven o’clock on Tuesday evening with Fred Reason and Huson. Reason came up and struck complainant in the mouth and made it bleed frightfully, also scratched his face so that he was obliged to go to the chemist’s and have it dressed. It was so dark that he could not distinguish any of the other boys. Conley came and helped Reason. They learn boxing at the London Stores.

Cross-examined: I did not throw a stone.

Frederick Reason said that when he was fighting with complainant he called out and Conley was coming to help him, but complainant threw a stone at Conley and then someone separated them.

The Bench dismissed the charge against Conley.

Police Court, Saturday: Before Capt. Kennicott and Mr. J. Tolputt

Frederick Toghill, landlord of the London Stores, was summoned for allowing fighting, drinking, and disorderly conduct in his house. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Police constable Hills was called to corroborate the evidence, but Mr. Minter objected. Mr. Minter said he was prepared to admit all that the witness had stated to be true, and argued that no case had been made out. He was charged with allowing fighting, because drinking was not an offence, and there was no disorderly conduct according to the constables’ own evidence. Now the constable said that the men were fighting, and the landlord turned them out of the house; was that allowing fighting in the house? If defendant harboured prostitutes a summons could be taken out against him for that offence. He could not be convicted on this charge.

Joseph Faulkner, landlord of the Star Coffee House, Beach Street, having a beer license, was summoned for having his house opened after the legal hours.

P.C. Reynolds corroborated the evidence of the sergeant. He had seen the house closed at 11 o’clock.

Folkestone Chronicle 2 March 1867.

Saturday February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

Frederick Toghill, landlord of the London Stores, Bayle Street, was summoned for allowing fighting, drinking and disorderly conduct in his house on the night of the 15th instant.

P.C. Reynolds said that on going into the bar of the house at quarter to twelve o'clock he saw several drunken sailors who were talking very loudly. There were some prostitutes there, and in a back room were others, but all were behaving themselves orderly. About five minutes after, he heard a noise again, and on going there found the sailors fighting, and defendant putting them out of the house. He recommended defendant to clear the house, which he at once did.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defendant, admitted all that the constable had said, and claimed that no case had been made out, as according to the statement of the witness, defendant was turning the men out, therefore he was not allowing fighting; and the witness stated that the women were conducting themselves in a proper manner.

After a long consultation, the bench fined the defendant 5s. and costs.

Folkestone Observer 15 June 1867.

Wednesday, June 12th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esqs.

Temporary authority was given to James Pollard to sell excisable liquors at the London Stores under the license granted to Frederick Toghill.

Folkestone Express 6 March 1869.

Rate Summonses.

Saturday, February 28th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and A.M. Leith Esq.

William Holland, of the London Stores, Bayle Street, was summoned for the non-payment of £1 0s. 6d. on account of the above house.

The defendant said he did not take possession of the house till the first week in November. The house was closed when he took it. He was willing to pay for the time he had been in the house.

The Bench said he was clearly entitled to have one month's abatement. Order made for 15s. 4½d.

Southeastern Gazette 13 September 1869.

Local News.

On Wednesday last, the adjourned licensing meeting was held at the Town Hall, before W. Bateman, Esq., Captain Kennicott, R.N., J. Tolputt, Esq., and A.M. Leith, Esq.

A spirit licence was granted in the case of the London Stores.

Folkestone Chronicle 23 March 1878.

NOTICE.

Builders desirous of tendering for RE-BUILDING a portion of the premises known as the London Stores, Bayle Street, Folkestone, for Arthur Langton Esq., can see the plans and specifications on application at the Imperial Brewery, Tontine Street, Folkestone, on, or after the 15th inst., and up to the 30th instant.

Tenders to be forwarded to me at my office on or before the 1st day of April next, not later than 12 o'clock.

The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.

GEORGE FRIEND,

Architect.

44, Earl Street, Maidstone.

Folkestone Chronicle 24 August 1878.

Brewsters' Session.

The Annual Brewsters' Session was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last. The Magistrates on the Bench were, The Mayor (J. Fitness Esq.), Ald. T. Caister, Capt. Crowe, and J. Clark Esq. Considerable interest was evinced in the proceedings, as it was known that some of the applications for licenses would be opposed.

Bayle Street.

Supt. Wilshere opposed the renewal of a license to a house in Bayle Street, belonging to Mr. Langton, brewer, and which has recently been pulled down, and rebuilt.

Mr. W. Wightwick, on behalf of Mr. Langton, appeared in support of the application.

Supt. Wilshere, having been sworn, said that the house last year was standing, but had been pulled down and rebuilt. The new building was very different from the old one.

Mr. Wightwick: Then you say it is quite a different construction?

Supt. Wilshere: Yes, quite a different kind of house.

Mr. Wightwick: Tell us what you mean by that.

Supt. Wilshere: An inferior kind of house.

In reply to further questions, the Superintendent said that there was a bedroom in the house, but could not say whether anyone slept there or not. He had laid no information against the King's Arms Hotel, the Raglan, or the West Cliff Hotel although they had made alterations. He could not say that the house had been pulled down and rebuilt.

Mr. Wightwick said that this was a most cruel proceeding. There was not a single instance of an information having been laid against the house, which had simply been pulled down and rebuilt. The house had been built on the old foundations; a man had always been stationed on the premises. Mr. Wightwick quoted from a decision given to prove that a house built on old foundations was not a new construction, and further put in as proof the advertisement for tenders, which was stated to be for rebuilding the premises.

Mr. Holdom, the builder, having proved that the house was rebuilt on the old foundations, The Mayor said the Bench had determined to renew the license.

LICENSEE LIST

WARD W J 1854 (bankrupt)

HOW William Samuel 1855-57 ( "Cooper's Arms" incorrectly named?)