From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 6 March, 1869. 1d.

APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER

On Thursday last, David Simpson, the landlord of the "Maxton Arms," applied for permission to transfer his license to Mr. George Cawthorne, but it then transpiring that the man Cawthorne had been before the Magistrates for drunkenness and assaulting the police, and some doubt having also been expressed as to whether he was really a married man, the Magistrates decided to adjourn the case till Thursday, when they requested him to attend and produce his marriage certificate.

On appearing this morning, Cawthorne said he had not brought his marriage certificate, and he did not consider the Magistrates had any right to request it production or in any way question him upon the matter.

The Magistrates said that of course it was their duty to see that no license was granted for the opening of a house that was likely to endanger public morals, and of the man refused to clear up any doubts that existed as to his moral character they were justified in assuming that he was not a married man, but was merely cohabiting with the woman, to whom he said he was married. They should therefore decline to grant the license.

Cawthorne seemed much annoyed at the decision  of the Bench, but said little in answer to the charge, and soon took his departure from the Court.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 13 March, 1869. 1d.

BOROUGH PETTY SESSIONS

The Magistrates present at these sessions on Thursday were the Mayor, J. Iggulden, Esq., and Ald. Cavell; but there were no cases requiring their decision. Mr. D. Simpson, the late landlord of the "Maxton Arms," was in attendance, however, and wished to know his exact position with regard to the license of the above house, the Bench having refused to allow it to be transferred to the person he had made arrangements with. Simpson informed the Magistrates that he had entirely removed from the house, and intended leaving the town, but had been given to understand that he was still answerable for the good conduct of the house, and he should therefore like to have their advice in the matter. The Magistrates considered that as applicant had left the house altogether he could hardly be held responsible, and advised him to have his name erased from over the door. They said that of course, if the man Cawthorne carried on the business surreptitiously without a license, he would be liable to be punished. Simpson then thanked their worships and withdrew.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 12 June, 1869. 1d.

TO BE LET

THE "MAXTON ARMS," Deal.

Apply to Robert Worthington, Maxton Brewery, near Dover.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 21 May, 1870. 1d.

FATAL RESULT OF A QUARREL

On Saturday last G. Mercer, Esq., the Borough Coroner, held an inquest, at the Town-hall, on the body of Thomas Christy, landlord of the "Maxton Arms," who died shortly after midnight on Thursday, and whose death, it was alleged, had been brought about through injuries inflicted upon him some days before by Frank Gimber. Mr. J. B. Charmbut was chosen foreman of the jury, and the following evidence was adduced:- Eugene Morgan, who said he was a native of Ramsgate and a collector of forms, was the first witness, and deposed as follows: I am lodging at the "Maxton Arms" and have been there about three weeks. I have no fixed abode, and am travelling about the country. I am not present at the "Maxton Arms" on Sunday, the 1st of May, about one o'clock. I came home in the evening, but I can't say at what time. I saw the landlord, Thomas Christy, when I came back. He said he had had a scuffle, and I noticed that his face was swollen. He did not complain of pain that day, and walked out for two days afterwards. On the Wednesday following he took to his bed and complained of shifting pains about the joints of his knees and elbows - something like the rheumatics. He kept his bed, except that he was occasionally brought downstairs to the sofa, up to the time of his death, which took place a little after midnight on the 12th. During the Tuesday before his death I heard him muttering to himself, "He has done for me," or  has "cooked my goose," or words to that effect. I did not hear anybody's name mentioned .I used to sit with him occasionally of an evening. Deceased's wife and daughter used to attend to him. He was in good health up to the 1st of May as far as I knew. On the evening before his death he spat up several times what I thought was blood, and he afterwards complained of pains in his throat and a difficulty of breathing. He complained that his throat was stiff and sore. I think I saw a man named Frank Gimber with deceased on the evening of the 1st, and they appeared friendly. It was either on Sunday or the following Monday, I am not sure which. I hear no complaint made by Christy as to anything Gimber had done to him. I went out on Sunday, the 1st of May, between nine and ten o'clock. I saw the landlord before I went and I think he had been drinking, but I can't say whether he was drunk or not. I saw his wife also, bit I can't say that his wife had been drinking. Since the 1st of May I have not seen the deceased drunk. I did not much notice, as I had my business to attend to.

Catherine Christy deposed: I am the wife of the deceased, Thomas Christy, living at the "Maxton Arms," in Deal. We have been here almost eleven months. On Sunday, the 1st of May, I was at home and my husband was there also. About one o'clock or a few minutes after a man named Frank or Francis Gimber came with a set of harness and a cart and wanted my husband to buy them. He said he would not buy them on Sunday, and said, "Leave them till Monday and I will deal with you." He pressed my husband very much and said he had no money, and my husband then said he would advance his 5s. then and pay the remainder on Monday morning. Gimber said, "All right, my Tom." He brought the things from next door, and was accompanied by a person named Mackins and a boy. They all came in to the house and sat down in the tap-room. My husband put the harness into the bar and went upstairs for the 5s., which he got and gave to Gimber, who put it in his pocket. The price agreed upon for the harness was one sovereign, and after a little while Gimber said, "Give me the rest of the money or I will have the harness. My husband said, "You shan't have it," and Gimber then ran into the bar and got hold of the harness, and my husband followed him. Gimber then knocked him down with his left hand, doubled him over and knelt on him with his two knees on his thighs and swore he would kill him. He hit him about the head. I pulled Gimber off and screamed, and my daughter Elizabeth came to my assistance. Mt husband then got up and Gimber caught him by the throat, but he was quite helpless and could do nothing. Gimber then threw the harness to Mackins and the other boy, who ran away with it and put it into a cart. Gimber then got hold of my husband again and knocked him down in the passage by the front door. I thought he must have split his head and killed him by the violent blow which he gave him. He caught hold of my husband by the throat again this second time and beat him about the head. He knelt upon his stomach and beat him over the head and face. I can't say how many times he struck him because he kept on doing it so fast. I and my daughter at last got him off my husband, and he threatened me. Between what took place in the bar and what took place in the passage my husband had not struck Gimber at all; he had not the power to do so. This I am quite sure of. My husband, after we got Gimber from him, rolled over and got up on his hands and knees, and went into the kitchen where Gimber had gone, and he then threw up blood, which ran down on his shirt, as he had not the power to spit it up. Gimber was then standing up. My husband stood up and hit Gimber, who fell down. He got up and caught hold of my husband by the throat again, but he did not hurt him that time. My husband said, I have seen the day when you would not do that to me." When Gimber saw the blood he dragged my husband out of the door and persuaded him to go and have some drink, and said, "Old Tom, I hope you will take no notice of this. Come, let us go and have something to drink in the "Jolly Sailor," meaning the "Norfolk Arms." This was getting on for three o'clock, for they had been knocking about a good while. My husband was away three-parts of an hour, and when he came home he laid down on the bench by the door and began to cry. [The witness was here overcome, and left the room for a few minutes.] On her return she said: He said, "I think old Frank Gimber has killed me," and he then dozed off to sleep. My husband had been drinking during the early part of Sunday and had had two quarts of ale with Gimber before the row commenced. He was the worse for liquor. Gimber, as far as I could see, was not the worse for drink. He was quite sober, and was able to talk very differently to my husband. I have not seen Gimber since. My husband had been perfectly well up to this Sunday. He had never been ill at all, but four years ago he had a broken leg, although he was quite well in constitution. He got up about half-past four on the Sunday afternoon and tried to make water out, but could not. He had never had any difficulty as I know of before. On the next day, Monday, he complained of a pain in the lower part of his stomach and I wanted him to have a doctor, but he refused, and on that and the next day we were walking about, but on the Wednesday he was obliged to go to bed again about ten o'clock in the morning. He did not get up again till his death, but was brought downstairs occasionally by a man named White. I don't quite remember what day the doctor came, but he attended my husband some few days. Dr. Woodman was the doctor. neither my husband ( that I know of) nor myself said anything to Dr. Woodman of what had taken place on the Sunday, and he was therefore quite unaware of all this knocking down, &c. My husband told the doctor that he did not know what his illness was, but said he thought it was rheumatics. My husband would not let me say anything to the doctor of what took place on the Sunday, as it would do great harm, and he said he would get up and see about it himself. I had never had occasion to have a doctor in my life. My husband died a little after midnight on Thursday. I was present. The doctor had been to see my husband either twice or three times the day before his death, and his assistant on the Thursday, but I don't know whether Dr. Woodman himself came on the Thursday or not. My husband was about 45 years of age. The doctor was with my husband two or three times a day sometimes and some days not at all - we were obliged to send for him. I don't know if he examined my husband as I was not in the room, but I know he ordered him some leeches for his throat. He spat blood continually whilst in bed, but I don't know whether the doctor knew this or not. We have been married 18 or 19 years and I never knew him to have a fight. I don't know whether he has been a pugilist or not; he has not since we have been married. After the occurrence on Sunday he coughed a good deal and spat blood. He had never done that before, nor had he complained of a difficulty of breathing before that day. On the day before his death he was much worse, and that was the day he had the leeches. They were put on his neck and they drew out a large quantity of congealed blood, and he was much better afterwards. Every night he was worse about twelve and it was about one, or between twelve and one, in the daytime before his death that he got worse. He had for some hours before that had great difficulty in swallowing and breathing - from six o'clock that morning, in fact. He gradually got worse up to the time of the leeches.

In answer to one of the Jurors, witness said she was occasionally out after the Sunday, and Gimber might have called at their house whilst she was out. She was out sometimes by herself - fetching errands and so on.

[The proceedings were adjourned for an hour, and on the reassembly of the jury they proceeded to the "Maxton Arms" for the purpose of viewing the body, which they were unable to do at the opening of the inquest, owing to the post-mortem examination not being finished.]

On their return Henry Mackins was examined: he said: I live in Gravel Walk and am a labourer. On Sunday, the 1st of May, I went to the "Maxton Arms" between two and three o'clock - I can't say exactly what time I went with my wife's brother, John Jenkins. We were going through the yard into the other road and heard a noise in the house. We could hear a voice and we said to each other, "I lay that is old Frank." I know Gimber well, so I know his voice - I could tell it from a hundred. We went in the back door into the house and Christy and Gimber were talking about buying a cart and harness for £1, and I saw Christy give Gimber 5s. as a deposit. After that they had a wrangle, and Christy said, "Here, give me my 5s., and I will have nothing to do with it." "Gimber gave him the 5s., and then Christy said, "Now, Gimber, I want another 5s. before you have your harness back." Gimber said, "Why, you silly man, I have just given it to you to stand out and have nothing to do with it." I saw the money pass and it was in small coins. Christy put it in his trouser pocket when he received it from Gimber. They came to some words, and Gimber said, "Now, Tom, since you have been so nasty, I am going to have my harness," and he then went into the bar after the harness, and Christy followed him. What was done in the bar I don't know as I stopped in the tap-room, but when they came out of the bar I saw Christy's nose was bleeding. They then sat down together, and were drinking. After about five minutes, Gimber walked into the yard and came back again. I then went into the yard for some water. Directly Gimber got into the tap-room I heard something fall, and on looking in at the door I saw Gimber lying on the ground, and I thought he was dead. How he got there I don't know. There was a lodger in the room and a woman. I don't know who they were, but I saw the man this morning. I don't know there names. The woman, I believe, was having her dinner. Mrs. Christy and her daughter were there also. Deceased was sitting on a form and his wife was wiping his nose. Whilst I was looking in at the door I heard Christy say, "You old _____, I have done for you now." I am sure it was not, You have done for me, you old ____." I am perfectly sure of the words, and he said them whilst his wife was wiping his nose with a wet rag. She was standing in front of him, and she had the rug, which was very small, before his mouth. I then went away. I saw a harness there, and Gimber took it out and put it into the cart himself. I did not touch the harness in the cart. I never touched it. I will swear I never put it into the cart - Gimber did. My brother-in-law went into the yard and called me, and I went out on that account. I had thought of the water before he called me. Gimber did not call either me or my brother-in-law into the yard. The front door was shut all the time. I believe both Gimber and Christy were very drunk, and they were talking together in the tap-room when I entered the house. Directly Gimber got into the room from putting the harness into the cart we heard the fall, and then went back to see what it was. I will swear that I did not run away. The cart was in the yard, but there was no harness in it. I never saw Christy on the floor or that he was hit. I did not see Mrs. Christy pull Gimber off her husband. When Christy followed Gimber into the bar where harness was I heard a bit of a scuffling. I will swear I did not hear a fall in there. I did not see anything take place in the passage nor the bar. I can't say if anything did. The cart was three rods from the tap-room door. The pump from which I got the water is just outside the door. Supposing a row took place in the passage I might not have seen it. Gimber married my wife's mother - if they are married at all. They live together. The blood I saw might have come from Christy's mouth. I was in the house altogether from 20 minutes to half-an-hour. neither I not Jenkins had anything to drink. Christy followed Gimber into the bar about five minutes after I got there. If anyone swears I put the harness into the cart they are telling a falsehood. I never touched the harness nor did the harness touch me. It was not given to me, and I had no hand at all in putting it into the cart. I did not see it and that was all.

Mrs. Christy re-called: I will swear that I saw Mackins put the harness in the cart. I will swear that Gimber did not leave the house till it was all over. Morgan was not there, only his wife, who says she was so agitated that she can't remember anything of what took place. Mackins and the other man took the cart away with the harness before Gimber left the house. I washed my husband's mouth with a little warm water and a rag in the tap-room. Whilst I was doing that he only said, "Oh, let me alone," or something like that. The blood was spat up from his stomach. His nose did not bleed at all. Gimber threw the money on the table, and I afterwards picked it up and put it in my pocket. My husband knew perfectly well that I picked up the money. Gimber threw the harness down in the passage and Mackins took it away in the cart. I saw them pass my window with the cart, which was a very small one, and the harness was in it. I spoke to them and said, "Well, you have got it then."

Morgan was then called in, and was at once identified by the witness Mackins as the man who was present when the row took place. Mackins declared most positively that Morgan was the man, and spoke to a conversation he had with Christy as to the cart being suitable for him to take fruit round in the summer, whereas Morgan most positively declared he was not. In answer to the Coroner, Morgan said: I was not there when the row took place. I did have conversation with Christy in the morning before I left. I went out collecting forms. I don't know whether anyone saw me or not. I was between here and Dover - between Martin and Langdon. I will swear that I was not there when the row took place. My wife was at home.

The Coroner and several of the Jurors expressed themselves much surprised at the evidence of Mackins, and one or two searching inquiries were put to him by the Coroner for the purpose of testing his credibility. The witness, however, adhered most firmly to his statements, and reiterated them without the slightest hesitation or prevarication.

Elizabeth Christy deposed: I am the daughter of the deceased, and was at home on Sunday, the first of May. The first I saw of the affair was my father on the door in the passage and Gimber on him. Mrs. Morgan was in the tap-room at the time, but her husband was gone out. I did not se him go out, but I saw him come back between four and five. I am certain he was not in the house. I don't think he had anything in his hand when he came into the house. I have seen him with his forms in a basket. I came downstairs when I heard a noise, and I was going to fetch his dinner, which was at the bake-house. As soon as we got the men apart I went for the dinner. When I went for the dinner Gimber had gone - he went out of the backdoor. I saw Mackins and another boy take the cart out of the yard. Gimber was outside going after them. Gimber came back into the yard, but he was not with my father. I did not see them go into the "Jolly Sailor." My father went to bed soon after I got back with the dinner, which I should think was about half-past one o'clock. I went to the bake-house twice to fetch the dinner, but it was not ready. The dinner was given to me off the bake-house table. I am not quite sure whether my father went to sleep downstairs. After we got the men apart I am my mother tried to make peace, and we might have been so engaged for half-an-hour. I heard my father shout "Murder" before I got downstairs and my mother also screamed, and then I ran downstairs and saw my father on the floor as I have stated.

By a Juror: Father went up to bed directly after we got Gimber from him.

Maria Morgan said: I was at the "Maxton Arms" on Sunday week when the row took place. I can't say what the time was. My husband had gone to collect ferns, and he did not return till between four and five. I will swear he was not in the house at the time the row took place; if he had been I do not think it would have taken place. I was in the kitchen or tap-room. I saw Gimber come in, and he had a harness and cart with him. He and Mr. Christy had some beer. I heard them bargaining about the cart and harness for a sovereign. Mr. Christy said he did not like to buy them on a Sunday, but he would advance him a crown and give him the rest on Monday morning. Christy afterwards took the harness into the bar and fetched the money and gave it to Gimber. They sat down a bit and had some more beer, and Gimber then said, "I will have my harness back," and I saw him throw the money on the table. It was picked up, but I don't know by whom. I then saw Gimber go to the bar for the harness, and Christy followed him, but what took place I don't know. I heard a scuffling and I thought they were trying to get the harness away from each other. I heard the mistress call out, and on looking I saw Mr. Christy in the passage by the front door and Gimber on him. They afterwards came back into the tap-room and sat down again. I saw Christy knock Gimber down in the tap-room. Gimber afterwards took Christy away somewhere. I saw Christy's daughter come down whilst her father was lying in the passage, but I don't know what he did. I saw Mackins and another young man come in with Gimber, and I believe, although I am not quite sure, that they were in the little room.

By the Foreman: I went into the "Jolly Sailor," as I would not stop while the row was going on.

Examination continued: I left Jenkins in the house. When the young men went out they left Gimber in the tap-room. Both Christy and Gimber were the worse for liquor. I was not intoxicated, I had only had three half-pints of beer. Mrs. Christy was not the worse for liquor. My husband brought home some ferns, but he did not bring them into the kitchen. I did not see Gimber take hold of Christy by the throat in the tap-room; if had done so I must have seen it. I did not see Mrs. Christy wipe her husband's face; she might have done it whilst I was out.

Frederick Woodman deposed: I am a duly registered medical practitioner at Deal. I first saw the deceased, Thomas Christy, between two and three o'clock in the afternoon of Monday, the 9th of May. He was lying ion the sofa in the bar. He told me he was suffering from rheumatism and very great pain in the right knee and left elbow. He said that left knee had been first affected, but that it was better. He told me he had been ill several days and found the pain was getting worse in the joints. I asked him how long he had been brought downstairs, and he told me he had been brought down that morning. His daughter was in the room  and I asked her to go out, and I then examined deceased's knee and thighs. I found the right knee very much swollen; the swelling extending up the thighs. I did not notice any marks on the left thigh. I think that I looked at it, and I felt the left knee through the clothes. He complained of being very feverish, and his pulse was very quick and his tongue much coated. He did not at any time complain of any pain in the throat. He spoke well, and showed no indication to me that there was anything the matter with his throat. I prescribed for him and said I would look in again in a day or two. I saw him again on the 11th. He was then much worse - suffering from difficulty of breathing. It was a peculiar sort of breathing, indicating a narrowing of the wind-pipe. I inferred it was inflammation, and examined the throat externally. I was then told he could not swallow and I then gave him something to drink. He kept it in his mouth for a long time and I found he could not swallow a drop of it. He complained of a good deal of pain in the top part of his throat generally. He only spoke in a whisper. I then examined the interior of his mouth with a spoon, but could detect no inflammation. I could not see into the windpipe, but only to the upper part of the gullet. I understood that the pains in his knees and elbows were better. I then noticed that the elbow was discoloured and the skin broken, which he told me was caused by the rubbing in of an embrocation and the effects of a mustard poultice, which had been supplied before I came. I prescribed for him and saw him again in two hours. When I called again I was told that in the interval between my first and second visit he had had an attack and had nearly died, he being obliged to sit up in his bed and fight for his breath. I then ordered leeches to be applied to the upper part of the neck, and other remedies, and that gave him relief. I told him I would call again the next day, and he said he did not think he should be alive. I saw him again on Thursday morning, when he was breathing better. He spoke in a more natural voice, and told me he was greatly relieved soon after the leeches. I ordered four leeches and they all took. He also said he had been able to take nourishment freely. I sent my assistant in the evening to see how he was, and the report was that he was going on favourably, and I did not see him myself again. At no time did he tell me of any violence having taken place. I have since, by the Coroner's directions, made a post mortem examination of the body - a very careful and particular one, assisted by Dr. Hulke. We found externally the discolouration of the left elbow, with the skin abrased or broken as before stated, also on the inside of the right thigh and the front of the left thigh discolouration like the marks of a bruise or blow. There were several of such that I noticed. There was also a bruise or discolouration on the scrotum below the bladder. Those on the thighs might have been produced by a blow or by kneeling, but more likely the latter. I should think, if there had been any kneeling with violence, it would be that which produced the marks I saw. I did not notice any external marks on either the chest or abdomen. I saw no external marks on the throat. Internal inflammation might exist in the throat, caused by external violence, without any outward marks being visible. On examining the chest we found no fracture of any ribs. We then examined the lungs. In the right side of the lung was intensely congested - especially the upper part, which was in the first stages of inflammation and sank when placed in water. There was very little fluid in the plenra, but a slight adhesion, which showed the marks of a former disease. The left lung was also very much congested, but not so much as the right. There was no inflammation and no part would sink. It was almost entirely adherent from former disease, but there were no marks of recent inflammation. The heart was quiet healthy. We found no injury to the walls of the chest. We then removed the windpipe and gullet, and some of the deep muscle around hem were congested. We laid open the gullet and found it healthy wave at the upper part, which was congested. We then opened the windpipe and larynx and found them highly inflamed. The mucous membrae was swollen, red, and injected with blood, and covered with nuco puriear matter. The inflammation was most marked in the windpipe just below the larynx. We then opened the abdomen and found everything there in a healthy state, and no poison in the stomach, not any rupture of any of the intestines. There was nothing the matter with either the kidneys or the liver. We did not take out or open the bladder, as on examining it externally we saw nothing the mater with it. We then opened the head and found slight congestion externally on the brain, but on opening it found nothing out of the usual order or unhealthy. We then examined the limbs, as on opening the left knee we found nothing. In the right knee we found the joint very much swollen and it contained two or three ounces of clear fluid. On cutting into the muscle of the interior part of the right thigh we found them of a dark purple from extensive bruises and extraversion of blood. This extended some distance up the thigh. We examined the arm, but there was nothing there. I attribute the death of deceased to the inflammation of the windpipe, and that no doubt caused the congestion of the lungs, which would no doubt cause inflammation there. I think it probably that the inflammation of the throat was caused from some bruise. The deep muscle of the throat that I found congested indicate also that there probably had been some external injury. I think a violent blow might result in the inflammation I saw in the joints of deceased, especially as the deceased's blood was in an inflammatory state, and such inflammation might be two or three days before it showed itself. The inflammation no doubt was caused by some violence.

A Juror: Would not the effect of walking about produce inflammation in these particular joints?

Dr. Woodman: Yes, it would increase the liability or tendency to inflammation.

The Juror: Did you ever in your experience as a medical practitioner see a parallel case to this?

Dr. Woodman replied that he had not.

The Juror: You said just now that you were kept in perfect ignorance that the man had suffered violence, but supposing the person who aught to have given you that information had done so, would the deceased have been in the same position that he is now?

The Coroner said he was not sure that the question was one that could be put to a witness, as it was of course quite impossible for him to say what might have happened.

In answer to another question, Dr. Woodman said deceased told him he was not to ask the wife any questions, but the daughter.

This concluded the evidence, and the Coroner then addressed a few observations to the jury, telling them that they had nothing whatever to do with the deceased's mode of life or condition, but simply as to what the cause of death, and how it took place. the circumstances of deceased's death  were stated with much force and clearness by Dr. Woodman to be inflammation of the throat which caused great difficulty of breathing, so much so in fact as to entirely stop breathing. That. according to the medical evidence, was the cause of death, and it was for the jury to say whether the injury of the throat had been caused in a natural way, unconnected in any way with violence, or whether it was, either directly or indirectly, the result of violence inflicted upon the deceased. The Coroner then commented upon the whole of the evidence in a very lucid manner, and, referring to the remark of one of the jurors who said he was of opinion that deceased had died of neglect, said he had no hesitation in charging the jury that even subsequent neglect should not exonerate the person who inflicted the injury from the full consequences of his acts.

The Jury then consulted together for a short time, and returned a verdict of "Manslaughter against Frank Vincent Gimber." A warrant was at once issued for the apprehension of Gimber, and the witnesses were all bound over to appear at the next Maidstone Assizes.

The proceedings then terminated, having lasted seven hours.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 18 June, 1870. 1d.

BOROUGH PETTY SESSIONS

The only business at these sessions on Thursday, which were attended by the Mayor, W. M. Cavell, and E. Brown Esqrs., in addition to the hearing of a poor-rate summons, was an application by Mr. Morris Langley, on behalf of Mr. Worthington, brewer, of Dover, for the license of the "Maxton Arms" public-house to be endorsed till next transfer day to a person named Macey. In answer to the Magistrates' Clerk, Mr. Langley said the present tenant. Mrs. Christy, had absconded, leaving three quarters' rent due; and, although an execution had been put in, the amount realised had not been sufficient to clear the whole of the arrears. The Clerk said that in a case of this nature the Deserted Tenements Act required that there should be six months' rent due before a landlord could resume possession, and as it transpired that the second quarter was not up till the 22nd inst. the application was ordered to stand over till next week.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 4 January, 1873.

A FALSE WITNESS

An old man 76 years of age, named Stephen Read, was charged upon the information of Sergt. Hodgson wuth having on the 18th of December, at the parish of Deal, unlawfully aided and assisted one, George Wilson, to desert from the Marine service, contrary to the Marine Mutiny Act.

Upon being asked the usual questions as to whether he were guilty or not, prisoner said he knew nothing about the matter. He did not know that he ever saw the man Wilson.

Edmund Stone deposed: I am a private in the Royal Marines stationed at Walmer. On the afternoon of the 18th of December I went out with a man named George Wilson, who has deserted since. I went to the "Sir John Falstaff" with him, and we had some beer. The prisoner was in the tap-room. Wilson called the prisoner on one said, and we all three went out - that is myself, the prisoner, and Wilson. Wilson said to prisoner, who was a few yards behind, "Here is 30s., go and buy a suit of clothes and bring them to the "Maxton Arms," and I will wait on you till you come." With that I left the party - viz, Wilson and the prisoner. A short time afterwards I went into a pawnbroker's to buy a scarf. There I saw the prisoner inside the shop buying a suit of clothes. He came out with it under his arm in a red handkerchief. I saw no more of him till about half-an-hour afterwards, when I went again to the "Maxton Arms," and I then saw the prisoner outside the house. I saw him come out. I went in the yard and in a certain place there I saw Wilson changing his clothes. When I saw Wilson he was putting a pair of trousers on. The striped regimental trousers were lying on the ground, and he was putting another pair on. I said he aught to know better, and then he came out and ran away. He had on a pair of regimental boots and another pair of trousers, but he had no coat on. I could tell he was wearing regimental boots, because I saw the seam at the back. It was not quite dark. I saw no more of him - he has deserted. When I heard him tell the old man to take the 30s. for the clothes, I did not know what he meant. I heard Wilson tell prisoner, as a reason for wanting the clothes, he was going to send them to his brother for a Christmas box. The old man might have thought he did want them for that purpose. I thought so too. I have been punished for being in Wilson's company. I told this to my Colonel after I was made a prisoner on the 19th about 12 o'clock. I had not said anything to anyone about it till then. Wilson was reported absent on the night he deserted. Wilson was not absent without leave.

Prisoner: The witness gave me the money to get the clothes just after we passed the General Post-office. He gave me three half-sovereigns.

Witness denied that he gave prisoner the money, and said, "as far as he could see," the money given to prisoner consisted of a sovereign and a half-sovereign, whereas he had before stated that Wilson gave the money to the prisoner when he (Stone) was walking in front of them.

The prisoner asserted most positively that the witness himself gave him the money, and after some close questioning by Mr. Mercer, Stone stated that he did hand the money to the prisoner, but said it was first given to him by the man Wilson.

The Magistrates remarked that after this the witness's statement as against the prisoner was worthless.

W. Clark, assistant to Mr. Wellden, said he remembered selling a suit of clothes to the prisoner but he was not quite certain as to the date, although he believed it to be about the 18th of last month. He was not certain what coin he received, but he believed it was a sovereign and a half-sovereign - it might have been three half-sovereigns. prisoner tried the coat on and also a hat that he bought. He did not say what he wanted them for. The prisoner was alone.
Supt. Parker said Mr. W. Chandler was present in Court, and could throw some light on the matter.

Mr. Chandler was accordingly sworn. He said: I was engaged with two of our men erecting a building in the yard of the "Maxton Arms," and saw the witness Stone come about three or four feet into the yard from the tap-room. He looked round the yard and then turned and went back into the tap-room. He then came out again with a Marine, who had a bundle under his arm and was also carrying a paper bag, which by the shape of it I guess contained a round-about hat. The men went round towards the closet, but Stone came back as far as the tap-room door and then walked back to the closet and spoke to the man inside. I could not hear what he said. Before Stone had time to turn and come away, the landlady ran out of the tap-room and asked Stone what he was doing and what he had got there. She went back and said she would send for the police, and another Marine started off directly. Then the landlord ran out, and I heard him say to the man who was in the closet, "What are you doing here?" The man replied that it was all right, but the landlord said he did not know that it was all right. I did not see the old man there at all. I afterwards saw Stone and the other Marine go away together, the both of them had their jackets on.

[It will be remembered that on Thursday week, when the landlord of the "Maxton Arms" was charged with assisting the man Wilson to desert, Stone stated that he discovered the man in the closet changing his dress, and that the landlord was standing outside.]
John Barker, corporal of the Marine police, said: From information received, I went to the Sir John Falstaff about five o'clock and I saw the prisoner in the tap-room. I asked him if he had carried a bundle to the "Maxton Arms. He said "No." I asked him a second time, and he denied all knowledge of it. I went away for about half-an-hour and came back again. I saw the prisoner and he again denied taking the bundle. Afterwards he told me that he did carry a bundle; that he met two men in Water Street, and they told him they would give him 2s. to carry the bundle to the "Maxton Arms." he took it there and sat it down in the tap-room, and one of the Marines gave him 2s., and he then came away. Afterwards I asked him where he bought the clothes, and he said he had not bought them at all. I was in uniform. I told him he would get into a scrape, and he had better tell me the truth. This I told him on the first visit.

Prisoner admitted that all this witness had stated was true.

Mr. Sidders, the landlord of the "Sir John Falstaff" said the prisoner was his uncle by marriage, and was staying with him, he having taken him out of the Union for a little while. Having corroborated the corporal's evidence, Mr. Sidders said that while the latter was gone to the "Maxton Arms," he and his wife called the old gentlemen into the bar and asked him if he had taken a bundle to the "Maxton Arms," and he then admitted that he had. Mr. Sidders informed prisoner that he ought to have told him of it before, because, being a pensioner, it was his, (Mr. Sidders's) duty to put such things.

In defence, prisoner said the man Stone gave him the money, and he bought the clothes and took them to the "Maxton Arms." He had not seen either of the men since. The man Wilson said he was going to give his clothes to his brother for a Christmas box. When he took the clothes to the "Maxton Arms" the other man gave him 2s. and wanted him to have something to drink, but he refused. After he got a short way from the house he met the man Stone, and he asked him to go back and have something to drink, but he declined.

The Magistrates deliberated in private for some time, and on the re-admission of the public, the Mayor announced that the Act of Parliament required certain things to be done in order for a person to be guilty of assisting a man to desert, and the present charge had not been proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrates. The act of buying clothes was not in itself an offence unless coupled with other things; and, therefore, under the circumstances, the case would be dismissed. The Magistrates desired him to say with respect to the evidence of the witness Stone, that they could not place any credence in it whatsoever. He had undoubtedly perjured himself, and on a former occasion might have got an innocent man into trouble.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 24 April, 1874. 1d.

DRUNK AND DISORDERLY

John Ashington, a boatman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the "Maxton Arms," on the 15th inst.

P.S. Philpott deposed that on the day named he went into the "Maxton Arms," not being on duty, and the defendant shook his fist in his face, and threatened to cut his throat. He repeated this several times, and was very drunk. He would not be quiet, and witness was forced to take him into custody.

A previous conviction was proved against the defendant and he was fined 20s. including costs.