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”.

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”.

Dover Chronicle 23 March 1861.

Inquest: The following evidence is the result of an investigation instituted by the borough coroner, Sylvester Eastes Esq., into the circumstances attending the decease of William Fowler, an elderly man, who had met with his death the previous afternoon through falling from the tram-road into the harbour.

The inquiry was held at the "North Foreland" public house; and the body, which was lying in an upstairs room, having been viewed, William Henry Marshall was first called. He said – I am a labourer working on the tram-road. I have seen the body of the deceased, and recognise it as that of a man whom I saw standing on the tram-road about half past twelve yesterday afternoon. Deceased was carrying a basket containing some vegetables, which he intended taking on board a vessel named the Cleveland. As deceased was going down the ladder I saw him slip and fall into the harbour, striking against the edge of the vessel in the fall. I immediately gave the alarm, and my brother slid down a rope and ultimately got hold of him. A boat was afterward procured and the deceased was hauled on board. I should think it was about two minutes before my brother caught hold of him, as the body receded with the motion of the water. There was about five or six feet of water in the place where he fell. The water was flowing at the time of the accident. The deceased did not sink, but floated on the top of the water. The distance from the top of the water to the edge of the vessel I should say is about seven or eight feet, and about twenty feet from the top of the ladder to the water. Deceased did not speak, and seemed to be insensible while in the water. The basket he carried was one of those usually used by carpenters, and appeared to be very heavy.

John Marshall – I am a mariner. About half past twelve o'clock yesterday afternoon I was standing on the tram-road near the harbour, when I heard my brother call out that a man was overboard. I ran to the spot and slid down a rope into the water, when I saw the deceased floating on top of the water. I took hold of him, and held his head up with one hand and supported myself with the other. A boat was soon on the spot, and the deceased was taken on board, but he never moved. Although his head was partly under water, I do not think the deceased had sunk, as the air had got under his frock and by that means kept him afloat. The deceased was in the water about four minutes. I cam on shore with the body, and brought it to this house.

Thomas Mullett deposed – I am a labourer on board ship. I have seen the body of the deceased, and identify it as William Fowler, whom I have been acquainted with since he came from Hastings – about two years since. I think his age was about fifty. I last saw him alive about 20 min. past twelve yesterday afternoon on the tram-road. Deceased had a basket of vegetables on the ground beside him, and he wished me to hail a ship for him. He also requested me to lift the basket on to his shoulder; but I would not do so, as I perceived he was the worse for liquor. I told him if he would go down on the beach, I would hail the ship (the Cleveland) for him, as he was not in a fit condition to be on the tram-way. In spite of my remonstrances he persisted in going along the road, and I then left him. Shortly afterwards I heard a cry that he was overboard, and I then saw him in the water. I also advised the deceased to go to the other side of the tram-road, and the wagons standing by the side of the quay would have prevented him falling over; but deceased persisted in walking the Dover side of the road which only afforded a space of about two feet.

By the Foreman – I was compelled to leave him in consequence of its being time for me to return to my work.

Other witnesses were in attendance, but it was not thought necessary to examine them.

The Coroner, in summing up, said that as he was the only medical man who had attended the deceased, he was in a position to supply them with all the necessary information. He was called to attend the deceased on the previous afternoon, when he found him sitting in a chair in his saturated clothed. He gave orders for his immediate removal upstairs, where the usual restoratives resorted to in cases of drowning were applied. The result was that respiration was pretty fairly established, and other indications were presented which led him to the conclusion that deceased would recover. A relapse, however, took place, and on making a more minute examination of the body, he discovered that two or three ribs had sustained severe fractures, which ribs had penetrated the lungs, and the air which inflated them consequently escaped. There was no doubt that these severe injuries were the immediate cause of death, although his immersion in the water must have had anything but a favourable tendency.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “Accidental Death.”

Folkestone Chronicle 25 May 1861.

County Court, Wednesday, May 22nd: Before Charles Harwood Esq.

John Wallis sen. v John Craxford: Claim £9 16s. for goods supplied

John Wallis jun. v John Craxford: Claim £1 10s. 6d. for money lent (the career of a fast young man).

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

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.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 28 September, 1861.

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 Chronicle 9 November 1861.

Death: On Monday, November 4th, at the Martello Tavern, Dover Road, Folkestone, Mr. Edward Down, aged 32 years. (Sic)

Advertisement: "North Foreland Inn," Folkestone. Notice of positive and unreserved sale of the whole of the household furniture, stock, utensils in trade, plate, linen, valuable oil paintings and prints framed and glazed, &c., &c., contained in the above premises, which will be sold by auction by Messrs. W. and J. Pledge, on Friday next, November 15th, 1861. The whole of the fixtures will be sold in one lot.

Catalogues to be obtained of the auctioneers, Folkestone and Sandgate. Sale to commence at twelve o'clock on account of the great number of lots.

Dover Chronicle 30 November 1861.

County Court, Wednesday, before C. Harwood Esq.

The London Brewery Company v Wallace – Mr. Knocker, Hythe, for the plaintiffs; Mr. Minter for defendant.

This case has been several times before the Court, but the parties had not come to terms, and today Mr. Knocker expressed his belief that no arrangement would be come to. His Honour said that if the attorneys would make an appointment to attend before him, he would hear the argument and settle the case. This offer was acceded to.

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 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 ½ 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.