DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, September, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 13 September, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1700

North Foreland

Latest 1879

Back Street

Stade

Folkestone

North Foreland

Above photo showing the "North Foreland." Shown as a coffee house in 1885.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 29 April 1765.

Before John Hague (Mayor), Mr. John Jordan, Mr. William Pope, Mr. Thomas Baker, Mr. Thomas Rolfe, and Mr. John Baker.

Neat Ladd, James Francklyn, Chas. Hill, Thos. Wilton, Ambrose Dadd, Ric Boxer, Widow Jeffery, Widow Gittens, Ric Beear, Mary Gittens, and Joseph Trevillon were fined at this Session 3/4 each for having false measures in their houses, which fines were paid into the hands of the Overseers of the Poor.

Neat Ladd, George; James Francklyn, Rose; Charles Hill, White Hart; Thomas Wilton, no record; Ambrose Dadd, Chequers; Richard Boxer, Fishing Boat; Widow Jeffery, Royal George; Widow Gittens, North Foreland; Richard Beear, Three Compasses; Mary Gittens, Privateer; Joseph Trevillon, Crown.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 27 April 1767.

Before John Hague (Mayor), Mr. John Jordan, Mr. Thomas Baker, Mr. John Baker, and Mr. Thomas Rolfe.

James Lipscomb, Ric Coveney, John Milton the elder, John Milton the younger, Henry Barber, Thomas Golder, George Parker, Cassell Burwell, and Samuel Wicks were fined each for continuing drinking and tippling in an alehouse in the township, which fines were paid to the poor.

Elizabeth Pilcher, widow, Jane Fox, widow, Anne Gittens, widow, and William Cressey were fined 10/- apiece for suffering persons to continue drinking and tippling in their houses, which fines were given to the poor.

Notes: Elizabeth Pilcher PROBABLY widow of at King's Arms. Not listed in More Bastions. Jane Fox, Five Bells. Anne Gittens, North Foreland. William Cressey, Red Cow.

 

Kentish Gazette 17 March 1779.

Advertisement: To be sold by auction, at the sign of the "North Foreland," at Folkestone, on Wednesday the 31st day of this instant March, at three o'clock in the afternoon: All that good new-built shallop, or vessel, called Le Compte de Dillon, about 50 tons burthen, an English-built vessel, lately a French privateer, condemned as prize to, and taken by the Letter of Marque the Eclipse, belonging to Folkestone, Henry Baker, commander. She is in exceeding good condition and a remarkable fast sailer, having been many times chased by His Majesty's Cutters and never out-sailed.

At the same time will be sold her masts, sails, yards, anchord, cables, guns (consisting of six two-pounders and ten swivels) and iron ballast.

The said privateer now lies on Folkestone beach, and inventories may be had of Mr. Farley, of Folkestone, or James Graveney, attorney, at Dover.

 

Kentish Gazette 20 March 1782.

Advertisement: To be sold by auction, on Monday, the 25th of this instant March, at the sign of the "North Foreland," Folkestone, between the hours of seven and eight o'clock in the evening, unless disposed of in the meantime by private contract, of which notice will be given in this paper; All that good Cutter, called the Flora, of the burthen of one hundred and thirty tons, or thereabouts, with her tackle and furniture, well found, and in good condition, clinker built, only a year old, copper-nailed, and a prime sailer. Now lying in Dover harbour.

For further particulars apply of Captain John Pysing, or of E. Smith, Attorney at Law, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 25 April 1808.

Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), Joseph William Knight, John Castle, John Gill, John Bateman and James Major.

The following person was fined for having short measures in their possession, viz.:

John Beverley 2 quarts, 1 pint 3/-

 

Kentish Gazette 28 February 1812.

Advertisement.

To be sold by Auction, by Mr. David Major, at the North Foreland Inn, in Folkestone, on Thursday, the 5th of March, 1812, at two o'clock (unless previously disposed of by private contract):

Lot 1: The Schooner Venus, with all her materials and stores, burthen about 70 tons.

Lot 2: The Smack Thomas and Eleanor, with all her materials and stores, burthen about 54 tons.

Lot 3: The Smack Aurora, with all her materials and stores, burthen about 32 tons.

Lot 4: A Six-Oared Galley, 52 feet long and 4 feet 4 inches wide, with all her mast, oars, sail, &c., &c.

The above vessels are now lying on Folkestone Beach, are well found, and fit for immediate service.

The stores may be seen, inventories had, and further particulars known, on application to the Auctioneer, Folkestone.

 

Kentish Chronicle 20 October 1815.

On Monday last a Coroner's inquest was held at the "North Foreland" public house, Folkestone, before Thomas Baker Esq., Mayor and Coroner, on the body of Thomas Pettit senior, who was found hanging in his cellar on Saturday night last, when the jury, after a long investigation, returned a verdict of “Felo de se”.

 

From the Kentish Gazette or Canterbury Chronicle, 20 October 1815.

Thomas PETTIT Snr. Inquest held "on Monday last". Held at the "North Foreland" public house Folkestone, before Thomas BAKER Mayor and Coroner, on body of Thomas PETTIT Snr who was found hanging in his cellar on Saturday night last - when the Jury after a long investigation returned a verdict of Felo de Se.

(back page col.3)

 

Kentish Gazette 1 May 1838.

To be Let: A public house called the North Foreland, situated near the Harbour, in the town of Folkestone. A good wholesale and retail spirit trade has been carried on to a considerable extent on the premises, which might be resumed by an industrious couple with a small capital.

For particulars, apply at the Broad Street Brewery, Folkestone, if by letter Post Paid.

Note: Broad Street Brewery was owned by Ham Tite and later relocated to become Gun Brewery.

 

Southeastern Gazette 19 June 1855.

Local News.

Tuesday: Before J. Kelcey and G. Kennicott, Esqs.

Edward Jordon was charged with an assault on Mr. Wallis, landlord of the North Foreland Inn.

Defendant had gone into the complainant’s house on the previous evening, and called for a glass of wine, for which he put down 6d. After drinking the wine he asked for change, and was told there was none; he then became excited, and struck at the complainant across the bar, when he was given into custody.

Fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or one month’s imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 July 1857.

Monday July 20th: - Present, the Mayor, Thomas Golder, and James Tolputt esqs.

John Wallis was summoned with keeping his house open after the hours on Sunday night.

Police constable Munns, sworn, said on Sunday night the 12th July, I was on duty near the North Foreland Inn. Thinking it was past 11, I went into the house, finding it open. I went into a large room and saw four or five persons there, some were just leaving. I turned to Mr. Wallis who was behind me, and said it was time his house was closed, it was past 11. He said I was not aware of it, I am going to clear the house directly. I then went into the little back parlour, and saw three or four more persons in there. They said they were going. A man and woman who appeared to be travellers came in and I believe Mr. Wallis drew some gin for the woman. The persons in the house were residents in the town.

Benjamin Wyld, a person lodging at the North Foreland, said he had been out for a walk and went in about a quarter to 11, there were several tradespeople of the town there. I called for a glass of gin and water. I was the last person Mr. Wallis served. At 11 o'clock he came in and said the time was up, we must go. Mr. Wallis did not tell the policeman he did not know what the time was. It was 5 minutes past 11 when the policeman came in. I never saw a policeman in the house before. There were some relatives of Mr. Wallis in the private room. I cannot say if I ever saw Mr. Martin before. I will swear he was not in the large room. I may know Mr. Matchett, a tall man. His son was there. I think the father also. If Mr. Matchett was there he was in the large room. – Case dismissed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 March 1861.

County Court.

Coroner's Inquest.

Friday March 22nd:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Leney & Evenden v J. Wallis. Claim 13. To be paid forthwith

An inquest was holden on Wednesday afternoon, at the North Foreland Inn, by S. Eastes esq., coroner for the Borough, on the body of William Fowler, who met his death in the circumstances detailed in the following evidence.

The jury having been sworn, proceeded to view the body, and on their return, the following witnesses were called – William Henry Marshall, sworn, deposed that he was employed as a labourer on the tramroad. He knew deceased by sight, but did not know his name; had identified the body of the deceased, witness last saw deceased on the previous afternoon, about half past 12. He was going on the tramroad with a basket containing potatoes, turnips and cabbages; he was carrying the basket with both hands. Witness saw him go to a ladder, leading from the tramway, to a vessel lying alongside. The Clarence was the name of the vessel he was going to, he slipped from the top of the ladder, and fell between the vessel and the quay, striking against the side of the vessel, and falling into the water. There was not much water, about 5 or 6 feet. The tide was then flowing. Deceased never spoke afterwards. There were some coal trucks standing near, but no-one was with them at the time. Witness cried out for help, when his brother John came, and sliding down a rope into the water tried to save the deceased; he did not succeed the first time, but the tide brought the body within reach, when he held him up until a boat came to his assistance, he was taken into the boat and carried ashore. The body did not go under water. The witness did not go down into the boat. Deceased fell from the top rail of the ladder, the distance would be about 20 feet from the tramway to the water. The basket he was carrying seemed to be heavy; it was a carpenter's basket. Deceased did not appear to move after he was in the water.

John Marshall, sworn, deposed as follows – I am a mariner. About half past 12 yesterday afternoon I was standing on the tramway, near the harbour. I heard my brother (the last witness) call out for help – a man is overboard. I ran to the spot, across the line to the Dover side of the tramroad, and saw the body of deceased floating on the water. I slid down a rope to the water, and held his head up with one hand, and myself with the other. I held him up until a boat came; he did not speak or move. He did not go under water, only his head partly. I think the wind had got under his frock. He was in the water about four minutes. I assisted to bring him ashore in a boat, and took him to the North Foreland Inn. I should think it must have been 30 feet he fell – there was not above five or six feet water at the time.

Thomas Mullett, sworn, said I am a labourer, working about the colliers. I have identified the body of the deceased, whom I have known ever since he came from Hastings, about three years. He was about 50 years of age, he told me so last week. About half past twelve yesterday afternoon I saw deceased on the tramway. I was standing at the lower part of the road. He asked me to hail the brigantine Clarence for him. I told him I would if he would go to the beach. He had a basket with potatoes, cabbages, and turnips, and some cabbages under his arm. He asked me to help him put his basket on his back. I refused to do so, as I saw he was very tipsy, and told him he was not in a fit state to be on the tramroad. He persisted in going down the ladder, but I cautioned him not to do so. He was walking along the narrow edge of the tramway, in a space of a few inches, some coal trucks being on his right side. I had just got down the hold of the vessel where I was at work, when I heard them cry out “Fowler's overboard”. I saw him in the water; he did not speak or move. I did not see him fall. I should not have left him, but it was time for me to go to work.

The coroner then said as no medical gentlemen had seen him alive he might just state to the jury what medical evidence there was. When he was sent for about half past twelve he found deceased sitting in a chair. He immediately had him laid down, stripped and rubbed with coarse towels, and other restoratives applied in cases of drowning, from which he partially recovered. He then had him taken upstairs and laid on a bed. He soon found however that he was rapidly getting worse, and in half an hour he died. Upon examination he found that three of his ribs were broken near the spine, and had penetrated the lungs, causing the air to escape, and ooze out under the skin. This was the cause of death, and had it not been for these severe internal injuries, he would have recovered from the effects of the drowning.

The jury immediately returned a verdict of “Accidental Death”.

 

Folkestone Observer 23 March 1861.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Wednesday at the North Foreland public house by Silvester Eastes Esq., coroner, on the body of William Fowler, a rag and bone dealer, on the Bayle. On the morning of the accident deceased had been engaged selling cards of the races. It appeared, from the evidence of an intelligent lad, named William Henry Marshall, that on the previous day, about half past 12 o'clock, he saw deceased, whom he had previously known by sight, on the tramroad, on the portion laid upon the pier between the two portions of the harbour. He was carrying a large carpenter's basket, containing potatoes, cabbages, and turnips ( a later witness added that cabbages were also under his arm), and weighing together about half a hundredweight. He was going down the ladder from the tramroad (close to the bridge) into the brigantine Clarence, but he was intending, witness believed, to pass on to the Port Glasgow, lying near. The witness saw him slip, and fall against the edge of the vessel, and then into the water. There was about five or six feet of water. Witness cried out for help, and his brother slid down the rope and caught deceased and held him up. He did not get hold of him the first time he came near to him. He drove away from witness's brother, and then came back with the tide, when witness's brother got hold of him, and a boat coming up, he brought him ashore. It would be about 6 or 7 feet from the top of the ladder to the side of the ship, and about 11 or 12 feet from that to the water. He did not appear to move after he got into the water.

John Marshall, mariner, was standing on the tramroad when he heard his brother give the alarm. He ran over, and saw deceased in the water on the Dover side. He slid down the rope, and held his head up with the one hand while he supported himself with the other. Deceased neither moved nor spoke. A boat then came up and he got on board with the body. He thought deceased had not been altogether under the water, though his head was so for some time. He had been in the water about 4 minutes when the boat came up. He came ashore with the body and brought it to that house.

Thomas Mullett, labourer, had known deceased ever since he came from Hastings a few years ago. He was about 50 years of age. On the previous day, about 12 o'clock, he saw him on the tramroad. Deceased asked witness to hail a ship. He had a basket with him, and wanted witness to put it on his back, but he would not in the condition deceased then was. He was the worse for liquor, and witness told him he would hail a ship if he would go on the beach, for he was not fit to be on the tramroad. He said he would go down the road on that side, and witness told him to go down on the other side where he would not have been in such danger. But he would walk down the road, on the narrow baulk of wood close to the edge of the tramroad. Witness begged and prayed him not to go down the road on that side. Witness could not have done more to prevent him from going that way if he had been his own brother. Witness was himself going down on board a vessel, and had just got down below when he heard a call that Fowler was overboard. Witness saw him in the water, but did not hear him speak, nor see him move. He left deceased because it was time for him to go to work. He would otherwise have carried his basket round for him. He was very drunk. Witness hoped it would not make any difference to his widow or family, but that was the truth. If the basket had only been 10 lbs. Weight, he was not fit to carry it.

The coroner said no other medical man than himself saw deceased. He came to that house about half past twelve the day before and saw deceased. He had his wet clothes taken off and his body rubbed with flannel, and at that time he had a very distinct pulse and respiration was pretty full. He thought the man would recover. On getting him upstairs and examining him he found two or three ribs on his right side were broken, and that the broken ribs had entered his lungs, the air from the lungs oozing out through the skin. The coroner had no doubt whatever that if deceased had not received these internal injuries he would have recovered. His opinion was that the man did not die from actual drowning.

The jury returned a verdict of accidental death.

 

Southeastern Gazette 26 March 1861.

Inquest.

On Wednesday an inquest was held at the North Foreland Inn, Folkestone, before Silvester Eastes, Esq., coroner, on the body of William Fowler, aged 50.

William Henry Marshall, labourer, deposed that on Tuesday, at about half-past 12, he saw the deceased on the tramroad, carrying a basket containing vegetables, which appeared to be heavy. He made an attempt to get on board a ship, when he fell into the harbour. His brother slid down a rope and picked him up. There was about 6ft. of water in the harbour, and the distance the deceased fell was about 20 feet.

John Marshall, brother of the last witness, deposed that he was standing on the tramway when his brother informed him that a man was overboard. He went down by a rope and with one hand lifted the deceased’s head up till a boat came, when the deceased was brought ashore. He did not speak a word.

Thomas Mullett, labourer, deposed that he saw the deceased with a basket; he was very tipsy. Witness tried to persuade him not to go on board the vessel. A few minutes afterwards he heard that the deceased had fallen overboard, and assisted in bringing him ashore.

The Coroner said that he was called to see the deceased who was then breathing. He was then in his wet clothes. He (the coroner) ordered him to be well washed and rubbed, and thought it possible he might recover if he had received no internal injuries, but on examining his ribs he found that two were broken and had penetrated his lungs, admitting the air. He ceased to breathe shortly afterwards.

Verdict, “Accidental death.”

 

Kentish Gazette 28 May 1861.

Folkestone County Court, Wednesday, before C. Harwood Esq.

John Wallis Sen. v John Craxford: This was a claim for 9 16s. for goods supplied.

John Wallis Jun. v John Craxford: This was a claim for 10s. 6d. for money lent.

Mr. Minter appeared for both plaintiffs.

John Wallis, examined by Mr. Minter: I am a licensed victualler. Defendant has been in the habit of using my house, and has gradually incurred the sum applied for. Defendant was in a position to pay the demand. The following are a few of the items: July 24, 25s. for five bottles of sherry for himself and eight friends; carriage to Terlingham races, 3s.; 1s. for visit to circus; 1s. 6d. for bottle of Cologne water; bed and refreshment 6s.; to December last 2 5s. on the slate, 1 of which was for beer; 3 15s. on the slate, of which about 30s. was for beer.

His Honour then said about 6 was for spirits, which plaintiff could not recover. He thereupon awarded 5 in settlement of both claims, with costs.

 

Folkestone Observer 31 August 1861.

County Court.

Wednesday 28th August:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Calvert & Co. v John Wallis – This was an action for ejectment. Mr. Knocker for plaintiff; Mr. Minter for defendant.

Mr. Knocker said the defendant was the tenant of the North Foreland Inn, and the plaintiffs the lessors. In 1859 the defendant entered into an agreement to quit and surrender the premises on receiving three calendar months' notice to quit. He produced the agreement.

Mr. Minter objected to the agreement, it being unstamped.

Mr. Knocker said he was prepared to pay the penalty, and he did so to the Registrar of the Court; but the defendant, who had been subpoenaed, was not then in court, and it was necessary to prove his signature to the document. He had been in Court that morning.

His Honour said he did not know but he should fine the defendant for contempt of Court, as he had been in the precincts of the Court that morning.

Mr. Minter said no conduct money had been given to the defendant when served with the subpoena. His Honour had decided in the case of Mills v Pledge, when Charles Turland did not appear, that money should have been given with the subpoena.

Mr. Knocker asked for the expenses of a gentleman who had been brought from London to prove the execution of the deed of assignment of all interest in the premises by Calvert & Co. to the Brewery Company.

Mr. Minter took an objection to His Honour's jurisdiction, that as the premises were let to Messrs. Calvert & Co. for 75, although Mr. Wallis did not pay but 24, he had no jurisdiction, it being above 50 in rent or value, the brewers binding the defendant to take beer of them: he also submitted that as a premium of 10 had been paid, that too would oust the case.

His Honour, having looked into the Act Of Parliament, thought differently. The premium was not a fine on the lease. He was willing to adjourn the case for a few days, the defendant to be subpoenaed. He considered the case proved, and it only required verification of the defendant's signature to the agreement.

Mr. Minter said he should be able to show a defence to the action at the adjournment, but he did not think it was the proper time for him to explain what course he should take.

The case was then adjourned to the 10th of September.

 

Southeastern Gazette 3 September 1861.

County Court.

This Court was held on Wednesday last, before C. Harwood, Esq., Judge.

Calvert and Co. v John Wallace.—Mr. Knocker for plaintiffs and Mr. John Minter for defendant.

This was an action for ejectment. The plaintiffs were the lessees of the North Foreland Inn, Folkestone, which the defendant hired at 24 per year, although the plaintiff paid 75. In 1859 the defendant signed an agreement to leave the house at three months’ notice, which notice had been given, but the defendant still retained possession.

Mr. Knocker produced the agreement, which he said was unstamped, but he was prepared to pay the penalty if Mr. Minter objected to it, which he did, and the fine was paid to Registrar of the Court. The defendant had been subpoenaed, but was not in court when the ease was called. Mr. Minter ejected to the jurisdiction of the Judge, as the rent was more than 50.

His Honour, however, overruled the opinion.

The defendant not being present to verify his signature, some delay took place. His Honour said he felt he ought to fine the defendant, he having been in the precincts of the court that morning.

Mr. Minter said that his Honour had already decided, in the case of Mills v Pledge, that unless conduct money was given with a subpoena the parties could not be compelled to attend. He hoped his Honour would adjourn the hearing till next court when he would be prepared to prove that the case could not be tried there.

His Honour said he considered the case proved, and all that was required was the presence of the defendant, who must be subpoenaed. He would adjourn the case till the 10th September.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 September 1861.

County Court.

Tuesday 10th September:- Before C. Harwood Esq., Judge.

Calvert and City Of London Brewery v J. Wallis, defendant, to show cause why he refused to deliver up possession of a certain public house called the North Foreland Inn.

Mr. Knocker appeared for plaintiffs, whilst Mr. John Minter appeared for defendant.

The court being formally opened, His honour called upon Mr. Knocker to open the case.

Mr. Knocker said he should call defendant as witness. Defendant who was in court was then sworn, and being shown a printed form of agreement filled in, in writing, was asked if he had signed it: defendant after looking at it for some time admitted it was his writing, upon which Mr. Knocker said he should put it in, and he thought His Honour would at once give his clients a verdict.

Mr. Minter asked to look at the deed, and remarked it was a personal one of a peculiar kind, by which defendant bound himself to take a house and beer of the other party to it.

His Honour then addressing defendant asked him if he was not in court on the previous court day, to which witness replied he was. His Honour then enquired why he left before the court closed; defendant said he acted on the advice of his solicitor. His Honour said it was highly improper.

Mr. Minter in explanation said his client had received no money with the subpoena, and therefore he thought he had no right to or reason to remain: he (Mr. Minter) had not the least desire of showing any disrespect to His Honour or the court by the course he had advised his client to pursue. Mr. Minter then commenced to address His Honour on the agreement produced, as also upon the provisions of a deed produced by Mr. Knocker, which assigned all the effects of the original party to the agreement to other parties therein named; the deed set forth that the rent of the premises leased to them was 79 a year, although the rent paid by defendant was only 24, and therefore it was out of His Honour's jurisdiction. Mr. Minter said he should call a witness to prove that the house was not worth more than 50.

He called Mr. James Pledge who proved that he was in negotiation now with a person who would give 65 a year rent for the premises.

A long argument then took place upon the construction of clauses in the 9th and 10th of Victoria, section 122, and the 19th and 20th of Victoria, section 50 and 60.

His Honour ultimately decided that he should look carefully into the point raised by Mr. Minter, and would give his decision when the court met again in about a fortnight's time.

 

Folkestone Observer 14 September 1861.

County Court.

Action For Ejectment – How Brewers Supply Their Beer.

Tuesday September 10th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Calver & Co. V John Wallis – This was an adjourned case from last court. Mr. Knocker appeared for plaintiffs; Mr. Minter for defendant.

Defendant held the lease of the North Foreland public house from plaintiffs, paying 24 a year rent, and bound by agreement, under a penalty of 300, to purchase beer only off his landlord. Calvert & Co. had been in trade difficulties, and wound up under assignment, the London Brewery Company succeeding to their trade, and taking up their rights. Mr. Minter objected to the defendant being sued by parties other than those with whom he agreed for tenancy, asserting that the agreement was personal, there being no authority given to heirs or assignees; also argued further that the deed under which the plaintiffs were proceeding was invalidated by the term of tenancy being varied, as shown by receipts given, and distress for rent issued at the regular quarters instead of the 8th November and corresponding months of the original holding of the deed; but the point on which the case now turned was the ousting of the jurisdiction of the court by the “rent and value” being over 50. Mr. Minter showed by the deed of transfer from Calvert & Co. to the London Brewery Company that the firm had been in the habit of sub-letting houses at much lower rentals than the rent in chief, paid by themselves, making up the difference by the profit on beer, which they bound their tenants to purchase only from themselves. For the North Foreland they were shown to be paying 75 per annum and receiving 24 only. This, his honour conceded, was presumptive evidence of value. Then Mr. Minter called Mr. James Pledge, auctioneer and valuer, who deposed that he went over the North Foreland public house about a fortnight since. In his opinion the yearly value at the present time was 60. He had a tenant who was now ready to take it at that price. His Honour said that the 9th and 10th Victoria, to which Act only his attention had been drawn at the first sitting, used the words “rent or value” and under those words he did not deem that his jurisdiction was ousted, the rent being 24 yearly; but the 19th and 20th Victoria repealed the words of the other act, and substituted “rent and value”. Under these latter words it was open to receive evidence of value. He should therefore adjourn the case to the regular court day, both sides to bring evidence as to value.

 

Southeastern Gazette 17 September 1861.

County Court.

This court was held on Tuesday, before Charles Harwood, Esq., Judge.

This was an adjourned court for the purpose of the production of the defendant as witness in the ejectment case of Calvert and. Co. v. John Wallis. Mr. Knocker appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

The defendant was examined as to his signature to the agreement to quit at three months’ notice. The deed of assignment of Messrs. Calvert’s interest to the brewery company was, at Mr. Minter’s request, put in and examined, and he endeavoured to show that they had no interest in the property, but that it had devolved on some one else.

The Judge said the defendant had paid rent to the present plaintiffs up to July.

Mr. Minter submitted that his Honour could not give a judgment of ejectment against the defendant upon the deed produced. He also maintained that the rent or value being above 50, it ousted his jurisdiction. He particularly alluded to the 19 and 20 Vic., which repealed the 9th and 10th.

He called Mr. James Pledge, who deposed: I am an auctioneer and valuer in this town. I know the North Foreland Inn. About a fortnight since I went over the property, and in my opinion it is of the yearly value of 60, as between landlord and tenant. I have a person ready to take it and give 60.

Mr. Knocker: Will the party you know take it under the condition that he be supplied by Messrs. Calvert and Co. with porter, &c?

Mr. Pledge: I cannot promise that.

His Honour said the question as to the value was important, and he would adjourn the case again to the next court, when it could be fully argued on both sides and evidence given of its value.

Adjourned accordingly.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 28 September, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

COUNTY COURT.

Calvert and others v John Wallis.

Wednesday 25th September: Before Charles Harwood Esq., Judge.

Mr. Knocker, as before, for the plaintiffs and Mr. John Minter for defendant.

The case was now brought on to prove the value of the premises as one of the points raised by defendant's solicitor was the non-jurisdiction of the court to try the case, the rent being over 50 per annum.

His Honour said he was now prepared to hear evidence upon this point.

Mr. Minter thereupon called John Wallis Jr., who proved he conducted his father's business at the "North Foreland;" that the premises were well worth 65 per year, and that he should have no hesitation in giving that rent for them; they were well situated near the harbour, and an excellent trade could be done therein.

On the other hand, Mr. Knocker called Mr. Robinson, an auctioneer, residing at Dover, who deposed he had known the premises for sixty years; he was of opinion that the premises were not worth more than 35 per annum.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter – Had not been in the premises for some few years; formed his opinion from his knowledge of them and their general appearance.

Mr. John Banks, examined by Mr. Knocker, considered the premises worth not much more than 35 or 36 per annum. The "Queen's Head," a beer-house near, lets for 33.

Mr. James Harrison, collector of poor's rate, proved the gross rating of the North Foreland to be 35, net rating 28 10s; the rating of the "Chequers" was 28 gross, 22 net; the "Chequers Inn," having stables attached, was more valuable than the "Foreland;" the gross rating of the "Queen's Head" was 37.

Mr Ebenezer Pope, examined by Mr. Knocker, was collector of assessed taxes; the "North Foreland" was assessed for the house tax at 35.

Mr. Knocker said that was the case.

Mr. Minter for defendant argued that the evidence of value brought against him was purely speculative. Mr. Robinson as a witness at Dover might be very valuable, but here he comes today with his recollections of 60 years ago, this was purely speculative. The way to test the value of a house was to see what would be given for it, and there was the evidence of Mr. Pledge, which showed he had a party willing to give 65 a year for it; the present defendant also would give 60 a year for it; again a deed is put in which shows that the rent of the premises now on lease is 75 a year, and none of the plaintiffs are brought forward to say they repent of having made such a bargain. The lease passes through two or three hands, and none of them complain. Mr. Pledge's sworn evidence that he has a party willing to give 65 a year for the premises is conclusive evidence against that of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Banks.

His Honour said Mr. Pledge did not give the name of the party.

Mr. Minter said it was offered privately to His Honour and plaintiff's solicitor, and in addition they had the evidence of defendant, and his son, that they were willing to give 60 a year for the premises. The date of the deed put in is February 1860, and in that The City of London Brewery Company agree to give 75 a year for the leasehold.

His Honour, in summing up, said 75 a year value was out of the question altogether. If he was sitting as revising Barrister, say, and the present evidence was brought to support a claim of 50 holding for a vote, he should feel bound not to allow it. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Banks both put the rent at 35 a year; he therefore felt bound to give a verdict against the defendant, who must leave the premises in five or six days at the utmost.

Verdict for the plaintiffs recorded.

Note: Did he actually leave then? More Bastions gives him there until 1863. Jan Pedersen.

 

Folkestone Observer 28 September 1861.

County Court.

Wednesday September 25th: - Before C. Harwood Esq.

The London Brewery Company v Wallis – Mr. E. Newman Knocker for plaintiffs; Mr. Minter for defendant. This action, for ejectment, came on today for the thirds hearing, the point reserved for further evidence, being the rent and value of the North Foreland public house, of which the defendant holds the tenancy from plaintiffs, who themselves hold upon a lease originally granted to Messrs. Calvert.

Mr. E.N. Knocker, having addressed the court on the point of rent or value, called – Robinson, auctioneer and valuer, residing in Dover, who had been about 26 years in the business. He remembered the North Foreland 60 years ago. In his business he valued public houses, in and out, very extensively. Comparing the North Foreland with other property he had valued in the town, as well as sold, he should take 35 a year as the outside rent for it.

John Banks, auctioneer and valuer, residing in Folkestone, had known the North Foreland these 20 years. He had been in the habit of valuing public houses, in and out, for the last 10 years. He took it that 35 was the outside value.

By His Honour – He should think there were fifty other public houses in the neighbourhood.

John Harrison, poor rate collector, produced the last rate book, in which the North Foreland is entered at a gross rental of 35, rateable value 28 5s. The Chequers was assessed at 28, rateable value being 22; the Queen's Head was rated at a gross estimated rental of 27, the rateable value being 20.

Ebenezer Pope, collector of assessed taxes, showed that the house tax was laid on the North Foreland at an annual value of 35.

Mr. Minter, for the defendant, contended that all the evidence adduced was speculative. The fair way to value a house was by the business that could be done in that house. The rent and value of a house in a back street where no business could be done would be very much less than the rent of a similar house situated in a thoroughfare where business could be done. Mr. Robinson knew nothing about the business done in the house; Mr. John Banks's evidence was likewise speculative; he knew nothing of the indide of the house. On the part of the defendant a deed had been put in. He showed that he paid a rent of 35 for the house, and he held it on a lease that did not expire for another five years. That was the fair way of estimating rental. The plaintiffs put in their deed, which showed they were paying 75 a year for the house; and they made no complaint of that rental. Then they had had the evidence of Mr. James Pledge, which evidence was not speculative. He swore that he had a person ready to pay 60 a year for it.

His Honour – For aught I know he might have meant the defendant.

Mr. Minter intimated that it was not the defendant; but they had the defendant himself who was prepared to give 60 a year for the house, and he knew what business he had been doing in it.

His Honour said the rent of 75 a year was out of the question. It would be very fair to use the deed; it came to a very close point, 5 or so. He ought to decide the case upon the evidence, as if he were a revising barrister and they were claiming a vote upon 50 a year. It appeared to him that the rent was 28, and that they were rated at 35 in the gross. He considered that they must not say that because a tenant who did not want to go out would say that he would give 60 or 75 a year therefore that was the true rent. He (His Honour) must have what was called the true value of the house. He thought that the rent was below 50, therefore his jurisdiction was not ousted. His honour then gave judgement for the plaintiffs.

Possession to be given in seven days, or warrant for ejectment to issue.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 October 1861.

County Court.

This court was held on Wednesday last before C. Harwood, Esq., Judge.

The adjourned case of Calvert & Co. v. John Wallis, was first. Mr. Knocker for plaintiff and Mr. Minter for defendant.

His Honour said the case having been adjourned for evidence of the value of the property, he called upon Mr. Minter to produce it.

Mr. Minter then called John Wallis, jun., who said: I manage the business at the North Foreland for my father. From a knowledge of the trade done, I would give 60 a year rent for it.

Mr. Knocker said he had witnesses to prove the contrary, and called Thomas Robinson, who said he was an auctioneer and valuer at Dover, and had had great experience in valuing public house property. Knew the North Foreland Inn for 60 years, considered the outside rental value of the property to be 35 per year.

Cross-examined: I compared it with the Chequers Inn which has stabling and yard.

Mr. J Banks, auctioner and valuer, considered 35 rent the outside value; had known the house for 20 years.

Mr. Harrison, tax collector, stated that the gross estimated rental was 32, rateable value 28 5s. Ebenezer Pope proved that the premises were assessed at 35 to the house tax.

Mr Minter, for the defence, said that the evidence given by Mr. Robinson and Mr. Banks was only speculative, and was not the real value of the premises. Neither of them knew the amount of business done. The witness Wallace knew that it was worth 60 a year, and he had sworn to it. Then at the last court there was the evidence of Mr. James Pledge, who, although not of so long a standing as Mr. Robinson, had ample practice, and had perhaps often met Mr. Robinson at valuations.

Mr. Robinson: I never met him at one.

Mr. Knocker: Mr. James Pledge is not an auctioneer, nor has he a licence.

Mr. Minter: He is in partnership with his brother; at any rate he positively swore at the last court that the value of the Rent was 60, and he had a person ready to take it at that rent, and had seen Messrs. Calvert about it. He maintained that their evidence was positive as to the value. Messrs. Calvert paid a rental of 75 for it, and he had some doubts as to whether they had a right to it. Mr. Minter ably argued the points of his Honour’s jurisdiction.

His Honour said that looking at all the facts and the evidence brought forward, which was so far off 50, the point of jurisdiction complained off, he could not but give a verdict for the plaintiffs, with possession in 7 days. If not given, Mr. Knocker to apply for a warrant to the bailiff to eject.

Mr. Minter said there were fixtures that could not he removed and they were to be taken at a valuation, but Messrs. Calvert declined to take them.

His Honour said a long time had been given to arrange that matter. Mr. Knocker would at his own risk obtain a warrant, electing which he thought best, Messrs Calvert or the Brewery Company.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 June 1863.

Coroner's Inquest.

On Thursday last an inquest was held at the North Foreland Inn on the body of Mary Cockett, aged 68, before John Minter Esq., coroner for the borough.

The jury having been sworn, they viewed the body, which was lying in an upper room at the above house. The first witness examined was Mr. William Bateman, who bing sworn, deposed he was a surgeon, living and practicing in Folkestone; identified the body just viewed as that of Mary Cockett, wife of Thomas Cockett, town crier. On Monday evening last, about 9 o'clock, he was called to the North Foreland Inn; found deceased sitting in a chair in a back parlour, with a shawl wrapped round her; found, on examining her, that the lower part of her clothing was completely burnt away; she was extensively burnt on the left side, from the top of her head to the knee; there was a deeper burn on the left arm, as if she had fallen on the bar of the fireplace; she was in a state of collapse, from which she never rallied; she was removed upstairs to bed at once, her clothes taken off, and wrapped in wadding. Witness administered opiates. Had no doubt the cause of her death was from being extensively burnt; she died on Wednesday morning, the 24th, at 6 o'clock.

Mary Ann Murphy, sworn, deposed she was the wife of Henry Patrick Murphy, landlord of the North Foreland Inn. Deceased lodged in the Inn with her husband. On Monday evening last about half past eight witness was sitting in the bar parlour, when she observed a light at the upper part of the staircase; she went towards it and saw deceased standing at the top of the staircase all in flames; witness called out “Fire”; the deceased screamed, who then attempted to come downstairs and fell to the bottom; deceased had gone into her room about three quarters of an hour before; some neighbours then brought in water and threw it over deceased to put out the fire; Doctor Bateman was then sent for, who came immediately; Doctor Eastes attended her next day; her husband was not at home; he had been from home since eleven o'clock that morning; there was a large fire in the room where she used to cook.

Mrs. Meal, a sister of Mr. Cockett, came into the house and went upstairs with Mrs. Cockett about a quarter to eight, and left about ten minutes past.

Fanny Emery, sworn, deposed she was the wife of Henry Emery, labourer, Mill Bay. At ten minutes past ten on Monday evening last, witness came to North Foreland, and found deceased in bed; deceased wished witness to remain with her until Tuesday evening. On Monday night about a quarter to twelve deceased wished witness to look at her wounds; she then said she would tell witness how it occurred; she said she cooked one fish, and after that she sat down to eat it; she put her foot on the fender, it slipped, and she fell with her arm across the grate; deceased recovered herself and then found she was on fire. She died about a quarter past six yesterday morning.

Mr. Minter then said that was all the evidence he had to put before them; it appeared from the evidence of the witnesses that her death was purely accidental.

The jury returned the following verdict – That deceased was accidentally burnt to death.

 

Folkestone Observer 27 June 1863.

Burnt To Death.

An inquest was held at the North Foreland, before J. Minter Esq., coroner, on Thursday, touching the death of Mrs. Cockett, wife of the Town Crier, Mr. G. Brickman being foreman of the Jury.

The unfortunate condition of Mrs. Cockett has long been known to the town, but the law not recognising a mania for drink as sufficient cause for personal restraint, the poor woman has necessarily been left to meet that horrible fate that she has this week encountered at the North Foreland, where she has been lodging. The following is the evidence taken at the inquest.

Mr. Bateman: I am a surgeon, residing at Folkestone. I identify the body of the person now being viewed as that of Mary, the wife of Thomas Cockett, of Folkestone, town crier. On Monday the 22nd instant, at 9 o'clock p.m., I was called to the North Foreland. I found deceased sitting in a chair, on the ground floor, with a shawl wrapped around her. I found on examining that the skirts of her clothing were completely burnt away. She was extensively burnt on the left side, from the top of her head to the knee. There was a deeper burn on the left arm, as if she had fallen upon the bar of a fireplace. She was in a state of collapse. She was removed upstairs, her clothes taken off, and she was wrapped in wadding. Going out of town, I asked Mr. Eastes to attend for me. Deceased died at 6 o'clock Wednesday morning. She never recovered from the state of collapse in which I left her. I have no doubt her death was caused by the extensive burns.

Mary Jane Murphy, wife of Henry Patrick Murphy, landlord of the North Foreland, Folkestone said: The deceased lodged at the North Foreland, with my husband. On Monday evening last, about half past eight, I was sitting in the bar parlour, and on looking up I saw a light glancing downstairs. I went to look, and saw deceased stand at the top of the stairs with her clothes on fire. I cried “Fire”, and deceased screamed and fell down the stairs at the foot of the bar door. Two gentlemen from Dover threw water on deceased to extinguish the flame. I then sent for Dr. Bateman, who attended. Mr. Eastes attended next day for Dr. Bateman. Deceased's husband was not at home when this occurred. There was a large fire in deceased's room where she used to cook her victuals for herself and husband. Mrs. Neal came in and went upstairs with deceased about a quarter to eight and left about 10 minutes past eight.

Fanny Emery, wife of Henry Amery, living in Mill Bay, said: About 10 minutes past 10 I went to the North Foreland. About a quarter to 12 deceased said “I want you to open my wounds and see where I am burnt”. I sat her up and asked her how it occurred. She said “I went across the road and bought a pennyworth of fish, and was going to have my tea. I cooked one fish and got my tea. As I was eating the fish with my feet on the fender, my foot slipped, and I fell with my arm across the bar. Shortly afterwards I got up and found my clothes on fire”. She died on Wednesday.

The Jury immediately returned a verdict of accidental death.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 June 1863.

Inquest.

Death by Burning.—On Thursday an inquest was held at the North Foreland, before J. Minter, Esq., coroner, touching the death of Mrs. Cockett, wife of the town crier.

Mary Ann Murphy, landlady of the above house, said that on Monday evening, about half-past eight, she was sitting in the bar parlour, when she observed a light at the upper part of the staircase. She went towards it, and saw deceased standing at the top of the staircase in flames. The deceased screamed, then attempted to come down stairs, and fell to the bottom. She had gone into her room about three-quarters of an hour before. Some neighbours then brought in water and threw it over deceased to put out the fire.

Mr. Bateman, surgeon, deposed to being called, and finding the deceased extensively burnt on the left side, from the top of her head to the knee. There was a deeper burn on the left arm, as if she had fallen on the bar of the fire place. She was in a state of collapse, from which she never rallied. She died on Wednesday morning at six o’clock.

Fanny Embery said the deceased told her how the accident occurred; that she had cooked a fish, and after that she sat down to eat it. She put her foot on the fender, when it slipped, and she fell with her arm across the grate. She recovered herself, but found she was on fire.

Verdict, “Accidental death.”

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 July 1863.

Fatal Accident.

On Thursday afternoon a melancholy accident, by which a poor man named Thomas Rains, employed on the new pier, lost his life, and another narrowly escaped, occurred through a crane overbalancing and falling into the sea, carrying deceased with it and drowning him.

An inquest assembled at 8 o'clock the same evening, before the coroner, John Minter Esq., at the North Foreland Inn, where the body of the unfortunate deceased lay. The body having been viewed, the following evidence was adduced.

Thomas Hall, sworn, deposed he was a barge man in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, and identified the body as that of Thomas Rains, residing in Dover Street, and in the company's employ working in the barge at the mole edge at the mouth of the harbour, assisting in getting up stone from the ground, for the purpose of deepening the mouth of the harbour. The deceased was working on board a larger barge, pumping air to the diver, and then went on the little barge to discharge the stone; the stone was discharged by cranes on the new pier. Witness heard an outcry three or four minutes after, when witness got in a small boat, and went to ascertain the cause. On arriving at the new pier, he saw that a crane, which was usually on the new pier, had disappeared. Witness got a rope from Mr. Latham, and sent it down to the diver, who slung the body of the deceased in the bight of the rope, and witness hauled the body on board his boat; several persons assisted in hauling the body on board; deceased was then dead, but witness did not observe any wounds on his head. Witness then assisted to bring the body to the North Foreland Inn; it occurred about a quarter to three p.m.

John Goldsmith deposed he was foreman at the new pier, under the direction of Mr. Latham, inspector of Permanent Way and Works; in Mr. Latham's absence, witness had the entire charge of the works: saw the small barge come alongside the new pier about quarter to eleven; deceased was on the new pier at work. They began to discharge the vessel about quarter past two, under witness's direction; there were eight labourers employed, deceased being one. The stone was removed by a moveable crane, on wheels, running on the rails of the new pier. Six tons can be removed with safety from the barge by the crane. Deceased was employed on the crane, winding the stone up; this occurrence took place about a quarter to three. Previous to that he had taken out four stones, some weighing 14 or 15 cwt., and some a ton; this one that caused the accident was from 2 tons in weight. There was a man in the barge employed in slinging the rocks; witness saw him sling this particular rock to the crane chain; witness saw it properly fastened, and witness directed the men to what is technically called “set up”, or to work the crane. Deceased with five others began to turn the handle; the crane was then in a proper position to lift the weight; the labourers had almost got the stone to a level with the top of the pier, when the half-hitch, which fastened the sling on to the crane chain, slipped from six to eight feet, and by the sudden pressure of the fall, it over-balanced the crane, which fell over into the sea, and two men with it, deceased being one, and a man named George Grey; could not tell whether deceased was struck or not. The remainder of the men jumped on to the pier. Just before the stone was hauled up, witness told a man named Richard Pledge, who was in the barge, to take care and make a good half-hitch with the sling chain, and witness saw him do it; deceased sank, and the body was not seen afterwards; witness saw deceased's body hauled into the boat; witness could not account for the hitch slipping, as witness had seen hundreds made, and never knew one to slip before; the same kind of half-hitch is always used; witness has been 2 years and 2 months at the pier; the crane was properly weighted by a balance box at the hind part; we have lifted four tons with the same balance; it was not possible for the balance box to slip forward; deceased was in the water for about an hour, and was brought up by a diver.

Silvester Eastes deposed he was a surgeon working in this town; was called to see the body of deceased about half past four this afternoon, and on examining it, found it had the usual appearance of death from drowning; the surface of the body pallid, the pupils of the eye dilated, and a quantity of froth oozing from the mouth; there was also an extensive compound fracture of the upper part of the skull over the right temple; he had evidently been dead some time, as the body was getting cold; should say that death occurred from drowning, though it was probable he would have died from fracture of the skull if he had not been drowned; the fracture was no doubt occasioned by head of deceased coming into contact with some hard substance under water.

Richard Pledge deposed he was in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company on the new pier; was in the null at the new pier, on the small barge; two pieces of rock had been lifted before the one that fell over; it was about two tons in weight. Witness fastened the sling round the rock and the blackwall on the hook of the crane chain, and a half-hitch under. Mr. Goldsith said to me “set up taut”, and witness hailed those on the crane to “set up”. As soon as this was done witness took a half-hitch under the blackwall and the ring at the end over the crane hook, and then went forward and hauled the barge out of the way. Witness did not see the crane fall over, but heard a crash and a fall into the water. The sling and blackwall were made fast in the usual manner. Witness had been about four years employed in slinging rocks.

The coroner said that was all the evidence he proposed to call. The occurrence seemed to him to be purely accidental, as every precaution had been taken by the men employed.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of accidental death.

 

Folkestone Observer 11 July 1863.

Fatal Accident At The Pier.

An inquest was held on Thursday evening at the North Foreland, before J. Minter, Esq., coroner, on the body of Thomas Rains, Dover Street, a labourer in the employ of the South eastern railway Company. Mr. Brickman was foreman of the jury, and the following evidence was taken:-

Thomas Hall, bargeman in the employ of the Company, said deceased worked with him in the barge that day at the entrance to the harbour, getting up rock for the purpose of deepening the entrance. There were two barges. The large one was used to get up the rock, and the other to convey it to the new pier. Deceased went to the pier in the small barge, leaving witness in the large barge. At the pier the rock was discharged by means of cranes. Three or four hours afterwards, while mooring the large barge, he heard an outcry and went in a small row boat to see what was the matter, when he met his own boat, rowed by some of the Company's men, and got into it and proceeded to where the cry came from. He then noticed that a crane used for hoisting rock had disappeared. The diver then went down, found the body, and put a rope around it; and witness assisted in hauling it on board, and taking it to the North Foreland. Rains was dead when taken on board. Witness did not then notice the wound on the head. The occurrence happened about a quarter to three.

John Goldsmith, foreman at the new pier, under Mr. Latham, said that he saw the small barge rowed to the new pier about a quarter to eleven that morning, for the purpose of discharging cargo. Eight men began to discharge under witness's direction about a quarter past two. The portable crane on the new pier could lift 6 tons with safety. Deceased was employed at the handle of the crane winding up stone when the accident happened which cost his life. They had already taken out four stones, weighing from 14 and 15 cwt. to a ton. The stone they were then lifting weighed from two ton to two ton and a half. A man in the barge slung the rocks. Witness saw him sling this rock and make it fast to the crane chain, and then he himself gave orders. They had almost got the stone to the edge of the pier when a knot or half hitch in the crane chain slipped from six to eight feet, and by the sudden jerk overturned the crane into the sea – the deceased and George Gray falling into the sea also. The others jumped onto the pier. He could not say if deceased fell clear of the crane. Witness told Richard Pledge, the man in the barge, to take a good half hitch with the sling chain, and he saw him do so. Gray got out of the water himself with a scratch on his head. Could not account for the slipping of the half hitch. Pledge had been in the habit of slinging in the stone, and in witness's opinion was a steady and good workman. They always use the same kind of half hitch. Witness had been here two years and two months. The crane was properly weighted by a balance box on the handfast. They had lifted five tons with the same balance as they had used that day. The balance box would not shift from it's place. It would take up about two feet.

Silvester Eastes was called to the North Foreland about half past four that afternoon, where he saw the body of deceased, Thomas Rains, and upon examination found the usual appearance of persons who had died from drowning. There was also a compound fracture of the upper part of the skull, or right temple. The man was then evidently dead. He was told the body had been under water about an hour, and it was getting cold. The man probably died from drowning, and if he had not been drowned, he might have died from the wound. He thought the wound was caused by the head coming in contact with some hard substance under the water.

Richard Pledge, employed by the Company at the new pier, was that afternoon in a small barge unloading rock. They had lifted two pieces before the crane tumbled over. The piece of rock with which the crane tipped over he believed did not weigh more than two tons. He put a back wall around a piece of rock about two tons in weight, and a half hitch under the back wall. Before he put the half hitch under, Mr. Goldsmith said to him “Set up taut” and he hailed those on the quay to set up. As soon as they had set up he took a half hitch under the chain, and then left it and went forward to get ready to haul the barge out of the way. As soon as the men on the crane had lifted the stone clear of the barge he hauled it ahead. He took the barge out of the way every time. He did not see the crane fall over, but he heard the splash. Witness had been engaged about four years in slinging things. He made the half hitch in the usual way.

This being the whole of the evidence, the Coroner addressed the jury, remarking that he thought no blame could be attributed to anyone in connection to the death of Rains, and the jury at once returned a verdict of accidental death.

 

Southeastern Gazette 14 July 1863.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Thursday evening, at the North Foreland, before J. Minter, Esq., coroner, on the body of Thos. Rains, Dover- Street, a labourer in the employ of the South-Eastern Railway Company.

Thomas Hall, bargeman in the employ of the company, said deceased worked in the barge with him that day at the entrance to the harbour, getting up rock for the purpose of deepening the entrance. There were two barges. The large one was used to get up the rock, and the other to convey it to the new pier. Deceased went to the pier in the small barge, leaving witness in the large one. At the pier the rock was discharged by means of cranes. . Three or four hours afterwards witness heard an outcry, and proceeded to where the cry came from. He then noticed that a crane used for hoisting rock had disappeared. The diver then went down, found the body of deceased, and put a rope around it, and witness assisted in hauling it on board and taking it to the North Foreland, but Rains was dead when taken on board.

John Goldsmith, foreman at the pier, said deceased was employed at the handle of the crane winding up stone, when the accident happened. They had already taken out four stones, weighing from 14 and 15 cwt. to a ton. The stone they were then lifting weighed from two ton to two ton and a half. A man in the barge slung the rocks. Witness saw him sling this rock and make it fast to the crane chain, and then he himself gave orders. They had almost got the stone to the edge of the pier, when a knot or half hitch in the crane chain slipped from six to eight feet, and by the sudden jerk overturned the crane into the sea, the deceased and George Gray falling into the sea also. The others jumped on to the pier. He could not say if deceased fell clear of the crane. Gray got out of the water himself with a scratch on his head.

Richard Pledge gave confirmatory evidence.

Mr. Silvester Eastes said he saw the body about half-past four, and it had the usual appearances of persons .who had died from drowning. There was also a compound fracture on the upper part of the skull and right temple.

Verdict, “Accidental death.”

 

Folkestone Observer 18 July 1863.

Foul Language.

Saturday July 11th:- Before James Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

James Sacree, sen., was sent to prison for five days for using very foul language to Mr. Murphy of the North Foreland, after refusing to pay for some rum he had ordered and given away.

 

Folkestone Observer 29 August 1863.

Public House Disturbance.

Saturday August 22nd:- Before R. F. Browell, Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.

William Coil was brought up on a charge of maliciously breaking four squares of glass and damaging a mahogany cupboard and a black coat.

Henry Patrick Murphy, landlord of the North Foreland, Back Street, said: Between ten and eleven o'clock last evening I was in my club-room at the North Foreland. The prisoner was there also, and tried to get up and fight, and was very disorderly. I requested him to be quiet, and to go downstairs. He went out of the room as far as the top of the stairs, where he seized me by the collar, and by the skirt of my coat, and attempted to pull me downstairs. I freed myself, and he went downstairs and burst open the door of my bar parlour. From there he went into my beer cellar, where I left him, and fetched a policeman, and gave him into custody. The prisoner tore my black frock coat down the front. I estimate the damage to the coat at 1, as it is nearly new. When P.C. Smith arrived I went with him into the cellar, and found the prisoner in the corner with a piece of wood (an oak wedge) in his hand, which he flung at us. The wood hit a mahogany cupboard with a glass front, which was in the bar parlour. The wood flung by the prisoner went out through the cellar door and broke four squares of glass in the mahogany cupboard, and also some of the woodwork. I estimate the damage to the cupboard at 4s. P.C. Smith then took him into custody. He was very violent.

P. C. Smith said: Last night, about eleven o'clock, I was fetched by the last witness, and I went with him to the North Foreland. We went into the beer cellar, and as soon at the door was opened, the prisoner, who was in a corner, up with the block of oak I produce and flung it at me as I was standing in the doorway. I dodged my head and the wood missed me and went through the door and into a mahogany cupboard in the bar parlour. I afterwards found four panes of glass and the framework of the cupboard broken. I seized the prisoner, and with assistance he was brought to the station-house.

The bench ordered the prisoner to pay 1 4s., the amount of damage, and a fine of 6d., with the costs; in default, ten days' hard labour.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 28 November, 1863.

DRUNK

Thursday November 26th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt, Esq.

Sarah Wilson, found by P.C. Swain dead drunk in the passage of the "North Foreland," was magisterially cautioned and discharged.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 16 January, 1864.

ASSAULT

Monday January 11th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and James Tolputt, Esqs.

Henry Patrick Murphy, landlord of the "North Foreland" appeared on a summons, charged with assaulting Mr. Henry Flaherty, accountant. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

From the evidence of the complainant, which was corroborated by a preventive man, it appeared that on the Friday night previous, complainant was in the Chronicle office, Tontine Street, when he was alarmed by hearing cries from a woman, seemingly in distress. Witness went out to ascertain the cause, and found a woman, who it appears lives with the defendant, standing at the junction of High Street and Tontine Street, crying bitterly and threatening to drown herself, arising from the ill-usage of defendant; complainant persuaded her to go home, and accompanied her, and a daughter of the defendant, who came up while they were talking, towards defendant's house; when they reached the "North Foreland" defendant's daughter went indoors, and directly afterwards he came out, and using some foul language, struck the complainant two violent blows, one at the back of the ear whilst walking away from him, and the other on the left eye when complainant turned round: complainant had not spoken to, nor previously done anything, to defendant. This was the assault complained of.

For the defence, defendant made an accusation that complainant had pushed against him, and had uttered threats against him to the two females on their way towards his house; he also endeavoured to insinuate that complainant had used a dangerous weapon against him. He called the two females to substantiate this defence; they, however, signally failed in this, as they committed deliberate perjury, and contradicted each other in the most important points of their statements.

The court was then cleared for deliberation, and on the re-admission of the public, Capt. Kennicott said a majority of the bench had decided on a conviction; it would have been more severe if they had all agreed. The decision of the bench was that defendant be fined 1 and 12s costs.

Mr. Leith added that a majority of the court were also of opinion that the defendant had deliberately endeavoured to make the bench believe that the complainant had been guilty of improper conduct with the two women, one of them his own daughter, which was a most vile calumny.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 14 May, 1864.

DRUNK AND DISORDERLY

Tuesday May 10th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt, Esqs.

Mrs. Nash, charged with being drunk and disorderly at one o'clock in the morning, denied that she was drunk. She had been to the "North Foreland" to see her husband before he went across the water that night, and get some money of him. He had thrashed her before he left home. She had only one pint of beer during the day. The testimony of P.C.s Hills and Reynolds and of the prisoner presently to be named (whose case was heard before Mrs. Nash's was finally decided) was, however, very positive, and Superintendent Martin stated that drunkenness was not an unusual fault with her. The bench fined her 5s., with an alternative of seven days.

James Sekree was charged with assaulting P.C. Reynolds in the execution of his duty. Reynolds said the prisoner tried to prevent him and Hills from taking Nash into custody, and he therefore took him also. Sekree said he had actually been assisting Hills in lifting Nash up and putting her on her feet before Reynolds came up, and when he did come up, Reynolds laid hold of him. The bench cautioned him and dismissed him.

 

Folkestone Observer 8 July 1865.

Temporary license has been granted to David Rigden for the North Foreland.

Note: This is at variance with dates in More Bastions, which also gives the name of David Rigden Taylor for North Foreland.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 December 1865.

Friday December 8th:- Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Felony By Soldiers.

Evan Griffiths and Charles Wayman, two privates in the Fusilier Guards, were charged with stealing a knife and fork from the North Foreland public house on Thursday night.

David Rigden Taylor said that he was landlord of the North Foreland public house, Folkestone. A little before eleven o'clock last night the prisoner Griffiths came to his house and asked whether any soldiers were in. Told him there were none. The prisoner turned, as he thought, to leave the house, but soon after prosecutor missed a knife and fork from a table in the tap room, where a man had been eating his supper. He afterwards saw police constable Swain who told him that two soldiers had been apprehended who had a knife and fork in their possession, which he afterwards identified as his property. The value of them was 9d.

By the prisoner Griffiths: There was another man in the tap room asleep when you saw me go in.

Albert Duncan, a gunner in the Royal Artillery said he was Assistant Provost at Sandgate last night. About 12-30 he saw the two prisoners searched at Sandgate Castle. A knife and fork was found on Private Griffiths.

Police constable Smith said that while he was on duty in the Upper Sandgate Road last night, about 11-45 he saw the two prisoners pass towards Sandgate. Soon after an officer on horseback told him that two of the foot guards had knocked a woman down, and as he was going to Sandgate he received information that two prisoners were in custody at Sandgate Castle. He went there and charged both prisoners with stealing the knife and fork from the North Foreland public house. The prisoner Griffiths said that he and another soldier were in a public house playing cards, but how the knife and fork came into his pocket he did not know. The prisoner Wayman made no answer. He took them into custody and brought them to Folkestone.

The magistrates discharged the prisoner Wayman. The other prisoner pleaded guilty, and the magistrates ordered him to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Observer 9 December 1865.

Friday December 8th:- Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Evan Griffiths and Charles Wayman were charged with stealing a knife and fork from the North Foreland public house.

D.R. Taylor, the landlord, saw them in the house and saw Griffith leave the room where he had placed the knife and fork just before.

The Provost proved that on searching Griffiths he found the knife and fork in his greatcoat pocket.

Wayman was discharged, there being no evidence against him, and Griffiths was sentenced to one month with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 October 1868.

Saturday October 24th: Before the Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

George Punnett was summoned for assaulting H. Levy, a fish buyer of Boulogne, in the North Foreland Inn, on Thursday. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Complanant stated that he was waiting for his dinner in the North Foreland on Thursday, and defendant came in and knocked him down. Daniel Hall, landlord of the house, corroborated the evidence.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, said that it was a fight instead of an assault; Punnett and others had taken some fish over to Boulogne expecting to get a good price for it, but were obliged to sell at a sacrifice in consequence of a telegram that 16,000 were on board the steamer. This was false, and they, thinking Levy sent the message, picked a quarrel with him.

Fined 20s. and costs, or 21 days.

Note: Hall being landlord at this time differs with info in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 31 October 1868.

Saturday, October 24th: Before The Mayor and Alderman Boarer.

George Punnett was charged with committing an assault on Henry Levy.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Henry Levy, who described himself as a fish buyer, residing at Boulogne, deposed that as he was sitting in a room at the North Foreland public house the prisoner came in, and after spitting in his face, challenged him to fight, but he refused; defendant then came and knocked him down. Mr. Hall and another man interfered and pulled him away. But plaintiff's face was covered in blood from the effect of the blow, and he went at once in that state to the police station to take out a summons. He had given the defendant no provocation.

By Mr. Minter: This happened on Thursday; on Tuesday he had to fight with another man in self-defence. Was told that Punnett had taken 3,000 mackerel across to Boulogne, but did not go to the telegraph office and send a message saying that 16,000 mackerel were coming across by the packet boat, nor was he aware that someone sent that telegram. The dispute and fight with Fagg was not in consequence of the telegraphic message. Did not say after he had fought with Fagg that he would paint Punnett the same. Did not advance to Punnett in a fighting attitude and challenge him to fight when he came in the North Foreland.

Mr. Hall, landlord of the North Foreland, said that Mr. Levy had lodged with him for six or seven weeks. He was at home on Thursday and was talking to Mr. Levy when Punnett came in and said to Levy “You are the man I have been looking for”, and added that he was bound to give him a “tanning” before the night's up. He then ran to Levy and struck him, and they had a tussle together. Mr. Levy said nothing to him, and Punnett struck the first blow.

The Mayor: Did you say Levy struck Punnett?

Witness: I was down myself and could not see.

By Mr. Minter: They had a fight, there is no mistake about that, but there was only two or three blows. Did not hear anything said about the telegraphic message.

Mr. Minter said there was no doubt that this was a fight, and a fight meant a mutual exchange of blows. When Levy got the best of the fight with Fagg, he did not complain, but when he got the worst of it he came to this court. The fact of the case is this: Levy has been trying to monopolise the whole of the fish trade between Folkestone and Boulogne. Fagg and Punnett, and others, caught a quantity of mackerel, and they would not let Levy buy it of them at the price offered, but shipped it off themselves to Boulogne, expecting to get a good price for it there, as fish was scarce. When they arrived and offered it for sale they were informed that a telegram had been received that 16,000 more were coming over in the packet boat, and the dealers laughed at them for asking such a price. They, therefore, thinking this information was true, disposed of the fish at a great sacrifice. When they afterwards found out that they had been tricked, and happening to meet Mr. Levy going along Backway, no doubt some choice epithets were applied, and he taking his own part pitches into Fagg and gives him a good beating. He also says the first time he catches Punnett he will serve him the same as he has served Fagg. Fagg tells Punnett what Levy has said, Punnett therefore feeling that he had not only been robbed, but threatened, goes into Daniel Halls and said to Levy “You are the man that said you would paint me the same as you did Fagg”. Of course Punnett had no right to break the peace, but undoubtedly the threat was the immediate cause, and if the Bench considered that the peace had been broken, the smallest possible fine would meet the justice of the case.

He called John Fagg, who said that Mr. Levy pitched into him and marked his face. He then said he would paint Punnett the same as he had him, and not only him but all the people along Backway.

The Bench considered the case proved and fined defendant 20s. and 12s. 6d. costs, or 21d days' hard labour, and stated they would give Fagg a summons against Levy if he wished. The fine was paid.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 June 1869.

Monday, May 31st: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Daniel Bates, a lad of 16, well known to the police, was charged with stealing a piece of rope that morning, value 2s., the property of Mr. Daniel Hall.

Prosecutor, who keeps the North Foreland, Back Street, said he was the owner of three fishing smacks, from which he had lately lost 30 or 40 worth of gear. The boat from which the piece of rope produced was cut was lying opposite his house in the west corner of the harbour. From information he had from a coastguardsman, he went to the boat about seven o'clock that morning and found a rope cut, and the piece coiled up in a punt close by. Four or five fathoms had been cut off. Prisoner was then by the side of another vessel and ran away, but witness caught him near the Royal George, and being confronted with the coastguard was identified as being the boy who had cut the rope. Witness sent for a policeman and gave him into custody. The piece of rope produced by P.C. Swaine was his property, and was worth 2s. Prisoner was not in his employ, and had no business on board the boat.

James Sacrey, a seaman living in East Street, said he saw the prisoner at ten minutes to seven that morning, leaning over a boat's side in the harbour, coiling a piece of rope. Mr. Summers, a coastguardsman, was with witness. Witness called out “What are you ding with that rope?”, and the boy ran away with a basket.

William Summers said he was with the last witness on the quay side that morning. About half past six he saw prisoner go aboard Mr. Hall's boat, and knowing that he was not a fisherman, watched him. Mr. Hall's father spoke to prisoner, who left the boat, and a few minutes afterwards witness saw him leaning over a small punt, about twenty yards away, close to the tramway. Sacrey said to prisoner “What are you doing with that rope?”, and prisoner said “Going to let it be”, or words to that effect, and ran away. Witness told prosecutor of what he had seen, and soon after Mr. Hall brought prisoner to him and asked if he was the boy who had the rope. Witness said he was, and prisoner denied having cut the rope, that he saw the rope lying in the punt, and not knowing whether it was cut or not, picked it up to look at it. Witness saw the rope lying there. The cut ends were not more than two inches apart.

P.C. Swaine said he was on duty at the police station at half past seven that morning, and from information received he went to prosecutor's house, where he found the prisoner, and Mr. Hall gave him into custody for cutting the rope, and intending to steal it. He charged the prisoner with the offence, and he said he did not cut it, but admitted he was on board Mr. Hall's boat that morning. Witness asked why he went on board, and prisoner said to get a piece of string to lace up his shoes. On searching prisoner he found a clasp knife on him, with tar on the blade.

Prisoner, on being called for his defence, said he did not cut the rope. He went on board for a piece of string to fasten his boots with, and he saw the rope hanging over the side of the boat, coiled it up, and left it.

The Bench, after considering the case, found the prisoner guilty. They were always very reluctant to send young people to prison, but felt they must make an example of the prisoner, as property was so often stolen from the harbour, and they trusted it would be a caution to others. Prisoner was liable to three months' hard labour, but looking to his youth he was only sent for one month, and the Bench hoped that at the expiration of his sentence prisoner would endeavour to regain his good character.

 

Folkestone Observer 5 June 1869.

Monday, May 31st: Before R.W. Boarer and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Daniel Betts, a boy, 16 years of age, was charged with stealing a piece of rope, value 2s., the property of Daniel Hall.

Daniel Hall said he kept the North Foreland Inn, Back Street. He was owner of three fishing boats; the one from which he had lost something was in the west corner of the harbour, opposite his house. A man told him that he saw a boy cut a piece of his rope, and on going to the boat he found the rope cut, and the piece from which it had been cut coiled up in the punt close by. This was about seven o'clock. There had been four or five fathoms cut off. On enquiry he found the prisoner by the side of a vessel and he ran away, but at the Royal George he caught him and took him to the coast guard, who said that was the same boy who cut the rope. Prisoner said he did not cut the rope. He then sent for the policeman and gave him in charge. The value of the rope cut off was about two shillings. Prisoner was not in his employ, and had no business on board of his boat. He had lost 30 or 40 worth of gear lately, and only the other day he lost a cable worth 7. The rope produced by P.C. Swain was the piece cut off his rope.

James Sacrey, a seafaring man, living in East Street, said he knew the prisoner. Saw him at ten to seven when he (Prisoner) was leaning over the boat side opposite prosecutor's house coiling a piece of rope into a small compass to put into a basket. Mr. Summers was with witness. He said “What are you doing with that rope?”, and the boy made no reply, but took up his basket and ran away. The rope lay on the keelson already cut. The rope produced was compared by him and he found it to match.

William Summers, a coarstguardsman, said he saw the boy at half past six on board Mr. Hall's boat, then lying on the beach opposite Mr. Hall's house. Knowing that he was not a fisherman, witness took notice of him. Soon after he saw Mr. Hall's father go to the prisoner, who then left the boat. About twenty minutes to seven he again saw the prisoner on the beach close under the tramway, leaning over a small punt, which was about twenty yards from Mr. Hall's boat. Sacrey, who was near him, said “What are you doing with that rope?”. Witness understood prisoner to say “Going to let it be”, after which he ran away. Mr. Hall shortly after came to him with the prisoner and asked if that was the lad that had the rope and witness said “Yes”. Prisoner said he did not cut the rope. When he saw the rope at first he could not say whether it was cut or not. The two cut ends were not more than two inches apart. Did not lose sight of the rope from that time until Mr. Hall took it.

P.C. Swain was on duty at the police office at half past seven that morning, and from information received he went to the prosecutor's house in Back Street. Found prisoner there, and Mr. Hall gave him into custody for cutting his rope and intending to steal it. In answer to witness, Mr. Hall said it had been cut from one of his boats, and he knew it was his property. He received both pieces of rope from Mr. Hall, and on their being matched by him he found them to correspond. On charging the prisoner, he said he did not cut the rope, but admitted that he was on board Mr. Hall's boat that morning. Asked him why he went on board, and he said to get a piece of string to lace up his shoes. On searching the prisoner he found a clasp knife. There was tar on the blade.

Prisoner said he went on board the boat at half past six to get a piece of twine to lace up his shoes, and Mr. Hall's father told him to go away, which he did, and going there afterward he saw a piece of rope hanging over the ship, and he coiled it up and let it lie there. He denied cutting the rope.

The mother of the boy said if the public houses were kept shut against such boys, they would not get into mischief. It was a nasty trick of Mr. Hall's in bringing the boy there.

Mr. Boarer said that after consideration they must find the prisoner guilty. They were always very reluctant to send so young a boy to prison, but they must now do so, as property had been frequently taken from the harbour, and he hoped this case would be a warning to other persons. Under the law the prisoner was liable to a term of three months' imprisonment with hard labour, but the sentence upon the prisoner would be one month's imprisonment with hard labour, and he hoped that after the expiration of that time prisoner would seek to regain a good character.

 

Folkestone Express 5 June 1869.

Monday, May 31st: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

George Betts, 16, was charged with having stolen on the 31st ult., a piece of rope, value 2s., the property of Daniel Hall. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Daniel Hall said: I live at the North Foreland Inn, and am the owner of three fishing boats. A little after seven o'clock this morning I went on board one of them that was lying opposite my house, and found the coil of rope by which it was fastened to the shore cut, and the piece was lying in a punt alongside. The piece cut off was about five fathoms in length. I saw the prisoner close to the Royal George, and I said “You are the lad I want”. He made no answer. I took him to a coastguardsman named Summers and said “Is this the lad you saw with a piece of rope?”. He said “Yes”. The prisoner then said he did not cut the rope. I afterwards gave him into the custody of P.C. Swain. The prisoner is not in my employ, and had no business on board the boat. The rope produced is my property.

James Sacree was sworn, and deposed that he saw the prisoner at about ten minutes past seven o'clock by the side of a punt on the beach, coiling a rope to put in a basket. He said to him “What are you doing with that rope?”. Prisoner made no answer, but took up his ballast and ran away. Witness, seeing a piece of rope hanging over a boat's side, compared the pieces cut off with it, and saw they matched.

Matthew Summers confirmed the evidence of the last witness.

P.C. Swain said: I went to Mr. Hall's house and took the prisoner into custody for cutting the rope. The prisoner said “I did not do it”; I said “Do what?”; he said “Cut the rope”. I then cautioned the prisoner, and he said “I know I was on board the boat this morning to get a piece of string to lace up my shoes”. I searched him and found the clasp knife, which I now produce. There is tar on the blade.

The prisoner was then charged by the Bench, and pleaded Guilty.

The Chairman said he had great reluctance in convicting so young a lad as the prisoner, but as things had been so often missed from the harbour they must punish him as a warning to other persons. He could sentence him to three months' imprisonment, but the sentence in this case would be one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

 

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.

Thomas Bailey applied for the transfer of the license of the North Foreland Inn from Daniel Hall to himself. Application granted.

Note: This date differs from information in More Bastions.

 

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 North Foreland was transferred from Daniel Hall to Thomas Bailey.

Note: Date for transfer differs from info in More Bastions.

 

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:

North Foreland Inn: From Daniel Hall to Thomas Bailey

Note: Date differs from information in More Bastions.

 

Southeastern Gazette 11 April 1870.

Special Petty Sessions.

A special session was held on Wednesday for transferring and granting alehouse licences.

Thomas Bailey applied for the transfer of the licence of the North Foreland Inn from Daniel Hall to himself; application granted.

Note: Transfer is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 26 August 1871.

Saturday, August 19th: Before J. Clarke, J. Gambrill and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Thomas Bailey, of the North Foreland Inn was summoned for leaving a cart on the highway on the 14th inst., and fined 2. 6d. and costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 April 1872.

Auction Advertisement.

The North Foreland Inn, occupying the best position in the fish market; close to the quay, and in the most populous part of this flourishing seaport town.

Messrs. Beadell will sell by auction at the Mart, Tokenhouse Yard, London, on Thursday, the 9th day of May, at 12 for 1 o'clock, (unless previously sold by private contract), the above old established FREEHOLD INN, known as the North Foreland, situate immediately joining the fish market, and having a frontage of nearly 60 feet to the quay.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 June 1873.

Advertisement.

NORTH FORELAND INN, near the Harbour, Folkestone.

Mr. John Banks will sell by auction, on Thursday, June 12th, 1873, the HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, Trade and Tenants' Fixtures &c.

On view the morning of sale. Sale to commence precisely at One o'clock.

 

Folkestone Express 16 August 1873.

Friday, August 15th: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Mr. Fitzgerald, North Foreland Inn, applied for a license to sell beer and spirituous liquors in a booth at Park farm on the occasion of athletic sports by the Folkestone Athletic Club on Monday next.

The Bench said, the occasion not being a fair, or any affair within the provisions of the Act, they had no power to grant the application, which was accordingly refused.

Note: No mention of Fitzgerald at the North Foreland in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 October 1873.

Adjourned Licensing Day.

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

Mr. Till made an application for an extension of hours for the North Foreland, from after 12 o'clock until five a.m., and put in a memorial largely signed by fishermen and others in support of the application.

Mr. Till said such a concession was much needed in this locality, where men were out late at night, and needed refreshment. The Bench refused the application.

 

Folkestone Express 4 October 1873.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

North Foreland.

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

Mr. Till said he had an application to make at the instance of Mr. Thomas Bailey for an extension of hours, and produced a memorial signed by several fishermen asking that the house might be opened at two o'clock in the morning in order to enable fishermen to obtain refreshment when going to sea or on returning from fishing.

The Mayor remarked that many of the signatures were of Brighton, Hastings, and Eastbourne fishermen.

Mr. Till said that was so, and those men were in the same position as the Folkestone men, being unable to obtain refreshments when they came on shore early in the morning. At Dover the hours had been extended.

Mr. Tolputt remarked that the men took coffee and other refreshments to sea with them.

Mr. Till said they only took enough for consumption on the voyage.

The Mayor said the Magistrates decided on a former occasion that the hour for opening should be five, and they did not feel disposed to undo what they had done.

Application refused.

 

Southeastern Gazette 18 May 1874.

County Court.

This court was held on Saturday last, before G. Russell, Esq., Judge.

An important question touching expenses at Parliamentary elections was raised in the action, H. Payne, baker, v S. Fitzgerald, North Foreland Inn.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant applied to him to be allowed to post bills on his house in connection with the candidature of Capt. Merryweather at the last general election for the Borough, and defendant agreed to give him 2 10s. for the privilege, which was made use of.

Mr. Till, who appeared for defendant, contended that the amount could not be recovered, inasmuch as there was no proof that defendant was agent for Capt. Merryweather, and further that by 26 and 27 Vic., Cap. 29, sec. 3, the name of a candidate must be published, and the accounts sent in within a month of the election. He claimed a judgment for defendant as he had never been published as the agent of Capt. Merryweather, and the account had not been rendered in time.

His Honour said there was no privity of contract, and defendant appeared to have no authority to pledge Capt. Merryweather’s credit. There were two questions to be considered. First, whether plaintiff could recover against Capt. Merryweather, and secondly, if so, could the particulars be amended. As these points were of great importance he should reserve his judgment until the next court.

Note: No record of Fitzgerald in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 May 1874.

County Court.

Saturday, May 16thth: Before G. Russell Esq.

Henry Payne v Fitzgerald: This was a claim for 2 10s. made by plaintiff against defendant, who is landlord of the North Foreland public house, for the use of his wall during the last election to place bills on in the interest of the unsuccessful candidate, Captain Montague Merryweather.

The plaintiff having stated the nature of his claim, Mr. Till, who appeared for defendant, said he was not liable to pay, and the bill should have been sent to Captain Merryweather. Such a claim could only be made against a legally appointed agent, who should have a written engagement. Mr. Till read the clause in the Act in confirmation of his statement.

His Honour: Who was the agent?

Mr. Till: There was no agent appointed. It was not legally necessary to have one. Captain Merryweather acted as his own agent.

The defendant, sworn, said: I am the defendant. I have not in writing been appointed Captain Merryweather's agent, but I only acted indirectly for him. The Captain has paid some of the bills, and I have paid others for him.

His Honour: This is a contract. The order was given by defendant, and I think he is liable. You must prove that the order was given by Captain Merryweather before you make him responsible.

Mr. Till said the defendant was willing to pay this and other bills, but considering the numerous claims resulting from the election that would follow, he advised him not to pay. The bill said the charge was made for loan of wall to Captain Merryweather.

His Honour: It is in my power to amend particulars by striking out Captain Merryweather's name from the bill.

Mr. Till submitted that under the circumstances this would hardly be fair to his client.

His Honour said that considering that this was an important case affecting the conduction of elections, and that it is likely that other cases would arise out of it, he should take time to consider his judgement. He should consider first whether he should amend the particulars of the bill, and secondly whether defendant should pay the amount. It seemed that he must have acted as agent to have given the order.

Defendant: The Captain asked me to do this for him, and said he would not hold me responsible.

Mr. Till: I did not say that Fitzgerald was not an agent, but not a legal agent according to the law.

His Honour: Has this claim been sent to Captain Merryweather?

Plaintiff: Yes.

His Honour said he was clearly of opinion that if plaintiff sued Captain Merryweather for this amount he would be nonsuited. As the question of who was liable was such an important one he should reserve his judgement.

 

Folkestone Express 23 May 1874.

County Court.

Saturday, May 16th: Before G. Russell Esq.

Payne v Fitzgerald: This was a suit in which important points were raised touching the payments of expenses of Parliamentary Elections, and it was understood to be a kind of test case as to the agent of Capt. Merryweather, the unsuccessful candidate at the last General Election. Plaintiff is a baker in High Street, and defendant keeps the North Foreland inn, in the fish market.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant applied to him to be allowed to post bills on his house in connection with the candidature of Capt. Merryweather at the last General Election for the Borough, and defendant agreed to give him 2 10s. for the privilege, which was made use of.

The claim was not disputed, but Mr. Till, who appeared for defendant, contended that the amount could not be recovered, inasmuch as there was no proof that defendant was agent for Capt. Merryweather, and further that by 26 and 27 Vic., Cap. 29. Sec 3, the name of a candidate must be published, and the accounts sent in within a month of the election. He claimed a judgement for defendant, as he had never been published as the agent of Capt. Merryweather, and the account had not been rendered in time.

His Honour said there was no privity of contract, and defendant appeared to have no authority to pledge Capt. Merryweather's credit. There were two questions to be considered. First, whether plaintiff could recover against Capt. Merryweather, and secondly, if so, could the particulars be amended? As these points were of great importance he could reserve his judgement until the next Court.

Note: No mention of any Fitzgerald at the North Foreland, according to More Bastions.

 

Southeastern Gazette 15 June 1874.

County Court.

The monthly sitting was held on Saturday, before George Russell, Esq., Judge.

His Honour gave judgment in the suit Henry Paine v Fitzgerald, in which a claim of 2 10s. was made for use of plaintiff’s wall for posting placards referring to the candidature of Captain Merryweather at the last general election, when Mr. Till objected to the claim, on the ground that Mr. Fitzgerald was not the legally appointed agent of the candidate.

His Honour said the account was made out to defendant as the election agent. The question was, was there any election law which would overrule the common law, which his Honour held could not be, and the 2nd and 3rd section Viet. 26 and 27, cap. 29, stated that an election agent must be duly appointed, and his appointment published; it being quite clear that Fitzgerald was never the legally appointed agent of Captain Merryweather, and therefore not liable for the claim, a nonsuit must be entered, without costs; and, although it was a hard case on plaintiff, it could not be helped.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 June 1874.

County Court.

Saturday, June 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.

Payne v Fitzgerald: This was a case heard at the last County Court, Mr. Till appearing for defendant, and the result involved the question whether plaintiff was liable to pay a sum of 2 for space on which to put bills for Capt. Merryweather at the recent election. His Honour reserved judgement until the next County Court.

His Honour, in giving his decision, said that Capt. Merryweather appointed defendant as his agent, but the facts showed that this was a case in common law for disclosing the principal, and defendant had not in this case done anything but what in common law would render him liable, as he was acting for another. He should give judgement for defendant with costs, although he thought it was a hard case for plaintiff, who ought to get his money.

 

Folkestone Express 20 June 1874.

County Court.

Saturday, June 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.

His Honour gave judgment in the case of Paine v Fitzgerald, heard in the last Court, when it will be recollected Mr. Henry Paine, baker, High Street, sued Mr. Fitzgerald, North Foreland Inn for 2 10s. for use of wall for exhibiting placards in connection with the candidature of Capt. Merryweather at the General Election. The advocates were Mr. Minter for plaintiff, and Mr. Till for defendant, and the amount of the claim was not disputed, but Mr. Till objected to the claim on the ground that Mr. Fitzgerald had not been legally appointed as agent for Capt. Merryweather and therefore the claim could not be recovered. As certain legal questions were thus raised, and as it was understood to be a case by which other similar claims should be decided, His Honour deferred his judgement until the present Court, which was as follows:

In this case Mr. Till took objection to plaintiff's claim based upon the second and third section, 26 and 27 Victoria, cap. 29, and plaintiff claimed in the terms “Mr. Fitzgerald, as agent of Capt. Merryweather, to hire of my property and my time, 2 10s.” It appears that Capt. Merryweather was a candidate at the last General Election and, according to the evidence, appointed Mr. Fitzgerald as his agent, and if so, I should have a right to take the particulars, and must take it that it was so. It is simply a case hinging upon a rule of common law. That defendant was appointed as agent to Capt. Merryweather appears upon the face of the particulars, and there is nothing in the nature of the services rendered beyond the scope of an agent. The question is whether there is anything in the election law to overrule the common law, and would the candidate be held personally liable for the claim because he employs an agent, and that being so defendant cannot personally be sued. I do not think I should be right in amending the particulars and striking out the name of Capt. Merryweather. I must consider the particulars as they appear before me. Defendant is sued as agent of a principal, and the terms of the section would seem to point to the liability of the principal.

Mr. Minter: Your Honour will see that no election agent can be recognised as such, unless he is duly appointed, and the fact published.

His Honour: It is quite clear that Mr. Fitzgerald was not appointed agent to Captain Merryweather, and although it is no doubt a hard case for plaintiff, there must be a nonsuit, without costs.

 

Folkestone Express 19 September 1874.

Wednesday, September 16th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

The following received temporary authority to sell intoxicating liquors at the houses named until the transfer day:

Mr. G.S. Whitton, North Foreland.

 

Folkestone Express 17 June 1876.

Wednesday, June 14th: Before J. Tolputt and J. Clars Esqs., and Alterman Caister.

A temporary license was granted to William Ashton for the North Foreland Inn.

Note: More Bastions give this as John Ashton.

 

Folkestone Express 10 September 1881.

Local News.

The Folkestone Coffee and Refreshment House Company have acquired the premises lately occupied as a public house, known as the North Foreland, the license of which was allowed to lapse. The house has been thoroughly renovated, admirably fitted up for the new class of business, and placed under an efficient manager. It's proximity to the harbour, and it's situation in a neighbourhood thickly populated by fishermen and seafaring men will cause it to become an extremely useful and beneficial institution.

 

Southeastern Gazette 12 September 1881.

Local News.

The Folkestone Coffee and Refreshment House Company have acquired the premises lately occupied as a public-house, known as the North Foreland, the licence of which was allowed to lapse. The house has been thoroughly renovated and admirably fitted up. Its proximity to the harbour and its situation in a neighbourhood thickly populated by fishermen and seafaring men will doubtless render it useful as well as successful.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 December 1881.

Extract from the Annual Meeting of the Folkestone Coffee and Refreshment House Company (Limited).

The Directors wish to call the attention of the Shareholders to the fact that, according to the decision arrived at at the last meeting, the North Foreland public house has been secured and adapted to the purposes of the Company. It is now in full work, and for an old house possesses considerable advantages, consisting of a convenient bar, large smoking room, an upstairs sitting or public room, with suitable kitchen, and other offices, besides bedroom accommodation for 16 beds.

The building was not cheap as a purchase, and was also in a deplorable condition, being both unsafe as well as most inconvenient for trade purposes. The outlay for purchase and alterations was considerable, but the Directors feel assured that they were fully justified in recommending the shareholders to secure the property, because its situation is such as to command support on account of its close proximity to the Harbour and Fish Market, the situation being the very best in which our programme is likely to be carried out, viz., do good first, and in doing so make five percent.

By the purchase of this property we have done away with a public house and converted it into a respectable home for sailors and their friends. At the same time we must not forget that one item increasing the value of the place arose from the fact of a full licence being attached to it.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 July 1893.

Local News.

An old Folkestone building has been handed over to the builder, and will shortly be razed to the ground. It is none other than the North Foreland on The Stade. Originally a public house, it was purchased by the “Edinburgh Castle” Company, and subsequently sold to Mr. Bartley, who has used it for some years past as a fisherman's “Bethel”. There the old place has stood, it is computed, for close on three centuries. The smugglers made it their rendezvous in the “good old days”, when the “cross Channel” passage was generally made by men who depended on their own stalwart arms to row the galleys and guineas to the other side. I understand the builder, in carrying out some alterations a few years back, found a golden guinea in one of the crevasses of the building, and this was presented to Mr. Holden as a souvenir. It is satisfactory to learn that a new “Bethel” will be built on the same site and the good work, so well begun, be continued.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

GITTENS Ann c1765-71 Bastions

GITTENS Thomas 1771-75 Bastions

MULLETT James 1775-1806 Bastions

BEVERLEY John 1806-09 Bastions

MACE James 1809-39+ Pigot's Directory 1823Pigot's Directory 1828-29Pigot's Directory 1832-34Bastions (died 1841)

LOTT George 1840-48 Bagshaw's Directory 1847Bastions

WILSON William 1848-51 Next pub licensee had Bastions

WALLIS John 1851-63 Next pub licensee had (age 58 in 1861Census) Folkestone ChronicleBastions

Last pub licensee had MURPHY Henry Patrick 1863-65 BastionsFolkestone Observer

TAYLOR David Rigden  1865-69 Next pub licensee had Bastions

Last pub licensee had HALL Daniel 1869-Apr/70 Next pub licensee had BastionsWhitstable Times

BAILEY Thomas Apr/1870-74 (age 42 in 1871Census) BastionsWhitstable Times

FITZGERALD Thomas 1874 Post Office Directory 1874

WHITTON George 1874-76 Bastions

ASHTON John 1876-77 Bastions

HARNDEN William 1877-79 Next pub licensee had Bastions

 

Pigot's Directory 1823From the Pigot's Directory 1823

Pigot's Directory 1828-29From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29

Pigot's Directory 1832-34From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34

Pigot's Directory 1839From the Pigot's Directory 1839

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

Folkestone ObserverFrom the Folkestone Observer

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

 

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