DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 13 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1847

New Inn

Latest 1893

(Name to)

25 Dover Road

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 11 October 1853.

Inquest

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 the 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 m 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Kentish Gazette 26 May 1857.

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.

 

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 4d. 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

Last pub licensee had FOORD William 1847-53 Bastions

HUGHES Richard Henry 1853-Apr/58 Melville's 1858Folkestone ChronicleBastions

Last pub licensee had HAYWARD Spencer Apr/1858-59+ (also builder age 36 in 1861Census) Folkestone Chronicle

HAMMOND George 1859-68 Bastions

SMITH John 1868-69 Bastions

WHITE Richard 1869 Next pub licensee had Bastions

PARKES Thomas 1869-Apr/70 Next pub licensee had BastionsWhitstable Times

WILLIAMS John Apr/1870-71 BastionsWhitstable Times

Last pub licensee had COBB Thomas 1871-72 Next pub licensee had Bastions

WRIGHT George 1872-73 Next pub licensee had Bastions

WOOLETT Stephen 1873 Bastions

WILLIAMS Roger 1873-74 BastionsPost Office Directory 1874

COLLINS Charles 1874 Bastions

COLLINS William 1874-75 Bastions

BACK Richard 1875-89 Post Office Directory 1882Bastions

LEE Richard 1889-90 Bastions

GOWER Henry Next pub licensee had 1890-93 Post Office Directory 1891

 

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

Whitstable TimesWhitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room