|
25 Dover Road / Mill Lane
Folkestone
Address given as Mill Lane in 1858, Mill Street in 1864 and 37 Dover Road to 1891.
The house changed name to the "Clarence
Hotel" in 1893.
|
Maidstone Gazette 12 September 1848
Thursday – Licensing day; Before the Mayor and a full Bench of
Magistrates.
All the old licenses were renewed without opposition, and the
following new ones granted: William Larkins, late of the Old
Shakespeare, corner of Shellons Lane, for the New Shakespeare, Grace
Hill; Edward Iverson, Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street; Peter Wm. Foord,
New Inn, Mill Lane.
Notes: Tramway Tavern and New Inn transfers are later date. New
Shakespeare is a previously unknown house.
|
|
Maidstone Gazette 24 June 1851.
Petty Sessions, Wednesday; Before R. Hart Esq. Mayor, D. Major and
W. Major Esqs.
John Dennis appeared to answer the complaint of Richard Earl, for an
assault. From the evidence adduced, it appeared that the complainant
went with defendant to settle some business at the "New Inn," and
there quarrelled, that the complainant left the house, and the
defendant followed and struck him. The magistrates, after having
heard witnesses for both parties, dismissed the case.
|
|
Maidstone Journal 11 October 1853.
Some degree of excitement was prevalent in this town, on Wednesday
last, in consequence of the sudden death of policeman John Bean, it
being currently stated that the deceased had been injured by a
person he had taken into custody for some petty offence; we are,
however, glad to say that the medical evidence taken at the inquest
holden on the body, which we subjoin, quite exonerated the person
from all participation in the death, it being proved to be entirely
the result of chronic disease.
The inquest was holden at the New Inn, on the 6th inst., before
Silvester Eastes Esq., coroner, and a respectable jury. Mr. Edward
Bailey having been appointed foreman, the jury proceeded to view the
body, after which the following evidence was given:
Eliza Bean deposed she was the wife of deceased. Her late husband
first complained to her on Tuesday morning; he said he thought he
had over exerted himself; in the morning he was shivering, but still
he went on duty. Saw him again at noon; he was not cold then, but
complained of thirst; he went on duty in the afternoon, but returned
and got some tea a little after 4. He said he was not going on duty
that night. He took some medicine, and went to bed before 5. About
10 took him some tea and gruel, when he complained of a pain in his
head. About 12 he went to sleep, and continued quiet until half past
2, when he was very sick once or twice; witness then went to sleep,
and was awoke about a quarter past 4 by a rattling in the throat of
deceased. Called a lodger named Richard Luck, who immediately sent
for Mr. Eastes, surgeon, but he died before Mr. Eastes arrived. The
deceased had not complained of ill usage to witness.
The coroner here stated that he came immediately, and found the
deceased dead. From what he saw he had not died from cholera, nor
could he, from appearances, imagine the cause of death. Mrs. Bean
told him she thought he was injured. To remove any wrong impression
he had thought it best to order a post mortem examination to be
made, which had been done, and the evidence of the medical man would
be placed before them.
Peter Roscow deposed that at 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning he was
called to the deceased's house; the deceased was then dead, but the
body was warm. The only thing that called his attention was a
discolouration under the thighs and lower part of the back, which he
believed arose from natural causes. At 3 p.m. he made a post mortem
examination. The first thing thst struck hum was the extraordinary
bulk of the liver, which was double its usual size. The spleen was
also two or three times the natural size. The bowels were also in
their usual state. The stomach was much congested. The other organs
were healthy; the right lung adhered to the side throughout, but
both lungs were healthy, although much congested and filled with
blood. The heart and brain were healthy. The cause of death was
long-standing chronic disease of the liver and spleen, superadded to
cold affecting the mucous membrane.
Verdict: Died by the visitation of God.
Mr. Ford, from Mr. Hart, clerk to the justices, stated that he had
attended by direction of the justices, who were anxious to remove
any impression which might have arisen in the minds of the public
with reference to the sudden death of the policeman.
|
|
South Eastern Gazette, 11 October 1853.
Sudden Death of a Policeman.
On Wednesday morning, John Bean, one of the borough police, died
suddenly. A report was prevalent that the deceased had been injured
in taking a drunken man to the station-house. Mr. Eastes, surgeon,
and who is also the coroner, was sent for and attended; he found
that the poor man had just died, and from examination and enquiry he
could not ascertain the cause of death. Having heard the report of
the supposed injury, he caused a post mortem examination to be made.
On Thursday an inquest was held at the "New Inn," before Silvester
Eastes, Esq., on the body of John Bean, aged 33. The Mayor was
present to hear the proceedings.
Eliza Bean, wife of the deceased, deposed:— On Tuesday morning my
husband complained to me of feeling very sore and stiff in his
limbs. I thought he had hurt himself; he said also he was very cold;
he went again on duty and came home soon after twelve o’clock; he
said he was very poorly but then went again on duty and came home
soon after four o'clock, when he said he was not going on duty again
that night. He had got some pills from Mr. Hammon, the chemist,
which he took and went to bed; he continued poorly throughout the
night. At about ten o’clock I gave him some gruel; he then
complained of a pain across his forehead; he went to sleep till
about two o’clock, when he got up and went down stairs, observing
that he thought by moving about the pain would be removed. Have seen
him several times in a similar way. At about half-past two he
vomited a little, and complained of tightness across his chest. He
was perfectly sensible and quite warm. A little after four o’clock I
heard a rattling noise in his throat, and shortly afterwards he
expired.
By the Mayor:— My husband complained that the man he lifted was very
heavy; he did not say that he had received a blow from him.
Mr. Peter Roscow, surgeon, detailed the result of the post mortem
examination; he said he found the liver and spleen double the
natural size; the bowels were healthy, and by the appearance of one
of the lungs adhering to his side, the deceased must have suffered
much. The heart and brain were healthy; the liver was healthy in
structure, but large in size. Mr. Roscow, having fully explained to
the jury the appearances of the various organs, expressed his
opinion that the deceased died from natural causes; he thought it
probable that he had caught cold, and not seeking proper advice in
time, congestion of the lungs took place and caused his death.
By a Juror:— The pills supplied by Mr. Hammon were of the usual
kind, and contained nothing deleterious.
Verdict, "Natural death."
Mr. Ford, from the office of Mr. Hart, clerk to the justices,
addressing the coroner and jury, stated that the magistrates of the
borough being desirous that the cause of death of one of their
servants should be ascertained with certainty, he had received
instructions to attend and watch the proceedings on their part.
|
|
Dover Chronicle 15 October 1853.
On Wednesday morning week, John Bean, one of the Borough policemen,
died suddenly. A report was prevalent that the deceased had been
injured in taking a drunken man to the station house. Mr. Eastes,
surgeon, and who is also the coroner. Was sent for and attended; he
found that the poor man had just died, and from examination and
enquiry he could not ascertain the cause of death. Having heard the
report of the supposed injury, he caused a post mortem examination
to be made.
On Thursday an inquest was held at the New Inn, before Silvester
Eastes Esq., on the body of John Bean, aged 33. The Mayor was
present to hear the proceedings.
Eliza Bean, wife of the deceased, deposed:- On Tuesday morning my
husband complained to me of feeling very sore and stiff in his
limbs. I thought he had hurt himself; he said also he was very cold;
he went again on duty and came home soon after twelve o'clock; he
said he was very poorly but he went again on duty and came home soon
after four o'clock, when he said he was not going on duty again that
night. He had got some pills from Mr. Hammon, the chemist, which he
took and went to bed; he continued poorly throughout the night. At
about ten o'clock I gave him some gruel; he then complained of a
pain across his forehead; he went to sleep till about two o'clock,
when he got up and went downstairs, observing that he thought by
moving about the pain would be removed. Have seen him several times
in a similar way. At about half-past two he vomited a little, and
complained of tightness across his chest. He was perfectly sensible
and quite warm. A little after four o'clock I heard a rattling noise
in his throat, and shortly afterwards he expired.
By the Mayor: My husband complained that the man he lifted was very
heavy; he did not say that he had received a blow from him.
Mr. Peter Roscow, surgeon, detailed the result of the post mortem
examination; he said he found the liver and spleen double the
natural size; the bowels were healthy, and by the appearance of one
of the lungs adhering to his side, the deceased must have suffered
much. The heart and brain were healthy; the liver was healthy in
structure, but large in size. Mr. Roscow, having fully explained to
the jury the appearances of the various organs, expressed his
opinion that the deceased died from natural causes; he thought it
probable that he had caught cold, and not seeking proper advice in
time, congestion of the lungs took place and caused his death.
By a Juror: The pills supplied by Mr. Hammon were of the usual kind,
and contained nothing deleterious.
Verdict, “Natural death.”
Mr, Ford, from the office of Mr. Hart, clerk to the Justices,
addressing the coroner and jury, stated that the magistrates of the
borough being desirous that the cause of death of one of their
servants should be ascertained with certainty, he had received
instructions to attend and watch the proceedings on their part.
|
|
Kentish Mercury 15 October 1853.
Some degree of excitement was prevalent in this town, on Wednesday
week, in consequence of the sudden death of policeman John Bean, it
being currently stated that the deceased had been injured by a
person he had taken into custody for some petty offence; we are,
however, glad to say that the medical evidence taken at the inquest
holden on the body, which we adjoin, quite exonerated the person
from all participation in the death, it being proved to be entirely
the result of chronic disease.
The inquest was holden at the New Inn, on the 6th inst., before
Silvester Eastes Esq., coroner, and a respectable jury. Mr. Edward
Bailey having been appointed foreman, the jury proceeded to view the
body, after which the following evidence was given:
Eliza Bean deposed she was the wife of deceased. Her late husband
first complained to her on Tuesday morning; he said he thought he
had over exerted himself; in the morning he was shivering, but still
he went on duty. She saw him again at noon; he was not cold then,
but complained of thirst; he went on duty in the afternoon, but
returned and got some tea a little after 4. He said he was not going
on duty that night. He took some medicine, and went to bed before 5.
About 10 took him some tea and gruel, when he complained of a pain
in his head. About 12 he went to sleep, and continued quiet until
half past 2, when he was very sick once or twice; witness then went
to sleep, and was awoke about half past 4 by a rattling in the
throat of deceased. Called a lodger named Richard Luck, who
immediately sent for Mr. Eastes, surgeon, but he died before Mr.
Eastes arrived. The deceased had not complained of ill usage to
witness.
The coroner here stated that he came immediately, and found the
deceased dead. From what he saw he had not died from cholera, nor
could he, from appearances, imagine the cause of death. Mrs. Bean
told him she thought he was injured. To remove any wrong impression
he had thought it best to order a post mortem examination to be
made, which had been done, and the evidence of the medical man would
be placed before them.
Peter Roscow deposed that at 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning he was
called to the deceased's house; the deceased was then dead, but the
body was warm. The only thing that called his attention was a
discolouration under the thighs and lower part of the back, which he
believed arose from natural causes. At 3 p.m. he made a post mortem
examination. The first thing thst struck hum was the extraordinary
bulk of the liver, which was double its usual size. The spleen was
also two or three times the natural size. The bowels were also in
their usual state. The stomach was much congested. The other organs
were healthy; the right lung adhered to the side throughout, but
both lungs were healthy, although much congested and filled with
blood. The heart and brain were healthy. The cause of death was
long-standing chronic disease of the liver and spleen, superadded to
cold affecting the mucous membrane.
Verdict: Died by the visitation of God.
Mr. Ford, from Mr. Hart, clerk to the justices, stated that he had
attended by direction of the justices, who were anxious to remove
any impression which might have arisen in the minds of the public
with reference to the sudden death of the policeman.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 1 November 1853.
Thursday, October 27th: Before W. Smith and W. Major, Esqs.
The license granted to Peter William Foord to keep the New Inn, was
transferred to Henry Hughes.
|
|
Dover Chronicle 10 June 1854.
Bankruptcy Court: Re. J. Ward, Folkestone. An examination meeting
took place last week, under the failure of John Ward, of the
Clarendon Hotel. No opposition being offered, the bankrupt was
adjudged to have passed his examination.
Pavement Commissioners, Wednesday: The application of Mr. Hoad to
make a cellar opening to the New Inn, in George Lane, was
reconsidered at his request, the Mayor and two commissioners having
conferred with him on the spot. There was an evident wish to relieve
Mr. Hoad from a serious difficulty, and the commissioners visited
the spot. Upon their return, the Mayor reported the result, which
showed their good feeling was so little responded to, that a
favourable motion that had been made was met by an amendment, that
the application be not entertained, and carried by six to two.
Note: The words “New Inn” are a typo, and should have been in lower
case. This refers to the George, which was in the course of
erection, and I believe Hoad is the builder.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 20 June 1854.
Wednesday, June 14th: Before the Mayor, J, Kingsnorth and G. Kennicott,
Esqs.
George Garland, a plasterer, and Richard William Nichols, in the employ
or the. South Eastern Railway Company, were summoned by the
superintendent of police, for a breach of the peace at the New Inn,
Mill-lane, on Whit-Monday.
Bound over to be of good behaviour for three months.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 22 August 1854.
Notice: Insolvent debtor, to be heard at the Sessions House,
Maidstone, before the Judge of the County Court of Kent, on Tuesday,
the 5th day of September, 1854, at twelve o'clock at noon
precisely.
Peter William Foord, formerly of Mill Lane, Folkestone, Kent,
carpenter and builder; then of the New Inn, Mill Lane aforesaid,
licensed victualler, and carpenter, builder and undertaker; then of
No. 5, Great Warner Street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, out of business
or employ; and then and late of Hythe, out of business or employ.
Charles Morgan, Maidstone, Inselvent's Attorney.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 12 September 1854.
Kent County Court, Maidstone, Tuesday: Before J. Epinasse Esq.,
Judge.
Insolvent: Peter William Foord, formerly of the New Inn, Folkestone,
and late of Hythe, out of business or employ, was supported by Mr.
Reed, barrister, and opposed by Mr. Goodwin, solicitor, on the part
of the detaining creditors, Messrs. Leney, of Wateringbury. The
grounds of opposition were that the insolvent had given undue
preference to several of his creditors, contracted debts without
reasonable expectation of paying them, made away with property, and
vexatiously defended an action, and also that his balance sheet was
defective. After the insolvent had undergone a lengthened
examination, His Honour said it was the weakest case of opposition
he ever heard, and ordered him his discharge.
|
|
Canterbury Weekly Journal 14 April 1855.
William Jessup was brought up at the Petty Sessions last week,
charged by William Larkins, under-bailiff of the County Court, with
having in his possession a pony, which he, the complainant had
distrained for rent by virtue of his warrant. It appeared that
Larkins went to a stable near North Street, in the occupation of a
Mr. Crumby, to distrain for ground rent due to Mr. Puttie. In the
stable was a pony, which Larkins distrained upon, and he was in the
act of fastening up the door when he was prevented by Crumby, who
pushed him away. The pony was afterwards found in Jessup's stable,
who claimed it as his own; it was, however, taken by the police and
put into the "New Inn" stables, from whence it was stolen.
Jessup, in his defence, said he had bought the pony three months
before of Crumby, to whom he had lent it.
The case was adjourned for the production of further evidence.
Since then the pony has been found at Dover, where it was
represented that it had been sold, and a deposit of £5 paid upon it.
The police, however, brought the pony away. Mr. Banks was the broker
who had the order to distrain, and he stated to the magistrates that
he felt bound to bring the case before them to protect this man from
a like obstruction in executing a distress warrant in future.
|
|
Canterbury Journal 21 April 1855.
William Crumby, remanded from Thursday week, was again had before
the magistrates on Saturday, charged with stealing a pony from the
stables at the New Inn, Folkestone, on the 3rd inst., where it had
been placed for safe custody by the police. It appeared from the
evidence adduced that the pony had been seized by Mr. Banks, the
broker, for rent due to Mr. George Puttee, after which the pony was
stolen and taken to Dover and sold to Mr. John Amos, the landlord of
the Golden Lion, Priory Street, where it was found on the following
day by Superintendent Steer, and taken possession of. The
depositions of some of the witnesses were taken and the prisoner was
further remanded till today in consequence of one of the witnesses,
William Oakley, the ostler of the New Inn, refusing to answer the
question put to him by the bench, as to receiving the pony into his
custody. After being several times requested by the bench to answer
and refusing to do so, the bench ordered him to be imprisoned for
six days for contempt of court, unless he consented before the term
to be examined. He was afterwards conveyed to gaol, at the same time
stating they might transport him if they liked, and then he would not
answer.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 24 April 1855.
Petty Sessions; Before W. Major and G. Kennicott Esqs.
William Crumby, remanded from last week, charged with stealing a
pony from the stables of the New Inn, was again brought up. It
appeared that the pony had been seized for rent due to Mr. George
Puttee; it was afterwards removed from the stable where it was
seized, and recovered again by a search warrant from the premises in
the occupation of William Jessup, and taken by the police to the New
Inn stables, where it was stolen by Crumby, ridden to Dover, and
sold to a man named William Ames, landlord of the Golden Lion,
Priory Street, where it was found next day by Superintendent Steers
and taken possession of. Several witnesses were examined to prove
the above facts, but one witness, William Oakley, refused to give
evidence, and was committed to prison for six days for contempt of
court. Crumby has since been committed for trial, bail being
accepted, himself in £80, and two sureties in £40 each.
|
|
Dover Telegraph 21 July 1855.
The starting of two horses attached to a brewer's dray here on
Monday placed in jeopardy the lives of a husband, wife, and child,
and terminated in the death of the latter, in severe injury to the
woman, and the more fortunate escape of the man, though not without
a fractured thumb, and several contusions on the head, &c. The
parties were from Dover, and of the name of Drowley. The man was
formerly groom, &c., to Mr. A. Kingsford, brewer, of Buckland, but
was now employed in the brewery, and had been engaged on the day in
question in conveying some beer to Hythe. The vehicle used was one
styled the “small beer dray”, and known in the locality of Dover
(from which it seldom emerged) from the peculiar character of the
tilt, which was of a canopy-like form, and supported by upright iron
rods – the two horses attached to it being driven in tandem. The
dray left Dover shortly before noon, and reached its destination in
safety. The wife of Drowley, who is enceinte, and had for some time
been unwell, accompanied her husband, thinking a little change might
be beneficial, and took with her their youngest child, a fine little
fellow 2 years and 9 months old, named (after his father) Edward.
The wife and child were put down at Sandgate, and taken up on the
return from Hythe. All went on well until they had proceeded as far
as the Folkestone branch of the National Provincial Bank, opposite
to which the fore horse made a start, from the circumstance of it
being struck by one of the hooks of the trace. The driver's “Wo!”
instantly checked the speed of the animal, but the sudden stoppage
brought the shaft into contact with the leading horse, and off he
bolted again. The danger involved in passing through the circuitous
thoroughfare of the town was at once apparent to Drowley, who
attempted to jump down, when his foot became entangled in the reins,
and he was struck by the fore-wheel, which passed over one of his
hands, breaking the thumb and injuring several of the fingers. It is
said that Drowley had previously made every effort to stop the
horses, but that the breaking of the reins deprived him of control
over them. There were several persons in the dray, who, with the
exception of Drowley's wife and child, succeeded in getting out on
Grace Hill. On the dray reaching the bottom of the hill (near the
top of Tontine Street) it came into violent contact with the post,
breaking the vehicle asunder in the middle, forcing off the two hind
wheels, and throwing forcibly out the woman and child, the latter
being killed on the spot, and the former sustaining a fracture of
the collar bone, and other severe injuries. The horses continued
going on for a short distance, but were stopped before further
injury was sustained to any party. The poor woman was promptly
removed to the New Inn, where medical assistance was secured, and
though doubts of her surviving her injuries were at first prevalent,
it is said that she is now progressing favourably.
An inquest was held on the body of the child on the following day,
when a verdict of “Accidental Death” was recorded, and it was
elicited that no blame could be attached to the driver. In noticing
this lamentable circumstance, we have not the painful task of adding
that the cause is attributable either to negligence or intemperance.
The occurrence was purely accidental; and from enquiries we learn,
not only that the driver was perfectly sober at the time, but that
he bears a most excellent character for sobriety, and is deservedly
esteemed for his good conduct by his highly respected employer, Mr.
Kingsford.
|
|
From the Kentish Gazette, 26 May 1857.
Accident.
On Thursday morning a serious accident occurred to Mr. Hughes,
landlord of the "New Inn," who was driving a vehicle from Sandgate
to Folkestone, and who, on coming down the slope entering the latter
place, jumped from the carriage, with the rein over his arm, for the
purpose of stopping the horse. He missed his footing, and his arm in
some way becoming entangled with the rein, he sustained a compound
fracture, the bone penetrating the thick part of the flesh. We are
happy to say he is doing well.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 26 May 1857.
Accident: Mr. Hughes, of the "New Inn," Folkestone, broke his arm on
Thursday evening last by falling out of his van on the Sandgate
Road.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 17 April 1858
Wednesday April 14th: - Before R.W. Boarer esq., Mayor, James Kelcey and
W. Bateman esqs, and Capt. Kennicott.
The licence of the New Inn was transferred from Henry Hughes to Spencer
Hayward.
Note: New Inn transfer is at odds with More Bastions.
|
|
From the Folkestone Observer 11 June, 1864.
DRUNKENNESS
Monday June 6th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt,
Esq.
Louisa Austin, the dissipated wife of a barrister, and who has made
sundry appearances at this court lately on charges of drunkenness, was
again placed in the dock.
P.C. Ovenden said that about midnight he found the prisoner lying
down, partly on the doorstep of the "New Inn" public house and partly on
the pavement. She was drunk, asleep and snoring. He roused her up, but
it was some time before he could make anything of her. She was quite
helpless, but he obtained assistance and brought her to the station.
Prisoner said: I was at the door of my own lodging. I had walked two
miles. I am suffering from palpitation of the heart. I am taking most
deadly drugs. All the medical men of the town can bear me out. I am
taking prussic acid. I was waiting till they came down to open the door
to me. They are very kind people, and they would have been sure to let
me in. I am the daughter of a gentleman, and the wife of a gentleman. I
would rather dash my brains out. I would go away today if I had the
money. For God's sake forgive me. You will sign my death warrant if you
do anything to me. There is a doctor has had his hand on my heart
counting for my life.
Captain Kennicott: If you were not to drink intoxicating liquors your
heart would be all right. There is one thing in your favour – you were
not noisy. We don't know what to do with you. We will try you once more.
You are discharged. If you come here again we will give you a month.
|
|
Folkestone Observer 11 June 1864.
Monday June 6th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.
Louisa Austin, the dissipated wife of a barrister, and who has made
sundry appearances at this court lately on charges of drunkenness, was
again placed in the dock.
P.C. Ovenden said that about midnight he found the prisoner lying down,
partly on the doorstep of the New Inn public house and partly on the
pavement. She was drunk, asleep and snoring. He roused her up, but it
was some time before he could make anything of her. She was quite
helpless, but he obtained assistance and brought her to the station.
Prisoner said: I was at the door of my own lodging. I had walked two
miles. I am suffering from palpitation of the heart. I am taking most
deadly drugs. All the medical men of the town can bear me out. I am
taking prussic acid. I was waiting till they came down to open the door
to me. They are very kind people, and they would have been sure to let
me in. I am the daughter of a gentleman, and the wife of a gentleman. I
would rather dash my brains out. I would go away today if I had the
money. For God's sake forgive me. You will sign my death warrant if you
do anything to me. There is a doctor has had his hand on my heart
counting for my life.
Captain Kennicott: If you were not to drink intoxicating liquors your
heart would be all right. There is one thing in your favour – you were
not noisy. We don't know what to do with you. We will try you once more.
You are discharged. If you come here again we will give you a month.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 1 October 1864.
Advert for Auction:
Lot 1: The well known Established Inn, known as the NEW INN, situate in
Mill Street, Folkestone, at the top of Tontine Street, with the
Coach-houses, Stables, and appurtenances thereto belonging.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 29 June 1867.
Notice:
Bankruptcy Act 1861.
John Wallis, late of No. 6, Dover Street, Folkestone, Kent, previously
of the New Inn, Folkestone, aforesaid, out of business, and formerly of
the Pavilion Shades, Folkestone, aforesaid, Licensed Victualler, and
late a Prisoner for Debt in Maidstone Gaol, having been adjudged
Bankrupt by the Registrar of the County Court of Kent, holden at
Maidstone, attending at the Gaol aforesaid on the 19th day of June,
1867, and the adjudication being directed to be prosecuted at the County
Court of Kent, holden at Folkestone, is hereby required to surrender
himself to Ralph Thomas Brockman, Registrar of the said last mentioned
Court, at the first meeting of creditors, to be held on the Eighth day
of July, 1867, at three o'clock in the afternoon precisely, at the
County Court Office, Folkestone, aforesaid.
John Minter, of Folkestone, is the Solicitor acting in the Bankruptcy.
At the meeting the Registrar will receive the proofs of the debts of the
Creditors, and the Creditors may choose an Assignee or Assignees of the
Bankrupt's Estate and Effects.
All persons having in their possession any of the effects of the said
Bankrupt, must deliver them to the Registrar, and all debts due to the
Bankrupt must be paid to the Registrar.
Note: More Bastions has no note of Wallis being landlord at the New Inn.
|
|
Folkestone Express 18 April 1868.
Advertisement
NEW INN.
Family and Commercial Hotel
TOP OF TONTINE STREET
All spirituous liquors warranted of the finest quality
Prime Pale Ale 6d. per quart
Best Black or Mixed Tea 2s. 6d. per lb.
Best Green 3s. per lb.
Loaf Sugar 5d. per lb.
John Arthur Smith.
Proprietor.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 27 February 1869.
Wednesday, February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes
Esq.
License of the following house was transferred at a special sessions:-
The New Inn to Richard White.
|
|
Folkestone Observer 27 February 1869.
Tuesday, February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.
Richard Holtum White applied for a transfer of the license granted to
John Smith, to sell at the New Inn. Granted.
|
|
Folkestone Express 27 February 1869.
Wednesday, February 24th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes
Esq.
Transfer of License.
The New Inn – R. White applied for a transfer from Arthur Smith.
Granted.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 1 March 1869.
Transfer of Licence.—The following licence was applied for on Wednesday
and granted :—R. White, from Arthur Smith, of the New Inn.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 28 August 1869.
Tuesday August 24th: Before S. Eastes, J. Gambrill, J. Clark, and J.
Tolputt Esqs.
William Burbridge, a deserter from Chatham, was charged with felony.
Ellen Parks said: I live at the New Inn. Prisoner came into the bar
yesterday afternoon at three o'clock, and asked the way to the station,
and left again. A quarter of an hour after, I went into the bar again,
and saw him leaning over the bar with his hand in the till. He then
called for a glass of ale, and put down a penny. I drew the beer, and on
going to the till, missed two halfcrowns, which were there five minutes
before. I charged him with the theft, but he denied it. I called mother
and sent for a policeman. Prisoner then took out a halfcrown, and said
he had taken it, for he was badly off. I told him he had taken more than
that, and he took another from his pocket, and said that was all he had.
P.C. Smith then came in, and I gave prisoner into custody.
P.C. Smith said he took prisoner into custody and charged him with
stealing money out of the till. He said he only took two halfcrowns. On
searching him at the police station he found 2s. 5d. in his possession.
Prisoner was then formally charged with the offence, pleaded guilty,
consented to be tried by the Bench, and was committed to two months'
hard labour as a warning to him.
Note: Parks appears to have been a relative to the licensee.
|
|
Folkestone Express 28 August 1869.
Tuesday, August 24th: Before S. Eastes, J. Tolputt, J. Gambrill and J.
Clark Esqs.
William Burridge was charged with stealing two half crowns from the New
Inn on Monday, they being the property of Thomas Henry Parks.
Miss Ellen Parks deposed to seeing the prisoner reaching over the
counter; his hands were near the till. When he saw her he asked for a
glass of beer. She went to the till and missed two half crowns, and
charged the prisoner with theft.
P.C. Smith said, on charging the prisoner, he said he was guilty, but
would not have done so had he not been badly off.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to two calendar months'
imprisonment.
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 30 August 1869.
Local News.
On Tuesday, at the Police Court, before Silvester Eastes, James Tolputt,
J. Gambrill, and John Clark, Esqrs., William Burridge was charged at the
same sitting with stealing two half-crowns, the property of Ellen
Sparkes, on the 23rd inst. Ellen Sparkes said : I live at the New Inn, Mill Lane. Prisoner came
there yesterday between three and four, and asked me at the bar the way
to the railway station. He afterwards left the house, but about half an
hour afterwards I saw him leaning over the counter, taking his hand from
the till. I was in the room close by the bar at the time, but when I
came out he asked me for a glass of beer. The till was shut when I left
it, but at that time it was a little way open. I drew the beer, and on
going to the till I missed the two half-crowns. I told the prisoner he
had been taking the money from the till, and he denied it. I then called
my mother, and sent for a policeman. Before the policeman came prisoner
said he did take the money, and put down one and then the last
half-crown. When the policeman came in I gave him into custody.
P.C. Smith proved taking the prisoner into custody, and on searching him
at the police station he found the money on him.
Prisoner pleaded guilty, and said he was sorry for what had occurred.
The Bench sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment with hard labour.
|
|
Folkestone Observer 3 February 1870.
John Williams applied for a transfer of the license granted to John
Henry Parks to sell excisable liquors at the New Inn. The application
was granted.
|
|
Folkestone Express 5 February 1870.
Thursday, February 3rd: Before R.W. Boarer and A.M. Leith Esqs.
A temporary authority was granted to John Williams to sell spirits at
the New Inn, Mill Lane.
|
|
Folkestone Observer 24 February 1870.
Wednesday, February 23rd: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J.
Gambrill and J. Clark Esqs.
Transfer of License.
John Williams applied for a renewal of temporary authority granted to
him on the 3rd of February last. It appeared the notices of the
application had not been delivered through some neglect, but the
magistrates granted a temporary authority until the annual licensing
day, 6th January, 1871.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 26 February 1870.
Wednesday February 22nd: Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer, John Clark, and
John Gambrill Esqs.
This was a special sessions for the transfer of licenses, and for other
business.
John Williams asked for a renewal of his permission to sell excisable
liquors, he not having served the requisite notices. It was granted.
|
|
Folkestone Express 26 February 1870.
Wednesday, February 23rd: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J.
Gambrill and J. Clark Esqs.
Special Licensing Meeting.
New Inn: John Williams applied for a further extension of his temporary
authority to sell excisable liquors, a clerk in the Magistrates' Office
having forgotten to serve the notices for a transfer. If the applicant
himself had omitted to do so, the Bench would, according to their usual
practice, refuse the application, but under these exceptional
circumstances the extension was granted.
|
|
Folkestone Observer 7 April 1870.
Wednesday, April 6th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt, and
A.M. Leith Esqs.
This was a special session for transferring and granting alehouse
licenses.
The license of the New Inn was transferred from Thomas Henry Parks to
John Williams.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 9 April 1870.
Wednesday April 6th: Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and A.M.
Leith Esqs.
The license of the New Inn was transferred from Thomas H. Parkes to John
Williams.
|
|
Folkestone Express 9 April 1870.
Wednesday, April 6th: Before The Mayor, A.M. Leith, J. Tolputt and R.W.
Boarer Esqs.
The following transfer received the sanction of the Magistrates:
New Inn: From Thomas Henry Cox to John Williams.
Note: No mention of Cox at this date in More Bastions. Should this be
Parkes?
|
|
Southeastern Gazette 11 April 1870.
Special Petty Sessions.
A special session was held on Wednesday for transferring and granting
alehouse licences.
The licence of the New Inn was transferred from Thomas Henry Parks to
John Williams.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 30 July 1870.
Wednesday July 27th: Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer, and C.H. Dashwood
Esqs.
William Cox was charged with being drunk and riotous in Mill Lane, and
with using obscene language, and with assaulting P.C. Smith in the
execution of his duty.
P.C. Smith said that on that morning about two o'clock he was in Mill
Lane, and saw the prisoner drunk. He was with two others, and knocked at
the door of the New Inn, and bawled to the landlord for some beer. The
others, at his request, went home, but prisoner said he should remain as
long as he liked. He left him and went up around St. Michael's Church.
He came down, and used some obscene and abusive language towards him,
and he told prisoner that if he did not go home he would lock him up. He
threw several stones at him, and the one produced he caught in his hand,
and it knocked a piece of skin off. He then closed with the prisoner and
with the assistance of the man with the mail cart, handcuffed him and
brought him to the station. They were obliged to have the assistance of
the lamplighter to carry him to the bottom of Grace Hill as he kicked so
much.
The prisoner, in defence, said he was quiet in the streets when the
police constable accosted him and told him to go home. He did so, and
his father sent him out on an errand, and he was suddenly surprised by a
kick from behind from the policeman, who was as drunk as he could be. He
never threw a stone at him.
Daniel Bishop, the lamplighter, was examined, and supported the
policeman's evidence, and the Bench committed the prisoner for seven
days for being drunk and riotous and fourteen days for obstructing the
police.
|
|
Folkestone Express 30 July 1870.
Wednesday, July 27th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and C.H. Dashwood
Esqs.
William Cox was charged with assaulting P.C. Smith in the execution of
his duty, and with being drunk and riotous.
P.C. Smith deposed that about two o'clock that morning he saw the
prisoner and another man knocking at the door of the New Inn, Mill Lane,
and he told them to go home. He replied he would go where he liked, and
walked round St. Michael's Church. Witness followed him, when prisoner
set to, stoning him and using bad language. With the assistance of
another man he succeeded in taking him into custody.
The prisoner denied the policeman's evidence, and alleged that he kicked
him first and that the policeman was drunk.
He called Daniel Bishop, lamplighter, who denied that the prisoner used
violence, and stated that they were both sober.
The Bench committed him for twenty one days on the two charges.
|
|
Folkestone Express 15 October 1870.
Monday, October 10th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, C.H. Dashwood, and
J. Clark Esqs.
George Collington, a fly driver, was brought up on a warrant, charged
with stealing a pocket handkerchief, the property of Filmer Tyas.
Mr. Filmer Tyas said: I live at No.3, Queen Street. I went into the New
Inn last night about quarter past seven and stood in front of the bar.
The prisoner was sitting down just inside of the bar and I stood beside
him. I called for a pint of beer and after I had drank it I put my hand
in my coat pocket and found my handkerchief was gone. It was in my hand
when I came into the house. I turned round and said “I have lost my
handkerchief since I have been in the bar”, and asked the prisoner and
another man sitting there whether they had taken it. The prisoner
replied he had not taken it out of my pocket or seen it. The other man
said nothing, but made motions which I understood to mean that the
prisoner had it. I then accused the prisoner of taking it, when, with an
oath, he replied he had not seen it. I drank my beer and said to the
prisoner ”If you have got my handkerchief, give it to me. I want to go”.
He still persisted in the statement that he had not seen it. I asked the
other man if he had seen the prisoner take it, and he said he had and
persuaded the prisoner to give it to me. I said I should send for a
policeman. He said he had not got it, and I could send for a policeman
and lock him up, or knock it out of him if I thought proper. I sent for
a policeman, and during the interval the landlord of the house said “If
you have got the man's handkerchief why don't you give it up to him?” He
said “I'll see him d---- first. I'll not give it up for half a crown.
I'll wait till the policeman comes now”. P.C. Ovenden came and I gave
the prisoner into his charge, and he denied all knowledge of the
handkerchief. While standing at the door I saw the prisoner with his
hands behind him underneath his coat. He took the handkerchief from
underneath and threw it out on the footpath. I called the policeman's
attention to it, and Mr. Williams' dog went and picked it up. The
handkerchief was a white one with black spots, quite new, and is valued
at 8d. The witness here identified the handkerchief produced as his
property.
Benjamin Errey, a cab driver, the man spoken of by the last witness,
deposed to seeing the prisoner take the handkerchief and charged with
the robbery, which he denied.
P.C. Ovenden said: On taking the prisoner into custody he said “Lock me
up. I want you to lock me up”. When the charge was read over to the
prisoner at the station he admitted the handkerchief.
The prisoner admitted the charge and elected to be tried by the
Magistrates.
The Bench sentenced him to be imprisoned for 14 days with hard labour.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 6 May 1871.
Thursday, May 4th: Before The Mayor and C.H. Dashwood Esq.
Thomas William Cobb applied for a license to sell excisable liquors at
the New Inn under the license granted to John Williams. The Bench
granted the application.
|
|
Folkestone Express 6 May 1871.
Transfer of License.
The New Inn: The license of this house was on Thursday transferred to
Mr. Thomas William Cobb from John Williams.
|
|
Folkestone Express 27 May 1871.
Wednesday, May 24th:
Transfer of License.
The license granted to Mr. John Williams (New Inn) was transferred to
Mr. T.W. Cobb at the Petty Sessions on Wednesday last.
|
|
Folkestone Express 3 May 1873.
Monday, April 28th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.
The license of the New Inn, Dover Road, was transferred to Stephen
Woollett, formerly a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel.
|
|
Folkestone Express 6 September 1873.
Wednesday, September 3rd: Before The Mayor and W. Bateman Esq.
Filmer Tyas and Ellen Dawkins were charged with being drunk and
disorderly in Dover Road; also with using obscene language.
P.C. Smith said the pair were fighting in front of the New Inn about
half past twelve on Wednesday morning. They were both drunk and using
obscene language. As they refused to go away he took them into custody,
but Tyas managed to escape. He then took the woman towards the police
station, and when near Hillside House met Supt. Wilshere and Sergt.
Reynolds and gave the woman into their custody and went back for Tyas
and found him near the Mechanics Arms and took him into custody.
Mr. Thomas Mummery said he was disturbed by a noise of two persons
quarrelling, and on looking out of the window saw the prisoners
scuffling, and heard them use very bad language. It was not the first
time he had been disturbed in a similar way.
Supt. Wilshere said he received prisoner Dawkins from P.C. Smith. He
could hear her using obscene language some time before they came up. She
threw herself down and it was as much as he and Sergt. Reynolds could do
to get her to the station, having to carry her some of the way.
Prisoner said they had a dispute about an earring which the female
prisoner had lost, but stoutly denied being drunk or fighting, or using
bad language.
Superintendent Wilshere said Tyas was very violent after he was taken to
the station, and threatened to do for two of the policemen. He had been
twice convicted of assaulting the police.
Prisoners were fined 10s. and 5s. costs each for being drunk and
disorderly, or 14 days' hard labour in default. For using obscene
language they were fined 10s. and 3s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days' hard
labour in default.
Dawkins paid, and Tyas was removed in custody.
|
|
Folkestone Express 11 July 1874.
Advertisement Extract.
Mr. John Banks is instructed to sell by Auction, at the King's Arms
Hotel, Folkestone.
On Monday, July 27th, 1874, at Six O'Clock in the Evening.
The Following Valuable Freehold and Leasehold Properties and Ground Rent.
Lot 1: All that well and substantially built Leasehold Public House,
with the Stables, Coach House, and Carpenter's Workshop thereunto
belonging, situate and known as the New Inn, Dover Road, Folkestone, and
in the occupation of Messrs. C. & A. Dickenson, Brewers. The basement
contains kitchen, scullery, beer and wine cellars. Ground Floor: front
and Back parlours, Bar Parlour, Tap Room and Bar. First Floor: 4
Bedrooms and W.C. Second Floor: 4 Bedrooms.
|
|
Folkestone Express 19 December 1874.
Wednesday, December 16th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq. and Col. De
Crespigny.
License Transfer.
This was one of the days appointed for the transfer of licenses. The
following application was heard:
That of the New Inn, Dover Road, from R. Williams to Charles Collins.
In this case the applicant had omitted to bring with him his
testimonials as to character. He said he had kept houses of the kind in
Whitechapel and Limehouse, but never knew such certificates were
necessary.
The Bench admonished Collins as to his neglect, but decided to grant the
application.
|
|
Folkestone Express 10 April 1875.
Wednesday, April 7th: Before W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and J.
Kelcey Esqs.
The License fo the New Inn, Dover Road, was transferred from Charles
Collins to William John Edward Collins.
|
|
Folkestone Express 7 December 1878.
Monday, December 2nd: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain
Crowe, Captain Fletcher, and R.W. Boarer Esq.
William Henry West, a plasterer, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and
disorderly, and refusing to quit the New Inn on Saturday night.
He was fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs for each offence, or seven days' hard
labour, and the Mayor at the same time said he was sorry to say that the
plasterers in the town were, as a rule, a disgrace to their fellow
townsmen.
|
|
Folkestone Express 21 June 1879.
Saturday, June 14th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Col. De Crespigny, W.J.
Jeffreason and Willoughby Carter Esqs, and Aldermen Caister and
Sherwood.
Walter Knell was summoned for assaulting James Baker at the New Inn on
the 9th June.
James Baker, a woodman, living at Setlling Minnis, said that a short
time back he had a mare for sale, and the defendant went up to him and
told him that he knew where he (the defendant) could sell the mare for
£20. Witness let him have the mare on the condition that he received £10
within three days. On Monday the 9th inst. he went to the defendant in
Mill Bay and asked him for his mare, but defendant would not give it up.
Between nine and ten o'clock he went to the New Inn, and while he was
there the defendant went in and hit him in the eye.
Cross-examined by defendant: I did not threaten to knock your brains out
with the butt end of my whip.
The defendant said that Baker was drunk at the time and flourished his
whip round his head, and he pushed him away so that he would not hit
him.
The Magistrates considered the case proved, and fined Knell 5s. 6d., and
9s. costs, or in default seven days' hard labour.
|
|
Folkestone Express 15 December 1883.
Wednesday, December 12th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and
Sherwood, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.
Samuel Barker was charged with obtaining a horse and cart by false
pretences from William Swan.
Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Martin Mowll defended.
Prosecutor said he was a labourer, living at Postling, and on the 5th of
December he owned a pony and cart. He came into Folkestone on that day,
and put up at the New Inn. Had not seen the defendant previously. He saw
him at the New Inn stables, and afterwards at the bar. Witness was going
to “chop” his horse and cart with a man named Stone, and he was waiting
for Stone to come. Defendant told him Stone would not come back, he told
him “straight”, and it was no use his waiting. Between three and four
o'clock he told defendant that he would sell the lot and go to work
again. He said he wanted £7 for it. Baker said he would give £5. He
refused to sell it for £5, but afterwards told the defendant he could
have it for £5 5s. Defendant said he would have it, and if witness would
go with him he would pay him. They went to the Harvey Inn, and defendant
asked if someone was in. The landlord said “No”. Defendant then took
10s. out of his pocket and gave it to witness, saying he would go out
and get the remainder. He told Baker he was not going to have the horse
and cart without the money. He replied “O h, you needn't be afraid of
your money. You come along with me”. They went together to a public
house in Dover Street, where defendant said he could “get a bit of
money”. He said he was the owner of houses, and had lots of property.
Then they went to the Eagle Tavern, High Street, where defendant had a
paper written out (two or three scraps of paper were put in). He told
witness he would pay at ten o'clock the next morning. Witness still
refused to let him have the horse and cart. In the presence of the
landlord, Baker said he was the owner of houses, and believing that
statement was true, he allowed him to take the horse and cart, and
defendant promised to pay him at ten o'clock the next morning. Witness
went to defendant's house at Foord at ten o'clock the next morning and
saw defendant's wife, but defendant was not at home. He could neither
find defendant nor his pony and cart. He searched about the town for him
that day and the next, and then went to the police.
Cross-examined: I came to Folkestone with the intention of “chopping”
the pony away with a man named Stone, a horse dealer, of Dover, whom I
saw the day before. The 10s. was paid me at the Harvey, and the
agreement was drawn up at the Eagle Tavern by the landlord. It was drawn
up to show Baker would have to pay me £4 15s. on the next day. I made an
entry in my pocket book. I saw the police on Thursday morning. A
policeman told me I must summons him. I believe I told the policeman
that Baker said he had property.
Re-examined: I should not have parted with the horse and cart if Baker
had not said he was the owner of houses. I proposed to come to your
office. Baker said you closed at four o'clock. The sergeant of police
told him the character Baker bore.
Sergeant Ovenden said he had known Baker about ten years. Never heard of
his having any house property. Could not say whether the furniture in
his house belonged to him.
By the Court: Defendant is a dealer in ducks, horses, rags and bones,
and bottles.
Mr. Minter asked the Bench to commit the prisoner for trial on the
evidence.
Mr. Mowll contended that there had not been a prima facie case made out,
but that on the contrary, the complainant, a dealer, sold his property
to another dealer, and that there was not the slightest possible cause
for saying the defendant had been guilty of a criminal act.
The Magistrates' Clerk said if the defendant did not intend to pay for
the property, and if all those papers were a mere trick, then it was a
case of larceny.
The Bench decided to commit the prisoner for trial at the Quarter
Sessions.
|
|
Folkestone Express 12 January 1884.
Quarter Sessions.
Monday, January 5th: Before W. Frederick Laxton Esq.
Samuel Baker was indicted for obtaining by false pretences a horse and
cart and harness, value £5 5s., from Wm. Swan, at Folkestone on the 5th
December. Mr. Denman prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The
case was heard so recently before the magistrates that it is only
necessary now to give a summary of the evidence.
William Swan, a labourer, living at Postling, stated that he came into
Folkestone on the 5th December and put up at the New Inn, where he
expected to meet a man named Stone, who had arranged to buy his horse
and cart. Stone did not come, but he saw Baker, who said Stone would not
be back, and asked him what he wanted for the horse and cart. He asked
£7. Prisoner said he would give him £5, but afterwards offered £5 5s.
Prosecutor agreed to sell for that amount. They went together to the
Harvey Hotel, where prisoner gave him 10s. He told him that he need not
be afraid about his money – that he owned lots of houses round about
there, and had plenty of money. He wanted prisoner to go to Mr. Minter's
office and get an agreement drawn up. Prisoner replied “Mr. Minter shuts
up at four o'clock”. They afterwards went to the Eagle Tavern, where the
landlord wrote a memorandum in prosecutor's pocket book to the effect
that prisoner would pay the balance at ten o'clock the next morning. He
believed that prisoner was the owner of houses, or would not have
consented to part with the horse and cart. The next morning at ten
o'clock he returned to Folkestone, and went to prisoner's house at Foord.
His wife said he had gone down town. The money was not there. He
searched all round the town for prisoner, but could not find him. He
never received the money, nor had he seen the horse and cart since. He
gave information to the police.
In reply to prisoner, witness said he did not order Mr. Back to hand the
horse over to him. Prisoner paid for the stabling. He went three times
to his house on the 6th, and again on the following day, and delivered a
bill. He told him not to pay his sister, but told prisoner's wife he
would take part of the money and leave the rest for a week or two.
Sergeant Ovenden was called, and in reply to Mr. Denman he said he had
known prisoner for about ten years as a dealer in bottles, rags and
bones, &c., going round with a cart. Never heard that prisoner had any
property.
In reply to prisoner, witness said he had never known him to be before
the magistrates.
Prisoner alleged that he bought the horse and cart, paid a deposit, and
agreed to pay the balance in a few days.
At the close of the case, the Deputy Recorder asked Mr. Glyn if he had
no evidence to negative the statement by the prisoner that he had lots
of houses. It was quite possible that he had property which the police
sergeant knew nothing of.
Mr. Glyn replied that if it were true that the man had houses it would
be very easy for him to rebut the charge of false pretences.
The Deputy Recorder said it was a question whether he ought not to
withdraw the charge and direct the jury to return a verdict of Not
Guilty. However, in deference to Mr. Glyn, he would allow the case to go
to the jury. He then summed up strongly in the prisoner's favour,
pointing out that it was possible the prisoner had property, and it was
not necessary that it should be situated in Folkestone. They must be
careful not to allow a Criminal Court to become a Court for collecting
or enforcing the payment of debts, because the prosecutor could recover
the balance of his money in the County Court. Further, he referred to
the fact that the prisoner, who had been known to the police for ten
years, had nothing against his character, and that, considering his
avocation was that of a dealer, a class of men likely to be thrown into
contact with the police, it was very much in his favour.
The jury, however, retired for a few minutes, and returned with a
verdict of Guilty.
Two previous convictions at the East Kent Quarter Sessions were then
proved against the prisoner, and it appeared that on that occasion there
was a prior conviction. This was in July, 1873, and prisoner then went
in the name of Henry George, and was sentenced to six months' hard
labour.
Superintendent Taylor said he had known the prisoner two or three years,
and had had repeated complaints about him. He associated with three or
four other persons who frequented fairs and markets in the neighbourhood
to get hold of weak-minded people to swindle them out of their goods in
such a manner as to evade the criminal law.
The Deputy Recorder, in sentencing the prisoner, said the facts of the
case as just stated were not known to him, and perhaps it was quite
right that a judge should not know them until after the prisoner was
convicted. But the jury had found him guilty after having carefully
considered their verdict, which they had not arrived at hastily. There
was no doubt that the countryman parted with his property on the faith
of the misrepresentations he had made, and the law held that to be an
offence. Unfortunately for the prisoner, that was not his first offence.
He did not pay particular heed to the statements of Superintendent
Taylor, but there was the record against him, that he was convicted at
the East Kent Sessions in July, 1873, and there was a conviction, it
appeared, previous to that, and he was sentenced to six months
imprisonment. Therefore that was the third offence known against him. Of
course such cases must be severely dealt with. It was an unfortunate
thing for the prisoner's family, but the law must take it's course
without contemplating what would be the effects on a man's family. He
had consulted the magistrates on the Bench and they quite concurred that
it was his duty to pass a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment with
hard labour.
The Court then rose.
|
|
Folkestone News 12 January 1884.
Quarter Sessions.
Monday, January 7th: Before W.F. Laxton Esq.
Samuel Baker was charged with on the 5th December obtaining by false
pretences a horse and cart, value £5 5s., from William Swan, with intent
to defraud. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Denman, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, addressed the
jury.
Mr. Swan was then examined, and said he was a labourer at Postling. On
the 5th December he had a pony and cart, and brought them into
Folkestone. He went to the New Inn with the intention of meeting a man
of the name of Stone, about twelve o'clock. He saw the prisoner there,
but he did not know him before. Prisoner said Stone would not be back
that day. Witness told the prisoner he was waiting for Stone. Witness
saw prisoner again in the afternoon, and told him he should sell the
horse and cart and go to work again. Prisoner was then at the New Inn
stables, and said he would buy the things. Witness said he wanted £7 for
them, and prisoner said he should only give £5. Witness refused to sell
them for that price, and he afterwards came to the agreement to sell
them for five guineas, whereupon prisoner bought them and said “Come
along with me, and I will get the money”. They then went to the Harvey
Inn, and prisoner asked for someone, but the party was not there.
Prisoner then gave witness 10s., but witness said he should not have the
horse and cart without the money. They then went into a public house in
Dover Street, and when they got into the street again prisoner said “You
need not be afraid of me, for I am the owner of houses all round here”.
Witness then wanted to go to Mr. Minter's office to get an agreement
drawn up, but prisoner said Mr. Minter shut up his office at four
o'clock, and that it was no use going there. They then went to the Eagle
Tavern in High Street, where they had a paper written out by the
landlord. Prisoner signed it, and witness wrote a line at the bottom
saying “the remainder on the sixth”. Prisoner promised to pay the
balance at ten o'clock the next morning. Witness then let the prisoner
have the horse and cart as he believed prisoner was the owner of houses
and property. If it had not been for that belief he would not have
allowed prisoner to have the things. Witness went to prisoner's house
next morning, but prisoner was out and had left no money. Witness went
at ten o'clock, the time fixed for the payment of the balance. Witness
went about the town to find him, and returned to prisoner's house again
about twelve o'clock. Witness never got either the money or his horse
and cart. Witness gave information to the police. Witness again went on
Friday, two days afterwards, with the bill. Prisoner paid the stabling
of the horse to Mr. Back.
In reply to prisoner, witness said defendant's wife told him the
prisoner was gone to Dover to sell the cart. Witness told the prisoner's
wife that he would take a part of the money, and leave the rest for a
week or two if they did not cause him any trouble. Witness did not call
at prisoner's house again. Prisoner asked if he should leave the money
with his (witness's) sister, Mrs. Bisco, but witness told him not to pay
anyone but himself. Witness said he should not call at the house again.
Sergeant Ovenden, on being sworn, said he had known the prisoner about
ten years. He was a dealer, dealing in poultry, bottles, rags, bones,
iron, and such things. Prisoner went about with a cart, and lived at 7,
Castle Terrace, Foord. Witness never heard that he was the owner of
property. Witness had no recollection of prisoner having been before the
Folkestone Bench of Magistrates.
Prisoner then addressed the Court, and said he bought the things of
Swan, paid him a deposit, agreeing to pay the remainder in a few days.
On the following morning prisoner waited till the time when he had
promised the money, a quarter to ten, and then went out to look for
Swan. He meant to pay the money. He did not say he had property in the
town.
The Judge then summed up the evidence, stating that he thought the
charge of false pretences had not been fully proved.
The jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner was then asked by the Clerk of the Peace if he were the
same man as one Henry George, who was indicted at Canterbury in July,
1873, for larceny in regard to two offences.
The prisoner replied that he was.
Supt. Taylor stated that he wished to give evidence as to the prisoner's
character, and on being sworn said he had known the prisoner for between
two or three years, and had repeatedly had complaints made to him by
persons whom prisoner and some others had swindled. They got people to
part with their goods in such a manner as to evade the criminal law.
The Judge, addressing the prisoner, said unfortunately for him it was
not the first offence he had committed. It was recorded against him that
he was charged at the East Kent Quarter Sessions of the Peace, at
Canterbury, in July, 1873, with two offences, and was sent to gaol for
six months for each offence, therefore the present was the third offence
known against him. He (the Judge) should sentence him to twelve months'
imprisonment with hard labour.
|
|
Folkestone Express 19 May 1888.
Saturday, May 12th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon
General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Edward John Pope and William Avery, alias Mullett, were charged with
making an affray in Belle Vue Street.
P.C. Swift said on Tuesday, at nine o'clock in the evening, he saw the
defendants fighting in front of the New Inn. There was a crowd of people
round them. He took hold of Mullett, who said it was not his fault. He
did not want to fight – it was the other. Pope ran away.
The defendants were bound over to keep the peace for three months, and
ordered to pay the costs, 5s. 6d. each, in addition to 3s., the costs of
the recognisances.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 29 December 1888.
Saturday, December 22nd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood, J.
Fitness, E.T. Ward, J. Hoad, and J. Holden Esqs.
Richard Back, landlord of the New Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for
being drunk and disorderly in Belle Vue Street on the night of the 15th
December.
Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant and pleaded Not Guilty.
P.C. Wm. Knott said he was on duty in Belle Vue Street on Saturday
night, a few minutes before eleven. He saw the defendant there. He was
very drunk and using bad language. When he saw witness he said “I don't
want to show any of you ---- up, and I don't want you to round on me,
because I've got all you ---- under my thumb”. Witness walked away.
About ten minutes past eleven witness was at the other end of Belle Vue
Street and heard the landlord of the Honest Lawyer public house ask the
company to leave. Witness looked in and told them that the time was up.
They all came out, the defendant being the last one to leave. He said to
witness “I want you to take all these ---- names”, and continued to
shout about. Defendant had a glass of beer in his hand. He threw it down
on the pavement and said “Take my name first”. Witness asked him to go
away, but he refused. A few minutes afterwards two of his friends took
him away.
By Mr. Minter: There were about fifteen men in the street at the time.
Most of them came out of the Honest Lawyer. Witness supposed the
defendant wanted him to take the names of those who left the house
because it was beyond the time. The defendant kept a public house a
little lower down. Witness had spoken to him once about keeping his
house open a little beyond time. Witness had been in the police force
about four months.
Mr. Minter: The defendant was angry, was he not?
Witness: He was very drunk. I can't say whether he was angry or not. I
don't know his disposition.
What time was it when you first saw him?
A few minutes before eleven.
He has got two bars close there, hasn't he?
Yes. When I first saw him he was going from one to the other.
Chas. Prior, living at 5, Belle Vue Street, was then called in support
of the charge. He stated that he was standing in the street last
Saturday night about eleven o'clock when he saw the defendant come up
the street from his house. He was rather the worse for drink. He went
into the Honest Lawyer and called for a glass of beer. When he got
outside he dropped the glass on the pavement. Witness did not hear him
make use of bad language, nor was he disorderly in the street.
Mr. Minter, in addressing the Bench for the defence, remarked that he
had thought of charging the constable with making a false statement. The
witness Prior whom he had called to support him had not rendered him any
assistance, but, on the other hand, had stated that the defendant was
not disorderly, that he did not hear him make use of bad language, and
that he was a little the worse for drink. That, he considered, put an
end to the disorderly conduct, and the legal adviser of the Bench would
tell that they could not convict upon one portion of the charge alone,
viz., drunkenness. He thought the Bench would clearly see that the
police had been rather severe upon the defendant about closing his
house, whilst they were not particular about his neighbours. Mr. Back
felt that he was not being dealt with fairly, and no doubt on the night
in question he felt angry and went into the Honest Lawyer after eleven
and wanted the constable to take the names of those people in the house.
The defendant had instructed him to say that he had never been drunk in
his life, and challenged anyone to deny it. He had kept the New Inn,
where nightly concerts were held, for fifteen years, and had never had a
conviction or a complaint against him. He would call some witnesses who
would prove that the defendant was not drunk, and would ask the Bench to
dismiss the case.
Mrs. Hogan, whose professional name was Nellie Mackney, said she was a
singer, and had been engaged at the New Inn for a fortnight. She sang at
the house nightly. On the night in question the house was closed about
two minutes to eleven. Witness was at the house from about a quarter to
seven until five and twenty minutes to eleven, and saw the landlord from
time to time during the evening. He was quite sober and serving in the
bar upstairs.
John Hogan, husband of the last witness, and a music hall artist, said
he had been engaged at the New Inn for the past fortnight. He had had
previous engagements there. Had never seen the defendant drunk. Witness
saw him in the upper bar from seven until about eleven. He was quite
sober then.
Mr. Minter said he could call six other witnesses of the Bench thought
it necessary to call them.
The Mayor said the Bench did not consider the charge proved, and
dismissed the case.
|
|
Folkestone Express 29 December 1888.
Saturday, December 22nd: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad, J. Fitness, J.
Holden, J. Sherwood and E.T. Ward Esqs.
Richard Back, landlord of the New Inn, was summoned for being drunk and
disorderly in Belle Vue Street on the 15th Dec.
P.C. Knott said on Saturday the 15th inst. he saw defendant in Belle Vue
Street, very drunk and using bad language. When he saw witness he said
“I have got everything all right tonight. I don't want to show any of
you ---- up” and used other bad language. Witness was in the Honest
Lawyer at five minutes past eleven, and heard the landlord ask the
company to leave. He went in and told them the time was up. Defendant
was the last to leave, and when he came out he said he wanted witness to
take all their names, and again used very bad language. He asked
defendant to go away, and he refused. Two friends took him home.
Mr. Minter cross-examined the witness, who said he did not know whether
defendant was angry or not. He was very drunk.
Charles Prior, a plasterer, living in Belle Vue Street, said he saw the
defendant on Saturday night, rather the worse for drink. He went into
Mr. Edwards' and called for a glass of beer. He brought the glass out
and dropped it. He heard him use no bad language.
In reply to the Clerk, the Superintendent said “That is the case”.
Mr. Minter: And a very pretty case it is. (Laughter) He contended that
the cause of all the disturbance was a quarrel between defendant and the
policeman, because the latter had not dealt out fair play to himself and
the landlord of the Honest Lawyer. He further alleged that the defendant
had never been drunk in his life. He had carried on the business for 15
years, and during all that time there had been no charge against him by
the police.
Nellie Hogan, a music hall singer, engaged at the New Inn Music Hall,
said she had sung at the music hall at the New Inn for a fortnight. She
left the house on Saturday evening at twenty five minutes to eleven. She
saw the landlord frequently during the evening and he was quite sober
and serving in the bar.
John Hogan, “a music hall artist”, engaged at the New Inn, said he saw
the defendant the evening in question from seven till eleven. He was
sober when he closed the house. Witness had never seen him drunk.
Mr. Minter said he had half a dozen more witnesses to prove the same
thing.
The Bench dismissed the case.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 28 September 1889.
Advertisement.
New Inn, Folkestone, TO LET. Large premises, good position, with
frontage to two streets. Rent and ingoing moderate. Apply Hythe Brewery,
Kent.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 3 May 1890.
Tuesday, April 29th: Before F. Boykett, W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert
Esqs.
Charles Cosh was charged with stealing 4s. from the till of the New Inn,
Dover Road, on Monday afternoon, the moneys of Henry Gower.
Susan Standing said she was barmaid at the New Inn. About five o'clock
on Monday afternoon the prisoner entered the bar and called for a glass
of ale. He was quite alone and there was no-one else in the bar.
Prisoner went from the bar to the smoking room, and witness left the
bar. Shortly afterwards she heard the ratting of coppers and also heard
the till close. Witness went into the bar and saw the prisoner going out
by the side door. She had been to the till just before the prisoner
entered the house. There were seven sixpences, a threepenny piece, and
3s. in bronze. After the prisoner had left she counted the money and
found that four sixpences were missing and 2s. in bronze.
Sergeant Pay deposed that he arrested prisoner. In answer to the charge
he said “You've made a mistake. I went in with a man who treated me with
a glass of ale. I came out with him”. In reply to the charge at the
station he said “I don't know anything about any till”. Witness searched
him and found three sixpences and 3d. in bronze.
Prisoner asked to be dealt with summarily.
The Clerk said as the prisoner had been previously convicted the Bench
had no jurisdiction. Committed for trial. Bail was granted in his own
security of £20 and two other securities of £20 each.
|
|
Folkestone Express 3 May 1890.
Saturday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Alderman Pledge
and J. Clarke Esq.
Charles Kosh was charged with stealing money from a till at the New Inn
on the previous afternoon.
Susan Standing, barmaid at the inn, said the prisoner went in for a
glass of ale. She served him and left him there alone. As she turned
away she heard the money rattle. The till contained seven sixpences and
a threepenny piece, and about 3s. in bronze. When the prisoner left she
missed four sixpences and some coppers. Anyone on the outer side of the
bar could reach the till, the key of which was left in the lock.
Sergeant Pay said he apprehended the prisoner at the Wonder Tavern in
Beach Street. He was sitting in the smoking room. He was not drinking,
and was sober. He charged him with stealing four sixpences and 2s. in
coppers from a till at teh New Inn. He replied “You have made a mistake.
I went in with a man who treated me to a glass of ale, and I came out
with him”. At the police station he said he knew nothing about any till.
He was searched and three sixpences and 3d. in bronze found upon him.
Prisoner said he was out of work, and had walked from London. He had
been drinking and hardly knew what he was up to. He admitted that he had
done wrong, and was sorry for it. He had work to go to, and would leave
off drinking from that day. He had a wife and four children, and he knew
he ought to know better.
The Bench committed the prisoner for trial at the Sessions, he having
been previously convicted.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 31 May 1890.
Wednesday, May 28th: Before The Mayor, Surgeon General Gilbourne, W.G.
Herbert, H.W. Poole, and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Henry Gower, landlord of the New Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for
selling whiskey containing more water than the allowed 25 percent. Mr.
Minter defended.
John Pearson said he was Inspector of Food and Drugs for the Borough of
Folkestone. On the 14th of May he went to the New Inn, Dover Road, which
was kept by defendant. There was a woman in the bar and witness asked
for a pint of Irish whiskey, for which he paid 2s. 2d. Witness asked if
the landlord were in, and she called him. Witness told him he had
purchased the whiskey for the purpose of analysis. Witness divided it
into three parts, giving one to defendant, kept one for himself, and one
for the public analyst. He delivered one sample to Mr. Harvey on the
same day personally. The whiskey was 33.7 under proof. Witness looked
round the bar, but saw no notice up with reference to the sale of it.
By Mr. Minter: Witness would swear there was no notice in the bar. The
young lady in the bar asked 2s. 8d. for the bottle of whiskey, and
witness said he had never paid more than 2s. The price was then reduced
to 2s. 2d. He expected to get genuine whiskey for that price.
Charles Keeler, who accompanied the last witness, gave corroborative
evidence.
By Mr. Minter, the witness said he did not hear Pearson say he was going
to send a sample to the Public Analyst.
Mr. Minter said the witness had contradicted the evidence of the
Inspector with regard to him informing the defendant that he intended to
send one sample to the Public Analyst, and, therefore, he contended that
the case had fallen through. If the Inspector wanted the best whiskey he
should have paid a proper price for it. He paid a small price and could
not expect to have had a good article.
Defendant was fined 40s., and £1 13s. costs, the Chairman remarking that
the full penalty was £20.
|
|
Folkestone Express 31 May 1890.
Wednesday, May 28th: Before The Mayor, H.W. Poole Esq., Surgeon General
Gilbourne, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Henry Gower, a licensed victualler, was charged with selling whiskey
adulterated with water to the extent of 33 percent. Mr. Minter appeared
for the defendant.
Mr. Pearson, inspector of food and drugs, said on the 14th May he went
to the New Inn, Dover Road, which is kept by the defendant, and asked
for a pint of Irish whiskey. There was a woman in the bar. He paid 2s.
2d. for the whiskey. He asked the woman if the landlord was in, and she
said he was. She called him, and he told him he had purchased the Irish
whiskey for the purpose of analysis. He divided the whiskey into three
parts, one of which he gave to the defendant, one he sent to the public
analyst, and the other he produced in court. He delivered one portion to
Mr. Sidney Harvey, the analyst, personally. He produced Mr. Harvey's
certificate showing the whiskey was 33.7 under proof. He cast his eye
round the bar and saw no public notice with reference to the sale of the
articles.
By Mr. Minter: There was no notice I saw that spirits were sold diluted.
I did not taste the whiskey, and cannot give any opinion as to it's
quality. At first the young woman charged me 2s. 8d., and I said it was
exorbitant. It was then reduced to 2s. 2d. I expected to get genuine
whiskey at 2s. 2d., and have usually paid 2s.
Charles Peters said he went in company with the Inspector to the New
Inn. Mr. Pearson asked for a pint of Irish whiskey, and paid 2s. 2d. for
it, divided it into three parts, and sent one part to the public
analyst. He saw no notice in the bar that spirits were sold diluted.
By Mr. Minter: I do not know one part was sent to the public analyst. I
heard him complain of the price, and the price was reduced.
Mr. Minter said it was necessary to prove that the Inspector gave notice
that one portion was to be sent to the public analyst. The witness
Peters, who was called, said the Inspector said nothing at all about it.
He did not dispute the analyst's certificate, or that the whiskey was 33
percent under proof. The man was new to the business, or he would have
put up a notice saying it was diluted with water according to price. It
was clear the Inspector was not satisfied with the price, and bargained
for something cheaper, and obtained it cheaper. He should have been
content to have purchased and have paid what was charged for whiskey,
sold as best Irish whiskey, 25 under proof. He suggested that the
objections raised were fatal to the complainant, but if the Bench
considered the case proved, a very small fine would answer the justice
of the case.
The Bench fined the defendant 40s., and costs £1 13s. The full penalty
was £20.
|
|
Holbein's Visitors' List 9 July 1890.
Quarter Sessions.
At the Quarter Sessions held at the Town Hall on Monday, there were only
two prisoners for trial, but there were two indictments in one case and
three in the other. The Recorder was unable to be present, and Mr. Abel
John Rann acted as his deputy. It is an open secret that the Recorder is
engaged in a case at present pending in the High Courts, in which the
Victoria Pier shareholders are deeply interested.
A true bill having been returned against Charles Kosh, he was indicted
for stealing 4s., the monies of Henry Gower, of the New Inn, on the 28th
April.
Mr. Hume Williams appeared for the prosecution, and having briefly
stated the facts, called Susan Stanley, barmaid at the New Inn. She
deposed that about five o'clock on the evening of 28th April prisoner
came in and ordered a glass of beer. He tendered sixpence and she gave
him the change. She went into a side room behind the bar, and heard the
chink of coppers. Had counted the money just before, when there were six
sixpences, a threepenny bit, and about 4s. worth of coppers. When she
heard the noise she went at once to the till and again counted the
money. There were only two sixpences, a threepenny bit, and about 2s. in
coppers. The till could be reached from the front of the counter. No-one
else was in the bar at the same time as the prisoner.
In reply to prisoner, witness admitted that she did not see him touch
any money or the till. Mr. Gower sent Sergeant Pay after him at once,
but he did not find him until about 6.40. Prisoner asked further
questions as to the number of sixpences in the till, contending that if
there were six at the time they were counted there must have been seven
after he had paid another one. He had no recollection of having been in
the house at all.
P.S. Pay proved apprehending Kosh at the Wonder, in Beach Street, about
6.40. Prisoner said he had made some mistake, but went quietly to the
station. On being searched there were found on him three sixpences and
threepence in bronze
Mr. Hume Williams said prisoner had made a statement which was virtually
an admission of his guilt.
The jury expressed a desire to retire, on the ground that they were not
satisfied as to the number of sixpences, but the Deputy Recorder
explained to them that if they were satisfied the prisoner took any
money from the till their verdict must be one of Guilty.
After a brief consultation the jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and
prisoner was then charged with having been convicted of a felony before
the borough Magistrates.
The Recorder: Are you Guilty or Not Guilty?
Prisoner: I don't know (Laughter)
The Recorder: But what did the magistrates say; did they find you
guilty?
Prisoner: They fined me ten and sixpence (Laughter)
The Superintendent of Police said prisoner formerly belonged to the
Engineers, and left with a good character. He had been in the town for
some time, but except the two charges brought that day there was nothing
against them.
The Deputy Recorder told prisoner he had been convicted on the clearest
possible evidence, and that was not his first conviction. He would take
into consideration the fact that prisoner had already been imprisoned
more than two months, but warned him that if he came there, or before
any court, again he would receive a long sentence of imprisonment, or
else penal servitude. The sentence would be three months' hard labour.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 12 July 1890.
Quarter Sessions.
Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
Charles Kosh, described as a bricklayer, was charged with stealing 4s.
from the till of the New Inn, Dover Road, the money of Henry Gower, on
the 28th April.
Mr. Hume-Williams prosecuted, and the prisoner, who was undefended,
pleaded Not Guilty, stating that he did not remember going into the
house.
Susan Stanley stated that she was barmaid at the New Inn, and on Monday,
the 28th of April, she remembered prisoner being in the bar. He called
for a glass of beer and put down a sixpence. Witness gave him the change
and went out of the bar into a side room, leaving in the till six
sixpences, four shillings, and some bronze money. After she had left the
bar a few moments she heard a rattling of coin and went back to see what
it was. She got there just in time to see the prisoner leaving the
house. Witness examined the till and found that the prisoner had taken
four sixpences, a threepenny piece, and about two shillings in coppers.
There were two sixpences left. No-one but the prisoner was in the bar,
and anyone standing in front of the bar could reach over to the till.
Witness counted the money in the till a few minutes before the prisoner
was served.
Prisoner remarked that he did not remember anything about the offence,
but it seemed a strange thing that the witness should say she counted
six sixpences before he was served, and that there were only two left
when she missed the money, because she had admitted that he had paid her
sixpence for the drink. He should have thought four from seven left
three.
The witness appeared to be rather muddled as to the actual number of
sixpences in the till and afterwards stated that there were three left.
Sergeant Pay said in consequence of information which he received he
went in search of the prisoner on the evening of the 28th of April, and
found him in the Wonder Tavern. He told him he would be charged with
stealing the money, and he replied “You have made a mistake. I went in
with a man who treated me and I came out with him”. On searching him he
found three sixpences and some coppers.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrates was then read, in which
he said he had been out of work for some time, and had been drunk ever
since the previous Saturday night. He admitted that he had done wrong,
and he was sorry for it. He ought to have known better, when he had a
wife and four children at home.
The Recorder having summed up, the jury expressed a wish to retire, and
in answer to The Recorder, Mr. Mercer stated that there was a difference
amongst them as to the number of sixpences.
The Recorder pointed out that it was not exactly a question as to the
number of sixpences. What they had to decide was whether the prisoner
was guilty of taking any money at all.
After a little further consideration the jury returned a verdict of
Guilty.
Superintendent Taylor stated that the prisoner was convicted for felony
at Folkestone on the 23rd of February, 1890.
The Recorder (to prisoner): Is that correct? Did the Magistrates find
you Guilty?
Prisoner: No, sir; they fined me 10s. 6d. (Laughter).
Supt. Taylor said the prisoner formerly belonged to the Royal Engineers,
and was discharged in 1882 with a good character. He had lived in the
town for several years, but he knew nothing further against him.
Mr. Hume Williams said in fairness to the prisoner he would like to
remind The Recorder that he had been in prison since April 28th.
The Recorder said he was sorry it was not the occasion on which the
prisoner had been in trouble. There were two serious charges of felony
against him. He had already been three months in prison, and under those
circumstances he would deal lightly with him, but he would warn him that
if he was ever taken before another court he would receive a term of
imprisonment three times as long as he was about to pass upon him, and
perhaps penal servitude. Drunkenness appeared to be his evil and he
would recommend him to overcome it in the future. He would be sentenced
to three months' hard labour.
|
|
Folkestone Express 12 July 1890.
Quarter Sessions.
Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
Charles Kosh, a bricklayer, was indicted for stealing 4s., the money of
Henry Gower, landlord of the New Inn, on the 28th April. The prisoner
said he did not remember going into the house. The facts of the case
were very simple. The prisoner went into the bar and called for a glass
of ale. He was served, and the barmaid went into the bar parlour,
leaving the prisoner standing in front of the bar. She heard the money
in the till rattle, and on going in missed 4s. Mr. Hume Williams
prosecuted.
Susan Stanley, barmaid at the New Inn, Dover Road, said on Monday, the
28th April, the prisoner went to the bar and asked for a glass of beer,
and tendered 6d. She served him and gave him 4½d. change. As she was
leaving the bar to go into a side room she heard the money in the till
rattle. There were six sixpences, four shillings, and some coppers. She
went back and found two sixpences, a threepenny piece, and about 2s. in
coppers in teh till. Anyone standing in front of the bar could reach
over the counter and reach the till. No-one but prisoner was in the bar
at the time. She had counted the contents of the till a few minutes
before the prisoner went in.
In answer to the Deputy Recorder, the witness said there were three
sixpences left in the till.
Sergt. Pay proved apprehending the prisoner at 6.40 p.m. at the Wonder
Tavern, Beach Street. He told him the charge, and he replied “You have
made a mistake. I went in with a man, who treated me to a glass of ale,
and I came out with him”. On being searched there were found on him
three sixpences and some coppers.
Prisoner's statement before the Magistrates was read. He admitted in it
that he had done wrong. He had been out of work and had been drinking
about for several days.
The jury expressed a desire to retire and consider the point as to the
number of sixpences.
The Recorder told them, however, that the number was immaterial. The
only question was whether prisoner took any money. It was clear there
were not so many sixpences when he left as there were when the young
woman counted the money.
The jury consulted for some minutes in the box, and then returned a
verdict of Guilty.
A previous conviction was proved against him of felony in February,
1890, when he was fined 10s. 6d.
Supt. Taylor said the prisoner was formerly in the Engineers. He had
resided for several years in the town, and with the tow exceptions named
he had borne a good character.
Mr. Hume Williams drew the Deputy Recorder's attention to the fact that
the prisoner had been in custody for two months.
A sentence of three months' hard labour was passed upon the prisoner.
The Deputy Recorder called the prosecutor and asked him as to the
position of the till, which he was informed had been altered.
|
|
Folkestone News 12 July 1890.
Quarter Sessions.
Monday, July 7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
The Grand Jury returned a true bill against Charles Kosh, bricklayer,
for stealing 4s., the monies of Henry Gower, landlord of the New Inn, on
the 28th April.
Mr. Hume Williams, barrister, briefly stated the case for the
prosecution and called Susan Stanley, who said she was barmaid at the
New Inn. At 5 o'clock on Monday, 28th April, the prisoner came into the
bar and ordered a glass of beer. He gave her sixpence, and she gave him
the change. As she was going into a room behind the bar she heard the
rattle of coppers, and at once went out to the till and counted the
money. She knew what was in the till, having counted it just before
prisoner came in. When she counted it first there were six sixpences,
one threepenny bit, and about 4s. in coppers. At the second count there
were only two sixpences, one threepenny bit, and about 2s. in coppers.
No-one else came into the bar while prisoner was there. The till could
be reached from the outside of the counter. The coins were certainly
taken while prisoner was in the bar.
In answer to the prisoner, witness said she found only two sixpences in
the till after prisoner had left. Prisoner contended that if he had
given a sixpence, as witness said, there must have been three, if there
were six before, and he had only taken four.
P.S. Pay said he apprehended prisoner about 6.40 on the 28th April, at
the Wonder, in Beach Street. Prisoner said he had made a mistake, as he
only went in with a man who treated him to a glass of ale. On being
searched at the station there were three sixpences and threepence in
bronze found on him.
Mr. Hume Williams said prisoner had made a statement before the
Magistrates that he had walked from London in search of work and had
been drinking about in Folkestone for several days. He admitted that he
had done wrong and was sorry for it. He would leave off drinking for the
future.
In reply to the Recorder, the prisoner said it was quite true he had
been drinking about, and he did not know whether he was in the New Inn
or not on the date in question. He hoped it would be taken into
consideration that he had already been in prison more than two months.
The jury expressed a wish to retire, as they were not satisfied as to
the number of sixpences, but the Deputy Recorder said all they had to
consider was whether prisoner took any money from the till. After a few
minutes consultation a verdict of Guilty was returned. In sentencing the
prisoner to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, the Deputy
Recorder said he had taken into consideration the long time prisoner had
been in gaol, but he warned him that if he came before any Court again
on a similar charge he would receive a sentence of a long term of
imprisonment or else of penal servitude. The Deputy Recorder called Mr.
Gower forward and questioned him as to the till. It was very wrong of
people to put temptation in the way of their fellow creatures. Mr. Gower
said he had since had the till removed, and the Deputy Recorder
expressed his satisfaction.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 19 December 1891.
Saturday, December 12th: Before The Mayor, Major Poole, Aldermen Banks
and Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Clarke, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Mr. George Warden Haines appeared on behalf of Mr. Gower, landlord of
the New Inn, to make an application for a music and dancing licence in
respect of the New Inn.
Mr. Haines said the whole of the licenses to the other houses were
granted until ten o'clock, but in this case he asked for an extension
until eleven. The house would be under the supervision of the police,
and he undertook to say that the licence would be in no way abused. At
Dover the licenses were all granted until eleven.
Supt. Taylor said he had no objection to the licence being granted, but
he did object to the last hour. They all knew the class of people who
frequented that kind of house – soldiers and young girls – and it gave
rise to disturbances at a late hour in the night. The landlords really
expected the police to go and clear the houses. He had nothing to say
against the houses. Since Mr. Gower had kept it there had, in fact, been
a great improvement.
Mr. Gower said he did not want the licence for dancing. There was a Club
meeting occasionally held at the house, and sometimes they liked to
sing, but, if they had no licence, under the new Act, his house would be
deemed a disorderly house.
In answer to Mr. Herbert, Mr. Gower said he did rent two rooms of the
adjoining house, but did not let them off for improper purposes.
Mr. Clarke asked if Mr. Gower would undertake to shut off communication
from the house and the rooms if the licence were granted.
Mr. Gower said he would promise to do that.
Superintendent Taylor said he supposed the door would be merely locked.
It would be a very easy matter to unlock it and lock it as they liked.
Mr. Clarke said it would not cost much to brick it up. Would he
undertake to do that?
Mr. Gower said he could not undertake to do that without first
consulting the brewers.
The application was adjourned for a week in order that the applicant
might communicate with the brewers, Mr. Clarke remarking that under no
consideration would the licence be granted after ten o'clock.
|
|
Folkestone Express 19 December 1891.
Saturday, December 12th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge,
H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert and J. Clark Esqs.
Mr. Gower applied for a music and dancing licence for the New Inn. Mr.
Haines appeared in support of the application, and asked that the time
should be extended to eleven o'clock, the majority of such licences
being until ten only. He urged that the character of the house and of
the applicant were unimpeachable. It would, however, be under the eye of
the police.
Mr. Wightwick: Would the police be allowed to dance too?
Mr. Haines: I don't suppose there would be any objection, sir. The
Superintendent would perhaps like to dance.
Supt. Taylor objected to the licence being granted until eleven.
Mr. Herbert said there were three separate means of communication from
the room to private lodgings with entrances to Peter Street.
The Superintendent said since Mr. Gower had had the house there had been
a marked improvement in it's conduct. The rooms referred to were private
lodgings and they were part of the premises.
Applicant said when the large room was being used the rooms were closed.
Three of them were let to very respectable people.
The Clerk asked the applicant if he would give an undertaking that so
long as the licence was granted the rooms should be shut off.
Applicant said he would have them cut off. He did not propose that the
hall should be used for music and dancing, but there was a club held
there and sometimes they had a professional player to give
entertainments. He could not undertake to brick the doorway up.
The Bench then decided to adjourn the application for a week, in order
that the applicant might communicate with the owners. They added that
the licence would only be granted until ten o'clock.
|
|
Folkestone Chronicle 26 December 1891.
Saturday, December 19th: Before Alderman Banks, Major H.W. Poole,
Alderman Pledge, J. Holden and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Mr. Gower, landlord of the New Inn, again attended in connection with
the adjourned application for a music and dancing licence. On the last
occasion, it will be remembered, the applicant was represented by Mr.
Geo. W. Haines, but Mr. Minter now supported it.
In the course of his remarks, Mr. Minter said the case was adjourned
from last Saturday. He was unable to be present himself.
Alderman Banks: You were well represented, though.
Mr. Minter said he was very glad to hear it. There was a remark made by
a gentleman on the Bench that the applicant would have to stop up a back
door before the licence was granted. Of course, he could not give such
an undertaking without consulting the landlord. He had consulted the
landlord, but they could not do it. He (Mr. Minter) had yet to learn
that it was a crime for a publican to have a back door to his premises.
Why should this man not have a back door to his premises as well as
every other house in the town? He had visited the house personally, and
in company with Superintendent Taylor. At the corner of Peter Street
there was a bar belonging to the New Inn premises, and the front bar was
in Dover Road. Between the two bars there was a smoking room. The
objection raised by the Magistrates was, he understood, to the small
private entrance in Peter Street, but if the Bench were to go and look
at the place they would not only see that it was necessary to have an
entrance there, but that it ought to be there for the safety of those
who frequent the music and dancing room. There were now two exits in the
room, but if he went before them for a licence for music and dancing
without those exits they would say it would be a death-trap. He believed
there was also something said about some part of the house being used
for private lodgings. He could not see what objection there could be to
that. He had got two rooms which he let out to private people in the
same way as the Queen's Hotel. If any of the gentlemen of the Bench were
to go to the Queen's they could take rooms for a year if they liked. It
was just the same at the New Inn, only in a more humble way, of course.
It had been stated that people infringing the law could escape by the
back door. They could not make people good by Act of Parliament. The
landlord was under the usual penalty if he infringed the law, and he was
merely applying for what every other publican in the town had got. With
regard to the possibility of people escaping by the back door, he had
been before the Bench on a great many of those kind of cases, and what
id the police do? Why, they placed one man at the front door, and
another at the back. Previous to the applicant taking the house, no
doubt there were great complaints against it. What did Mr. Mackeson do?
He got rid of his tenant and got the present man to take it, and they
had granted Gower his licence because they knew him to be a man of
respectable character. Superintendent Taylor had told them there had
been a marked change in the character of the house. He was a respectable
man and conducted his house in a respectable manner. Therefore he was
entitled to have what every other publican had got. In objecting to
close the door, it was not in any way to set the Bench at defiance. If
the Bench would go and look at the place they would see that it was
necessary to have the exit there. The licenses to the other houses in
the town were until ten o'clock at night, but he now asked them to grant
this licence until eleven. Why should the poor not be allowed to dance
until eleven, when the Bench would grant a licence to the rich until
four in the morning? The neighbouring towns had considered that eleven
o'clock was the proper hour. He was perfectly aware that the Bench had
made it eleven in other cases, and they might say it was unfair to
extend the time in this particular case. But, with regard to that
matter, he would have another application to make to them directly, and
he would ask them to suspend their judgement in this case until he had
made the application.
Mr. Wightwick said Mr. Minter seemed to be misrepresented as to the
adjournment. It was not to have the back door stopped up, but to block
the door leading to the private room.
Mr. Bradley remarked that the house in St. Peter's Street had never been
included in the licence.
Mr. Minter said they had held a licence for it for many years.
Mr. Bradley said he never remembered any application ever having been
made.
Mr. Minter: Of course not, Mr. Bradley, because it was before your time.
Mr. Bradley: I have sat here for 28 years. It has not been made during
that time.
Mr. Minter said he was going back to the time when it was built by Peter
Foord.
Mr. Bradley said the rooms had been added since.
Mr. Minter said he was speaking of the whole of the buildings for which
they paid a licence. From time to time the premises had been extended
and the Magistrates had granted the licence. The Excise Authorities had
also registered the premises. He could not close the door because it
would cut off communication to the other bar in Peter Street. It would
really make two houses if the door were closed.
Mr. Minter then proceeded to make his second application. He had been
instructed by every licence holder in the town to ask the Bench to vary
the licenses which they had granted to them from ten o'clock till eleven
o'clock. Of course it would be for their legal adviser to say whether
they had the power to alter it by the extension for which he was
seeking.
Mr. Bradley said he had looked into the matter, and he was perfectly
certain that the Magistrates had no power to entertain the application.
Mr. Minter said the licenses for music and dancing were very different
to the other licenses. In the ordinary licenses they knew the duty of
the Magistrates were defined by Act of Parliament and that the annual
licensing meeting was appointed on a particular day and another day for
an adjournment. After those two days were past no further application
could be made until the following year. But there was no such limit with
regard to an application for music and dancing. They could at any time
hold a session to deal with them. They held it there that day because he
had given notice that it was his intention to apply for a licence. Mr.
Bradley had told them that they had no power to alter the licenses, but
he did not think he would say he was like the Pope of Rome – infallible.
He held that the Bench had an inherent right over it's own actions in
these matters and they could modify, alter or vary any order they had
made. He hoped they would say that the publicans of Folkestone had as
much right to have dancing until eleven as the publicans in the
neighbouring towns.
The Chairman said the police had great difficulty in clearing the houses
at eleven, and therefore they were unable to grant the second
application.
The licence would be granted to the New Inn until ten o'clock.
|
|
Folkestone Express 26 December 1891.
Saturday, December 19th: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, H.W. Poole,
W. Wightwick, and J. Holden Esqs.
Mr. Gower, of the New Inn, renewed his application for a music and
dancing licence.
Mr. Minter appeared in support of the application, and with regard to
the proposition to brick up a doorway, he said it was only a back door,
and he (Mr. Minter) could not understand why a publican should not have
a back door to his premises. The house extended from Mill Lane through
to Peter Street, there being a bar at each end – the front door was in
Dover Road and the back door in Peter Street. The objection, he
understood, was to the back door in Peter Street, and in the interests
of those who frequented the music room it was essential that there
should be two places of exit and entrance. The bedrooms referred to were
occupied by working men, who were permanent lodgers, and Mr. Gower had
as much right to have private lodgers as the landlord of the Queen's
Hotel. The Superintendent had seen the premises, and he (Mr. Minter)
asked that the licence should be granted not until ten o'clock only, but
eleven. Why, he asked, should the poorer classes be obliged to leave off
dancing at ten o'clock, when, if an application was made by the upper
classes, they would be allowed to dance till four o'clock in the
morning?
Mr. Wightwick said the application was adjourned, not in order that the
back door should be closed, but in order that the doors leading from the
dancing room to the private rooms should be closed.
Mr. Bradley said he had no recollection of the houses in Peter Street
being included in the licence at all.
Mr. Minter said the houses had been used as a part of the public house
for years, and it was entered in the Excise Books.
Mr. Minter then made a further application on behalf of the various
holders of music licences for an alteration of the hours generally from
ten to eleven.
Mr. Bradley said he had looked into the matter, and he was perfectly
certain the Magistrates had no power to accede to the application.
Mr. Minter argued that at any time at a special meeting the Magistrates
had power to do so. Every Court, unless prohibited, had an inherent
right to alter and vary any order it may have made. Why Folkestone
should be tied to ten o'clock, when in all other towns the time was
extended to eleven, he failed to understand.
The Bench said they were willing to grant the licence until ten, but
they had made up their minds the time should not be extended in any of
the cases.
|
|
Folkestone Express 28 May 1892.
Wednesday, May 25th: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick
Esqs.
Mr. Gower was granted an occasional licence for a ball at the Town Hall
on Whit Monday, for the benefit of the Victoria Hospital.
|
LICENSEE LIST
FOORD William 1847-53
HUGHES Richard Henry 1853-Apr/58
 
HAYWARD Spencer Apr/1858-59+ (also builder age
36 in 1861 )
HAMMOND George 1859-68
SMITH John 1868-69
WHITE Richard 1869
PARKES Thomas 1869-Apr/70
WILLIAMS John Apr/1870-71
COBB Thomas 1871-72
WRIGHT George 1872-73
WOOLETT Stephen 1873
WILLIAMS Roger 1873-74
COLLINS Charles 1874
COLLINS William 1874-75
BACK Richard 1875-89
LEE Richard 1889-90
GOWER Henry
1890-93
From
Melville's Directory 1858
From
the Post Office Directory 1874
From
the Post Office Directory 1882
From
the Post Office Directory 1891
From
the Folkestone Chronicle
From
More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney
Whitstable
Times and Herne Bay Herald
|
