Dover Chronicle 25 May 1844.

The addition to the new Pavilion Hotel is proceeding with expedition; when completed it will rival the best hotel in England, or on the Continent. The addition comprises billiard room, coffee room, ballroom, a large club room, a table d'hote; a large balcony will run along the front, consisting of York slabs six feet wide, supported by large iron ornamental brackets, which have a rich appearance. Altogether the building, when completed, will be an ornament to our town, and reflects great credit on the architect and the railway company.

Dover Chronicle 8 May 1847

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions last week, Louis Turiam, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, was summoned by Henry William Mayne (professional singer), for an assault. The complainant stated that he entered the hotel with some friends and called for wine, and that for some offence given he was turned out of the house and struck by the defendant, without provocation; he was perfectly sober at the time.

The defendant, in answer to the charge, stated that the complainant came to the hotel and called for wine; that while there he conducted himself in a disgraceful manner – so much so that several ladies and gentlemen complained of his conduct to the manager. Finding he was much intoxicated and refused to be quiet, he, with assistance, turned him out of the hotel. Defendant then went outside, and while looking at the complainant, who was still creating a disturbance, he was struck by him on the mouth; he defended himself from a second attack of the complainant, who was ultimately locked up in the station-house.

Walsh, the night porter, corroborated the defendant's statement in every particular, and stated that the complainant was very tipsy.

The Magistrates consulted together, and decided that the assault was justified, and dismissed the summons.

Dover Chronicle 12 January 1850

The Pavilion Hotel changes hands next week. We understand that it has been taken by Mr. Breach, of the firm of Bathe and Breach, of the London Tavern, Bishopsgate Street.

Dover Chronicle 2 February 1850

The Pavilion Hotel: It is said that the new proprietor (Mr. Breach) intends to make various alterations and additions to the Pavilion, with a view to render that accommodation so much wanted in the season.

Dover Chronicle 23 February 1850

At the Petty Sessions on Tuesday the licence of the "South Eastern Pavilion" was transferred from T. Algar to James Gaby Breach, of the "London Tavern.

Dover Chronicle 27 April 1850

Folkestone Quarter Sessions, before W. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder.

John Driscoll, master sweep, of Hythe, was indicted for stealing a sweeping apparatus, or machine, from the Pavilion, at Folkestone.

Mr. Sladden prosecuted, and Mr. Mercer, of Ashford, defended.

It appeared that the article was taken under the idea that it was his own property, and that this was stated to the prosecutor, Mr. Breach, master of the hotel, at the time the prisoner took the article in question, and the Jury, after an able defence from the prisoner's advocate, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

Dover Chronicle 30 September 1854.

This place was thrown into some excitement on Saturday last by a melancholy and fatal accident to a gentleman whilst bathing. The unfortunate deceased, Samuel Augustin Courtauld Esq., was a student of the medical profession, and was staying on a visit at the temporary residence of some relatives (who are visitors to Folkestone) at No. 1, Pleydell Gardens, with one of whom, Mr. John Warren, a second cousin, he was in company with at the time of the sad occurrence. A rumour obtained currency to the effect that proper means had not been used by persons on the shore, and especially by those connected with the bathing establishment, to rescue the drowning man; and, by some means, it was also reported that on the body being picked up its admission to the Pavilion Hotel was refused. The latter was quickly dispelled on examination of the witnesses, and the grounds which existed for the former will be seen by the following report of the investigation into the circumstances attending death, held by the deputy coroner of the borough, R.T. Brockman Esq. The jury was empanelled on Saturday at the Guildhall, but it was stated that, owing to the exertions made by Mr. John Warren to render his cousin assistance, he had been conveyed home in an almost exhausted state, and that he was consequently unable to attend the examination. It was therefore proposed that the deputy coroner and jury, of which Mr. Flaherty had been chosen foreman, should proceed to Pleydell Gardens to take Mr. Warren's deposition at his residence. The following was the statement of that gentleman, made after the body had been identified by Mr. T.R. Warren, the uncle of the deceased.

Mr. John Warren: I am second cousin to the deceased. At quarter before ten o'clock this morning the deceased and myself got into a double bathing machine on the sea shore at Folkestone, with a view to bathing. I entered the right hand compartment, and he entered the left; and the bathing man wheeled us down whilst we were undressing. I had undressed first, and plunged first into the water. I am a very poor swimmer, but I went a little way out of my depth in the direction of Sandgate, that being described by the man in attendance as the safest course, on account of the current. I had proceeded about ten or a dozen yards and was, I should think, in about eight feet of water, when I saw that the deceased had come out of the machine and was standing at the bottom of the steps. On the wave approaching he covered his head, and swam out after me and soon passed me, he being a much stronger swimmer than I. Having by this time become tired I turned round and swam towards the shore; but before I had reached my depth I saw several people on the shore, from whose actions I fancied that something was the matter. Immediately afterwards, on reaching my depth, I heard them shout “Save him; he is drowning”, or words to that effect. I directly turned round and saw the deceased's head out of the water and a little reclined back. His face, mouth, and nostrils at least, were clearly out of the water, and his lips were moving. I replied to the observations of the people “I have no strength”, upon which they cried out “You can save him”. I asked for their help, and having succeeded in reaching the deceased, I caught hold of his right arm. He was then in the same position as when I first saw him. I held him as long as I could; he was quite motionless all the time. His lips were working, but he did not speak. I found I had not sufficient strength to save deceased, as, by using of my hand to support him, I perceived that I was sinking. Having had so little practice in swimming, and being exhausted, I found that all my efforts to move the body were unavailing, and seeing that my persistence in these endeavours would cause the loss of my life, I again swam towards the shore, and called to the persons on the beach to bring a rope. They then cut down one of the lines upon which some clothes were hanging, but while they were doing so the current was drifting deceased away to the eastward, and he was then further off. I took the rope in my mouth, however, and swam out again to him, thinking that the persons on shore had hold of the other end. On reaching deceased again, I called out “Pull, pull!”, bt I then discovered that no-one was holding the other end of the rope. The deceased did not clutch me this time. I thought I must have been drowned, as I had depended on being drawn in with the rope. I was obliged to let the deceased go, but his lips were still moving. I was completely exhausted, but was by some means washed to the shore. On recovering myself I observed that deceased's face had considerably changed. I did not see the body sink, for what with the excitement and the quantity of water I had swallowed I felt very unwell. I was taken home before the body was brought on shore, but I saw that boats were out searching. I did not hear any struggling by the deceased during the whole of the time we were in the water.

The inquiry up to this point had occupied three hours, and the jury, having returned to the Guildhall, decided to adjourn till the Monday following, at two o'clock.

On the reassembling of the jury on Monday last, the following corroborative and additional facts in connection with this melancholy occurrence were deposed. Mr. T. R. Warren attended to watch the inquiries on behalf of the friends of the deceased. One of the proprietors of the "Pavilion Hotel" (whose name did not transpire) also attended.

Mr. Joseph Topham, solicitor, of Lincoln's Inn, a visitor at Folkestone, stated: I was on the beach at this place at 10 o'clock on the 23rd inst., and saw two gentlemen enter a double bathing machine. I soon after saw them in the water, and almost immediately heard a girl scream out “There's a man drowning!” I looked and saw the deceased floating in the water not a very long distance from Mr. Warren. I saw no apparent danger, as deceased seemed to me from his position to be floating on his back. I heard Mr. Warren say “I can't help him. I can hardly swim myself”. Upon this I turned round to the bathing man, John Rofe, and observed “I am afraid that man's drowning; can you swim?” He replied that he could not. I then said “Is there not someone here who can swim?” and he again replied that there was not. With the exception of the bathing man and some workmen (navigators or men employed upon the gas works) there were no other persons there besides myself. I ran to these men and asked if any of them could swim, but they took very little notice. I am not able to swim myself, but I asked for a rope, when Rofe replied there was not one there. “Then, for God's sake,” said I, “go and get one.” I ran a little way and found a clothes line, and having cut it down, it was taken from me by someone and thrown to Mr. Warren. I then directly after heard Mr. Warren say “Pull, pull!” Shortly afterwards I observed the deceased sink. There did not seem to be the slightest struggle during the whole time. The deceased remained perfectly motionless. Just before the body sank I saw that, by some means or other, a large rope had been brought. I took this rope through the next machine and threw it within half a yard of the spot at which Mr. Warren then was; but he seemed exhausted and did not succeed in catching hold of it. Mr. Warren was shortly afterwards pulled out of the water in an exhausted state. I observed the efforts of Mr. Warren, whilst in the water, to rescue the deceased, and he appeared to use every means in his power. He made several attempts to draw the drowning man to the shore. Deceased was about forty feet from the beach. Mr. Warren could not have done more than he did. There was no reply to Mr. Warren's request to pull. I was surprised to find that no-one had got a boat. From the time my attention was drawn to the circumstance till the body sank I should think about three minutes elapsed. About five minutes after the body had sunk some boats came to search for it. If a boat had been upon the spot at the time my opinion is that the deceased might have been saved. The tide was running fast, but there was only one other machine occupied.

By a juror: If there had been expert swimmers connected with the bathing establishment, the deceased might have been saved. I hardly ever knew a bathing establishment before without expert swimmers.

Mr. Tyson, sworn: I am a surgeon, residing in Folkestone. I was sent for soon after eleven o'clock on Saturday morning last, and saw the deceased in a room at No. 1, Pleydell Gardens. Upon examining the body, I found that life was quite extinct, and that it would be of very little service to use any applications to attempt restoration; yet, at the most urgent request of the deceased's friends those means were used which, under ordinary similar circumstances, we should make use of, but without producing the slightest effect. Another medical gentleman, a friend of the deceased, was with me, and assisted in using these restoratives. From the appearance of the body, I believe deceased came to his death by drowning; but I would add that, from the evidence of Mr. Warren, as to the deceased's making no effort to grasp him on being touched, and also from having learnt that he had been subject to rheumatism, I think it is possible that he might have had disease of the heart, and that that was the immediate cause of his death. My opinion is that he was dead before he sank.

The deputy coroner here reminded Mr. Tyson that Mr. Warren had sworn that he had seen deceased's lips move even when he last touched him, although, in touching him, he gave no indication of consciousness.

Witness replied that there would often be muscular action of the lips after death; and that this circumstance was not sufficient to induce him to alter his opinion.

Thos. Hall, mariner, of Folkestone, sworn: On Saturday morning, between ten and eleven o'clock, a man came to me, and asked me to get my “Seine-gear” out, as a man was drowned. A cart having been procured we immediately drove to the shore near to Mr. Willis's bathing establishment; and, having got the gear into the water, shortly succeeded in getting up the body of the deceased, which I and some other men proceeded to take to the Pavilion Hotel, some persons having suggested that he should be taken there in order that he might be put into a warm bath. We had taken the deceased as far as the Pavilion green, on our way thither, when Mr. Rofe's daughter came running after us and told us we were to take the body to No. 1, Pleydell Gardens, stating that she had been so ordered by the deceased's friends, who had prepared the house for the reception of the body. There was no obstacle to our taking the body to the Pavilion. On getting to the house where deceased was staying, we completed in carrying him upstairs, in rubbing him with hot water, and in using other remedies; but these efforts produced no effect. I should think that upwards of a gallon of water came out of the deceased's body, from first to last. The body was found about twenty feet from the shore.

The deputy coroner, at this juncture, addressed the gentleman who attended on behalf of the proprietors of the Pavilion, observing that he was glad the evidence of this witness had been such as to dispel any misconceptions as to the hospitality which was held out at that establishment.

The gentleman addressed replied that he could not conceive how such a rumour could have originated. There were not the slightest grounds for such a statement; for the deceased would have had every attention had he been brought into the Pavilion. He might say that, on two previous occasions, persons recovered from drowning had been brought into the Hotel, and had received every assistance their state required.

John Rofe, sworn: I am employed by Mr. Willis to look after the bathing machines, and am present during the time bathing is going forward. I am assisted in this duty by a man named Hart. On Saturday last, about ten minutes after the deceased and Mr. Warren had entered a double machine for the purpose of bathing, I heard an alarm, which was raised by my daughter screaming out that a man was drowning. I immediately ran to the boat-house near for a piece of rope, but could not find any. We have never had any rope there, with the exception of clothes line. Then I ran to a boat belonging to Mr. Willis, but there were no theles, oars, or plug in it, Mr. Willis not having made use of it lately. It has been used principally by the men belonging to the gas works, and the oars, I believe, were at the gas-house. I then ran into the water to try and reach the deceased, but could not. He was out of my depth, and I could only go up to my shoulders, as I could not swim. After going out till I could just feel my feet, I was obliged to retreat. There were some men near, who ran to look at the object in the water – the man drowning. I ran to the boat myself, but did not ask them to assist me. If the boat had been put off, it would have lasted long enough to save the gentleman, but we could have done nothing without oars, as there was a strong flood tide running. It would have required six men to have got the boat out. I had to attend the machines at the time, to keep them from becoming floated with the tide. There were two full ones; the rest were empty. I drew those up, and I also went to look at the object in the water. It did not occur to me that it would be better to attend to this particular case (the drowning man) than to look after my master's property. There were persons in some of the machines, and it was my duty to look after one party as much as the other. I attended to the empty machines because I was fearful they would was away. If I was asked which I would first do – save an empty machine or a human life – I should, if it came to that, save the life, but it is my duty to look after my master's property.

By a juror: I never remember a machine upsetting in the water, but am quite sure machines would upset. The machines have long planks attached to them, leadng to the shore, so that the persons inside them could have come out if they had been deposed.

By the deputy coroner: I am 63 years of age. I cannot say the age of my assistant. We have never had an accident of this kind, where life has been lost, ever since I have been connected with the bathing establishment – about 40 years. The deceased was 60 feet from the shore. I can't say why I went into the water, knowing that I could not swim, when the deceased was that distance out.

Mr. John Warren here said that he was prepared to swear that this witness rendered him no assistance whatever.

By the deputy coroner: I drew up three machines between the time the alarm was given and the sinking of the deceased.

The deputy coroner, addressing the witness, here said that he did not think he (the witness) had done all that he might have done in the endeavour to save the life of the deceased. His efforts should certainly have been directed to getting the boat down, for which purpose he should have claimed the assistance of the navigators, or whoever was standing by. Although placed in his situation to look after the bathing machines, it was hardly necessary that he should be told that it was his duty on every occasion to use all means in his power to save life. The boat, it appeared, was placed there for the express purpose of being used in the event of any accident occurring, and instead, therefore, of running to the water and doing nothing, he should have concentrated his attention in this mode of rendering assistance.

The witness here carelessly remarked that he was employed not to look after bodies, but machines.

The deputy coroner said it did not become the witness to contend what was the letter of his employment. It was his duty to use every effort to save life.

Eliza Rofe, daughter of the last witness, was then sworn. She briefly deposed that she was alarmed by seeing the deceased change colour in his face after going twice under the water, after which he cried out.

The deputy coroner then said that, in consequence of what had fallen from the medical witness, it would be satisfactory to have some evidence of the state of deceased's health previous to his death.

Mr. John Warren was therefore re-sworn, when he stated that about six months ago the deceased was afflicted with a rheumatic fever. Since he had been at Folkestone (from Thursday) he had complained once or twice of indigestion, but he seemed remarkably well before going into the water.

Mr. George Courtauld, a brother of the deceased, also gave similar testimony. He added that his brother was in delicate health, but he had never heard that his heart was diseased.

This was the whole of the evidence.

The deputy coroner, in summing up, said that the whole of the evidence led to the supposition that the deceased was dead before he sank. With reference to the rumour that had prevailed as to the conduct of the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel, he thought it right to observe that the evidence given that day completely exculpated them from any blame. It could scarcely have been believed that such inhumanity had been perpetrated; but if such a belief had gained currency, the satisfactory evidence elicited was sufficient completely to exculpate them. Whether the deceased died from drowning, or any unknown cause, it was impossible to say; but they knew this fact, that he died whilst in the water, and he was sorry to be obliged to make some remarks upon the arrangements which appeared to exist at the bathing establishment. Rofe, who had the care of the machines, seemed to be an ignorant man, and perhaps his mode of giving evidence might be partly attributed to that fact; but certainly he had not made the most favourable impression upon him (the deputy coroner), for he seemed to be thinking more of the preservation of his master's property than the saving of life. From some cause – whether he wanted the wit, or whether there was a carelessness on his part, or whether he was too much alarmed to give the matter all the attention he might have done, it was hard to say – but he certainly did not use the best means that might have been used for saving the life of the deceased. He thought it would be quite right that the jury should take into their consideration the arrangements of the bathing establishment, and recommend that some greater care should be used and some better arrangements made which might assist in preventing so sad an accident again occurring.

The jury, after due consideration, returned the following verdict: Died suddenly whilst bathing in the sea from a machine, and not by any violent means. The jury are of opinion that means and appliances ought to be at hand in case of an accident, and that the proprietor of the machines should be recommended to have a boat and oars and rope, and if possible life-buoys, to prevent the recurrence of such a melancholy accident; and that a competent person should be employed to attend the machines.

Folkestone Chronicle 6 October 1855.

Friday October 5th:- Before W. Major Esq., James Kelcey Esq., Thomas Golder Esq., and Capt. Kennicott, R.N.

William Whitely and Robert Parkins were brought before the bench on remand, charged with having endeavoured to obtain money under false pretences.

Mr. Lewis of Ely Place, Holborn, appeared for the witness Whitely, and Mr. Minter, of Folkestone, for the defendant Parkins.

It appeared from the evidence of several gentlemen, viz, Mr. Sibeth, now staying at the Pavilion, Mr. Breach, of the Pavilion, and a lady called Martin, that the defendants had called upon them representing themselves as being collectors and agents for a society called the “Sailors' Improvement Society”, and professing to emanate from some obscure street in Shadwell; from the apparent respectability of the prisoners and their very plausible manners they had succeeded in obtaining several sums of money varying in amounts from a guinea to 2s 6d., in aid of the above society.

Superintendent Steer, on going to London ascertained that the office of the society was held at a small shop, but with no external recognition of it to be seen. When he called he saw the son of the defendant Whitely, who showed him a bookcase, containing about 150 books, which he said was the library of the society. One or two Rev. Gentlemen whose names appeared on the circular of the society, on being written to, replied that they had no connection with the society.

Mr. Lewis having briefly addressed the bench, pointed out there was not the slightest foundation for the charge against his client. The magistrates dismissed the prisoners.

A balance sheet appended to the circular, showed that during four years the society had collected over £600, at the trifling charge of only £552 for Agent's and Collector's expenses.

Dover Chronicle 13 October 1855.

Petty Sessions, Friday.

William Whitely, dressed in the garb of a dissenting minister, and Robert Parkins, similarly dressed, were brought up in custody, on remand, having been arrested on the previous Saturday, charged with obtaining money under false pretences from several clergymen and gentlemen. The defendants represented that they were agents for the “Sailors' Improvement Society,” and were authorized to receive subscriptions. The ground of their apprehension was that there was no such society existing.

Mr. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, Ely Place, Holborn, attended for the defendants. The court was thronged with respectable individuals. Mr. Lewis wished to know who were the prosecutors, and on being informed that Superintendent Steer was asked what charge there was against the prisoners, as he was prepared with witnesses to prove the respectability of his clients and of the existence of the Society.

Superintendent Steer deposed that he proceeded to London, to the residence of the defendant Whitely; he saw no name on the door indicating the name of the society; it was a bookseller's shop. He saw the son of Whitely, who showed him a room which he said was the office; he saw the library, which contained about 200 books. Witness was proceeding to state what Mr. Whitely, jun., said, but was stopped by Mr. Lewis.

John Nicholas Sibeth, gentleman, residing at No. 2, Bouverie Villas, deposed: The defendants came to me and exhibited to me a book containing a list of subscribers to a society, the name of which I could not recollect. I thought they were belonging to the town, and I gave them a guinea. Afterwards they talked of the salubrity of the air and fine hotel, &c., and I advised them to go and see Mr. Breach, the proprietor, and I would speak to him about them. I don't recollect telling them to use my name.

James G. Breach deposed: I am the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. Defendants came to me and said they were sent by Mr. Sibeth; they wanted to go and solicit subscriptions from the visitors in the hotel, which I refused, and as they were so importunate I gave them 10s. to get rid of them.

Miss Martin also proved that the defendants called upon her for the Sailors' Improvement Society, and she gave them 5s., for which they gave a receipt.

From the papers taken from the defendants, it appeared that the balance sheets showed that out of £432 5s. 4d received for subscriptions, about £390 went to the 7 paid agents.

The name of the Rev. B. C. Sayer, of the Rectory, Shadwell, also appeared-on the printed papers, but that gentleman, on being written to, denied belonging to the society; he only knew one of the defendants, from his living opposite his house at Shadwell.

Mr. Lewis argued that there was no case for him to answer. The defendants had not been guilty of using any false pretence; they had merely solicited subscriptions like any other agents.

The magistrates, having consulted together, said as there was not sufficient evidence to send the case for trial, the defendants must be discharged. The defendants then left the court accompanied by their friend.

Dover Chronicle 28 June 1856.

Dover News: On Thursday, considerable interest was excited in the neighbouring town of Folkestone, by the flight of a young Frenchman, named Auguste Hastier, who filled the responsible position of manager of the Pavilion Hotel at that place, under Mr. Breach, the proprietor, taking with him a sum of nearly £1,500, principally in bank notes and bills of exchange, which had been left in his keeping for security by a foreign gentleman staying at the hotel. In the morning of the day Hastier left the Pavilion, stating that he was urgently called to London upon business connected with the hotel, but that he would return immediately. This circumstance, it appeared, excited no suspicion in the mind of anyone, and nothing more was thought of him until about five o’clock in the afternoon, when his prolonged absence, coupled with the knowledge that the sum of money in question had been entrusted to his keeping, created an alarm in the mind of Mr. Breach, who ordered Hastier’s bureau to be broken open, when the money was not to be found. The Superintendent of Police at Folkestone, Mr. Steer, was immediately put into possession of the particulars, and he proceeded to London, while another officer (Sergeant Fleet) was despatched to Dover in company with a commission agent named Richards, who was well acquainted with Hastier’s person, and whose assistance was therefore deemed valuable. Telegraphic messages were in the meantime sent to Dover and to other ports by which it was thought probable that Hastier might make his escape from the country. In consequence of the message despatched to Dover, Mr. Wheeler, of the Lord Warden Hotel, who had also obtained information of the fact that Hastier had arrived in Dover, sent for our Superintendent of Police, Mr. Coram, about 11 o’clock, and gave him such instructions as induced him to proceed as quickly as possible to the Union Club House, where he found Hastier, whom he took into custody. The sergeant of the Folkestone police, however, came up directly after Mr. Coram had secured the man, and at the sitting of the magistrates yesterday the prisoner was handed over to the Folkestone authorities. Nearly the whole of the missing property was discovered upon Hastier when he was apprehended. The prisoner is a sharp, intelligent fellow about twenty five years of age, speaks English well, and is very gentlemanly in his manners.

Dover Police Court, yesterday: Before S.M. Latham, C.B. Wilkins and G.F. Jennings Esqs.

Auguste Hastier, a good looking young Frenchman, about 23 years of age, formerly the manager of the Lord Warden Hotel, at Dover, was placed at the bar by Superintendent Coram, on a charge of embezzling £1,500, the property of a gentleman staying at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, and entrusted to the care of the prisoner, as manager of that establishment.

Mr. Coram said that at eleven o’clock on the preceding evening he was sent for by Mr. Wheeler, the proprietor of the Lord Warden Hotel, who had received a telegraphic message from Folkestone, stating that the prisoner had absconded from that place, stealing about £1,600. Mr. Wheeler told him (the Superintendent) that he wanted Hastier arrested, and that he had heard he was at Mr. Galante’s hotel (the United Service Club House). He (the Superintendent) therefore took a fly immediately and drove to Galante’s, where he found the prisoner in one of the rooms with a person named Richards, a commission agent, who at first said he was a constable. He soon discovered, however, that Richards was not a constable, and he therefore took the prisoner into his custody. He had already done so, when Sergeant Fleet, of the Folkestone police, cane up and claimed Hastier as his prisoner. As he (Superintendent Coram) had taken him into custody, however, he did not deem himself justified in giving Hastier up previous to bringing him before the Bench. The sergeant of the Folkestone police had followed him into the room, but he was unknown to him (the Superintendent).

Mr. Hart, solicitor, of Folkestone, was in attendance, and submitted that Mr. Coram had not acted in the way he should have done in the proper discharge of his duty. Police officers were bound to assist one another as much as possible, but, in this case, instead of assistance being given, obstruction had been offered.

The Bench, after a private consultation, said they thought Superintendent Coram had acted very properly in pursuing the course he had. They felt, however, that the case was in the jurisdiction of the Folkestone magistrates, and they should, therefore, order that the prisoner be handed over to the Folkestone authorities.

The prisoner was immediately handed over to Sergeant Fleet.

Folkestone Chronicle 28 June 1856.

Same day, at 3 o'clock :- Before the Mayor, S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major and J. Kelcey esqs.

Augustus Hastier, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, was brought up in custody of sergeant Fleet, charged with having absconded from the hotel, and having stolen certain monies to the value of £1600, the property of a gentleman named Alfred De la Motte who was staying at the hotel.

Joseph Ollivier sworn as interpreter.

Alfred De la Motte, being sworn, deposed – I am an independent gentleman residing at Paris. I came to the Pavilion Hotel on Sunday afternoon last, about half past 2, on my way to London. I had in my possession 430,000 francs, more or less. I had made no arrangement with Mr. Breach about it. I gave it to John Francis Bond, a waiter in the hotel, on Sunday evening. There was a large portfolio containing money to the value of 385,000 francs, in French notes of 1,000 francs each: it was locked. I had a sac or courier bag containing about 12,500 francs in value, in gold, English bank notes and Post Bills, and a few French notes. I do not know the amount exactly; I had not counted it when I put it in. The gold was in English coin, sovereigns and half sovereigns. I had in the sac about 35,000 francs in notes, or about £1500. I gave both the sac and portfolio to Bond (who acted as my interpreter, Mr. Breach not speaking French). Bond went and sought Mr. Breach, and when he came in I told him there was a considerable amount of money in them, and that I did not wish to keep so much in my room, and wished him to take charge of it. Mr. Breach took it, and they both went away. Both the sac and the portfolio were locked. I had no further conversation with Mr. Breach then. On the same evening, or the next day I saw Mr. Breach; he told me he was going from home, and said if you want your money today or tomorrow, I will give it you, but if you should want it after my departure you must apply to Mr. Hastier, and he will give it to you. Hastier was not there then. Mr. Breach told me Hastier was his representative, and it would be just the same as if he was there himself. He did not tell me where the money was placed. Mr. Breach left by the eight o'clock express train on Tuesday morning. On Wednesday morning I asked Mr. Hastier for my money, as I had an intention of going to Dover and thence to London. He said if you wish it I will fetch it directly. Soon after I saw him again and told him that I had altered my mind, and as I was going to Dover in a small boat I did not wish to take it with me, and wished him to take charge of it until Thursday. I started for Dover about one o'clock on Wednesday, in a small four-oared boat, and left Dover on the 2 p.m. train on Thursday, coming direct to the Pavilion Hotel. When I returned I asked for Hastier, and was told he had gone to London during the night. I waited until about three o'clock on the Thursday afternoon but he did not return. They showed me a telegraph message from him which stated he should be back by half past 2. I waited about half an hour before anything was done. I then went to Bond, as he knew my position. Fearing that the money would not be recovered by the next day, I wished the house to be searched. I sent for the housekeeper and asked for this to be done, requesting them to force the locks and offering to pay the expenses. Search was made and in a small cupboard the bag was found, but I was not present. I think it was Bond who showed me the bag, and found that it had been cut open.

There was a silk purse full of gold in it, none of which was missing. But there were no notes, they had all been abstracted. The purse was twisted and knotted in a peculiar manner, so that no other person could undo it and do it up again the same but myself. They gave me the portfolio, which was not touched, and on opening it, found that nothing had been removed from it. All my French money was there. It was quite full of notes, &c. I am in the habit of carrying my money in bundles of notes of 10,000 francs each, and by the respective Nos. written on the bundles, and the peculiar manner of pinning them together, I identify the notes (produced) as part of my property. I had 28 notes of 1,000 francs each. One packet I cannot identify, but I think they might be at the bank in Paris. I had ten £5 and one £10 Bank Of England notes, and I believe those produced are the same which I got changed in Boulogne on Sunday morning by an Englishman named Pay, residing on the quay at Boulogne. All my English notes which I received from Pay were put in the sac; and were marked by him, with the exception of 1 or 2. Those I retained, were not marked by Pay. The rest I received from Pay himself at his house. The two bank Post Bills, value £50 each, I received from Monteau in Paris. Those produced I believe are the same.

Various other notes, Post Bills, and Bills of Exchange were identified as those which the prosecutor had received from a person named Chaigneau, living in the Rue de la Paix, Paris.

Examination resumed – The prisoner knew there was a large sum in the portfolio and sac. I told him so myself on the Monday, when Hastier came to speak to me. He said “I have your money, and when you want it I will give it to you. There is a portfolio and a bag which Mr. Breach has put in my charge”. I said to the prisoner take great care of them, as they contain a large sum of money (describing the amount in each).

This closed the examination of the prosecutor, when the case was adjourned till eleven o'clock on Tuesday.

The prisoner was committed to Dover.

Dover Chronicle 5 July 1856.

On Thursday afternoon week information was received, as stated in our last, by the magistrates’ clerk, that a most extensive robbery had taken place at the Pavilion Hotel. Upon enquiry it appeared that a French gentleman of large fortune had arrived on Sunday evening, bringing with him several thousands of pounds, which he had entrusted to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the hotel, until he left. Mr. Breach having occasion to leave Folkestone for a short time gave the money into the care of his manager, Mr. Auguste Hastier. Mr. Alfred de la Motte went to Dover, and on his return asked for the money. The manager left the hotel at two o’clock that morning for London; he telegraphed down to say he should be home next day, which message arrived while the waiter Bond was conversing with Mr. de la Motte, who became uneasy about the money, and wished the place to be searched. A cupboard was broken open, and the bag in which the money was placed found there, but it had been cut open and £1,500 abstracted in English and French notes. Telegraphic messages, with a description of the manager, were sent to all ports of the kingdom, and Superintendent Steer was despatched to London to make enquiries, and Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent was despatched to Boulogne via Calais, to get the number of the notes; Sergeant Fleet was also sent to Dover to look out. As Mr. Richards left the train he thought it would be possible Hastier might also be there, and watching, saw him come out muffled up, and at once gave him into custody, taking charge of the money. On searching him the whole of the notes were found upon him, and some loose cash of his own, a handsome bag containing every requisite for the toilet, and a passport for Belgium.

On Friday, at three o’clock, the prisoner was brought before James Tolputt Esq., Mayor, William Major, S. Mackie, S. Godden, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey and J. Kingsnorth Esqs., borough magistrates, when the following evidence was adduced:

Alfred de la Motte, sworn, through Mr. Olivier, interpreter:- I am a private gentleman, residing in Paris. I came by the Folkestone steamer from Boulogne to Folkestone on Sunday, intending to go to London. I had with me a leather bag containing about 430,000 francs, but I could not say exactly how much. I made an arrangement with Mr. Breach about the money through Mr. Bond, the waiter. I gave him the bag and he told Mr. Breach, interpreting my words, that he was to take charge of it, that it contained about 430,000 francs, and that I did not wish to have such a large sum by me in my room. The money was contained in a leather bag, and enclosed in a portfolio, and no-one could open it but myself. The notes were English and French, the latter of 1,000 francs each, with a quantity of sovereigns and half-sovereigns. Next day Mr. Breach told me that he was going from home, and that he had given the money to his manager, Mr. Hastier, whom he introduced to me. I told him what it contained, and he said I could have it when I wanted it. Having an intention to go to Dover I asked for the money, but as I was going in an open boat I thought the money would not be safe. I returned from Dover on Thursday afternoon and asked for my money, when I was told that Mr. Hastier was in London. Feeling uneasy about it, I asked them to search the house and break open locks, and I would pay expenses. At this moment a telegraphic dispatch came, saying he would return next day. A cupboard was opened, and the bag was found, but the notes were gone; the portfolio was not broken. Nearly all the notes produced I can identify as those I left in my bag.

The prisoner (who appeared to be very downcast and was leaning on the dock) said that when the matter was explained there would be no occasion to proceed further with it. He was then remanded to Tuesday next.

The prosecutor was most anxious to forgive the prisoner, and said he would freely give him the money. This, however, did not occur in Court, but previously. He agreed, however, to be bound over in £1,000 to appear at the Sessions next Friday to prosecute.

Since the examination of Mr. Hastier some very curious circumstances have come to light respecting the money brought over by the prosecutor. After the prisoner had been conveyed to Dover gaol, Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent (and to whom great credit is due for the vigilance he exercised in apprehending the prisoner at Dover) was employed by Mr. de la Motte to go with a lady, then supposed to be his wife, to London, with the money, and to place the same in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild, for investment. Mr. Richards proceeded there, but the money was declined, and they returned to Folkestone. These suspicious circumstanced induced Superintendent Steer to telegraph to London making enquiries, and particularly as the sister and uncle of the prosecutor had arrived from London, having been in search of him there. They stated that Mr. de la Motte had had the money entrusted to him in France to invest in French securities, but that he had brought it to England, and also another man’s wife, and they wished him to be apprehended. Mr. Hart, the magistrates’ clerk, having been consulted, could not advise that course, and soon afterwards Saunders, one of the detective force from London, arrived, having been deputed by Sir Richard Mayne, commissioner of police, to make enquiries; it was ultimately agreed that the balance of cash, about £15,000, should be sealed up deposited in the joint names of Mr Hart and Mr. Saunders, and taken to the French Embassy, there to abide the issue of events. Mr. de la Motte still remains at the hotel, possibly until the final examination of the prisoner.

The affair has caused some sensation in the town, and it is generally believed that the prosecutor had made the prisoner aware that he was not the owner of the property, and that, as he was not returning to the Hotel till Friday, he would by that time have been out of the country. Prosecutor, however, returning on Thursday, the whole affair was discovered and the delinquent apprehended. We believe that very great exertions were made by Mr. Hart, his clerk (Mr. Davidson), Superintendent Steer and Sergeant Fleet, to trace the prisoner and recover the money. The prisoner Hastier did not attempt to change the notes, so that no clue could be obtained, and he sent a stranger to the station to telegraph to the Pavilion stating when he proposed returning; on the same evening he made for Dover, a route it was hardly likely he would take, being well known and recently manager at the Lord Warden Hotel. Mr. Richards particularly deserves a handsome reward for his vigilance in the apprehension of the prisoner and the recovery of the money.

Folkestone Chronicle 5 July 1856.

Tuesday July 1st :- Before the Mayor, S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major, W. Bateman. J. Kelsey esqs., and Captain Kennicott.

Augustus Hastier was brought up on remand from Friday last, for the robbery at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Lewis of the firm Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, attended on behalf of the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis demanded the privilege of cross-examining Mr. De la Motte, on the evidence given by him on Friday last. This being refused, Mr. Lewis said, from circumstances which had come to his knowledge, he might not have another opportunity of cross-examining this gentleman.

Sergeant Fleet said he had investigated the case, and in order to complete it he must ask for a further remand.

This the clerk to the magistrates advised, as the case was so incomplete, there not having been sufficient time to procure the necessary evidence. The magistrates having consulted for a short time, again remanded the prisoner till Tuesday next, at 11 o'clock.

Mr. Lewis then applied for some portion of the money, found upon the prisoner, and which he could prove was his own property, to be given up to him for the purposes of his defence, but this the magistrates agreed they could not allow.

Dover Chronicle 12 July 1856.

Petty Sessions, Tuesday: Auguste Hastier was again brought up. The evidence of Mr. Bond, the head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, Mr. Breach, the proprietor, and Mr. Coram, the Superintendent of the Dover Police, was taken, when application was made by Superintendent Steer for a further remand till Tuesday next, the 19th inst., which was complied with. Mr. Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, again appeared for the prisoner. At the close of the hearing, he again made application to the Bench for a portion of the money found on the prisoner at the time of his apprehension, to be given up for the purpose of his defence. The Bench ordered that £35 should be allowed for that purpose.

Folkestone Chronicle 12 July 1856.

Tuesday July 8th :- Before J. Tolputt esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, G. Kennicott, S. Godden, W. Major, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey and J. Kinsnorth esqs.

Augustus Hastier was brought before the bench on remand, for re-examination, charged with robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone. Mr. Lewis, of the firm Lewis Brothers of Ely Place, Holborn again attended for the defence. No solicitor was present to support the charge.

John Francis Bond deposed he was a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, and remembered Mr. De la Motte coming to the hotel on June 22nd; he came by the Boulogne boat, about a quarter past 2; it was a Sunday. He wished to have a sitting room and bedroom on the first floor. He then said he wanted to see Mr. Breach to deposit some money. The witness took him to Mr. Breach, with a bag and portfolio, (the bag was quite full of something). The witness saw some bank notes put in the bag; there were some Bank Of England notes and some French bank notes; the bag was locked before it was given to him. Did not see the portfolio opened. The bag appeared heavy. Witness did not see any coin. Gave both bag and portfolio to Mr. Breach. Mr. De la Motte went with him, and they were handed over in his presence; the prisoner was not present at the time. Mr. De la Motte told witness to tell Mr. Breach that they contained gold and notes; witness interpreted for him. Mr. Breach left home on the Tuesday, and witness had no instructions about the money until the following day, when Mr. De la Motte went to Dover. He told witness he should not return until the following day, and he wished to see the prisoner. They left the hotel and met prisoner on the beach, and witness handed Mr. De la Motte's keys to him. (The witness was about to give a conversation that passed, but Mr. Lewis interposed, and said it was proposed to give as evidence a conversation that took place; now as both parties who heard that conversation were present, and one of them would be examined as a witness, he held it was more to the purpose to elicit that conversation from a principal rather than a witness; he should therefore object to this witness stating the conversation that took place).

Mr. Hart advised the magistrates to accept the witness' evidence.

Mr. Lewis said there was an act of Parliament expressly to prevent magistrates' clerks from being advocates, and strongly condemned the practice.

Examination continued – Mr. De la Motte gave his keys to witness, who handed them to prisoner; did not give the message, Mr. De la Motte being there himself. On the Thursday Mr. De la Motte came back from Dover, about half past 2. Witness saw him in his room, and he immediately asked him about his money. Witness told him that the prisoner had gone to town by the 2 o'clock a.m. mail train. Witness made enquiries, and found that no message had been left for Mr. De la Motte, who became very anxious about his money, and suggested that locks might be opened; if he could but see it he would be satisfied. Witness consented, with the other principal servants, and the result was that a cupboard was opened by a locksmith, who picked the lock, and witness took out the bag and portfolio, the same as Mr. Breach received.The bag was cup, and all the top part of it was emptied; there were no notes in it. Mr. De la Motte was called in immediately. The portfolio was also there, but apparently not opened. Witness showed Mr. De la Motte the bag, and he immediately remarked it had been cut. He took out his keys and opened the bag, and also the portfolio. There were a number of sovereigns at the bottom – about 485. The portfolio, Mr. De la Motte said, had not been opened. Saw a large number of bank notes in it. The prisoner was not present when this took place. Mr De la Motte gave a receipt for the money left to the housekeeper of the Pavilion. Measures were afterwards taken to recover the missing money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – After the conversation on Wednesday, recollected having one with the prisoner on the Monday about the gentleman who had arrived on Sunday. Witness did not remember that prisoner said Mr. De la Motte had given him (prisoner) some money. Would not swear that prisoner said nothing about it. He (witness) told the prisoner that the gentleman had given him as much gold as he could carry. Had some conversation with Mr. De la Motte about exchanging the money for him; offered £39 2s. for every 1,000 francs. Prisoner did not tell Mr. De la Motte he could get better exchange in London than that offered by witness. Believed the conversation ended there. After the money was counted, Mr. De la Motte stated that he had lost from £1,400 to £1,600 or about 35,000 francs. When Mr. De la Motte was pressing for his money, witness, for the first time, heard of the serious amount of the whole, about 400,000 or 500,000 francs. The bag produced was stuffed at the top with notes; could not say if they were in the divisions. Mr De la Motte took the notes from separate packets and pressed them into the bag; they were not pinned together. Mr. De la Motte's hand passed from his pocket to the bag more than twice; his hand was moderately full each time.

By the Bench. – The cupboard was relocked after Mr. De la Motte had his money.

James Gaby Breach deposed he was proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner was manager of the hotel, and had been so for three months. On Sunday, June 22nd, the witness Bond came to him with a gentleman, having a bag and a portfolio. The gentleman was Mr. De la Motte; the bag produced was the one given to witness. Bond put the bag and portfolio in his hands, and told him they contained money, which he was requested to take car of until Monday. Mr. De la Motte told witness (through Bond) that the bag contained gold, and the portfolio notes of the Bank Of France, and there was much in value. Witness took them and locked them up; no-one knew where they were put. Later in the day the prisoner gave witness two rolls of bank notes, one of the Bank Of England, the other of France; the French notes were pinned together. The prisoner did not know how much money there was; he told witness they were as the gentleman had given them to him. Witness counted the notes, but could not recollect if there were 38 or 39 1,000 franc notes; there were 65 £5 Bank Of England notes. The prisoner was not present when the notes were counted. Witness kept the notes in his possession until the following day, when, going home for a week, he told the prisoner there was a considerable sum of money deposited with him by the gentleman in No. 21, and that on the following morning he should have possession of the money. When the prisoner gave witness the notes he (witness) remarked to him that the gentleman had already deposited a great amount of money with him. On the following morning (Tuesday) witness called prisoner into his private sitting room, unlocked a cupboard, and took the two bundles of notes given him by the prisoner, and put them into the drawer in the cupboard: there was a nest of drawers that the door enclosed. Witness then showed prisoner the portfolio and the bag of money, which were in the cupboard, but forgot whether they were taken out, drew the prisoner's attention to them, locked the door, and gave him the key. Told the prisoner to ascertain if the gentleman would take the money away that day, if not, the prisoner was to take the money to the bank, and deposit it there, as he (witness) did not like the responsibility of having such a quantity of money, it being more than he liked. Witness did not say which bank, but it was understood that he meant the bank in Folkestone, there being only one here. Witness added he did not like the manner in which the money was brought to him, and wished it taken away, as he understood he was only taking care of it for one night. Witness also told him that if anything occurred he was to telegraph to him, as he would travel too fast for a letter to overtake him. This had reference to the general business of the hotel of sufficient importance to communicate. Witness left by the 8 a.m. express train, and received a telegraphic message in Dublin, on the following Saturday, about 8 p.m., the first communication from Folkestone. On witness' return he found the cupboard locked, but was informed it had been opened, and the money removed, and the receipt was now put into his hands. Witness afterwards obtaine the key of the cupboard from the police; he then opened the cupboard, and found the rolls of notes, &c., were gone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Prisoner had been in his employ about 3 months; he had been manager of the Lord Warden at Dover for 2 years previous. Witness told the prisoner what the proprietor of the Lord Warden had told him respecting him. The proprietor might have told him what his duties had been, but he had not been told that he had entire control of the money department. The money was brought to witness by the prisoner between 8 and 9 o'clock on Sunday evening. Could assign no reason why he did not count the money given him by the prisoner: it was the confidence he had in the prisoner that induced him to receive it without counting it. Witness afterwards counted it, but not in prisoner's presence. If there had been fictitious money, or lead, he should have placed it where he did. Might have told the prisoner to be careful of the Frenchman, as he did not like the way in which the money had been deposited, it appeared such a careless way of doing business. When the money was deposited by Mr. De la Motte he might have named there was upwards of £400 in gold, but that the other was of the most value. Witness counted the notes given him by the prisoner, and was quite sure there were 38 or 39 French ones. The notes the prisoner gave him he kept in his own possession till the morning of leaving, when they were put into the cupboard with the bag and portfolio. Between the Sunday and the Monday the money was put in a private drawer by night, but was kept by witness about his person in the daytime. When witness was about to leave he re-deposited the money with the prisoner that he received from him, and showed him where the other was deposited, and gave him the key of the cupboard. Between the Sunday and Tuesday that witness kept the key, it was never out of his possession the whole time. Others had access to that room at all times; the outer door is never fastened. Never heard that the gentleman had other valuable property in the house.

From a question here put by the clerk to the magistrates, Mr. Lewis again addressed the bench, and said he must again press upon the bench that the magistrates' clerk must not be allowed to act as an advocate; he might look and appear very innocent, but he was afraid he was not so.

Cross-examination continued – Witness meant by his last answer to imply that he put the notes into the cupboard, and gave him the key. He meant by this that he redelivered the money he had received from him. Witness did not know whether any letters had been received for the prisoner since his return, but he understood letters had been received, addressed to the prisoner, and he had been told they were given to Mr. Hart.

John Coram deposed he was superintendent of the Dover police. He was sent for on the 22nd June by Mr. Wheeler, the proprietor of the Lord Warden. The witness went and was informed that a telegraphic message had been received from Folkestone. While in conversation a person came and said the prisoner was at Galantie's Hotel in Dover. I went to the hotel. On being informed there was no officer there, he entered one of the rooms and found the prisoner in company with a custom-house agent from Folkestone, named Richards. On entering the room witness apprehended the prisoner, but before he could charge him, Richards said it was all right, that Mr. Hastier was going back to settle the matter. Witness enquired what he meant, when witness said there was no charge against him, and that everything would be amicably arranged, and that he had the property in his possession in a bag. Witness asked Richards if he was a constable, when he said he was, and also a commission agent. Witness had doubts about it, and pressed Richards for a direct answer, when he said he was not a constable. Witness then required possession of the property from him, Richards however handed the bag to sergeant Fleet who was also present. Witness detained the prisoner about two hours and ultimately locked him up at the station, prisoner was searched and there was found on him five £5 Bank Of England notes, £5 6s. in gold and silver, two 20 franc gold pieces, a Tuscan lottery ticket, a passport, a railway through-ticket, a gold watch and key with small compass attached, all these articles were afterwards given up to sergeant Fleet.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Witness was fetched by Mr. Way, station master, Dover station, to Galantie's Hotel. When witness got there he was told they had sent for a fly to return to Folkestone. Some person in the room said this. The prisoner and Richards were the only persons in the room when he went in. The landlord of the Inn followed, and Fleet came close after. Witness waited 2 hours because some persons were coming from Folkestone, one named Davidson, and another named Palmer, when everything would be arranged. When Davidson arrived he told witness that the matter was going before the magistrates, where he would prefer a charge of stealing or embezzling £1,600. No-one signed the charge sheet. This occurred after the prisoner was in custody, and after Richards told him no charge would be preferred. Witness would have detained the prisoner without the conversation between Davidson and himself. Would have detained him till he had seen the person to whom the property belonged. Was not present when anything else was said about a settlement. Ten minutes elapsed after Davidson arrived before the prisoner was locked up. Davidson wanted the prisoner to be taken before the police at Folkestone. The prisoner was ultimately locked up about 2 a.m.

Mr. Steer the superintendent here applied for another remand until Tuesday next.

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench requested that a portion of the money found on the prisoner and not owned, might be handed over to him for the purpose of the prisoner's defence.

A female witness, we understand from London, was bound over in the sum of £100 to attend and give evidence on Tuesday next.

Folkestone Chronicle 19 July 1856.

Tuesday July 15th – Before J. Tolputt, esq., Mayor, G. Kennicott, J. Kelcey, S. Mackie, W. Major, S. Godden and W. Bateman esqrs.

Augustus Hastier, charged with the robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, was again brought up on remand from Tuesday last, for further examination. Mr. Lewis again attended on behalf of the prisoner.

The first witness examined was Emily Hamilton, who deposed that she had known the prisoner 2 years, and that she had last seen him about 5 months since. (Some objection was made here by Mr. Lewis to a question regarding some letters). The witness here fainted in court so that her examination could not be proceeded with.

The next witness called was William Smith, who deposed that he was a detective officer in the Metropolitan Police, and that on Sunday, 30th June, he went to the lodgings of Miss Hamilton, Hanover Place, Pimlico, and asked her if she had hear from Hastier lately; she said she had. Asked her if he could see the letters. She answered “Yes” and gave them up. The two now produced are the same witness received. They had remained in his custody since then.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis, - She told me she had been in the habit of receiving letters from Hastier. She showed me more than the two produced; I only asked for them. Did not read any of the letters she had received. There might have been about 100 more in a bundle; did not take charge of them.

The witness Hamilton returning into court, her examination was resumed. – She desposed that the letter (No. 1) handed to her she received by the post on Wednesday 25th or 26th June. It was in the prisoner's handwriting, and in the following terms:-

Pavilion Hotel,

Wednesday.

Dearest Emily; - When you receive this note send me the following telegraphic message and I will settle with you when in town. Yours ever,

A. Victor.

“From Hamilton, London, to Mr. Hastier, Pavilion, Folkestone”

“Come up immediately, I must see you; urgent”

Sent a telegraphic message as required from an office in Westminster, according to the instructions in the letter received from the prisoner, and in the same words as the letter produced. Did not see the prisoner in London, nor till she saw him here. The second letter produced witness received after she had written to know if the telegraphic dispatch had reached him. The answer was received about 3 days after, and was in the following terms:-

June 27th

I must pray you, my dearest Emily, not to write to me any more until you hear from me, for your letter would not reach me. You will hear from me in a few days, and believe me ever yours.

Victor,

In haste.

Did not keep a copy of the letter she wrote. The letter came in reply to the one written to Hastier. The letter was in the handwriting of Hastier.

Cross examined by Mr. Lewis – Had never seen Hastier write. This was the first telegraphic dispatch of a similar kind she had received from him. Never had telegraphed that she would receive him. She might have written in reply. Had written to him many times. Never received a visit from Hastier in consequence of letters written to him. Hastier did not visit the witness in consequence of the telegraphic message. In March or April 1855 the prisoner did visit the witness in Church Street, London. Could not say if that visit was in consequence of a telegraphic dispatch. Witness visited Dover in consequence of a dispatch. Left Dover by the 3.20 train for London. (Witness here again fainted and was obliged to leave the court.)

Frances Pollock deposed she was housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel. Remembered Mr. Breach leaving Folkestone on Tuesday morning before the prisoner's departure. Prisoner left on the night of the 26th. Saw him about 11 o'clock in No. 1. (Mr. Breach's private sitting room). Prisoner said he was to leave for London on the mail train at 2 a.m., from the upper station. Witness was surprised, and said to the prisoner, “am I to be left alone when Mr. And Mrs. Breach are both away – a poor little nervous housekeeper – I shall feel as if all the bricks in the house are falling on my head”. Tried to persuade the prisoner to stay till the morning; thought the matter was not of much importance. The prisoner said he would lie down on the couch until the train left – he had had a telegraphic dispatch and must go. The prisoner requested witness to get up early, so as to keep the other servants out of mischief. Noticed the prisoner was very agitated, and asked him if he was unwell. Witness left the prisoner in the room and retired to rest about 12 p.m., and came down again about half past 8. Before she left her room she received a telegraphic dispatch from the prisoner, which she destroyed – thought it of no consequence – it merely informed her where she could find the key of Mr. De la Motte's room to give him in the morning. It was from Mr. Hastier. Witness was directed by it to give the keys to Mr. De la Motte only. This was on Thursday morning. Received another telegraphic dispatch about 3 p.m. from the prisoner, as follows:-

“Hastier, London, to Miss Pollock, Folkestone”. “Cannot come down tonight. Will be at Folkestone by first train tomorrow morning”. Mr. De la Motte did not return till about half past 2. She gave him his keys after receiving the message. Mr. De la Motte enquired if prisoner had returned, and was very anxious about his money. Witness told him she knew nothing about any money, but it would be all right when prisoner returned later that night or the next morning. Mr. De la Motte was very excited, and said it was a large sum of money. Witness told him if she knew where it was she could not give it to him; to which he answered if he saw it he would be satisfied. Witness and the principal waiters then consulted together, and they agreed to search for the money. Bond, the waiter, suggested that if the money were anywhere it must be in No. 1 (Mr. Breach's private room). A locksmith was then sent for and the lock of an escritoire in No. 1 was picked; inside was a portfolio and a courier's purse. Bond felt in and thought the money was all right, and immediately called Mr. De la Motte, who opened the portfolio, and found the money all right. The purse was found cut. Could not understand what Mr. De la Motte said, but was told that notes had been abstracted and the gold left.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - Mr. De la Motte took the money away, put the gold in little piles, but did not count it in witness' presence. Mr. De la Motte gave witness a receipt for the money. Mr. Davidson was present. Mr. De la Motte did not take the money away before the receipt was given. Believed she had received the receipt from Mr. Bond's hand. It was an error when she said Mr. De la Motte gave her (witness) the receipt; an hour had passed since the discovery of the money and the giving of the receipt. Could not say if any other person beside Mr. De la Motte had counted the money. After the receipt was given nothing further was done. Prisoner had had a conversation with witness regarding some articles of vertu, which Mr. De la Motte had shown him in his room. The prisoner told witness Mr. De la Motte had filled his (prisoner's) pockets with money, prisoner named a gold basin and ewer that Mr. De la Motte had shown him, and also some pictures. Prisoner did not say that Mr. De la Motte had “done the custom house officers”. With reference to the “telegraphic message” first received, it was not written on half a dispatch paper, did not sign for the same, it was given to witness by “Sarah”, one of the still room maids. Did not recollect how the paper was folded, it was addressed to witness on the outside, formed an opinion it was a telegraphic message from the appearance of it. Could not recollect by whom it was signed. Cannot remember if it was signed by Hastier or not. The second telegraph message was folded and in an envelope, but could not recollect if the first was in an envelope or not.

William Bevan deposed, he was one of the night porters at the Pavilion Hotel. On the 28th June was on duty at about half past 11 p.m. Mr. Hastier was on the lawn. Afterwards found he had gone to bed, saw a light in his room. This was about 12 p.m. Half an hour after Mr. Hastier had directed witness to get him a fly for the upper station, as he was going to London by the mail train at 2 a.m. He went into No. 1 (Mr. Breach's room), soon after Mr. Hastier came out and asked for a sheet of brown paper. Mr. Hastier gave witness the key of No. 19 (his office) and asked him to give it to the housekeeper in the morning. At half past one Mr. Hastier left in the fly, had not seen the prisoner since, till now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - It was not unusual to see a light in Mr. Hastier's room at 12 p.m., he generally went to bed at that hour. Prisoner told witness to call Miss Pollock at 7 o'clock in the morning, he answered it was all right she was booked.

Cross examined by the bench: - When the prisoner left the hotel he had a small brown paper parcel in his hand, he was dressed in his usual clothes.

Francios Miland Chaigneau being now about to be examined, Joseph Ollivier was sworn interpreter. Mr. Lewis addressing the interpreter said he understood at the last examination he had not interpreted correctly; he therefore cautioned him as he (Mr. Lewis) had now a check on him.

Francois M. Chaigneau deposed he was a money changer, residing at No. 32, Rue de la Paix, in Paris. Knew nothing of Mr. De la Motte. Recollected seeing him on the 20th of June at his (witness') place of business. This was Friday. He then requested to have English money for bank post bills, because they came from an agent and he was afraid they were bad ones. Witness gave change for them in French bank notes to the value of £200; there was no gold given in the change. Possibly he might be able to know the money given in change. Could not identify the English bank notes but identified an Irish bank note or bill now produced for £20; an order for £5 on the Glasgow bank; a circular note on the National Bank of Scotland for £10, dated 18th June, payable at Glynn & Co., London, or what is known as a letter of credit. Knew the notes being produced as being the same from his signature being endorsed on the back, and from the entry in his book. Remembered the circumstance of giving those notes in change, it being the last transaction he had had that night. The book he now produced was the book in which the business done every day was first entered.
(Some remarks being made on the case, the Mayor said the bench only wanted to be put right on the matter. Mr. Davidson, clerk to the magistrates' clerk, here started up, and addressing the bench, said he wanted no putting right, he was always right).

Examination continued: - The circular letter or note was taken by the witness the same evening, the 13th June, in the way of business. The particular entries referred to in the book produced were made by the witness himself. He was certain he gave the notes produced to Mr. De la Motte, as they were in the show case in the window of his place of business; one of these had been placed in the case but a short time before.

(Another discussion here took place, when Mr. Lewis interposed, and remarked that Mr. Davidson should not take upon himself to interfere in the manner he had done. He (Mr. Davidson) had addressed the bench in a very impudent manner; and he (Mr. Lewis) understood that all the witnesses had been examined by Mr. Hart previous to coming into court, without he (Mr. Lewis), as the attorney for the prisoner, being there. Mr. Hart, the clerk to the magistrates, explained that Mr. Lewis had interposed and created confusion by irrelevant remarks being introduced into the case before the bench).

Examination continued: - The £5 and £10 Bank Of England notes produced were there all day; that is to say, from the time they were purchased. Witness could not say whether from 1, 2, or 3 o'clock on that particular day. The £20 Bank Of Ireland post bill produced was the last purchase witness had made that day.

Mr. Lewis declined to cross-examine this witness.

Herny Pay deposed that he resided at No. 84, Rue de Boston, Boulogne sur Mer; he was by profession a money changer. On 22nd June, Mr. De la Motte came to his place of business and requested change for French money into English. The amount changed was £328. Witness gave him part in notes and part in gold. There was a Bank Of England note for £100, one for £50, and £85 in five and ten pound notes, principally five pound notes of the Bank Of England, the remainder was in sovereigns and half sovereigns; could identify the £100 note produced but not the smaller ones. They were all stamped at the time he gave them to Mr. De la Motte. The notes were stamped with the witness' name; the stamp was coloured blue, (stamp produced) inscribed “H. Pay, House Agent, 84, Rue de Boston, Boulogne sur Mer”. No-one could have stamped them except witness as he kept no clerk; there was no date on the stamp. Had not the slightest doubt but that the notes produced were the same as given by witness to Mr. De la Motte.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - Was not in a larger way of business; had not used the stamp long; might have used it for 3 or 4 months; could not tell how many notes he had stamped in that time; always stamped the notes paid to private persons. If the notes produced had been shown to him in Boulogne, he should not be able to tell to whom they had been paid, nor how recently they had been in his possession – all witness could say was that the notes had been stamped by him and had been in his possession. Was requested to attend as a witness by Mr. Hart. Mr Hart had asked witness if he had sold any notes. Mr. Davidson had first written a note to witness to attend the examination – had seen Mr. Hart in Boulogne the day before yesterday; had had no conversation with Mr. Hart about this business. Mr Hart had called at his place of business yesterday, but witness was not at home. Saw Mr. Hart go on board the Folkestone boat. Had not seen Mr. Hart today before coming to the court, but saw Mr. Davidson who said nothing to witness.

Mr. Chaigneau re-examined: - The superintendent of police requested him to attend today. Mr. Hart came to his place of business and showed him the notes. Mr. Hart saw the entries made by witness. Mr. Hart spoke but the policemen were present. The conversaition was in English in the presence of witness' wife. Witness' wife was an Englishwoman.

Mark Richards deposed he was a custom house agent residing at Folkestone. On June 26th witness was at the Pavilion Hotel in conversation with Bond the waiter, had been informed of what had taken place and offered his services. Mr. Hart and Mr. Davidson came past at the time and wished someone to go to Boulogne to get the number of some notes. No person was at this time in custody for the robbery. Witness offered to go. On which he was introduced to Mr. De la Motte, who gave witness the name of a commissioner in Boulogne. Witness was to proceed via Dover to Calais and thence to Boulogne and back to Folkestone. Witeness asked if he met prisoner on the way what should he do with him, was told he should take him into custody and bring him back. This was on the day the robbery was discovered. Bond had told witness Mr. Breach had been robbed. The witness then went to the Junction Station to go to Dover by the mail train at 11 p.m. Witness looked through the carriages at the Junction too see if the prisoner was in the train, but did not see him. Proceeded to Dover by that train; before the train stopped at Dover witness got out on the platform and saw the prisoner going towards the door. Did not see the prisoner get out of the train. Witness stepped up to him and said “Mr. Hastier, you must go back to Folkestone with me”, thought he touched him, prisoner replied “Must I? Then I shall go back in the morning”. Witness answered “You must go back tonight”, upon which Mr. Bayly, who was with witness, stepped up and said “I suppose you don't want force to be used”, this was said to the prisoner. Prisoner immediately without witness asking him handed the bag he had in his hand, it was a small leather bag. The witness and prisoner walked on together to an hotel and witness told him he might have a fly to go back to Folkestone. Prisoner mentioned an hotel at the top of the town where flies could be obtained, but ultimately they went into Galantie's Hotel. On entering the prisoner asked the landlord if he could send to Packham's for a fly, and also ordered a room into which they all went. Witness then wrote a telegraph message to send to Mr. Hart at Folkestone. An answer was returned that Mr. Davidson was coming in a fly with Mr. Palmer. Shortly after a personn entered the room who gave his name as Mr. Coram, who spoke to the prisoner. Sergeant Flint of the Folkestone Police came in at the same time. Witness did not hear what passed between the prisoner and Mr. Coram, but the prisoner said “I am in the custody of Mr. Richards”. Mr. Coram spoke to witness, who replied he had no doubt he was a policeman, but not knowing him he refused to give him the bag prisoner had given him. Sergeant Fleet stepped up and said “You know me as a policeman”, and witness gave the bag to him. Witness had not opened the bag but the prisoner had, and had taken out a pocket handkerchief. There was no key to it; it opened with a spring. Witness returned to Folkestone by the mail train at 2 a.m. Witness on the way from the station charged prisoner with taking the money away, to which the prisoner answered how it came about. Witness told the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte had returned and had insisted upon seeing his money, and that he (prisoner) was suspected of having run away with it; that telegraphic dispatches had been sent to almost every port to detain him if he attempted to embark. The prisoner made an observation that it was his own fault, and that he had been a great fool and he must bear the consequences of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - The last observation was made while they were on the way to Galentie's Hotel. No-one was present when the prisoner made the observation “I am a great fool”. Prisoner also said “I don't know how it was, but I could not resist the temptation”. Bayly at this time was gone to the station with the telegraphic message. Mr. Galantie was in and out of the room during this time. Witness looked into all the carriages at Folkestone. Knew Mr. Taglioni, the father of the danseuse; did not see him in the train at Folkestone: saw him at Dover. Prisoner, when first seen by witness, was walking with a gentleman. Hear the prisoner wish someone goodnight as witness was going up to him; did not know if it was the Station Master. Witness spoke to Mr. Hipgrave, the commissioner of the Lord Warden Hotel, but did not recollect the prisoner speaking to him. Never told the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte had sent him to look after him. Had no recollection of saying anything about a fly before Bayly came up. The prisoner lit a cigar at the Dover Castle Hotel. The prisoner had given witness the bag before the corner was turned at the end of the station. Bayly was walking on one side of the prisoner, and witness on the other at the time the cigar was lit. A proposal was made that they should come to Folkestone in a fly. Witness thought Bayly proposed to come by the train. The prisoner, however, proposed to come by a fly. Witness told prisoner he might go to any hotel he liked; the Shakespeare was proposed as it was near to Packham's, where a fly could be obtained. Never told the prisoner that it would be all right – that no charge would be preferred. Witness told Coram the prisoner was going to Folkestone with him. Coram never asked witness what he meant by “all right”. Never said all would be amicably arranged, and that no charge would be preferred against him. If Coram had sworn that it is false. (Sensation in court). Witness stayed at Galastie's till the arrival of Mr. Davidson. They began talking about the technicalities of law, which witness did not understand. Mr. Davidson said a charge would be preferred against the prisoner, and it would save expense if it was done at Folkestone. Coram asked the question as to whether a charge would be preferred at Folkestone; but previous to that the prisoner had said to Coram “You don't want to prefer a charge against me if I go back to Folkestone”. Witness had been a customs agent about 2 years; had never been in the police. Told Coram he was a constable. Witness supposed himself a constable while he had the prisoner in his charge. Never had been a constable at any time. (Mr. Lewis here recommended the witness, on any other occasion, to call himself “an amateur thief-taker”, as he (Mr. Lewis) liked things to be called by their proper names.)

The witness here added to his evidence – When the prisoner said he was very sorry for doing what he had done, witness told him that Mr. De la Motte had said he would rather have given him the money than it should have happened.

The magistrates here decided to adjourn the case till Wednesday, July 16th.

From the report of the examination of Hastier being so voluminous, and with a desire to give our readers a full report, we are compelled to defer the second day's examination until next week.

Folkestone Chronicle 26 July 1856.

The adjourned examination of Auguste Hastier, which was resumed on Wednesday, 16th inst, (continued from our report of last week), took place before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, J. Kelcey, W. Major, W. Bateman, S. Godden, G. Kennicott and S. Mackie esqs.

The interest in this protracted inquiry continued unabated. Several ladies who sat through the hearing of yesterday were again in attendance, having taken their seats before the bench was occupied, and expressed a quiet determination to see, as it is popularly called, “the end of it”.

William Fleet, police sergeant, repeated his evidence in chief, as deposed to at the first hearing, and fully reported in our columns, and was cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Went from Folkestone to Dover about 7 o'clock on Thursday, the 26th of June. Was watching the steam boats when the mail train arrived about 11 p.m.; saw the boats start. It was 20 minutes past 11 when witness first heard of the prisoner being in Dover; saw the prisoner first about 12 o'clock. It would take 5 minutes to go from the pier to Galantie's Hotel. When witness first saw the prisoner Mr. Richards was with him. Mr. Galantie followed witness and Mr. Coram into the room. Heard Coram tell Hastier he must go with him; Hastier replied “no, I am going to Folkestone with Mr. Richards”. Richards answered “That is quite right”. Witness thought a Mr. Palmer came into the room with them; to the best of witness' recollection no other person was present; saw Bayly there afterwards. Upon his solemn oath, did not recollect seeing a person asleep in the corner of the room. Will swear he had no conversation respecting an engineer. Cannot say whether Bayly came into the room alone; did not recollect Bayly coming in to the room; Bayly was not in the room when witness first entered; could not say if Bayly came into the room alone or not. The room was a small parlour. It was unlikely for a person to be in the room without witness seeing him. Bayly came into the room and said something about a fly. Bayly belongs to Folkestone; does not know what Bayly is; has seen him with custom-house officers. Does not know (why) he went to Dover. Does not know if Bayly took any part in the matter after Mr. Coram came into the room. When Richards said it was all right, Coram asked him what was all right; Richards replied they were going back to Folkestone. Heard nothing about the matter being “amicably settled”, or that “no charge would be preferred”. Heard Richards tell Coram he had property in the bag. Arrived at the Union about 12 p.m.. There was a dispute between Coram and Richards as to who should have the prisoner. There were several persons in the room during the time. The bag was on the table a great part of the time – witness leant upon it. Witness carried the bag to the police station. Witness came to Folkestone during the time. On his return the prisoner was searched and property given up to witness. Prisoner was left in Dover in custody. Witness brought the bag to Folkestone; came over in a fly. Stopped at one place on the road; did not go into any house. It took the witness till 4 o'clock to search the prisoner and count the money. Witness then went into the Lord Warden and waited for the train. The bag was in witness' possession the whole of this time. Prisoner never expressed any wish to stay in Dover; on the contrary, he rather wished to come to Folkestone. On witness' arrival at the Union, believed the prisoner said he had sent for a fly to go to Folkestone. Was present when Mr. Davidson arrived. Thought he had heard the prisoner ask if any charge would be preferred. It might have been Richards that asked the question. Mr. Davidson answered, “Oh, yes, I will charge him, or give him in charge”. When the prisoner was searched, made a memorandum of what was found on him. Prisoner seemed surprised when Davidson said he would charge him, and wrote something in his pocket-book. Witness had had possession of the book ever since. Witness entered what was found in the bag; the paper produced was the original memorandum. Witness did not go to Mr. Pay's, at Boulogne. Went to the witness Chaigneau's house, in Paris. There was a difficulty in obtaining the number of the notes. Conversed with Mrs. Chaigneau in English; Mrs. Chaigneau spoke to her husband in French; part of the conversation was translated to witness. Witness told Mrs. Chaigneau her husband would be wanted in Folkestone, and that he must bring his book with him, and he said he would come. The difficulty was he (Mr. Chaigneau) could not speak English. Witness did not go to Paris alone – Mr. Hart went with him to advise him, and to speak French for him.

The witness here added to his examination in chief – That on the morning of the 27th, on his way from Dover with the prisoner in a fly, he said to witness, “if Mr. De la Motte declines to prosecute will Mr. Breach do so?”; witness answered he thought he would. Prisoner then said “I don't think he will, but if he does it will be in consequence of his establishment: but whether he does or not my character will be gone – time will only retrieve it and that not in this country. I must try some other; but it is not for myself I care, it is for my friends”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Nothing had occurred to cause prisoner to say this to him. Did not recollect Mr. Hart's name being mentioned. Did not think the prisoner said it was wrong for Mr. Hart to act so harshly against him. This concersation took place after the charge was made against him by Mr. Davidson. The prisoner said nothing further about Mr. Hart, but he did about Mr. Breach – he said it would be an injury to the establishment. Witness did not caution the prisoner that anything he might say would be given in evidence against him. Witness told prisoner he was under a mistake in saying Mr. Coram had entered the room first: the prisoner said he was under the impression he had done so. All this was said without witness having cautioned the prisoner.

Angus Mackay Leith deposed he was manager of the National Provincial Bank, at Folkestone, and that no money had been deposited with him in a portfolio or bag.

Mr. De la Motte was re-examined, and repeated (through an interpreter) the evidence he gave at the first examination.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Witness resided at No. 7, Rue Trudon. Carried on business there for himself and friends. Witness' occupation was to buy and sell valeur. Was not a commercial man. He worked with his money. Could not tell better what he was; he had what belonged to him and lived on it. Could not say how long he lived at the Rue Trudon, but thought about 6 or 7 months; resided previously in the Faubourg, St. Germains. He bought valeur and sold them again; by this he meant everything that has a value, and is represented by paper, the paper now shown to witness was a receipt for the sale of some French Rente, it was his own; another paper was a receipt given by a broker for the sale of shares in the Credit Mobilier sold in Paris, it was his own. The whole of the money belonged to himself or somebody else, but that was business of the advocate: the money had come legally into his own hands, it was his own or those to whom he owed anything, friends had given him money to make profit of, and share with the witness, to whom he had given receipts; some might not have had receipts, (this witness showed an evident reluctance to answer the question put in cross-examination).

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench said by a recent Act of Parliament the evidence given at a preliminary enquiry like the present could be put in as evidence on trial, therefore the bench would see the necessity of his strictly cross-examining the witness.

Cross-examination continued – The money he had with him was about being deposited at Rothschild's in London. Witness had not been called upon to pay the money to any person before he left Paris. Came to England to deposit the money himself; could have done so without coming. There had been no legal proceedings commenced against him before he left Paris; is not a bankrupt by the French laws; has a friend who resides at Paris, 62, Rue Chasse de Autin, her name is the Baroness de ------, had however telegraphed to her in the name of Stewart, it was not arranged before witness left Paris to do so, he had sent a telegraph to this person by Hastier. Can play billiards, played on the Monday night. Did not send Hastier to get £5 from that deposited with him. Hastier lent him £5 which he (Hastier) had borrowed from another servant in the Pavilion. Never asked Hastier to go to London in a special train, and that he (witness) would pay for it. Had asked permission of Mr. Breach to take Hastier to London to act as interpreter for him, Mr. Breach refused to let him go. He afterwards wished Bond to go, this was for the purpose of depositing his money. Witness counted his money in Paris, had then 15,000 francs in English money, he also received 15,000 francs in English money in Boulogne. Did not count his money at the Pavilion, he only looked at it and thought it was right by the sight, gave the money to Bond in his sitting room; he could not tell the exact amount he had when at the Pavilion. Had money in all his pockets. Hastier did not ask him on Sunday what he was going to do with all that money; did not recollect a conversation having taken place between Hastier and himself on the Sunday night; recollected Hastier coming into his room respecting a telegraphic dispatch, (witness here went into calculation to prove the amount of his loss which he estimated as being about 75,875 francs). Could not tell nearer that 1,000 or 2,000 francs because of various petty amounts he had expended. This closed the case against the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench said he supposed the bench had made up their minds to commit his client, he should therefore not take up the time of the court needlessly but would reserve the ample defence he had for another opportunity.

The prisoner having been cautioned in the usual way said that the greater part of Mr. De la Motte's evidence was false, and that part of Richard's was incorrect. The prisoner was then committed for trial, and the witnesses bound over to attend and give evidence. Mr. Breach being bound to prosecute, and the witness De la Motte was bound in the sum of £1,000 to attend and give evidence.

To the editor of The Folkestone Chronicle:

Sir, - In the report, in your last impression, on the proceedings before the magistrates on Tuesday week, touching a charge against Auguste Hastier, for an alleged robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, I am reported to have said that “I wanted no putting right – I was always right”. As such an observation by anyone making it must subject him to much ridicule, I beg you will allow me to state what actually occurred. In the examination in chief of Mr. Chaigneau, of Paris, he was interrupted by remarks from Mr. Lewis, which the latter was clearly out of order in making. I objected, and Mr. Lewis appealed to the magistrates, and after some conversation, I read from a previous part of the deposition what the witness had stated, (and which he then re-affirmed), and it was admitted on all hands, and especially by the witness, that there was no foundation for the interruption. I was about to proceed with the deposition, when an observation to Mr. Lewis fell from the Mayor to the effect that “all was right – that we only wanted to be put right”. I, knowing that it was purely a mistake or mis-recollection of Mr. Lewis, immediately stood up and observed “I beg your pardon, Sir, we did not want any putting right – we were right”. Now, what a difference there is between these words, and those in your report. I simply did not wish the public, or the prisoner, to be under the impression that either his interests, or the ends of justice, were furthered by continued interruptions, which were equally unjustified by law, and wholly uncalled for.

Yours, most obediently,

Thomas A. Davidson.

Dover Chronicle 2 August 1856.

Special Sessions, Wednesday: Before J.J. Lonsdale, Recorder.

This was a special sessions, held for the purpose of disposing of the case of Auguste Hastier, a young Frenchman, late in the employ of Mr. Breach of the Pavilion Hotel, who was charged with embezzling £1,500, that amount being a portion of a large sum of money left in the custody of Mr. Breach, and subsequently transferred to the charge of the prisoner as manager of that establishment.

Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Biron were for the prosecution; and Mr. Robinson, instructed by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, appeared for the defendant.

The court opened at 11 o’clock and was soon crowded, the case exciting considerable interest among the townspeople.

The following magistrates were upon the Bench with the Recorder: William Major, James Kelcey, Captain Kennicott, Thomas Gaolder, James Tolputt, Mayor, William Bateman, and J. Kingsnorth Esqs.

The usual forms having been disposed of, the Recorder, in briefly charging the grand jury, said he was sorry to have to call the gentlemen of the grand jury together in this unusual manner, but he had no doubt that they were all aware that at the time when the usual sessions were last held there was a case undergoing investigation by the magistrates, upon which the magistrates were unable to come to a conclusion. The prisoner in that case was therefore not committed for trial at those sessions, but he had since been committed, and the case being one of considerable importance – whether looked at in relation to the amount of property alleged to have been stolen, or the position in life of the party accused of the theft – this circumstance, connected with others which appeared upon investigation, had rendered it desirable that no time should be lost in having the person charged put upon his trial, in consequence of which this sessions had been convened. The prisoner was charged under the 7th and 8th Geo. IV., c.29; and although the case was of the serious nature he had intimated, the jury would, he thought, find no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion upon the facts, and very little of their time would, he believed, be occupied. The learned Recorder then briefly reviewed the facts of the case, which will be found in the particulars given below, remarking that it would only be necessary for the jury to find that the person accused of the robbery was off the premises of his employer, Mr. Breach, with the money in his possession, without satisfactorily accounting for his absence, in order for them to find a bill and send the case for further investigation by another jury. It would not, therefore, to call the whole of the witnesses whose names were placed at the back of the bill, or to go through the depositions, which were exceedingly long, if, at an earlier stage of the evidence they arrived at the simple fact to which he alluded. The name of Mr. Breach, he might observe, appeared upon the indictment as the owner of the property, and he begged the jury to understand that it would not be necessary for them to inquire further into the question of ownership, as in cases where property left in the custody of an individual was stolen, the law regarded the person so having the custody of the property the owner of it as against the person accused of the robbery. The Recorder, after a few observations upon the nature of their functions, then dismissed the gentlemen of the grand jury to their duties.

After an absence of about an hour the foreman of the jury returned into court with a true bill against the prisoner, who was therefore put upon his trial.

The indictment charged him with stealing £1.500, the property of Mr. James Gaby Breach, at the Pavilion Hotel on the 26th of June. A second count charged him with stealing the same money, the property of Mr. de la Motte, and a third count charged him with stealing it as a servant of Mr. Breach.

The prisoner, who is a young man of remarkably prepossessing exterior and intelligent demeanour stood forward to the bar and pleaded not guilty. He did not seem at all discomposed throughout the day until within a few moments of the proceedings being concluded.

Mr. Sergeant Parry, in opening the case for the prosecution, begged the jury to dismiss from their minds all that they might have heard out of doors with reference to the case at issue, and confine their attention strictly to the evidence that would be sworn to on that occasion. In alluding to the circumstances under which the alleged offence had been committed, he said that in all probability the prisoner had yielded to a momentary temptation, for he believed that prior to this matter there had never arisen any complaint against him. What aggravated his conduct, however, was the fact that Mr. Breach had placed him in the highest confidence, as, indeed, he was justified in doing, the prisoner having come to the Pavilion Hotel from the Lord Warden Hotel, at Dover, where he had been acting as manager of that establishment, and Mr. Breach having received with him an excellent character. The circumstances of the case were briefly these:- On Sunday, the 22nd of June, Mr. de la Motte, a French gentleman, came from the continent to the Pavilion Hotel, at Folkestone. Mr. de la Motte had travelled from Paris to Boulogne, and from Boulogne to the latter port, where he arrived during some portion of Sunday – probably in the afternoon or evening. Having arrived at the hotel, he spoke to one of the principal waiters, a person named Bond, from which it appeared that Mr. de la Motte had about him a very large sum of money – indeed a sum which it was most unusual for persons to carry with them, and he was bound to say that the circumstances of a person coming from the continent with such a sum of money in his possession was calculated to arouse suspicions as to whether such money was properly his or not. Indeed, in the course of the case, it would turn out that the money was not really his, although it was not at all important for the purposes of this enquiry as to how this might be. It was sufficient that he had in his possession a sum of 485,000 f., or about £19,000 sterling. This money consisted of notes, among which there were a great many 1,000f. notes of the Bank of France. There were as many as 383 of these notes, representing a sum of 383,000f. There were also a considerable number of Bank of England notes and a large quantity of gold, consisting of about £600 in sovereigns and half sovereigns. There were also – and this it was very important for the jury to know – a Bank Post Bill of the Bank of Ireland for £30; a Bank Post Bill of the city of Glasgow for £5; and a letter of credit upon Messrs. Glyn and Co., drawn by the National Provident Bank of Scotland for £10. These three securities were in the possession of Mr. de la Motte, and it was important that this should be borne in mind, because, although it was possible to identify other property belonging to Mr. de la Motte, and entrusted to Mr. Breach, yet these three securities could be identified as having formed part of such property beyond all doubt. Now Mr. de la Motte would appear before the court as a witness in custody of a civil officer, for, since he had been in this country, he had been arrested for debt, but it would also be clear to the jury, beyond all doubt, that Mr. de la Motte came from Paris with his money, not with the intention of appropriating it for himself, but that it was money belonging to his creditors in France, and that it had since been lodged at the French Embassy for their benefit. It had always been the intention of Mr. de la Motte to take this course, and the circumstances under which Mr. de la Motte left Paris were simply these:- He was an agent for the French Stock Exchange and employed by persons of position in the government of France; there came a crash and a settling day; Mr. de la Motte was not enabled to meet it, and he came over to this country with this property, which belonged to his creditors, and which would be distributed amongst them. Having traced the money to the possession of the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, the learned sergeant adverted to the position of Mr. Breach, as the legal prosecutor in this case, remarking at the same moment, that Mr. Breach had, independent of the £1,500 which was the subject of this enquiry, been held responsible for other money to the extent of several hundreds of pounds. It appeared that on the evening of Monday, the 23rd June, Mr. Breach stated to the prisoner, as his manager, and so holding a superior and confidential position that he was going from home on the following morning for a week, and that on the following morning before the eight o’clock train started Mr. Breach called Hastier into his private room, No. 1, where the money brought by Mr. de la Motte had been deposited in an escritoire. Mr. Breach then showed the prisoner the money, and said to him “If Mr. de la Motte asks for this money today, let him have it; if he does not, and he still remains, I do not wish it to be left longer in the hotel; therefore, under those circumstances, lodge it in at the Folkestone Bank.” On Tuesday morning, Mr. Breach left, giving Hastier the key of the door of room No. 1, in which the escritoire containing the money still was, and on that day nothing particular happened. On the Wednesday Mr. de la Motte stated to the prisoner that he wanted to go to town by way of Dover and that he would take his money with him. Subsequently, however, he decided that he would not take it with him as he was going to Dover in an open boat. but that he would return to Folkestone on Thursday. It was then, in all probability, that the robbery was planned by the prisoner; and when he stated the circumstances under which it was committed, he thought the jury would consider it had been planned with a great deal of cut. The contrivance he adopted to get to town and to deceive the housekeeper of the hotel, Miss Pollock, would be seen by the following letter, which the prisoner addressed to a young lady residing in London: “Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, Wednesday. “Dearest Emily, When you receive this note, send immediately the following telegraphic message, and I will settle with you when I arrive in town”. Yours ever, A. Victor. “From Hamilton, London, to Mr. Hastier, Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone.” “Come up immediately. I must see you. Urgent.” Miss Hamilton would tell the jury that on receipt of that note she went to the Westminster Telegraph Office in London, that being the nearest telegraph office to her residence, and sent the message in question. There was no doubt about the prisoner having sent for and received this telegraphic message, for it was found upon him when taken into custody; and when he stated that the prisoner on getting to London did not go near Miss Hamilton, it would be for the jury to say whether this was not simply a sham telegraphic message to deceive Miss Pollock and the waitress at the Pavilion Hotel? On the prisoner telling her of his intention to go to London, Miss Pollock, as it might be easily understood, was extremely nervous, not liking to be left by herself in charge of so large an establishment as the Pavilion Hotel, but the prisoner said “I must be in town on urgent business. I go by the February o’clock train in the morning, and shall come back by the half past two o’clock down train on Thursday”. All the representations she made to him were vain, and she retired to bed about December o’clock on Wednesday night, leaving the prisoner in the room No. 1, where he remained for upwards of an hour and a half by himself. He went at half past two. What became of him in town was unknown, but on Thursday afternoon Miss Pollock received of him a telegraphic message stating that he could not come down that day, but that he would return on the following day, viz., by the first train on Friday morning. Mr. de la Motte, it would appear, returned from Dover on the Thursday afternoon, heard that Hastier had gone to London, compared that fact with certain circumstances he had observed in the prisoner’s manner previous to leaving Folkestone, and insisted that the escritoire should be unlocked. No-one had the key, and he then insisted it should be broken open. It was opened, and it was then discovered that a sum of nearly £3,000 had been abstracted. Mr. de la Motte would not be able to tell the particular securities which mad up this amount, but he would be able to say that the £3,000 was in notes and securities, English and French, and Bank Post Bills, and that the amount had been taken from the leather bags, which, it would be seen, had been cut open at the top. The learned sergeant then went on to state that a search was instantly instituted, and detailed circumstances, which are fresh in the minds of our readers, leading to the prisoner’s apprehension with about £1,600 in his possession, remarking, however, that among the property found upon the prisoner at the time of his arrest were the two Bank Post Bills and the letter of credit already alluded to, which were somewhat curiously placed together with two £5 notes, having been pinned by Mr. de la Motte with his left hand. What had become of the rest of the money it was impossible to say. The prisoner might have left it behind him in London, or otherwise disposed of it. These were the facts of the case, and the learned counsel for the prosecution having again begged the attention of the jury to the evidence that would be adduced, called the following witnesses:-

Alfred de la Motte, stockbroker upon the Paris Stock Exchange, examined: I arrived in Folkestone on Sunday, the 22nd of June last, when I had a large sum of money in my possession. I had with me a black portfolio, containing 383,000f., also a portmanteau, containing about £60 to £80 English money, but I do not recollect whether it contained any French money. I also had a leather sac containing English bank post bills, French bank notes, and some English gold in a silk purse. The whole amount of money it contained was about 36,000f. to 40,000f; and altogether in my possession I had about 475,000f. The portfolio and sac were both locked. On arriving at the Pavilion I gave the portfolio and bag to a waiter at the hotel, named Bond, to give to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, and Bond, holding the portfolio and sac in his hand, went with Mr. Breach into his room. On the same evening I learned that the prisoner spoke French, and I therefore sent for him, and gave him about 40,000f. from my portmanteau, to be delivered to Mr. Breach, and placed along with the other money. On the following day, and subsequently, I had several conversations with the prisoner On the Wednesday I told Hastier that I was going to Dover and that on my return I should want the money I had left with Mr. Breach, as I desired to deposit it at Rothschild’s, in London. I went to Dover on that day, and, on returning on Thursday I asked for Hastier, when I found he was not there. The escritoire in which the money was deposited was then broken open, and 394,135f. given up to me, about 70,000f. being missing.

By Mr. Robinson:- I have come here from the Queen’s prison, London, where I found my way from Maidstone Gaol. I was arrested on Thursday last. When I gave my evidence before the magistrates I was an independent gentleman, and I had not left France in a hurry because I could not pay my debts. I was arrested because my money was taken at Folkestone, in consequence of which I was prevented from depositing it at Rothschild’s. I left France because my accounts were not in order, and I could not regulate them at the moment. When first examined I said I had £17,000 sterling when I landed. I have since found the amount was £13,000, but I have not made the discovery in consequence of my arrest, and finding that I should have to answer my creditors in France. On the day the bag was opened, after the robbery, I said that there should be about 35,000f. in it, speaking from memory, and not 70.000f. I had previously enquired of Bond how much he could get my French notes changed for, and Bond said the rate of exchange was 15s. upon a thousand francs. I subsequently asked Hastier whether that was too little or too much, when Hastier said that Bond has asked too much, and that he thought he could get them exchanged at a more advantageous rate. He said he would write to London and ascertain and I believe he wrote to Messrs. Speilmann and Co., and obtained an answer from them. I swear I told the prisoner I should return from Dover on Thursday. I played at billiards with Hastier and two or three other persons. I asked Mr. Breach to permit Hastier to go to London with me for the purpose of depositing my money at Rothschild’s, and after Mr. Breach went away I asked Hastier to allow Bond to go, and Hastier refused. All I received at the Bank of France on the evening previous to leaving Paris was 510,000f., out of which I paid about 40,000f., and that is why I state there remained to mem 475,000f.

By Mr. Parry:- After making certain payments in France, I arrived in Folkestone with 475,000f. in my possession. The money remaining after the robbery, viz., 390,000f. has been deposited for me at the French Embassy. My arrest was a civil arrest.

Mr. James Gaby Breach, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, examined:- The prisoner was in my employment as manager about three months previous to this transaction. I had had a good recommendation with him from the Lord Warden Hotel, at Dover, and placed every confidence in him. I recollect Bond giving me some money in the presence of Mr. de la Motte, who wished me to take care of it. The amount was not stated, but Mr. de la Motte said that the sac contained notes of the Bank of France to a great amount, and that the portmanteau contained English gold. The same evening Hastier brought me two rolls of banknotes containing in all thirty nine 1,000f. notes. I had an engagement which called me away from home for a week. I therefore told Hastier I was going away for that period, stating that I had in my possession some money belonging to Mr. de la Motte and that in the morning I should give it into his charge. On the next morning I took him with me into room No. January and unlocked the escritoire, showed him the money and gave him the key of the escritoire, telling him that if the gentleman did not go on Tuesday to deposit in the Folkestone Bank. I heard nothing further of the matter till I got home, having arrived in consequence of having received a telegraphic message requesting me to come home immediately.

By Mr. Robinson:- The prisoner is a very intelligent man and speaks several languages.

By Mr. Parry:- I placed great confidence in him in consequence.

John Francis Bond, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, examined:- I recollect Mr. de la Motte coming to the Pavilion Hotel. He gave me a leathern bag and a portfolio. He locked the bag after putting in some money, and I gave both to Mr. Breach in his presence. On the following Thursday Mr. de la Motte enquired for his money, in consequence of which, and as Hastier had gone to town, I assembled about half a dozen of the principal servants, and consulted with them about breaking open the cupboard. The cupboard was ultimately broken open, and it was then discovered that the leathern bag had been cut. Mr. de la Motte counted the money remaining.

By Mr. Robinson:- I have not seen a letter from Messrs. Speilmann, of London, to the prisoner, nor heard of such a letter. I was present at the last examination of the prisoner, and I do not remember seeing a letter of the kind produced, but I will not swear one way or the other. I told Hastier there was such a weight of gold in the bag that I could hardly carry it.

By Mr. Parry:- On returning from Dover on the Thursday Mr. de la Motte asked me where Hastier was? I said Hastier had gone to town by the February o’clock train, and that I would make enquiries as to whether any message had been left by him.. The bag appears to have been cut. The gold was at the bottom of the bag.

Frances Pollock, housekeeper at the Pavilion, examined:- I know Hastier, who was manager of the hotel. On Wednesday evening, the 25th of June, about ten o’clock, the prisoner said he was going to town by the mail train at two o’clock the following morning. I said “What? Leave me all alone when Mr. and Mrs. Breach are away?” (A laugh) I described myself as a poor little nervous housekeeper, and said I should not feel as though all the bricks in the building were tumbling about my ears if I was left by myself. (Renewed laughter) He said, however, that his business was important, and that he must go. When I said I should not like to be left alone, he observed “Only get up a little earlier and show yourself to the servants, and it will keep them out of mischief.” He then said he should return the next day in time for dinner – that would be before half past two. On Thursday I received from the prisoner a telegraphic message to the following effect: “Cannot come down tonight. Will be down by the first train tomorrow morning.” In the afternoon of that day Mr. de la Motte returned from Dover. Eventually, after some discussion, it was agreed that the escritoire should be broken open. I saw Mr. de la Motte open the portfolio and count the notes, and saw some gold remaining in the bag.

Mr. de la Motte, re-called by Mr. Robinson:- I asked for the money before I went to Dover, but before starting I recollected it might not be safe with me in the boat. When I first asked the prisoner for the money he said he would get it directly.

By Mr. Parry:- I was searching for Hastier all the morning until noon, before I could find him, and I then discovered him on the beach. I never authorised the prisoner to take up notes to London to change for me, nor to cut open the bag and help himself. (A laugh)

Bond, re-called by the Recorder:- The bag was cut in this way when first discovered, I am quite sure.

William Bevan, night porter at the Pavilion, examined:- On the night of the 25th June, about half past twelve, Hastier asked me to go for a fly for him. He said he was going to London by the two o’clock train, and wanted to go to the upper station. I found the prisoner lying on the couch in No. January room when I returned with the fly. I was about an hour.

Emily Hamilton, residing at Hampstead:- I know the prisoner. On Wednesday, the 25th of June last, I received from him the following letter: (the letter read by the learned counsel in opening the case was again read.) In consequence of receiving that letter, I sent a telegraphic message to the prisoner. I was quite unaware of the purpose for which it was wanted. I sent the message between six and seven on Wednesday evening. I did not see him on the Thursday. I wrote to him afterwards and received a reply.

By Mr. Robinson:- I have telegraphed to him before.

Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent at Folkestone, examined:- I was at the Pavilion Hotel on the 26th of June when the cupboard was being broken open. I thereupon started for Boulogne to obtain the number of some of the missing notes which had been obtained at Boulogne by Mr. de la Motte in exchange for French money. I went by way of Dover, intending to come to Calais and go thence to Boulogne. On jumping out of the train, just as it stopped at Dover, I saw the prisoner going out of the door. I went up to him and told him he must go to Folkestone. He said he would go back tomorrow. I retorted that he must go that night. He then said “If I must, I must.” Mr. Bayley was with me, and he immediately stepped up to the prisoner and said “I suppose you don’t want force used.” We then all three walked on together. I said to the prisoner “You can go to any hotel you like, and I will order a fly, and we will go back to Folkestone.” As we walked on, and when we had got to the corner of the terminus, he gave up to me a leather travelling bag, which he said contained the money. We went to Galante’s hotel. Bayley went in with me, and after about an hour had elapsed Superintendent Coram, of the Dover Police Force, and Sergeant Fleet, of Folkestone, came in. I then gave the bag to Fleet. I did not leave Hastier till two o’clock. On the way from the station I told the prisoner that Mr. de la Motte had come back again, and that he had insisted on having his money given up to him, and that his (Hastier’s) absence had raised suspicions that the money was wrong. Whilst sitting at Galant’s I sent Bayley to telegraph to Mr. Hart, solicitor, of Folkestone. The prisoner, in reply to my observations, said he did not think it was de la Motte’s own money, and that he could not resist the temptation of taking part of it away. He also said he wished de la Motte had never come over the water, and that he had never seen him. When Mr. Coram entered the room he shook hands with the prisoner saying he was sorry to see him in that situation, and demanded the prisoner from my custody.

By Mr. Robinson:- I volunteered to go to Calais. I did not stipulate to be paid for it. I have before said that the prisoner stated the money was not de la Motte’s. I have made this statement in Folkestone, but not before the magistrates, and cannot recollect where, but it was previous to my examination. I cannot say Bayley was present when the prisoner first told me this. The prisoner spoke when in the house as well, however, and I am certain Bayley was present then. Bayley is not here today. I did not tell the prisoner when I apprehended him that it was all right, nor did I say in Coram’s presence that everything would be amicably settled. I led the prisoner to believe it was a serious matter. I did not say in anyone’s presence that no charge would be made against the prisoner. I did not give up the bill till I saw Fleet. I did not know Superintendent Coram. I had never seen him before. I was smoking and drinking with Hastier when the officers entered, but what I had I paid for.

By sergeant Parry:- When I left Folkestone for Boulogne Mr. Hart gave me instructions that if I fell in with Hastier to detain him. The moment Fleet came in I gave him the bag. When Coram came in he appeared to be on friendly terms with the prisoner, and spoke in such low tones that I could not hear what he said.

Sergeant William Fleet, of Folkestone, examined:- I heard of the robbery about five o’clock on Thursday, the 26th of June. I went to Dover at half past seven o’clock, and at about half past eleven that night I found the prisoner in the custody of Mr. Richards at Galante’s. Mr. Coram followed me in. I don’t know whether he is a friend of the prisoner’s. He told the prisoner he must go with him, to which the prisoner replied “No, I am going to Folkestone with Mr. Richards.” There was some dispute between Coram and myself as to who should take the prisoner. I charged Hastier with stealing from the Pavilion Hotel the sum of £1,600 – the property of Mr. Breach, I think I said – and he replied “I have told Richards about it. I have given him the bag.” The prisoner also said “Had I not seen my folly, you would not have caught me these two or three months.” He afterwards said “I am guilty to a certain extent.” Mr. Coram searched the prisoner in my presence, and I saw him produce several articles from his person. They consisted of a passport to Paris, a through ticket to Paris, issued at the Regent Circus, in London, and dated the 26th of June, 1856, a first class return ticket from Folkestone to London, five £5 notes, a gold watch, cigar case, and some gold and silver. The bag, which was opened at Folkestone, was found to contain twenty eight 1000f. notes, two parcels of ten being placed in a particular way; two Bank Post Bills of £30 each; twenty three bank notes of £5 each; nine bank notes of £10 each; two bank notes of £20 each; and, pinned together, a Bank Post Bill of the Bank of England for £30, one of the Bank of Glasgow for £5; and a letter of credit, drawn by the National Provident Bank of Scotland ob Messrs. Glyn and Co. for £10, making together £1,500.

By Mr. Robinson:- Mr. Coram is Superintendent of Police at Dover. I don’t know how long he has been so, but he has been at Dover, in that capacity, as long as I have been at Folkestone.

Mr. F.M. Chaigness, money changer, Paris, examined:- I exchanged some French money for English for Mr. de la Motte in June last. The Bank Post Bills produced are some of the securities I gave him on that occasion. The bills are all endorsed by me.

Fleet, re-called by Mr. Robinson:- Before there was any talking of locking up, the prisoner said he had sent for a fly, and was going to Folkestone. He also said “The money is in the bag, which I have given up to Richards.”

Mr. Henry Pay, money changer, Boulogne, examined:- I exchanged for Mr. de la Motte, on Sunday, the 22nd of June last, notes to the extent of £330. The notes were all stamped, but I cannot swear positively that the notes produced are the same. Among the money there was a £100 and a £50 note which I could have sworn to, but they are not here.

Mr. de la Motte, re-called by Mr. Parry:- The two £5 notes and the March Post Bills produced are part of the property stolen from me. I had placed them together as they are at present. The £5 notes produced are those I received from Mr. Pay, at Boulogne. There was also among the notes I received from Mr. Pay a £50 note, but I do not recollect if there was one for £100.

William Cook, night watchman at the upper station, Folkestone, said that he issued to the prisoner a first class return ticket to London on the night of the 25th of June.

Mr. F.M. Faulkner, consul at Folkestone, said that the passport had been vised for France on the 26th June by Mr. Delepierre, the Belgian consul in London.

By Mr. Robinson:- I have known the prisoner as manager of the hotel, and knew nothing adverse to his character previous to this transaction.

Superintendent Coram, called for the prosecution by the Recorder, on the application of Mr. Robinson, said:- I have been Superintendent of Dover Police six years. I have known prisoner as manager of the Lord Warden Hotel. I have often seen him there and have known him to speak to. On the 26th June I went to Galante’s. Fleet went in at the same time. The moment I entered the room I went to the prisoner and put my hand on him, saying “You must come with me.” Before I had finished what I was saying, Richards said “It is all right. He is going back to Folkestone with me.” I asked Richards if he was a constable, and he said “I am.” I had seen Richards previously at the Pavilion and had seen him at Folkestone on two occasions serving warrants. Richards also said that it would all be “amicably arranged.”

By Sergeant Parry:- I learnt from the Lord Warden Hotel, about twenty minutes to twelve in the morning, that a robbery had been committed at the Pavilion. I should have taken Hastier into custody. There was a dispute about him being my prisoner, and when Mr. Davison, Mr. Hart’s clerk, came, he wished me to give him up. I refused, however, and took the prisoner before the magistrates at Dover.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Robinson then replied on behalf of the prisoner, characterising the prosecution as one of the most vindictive it had ever been his lot to experience, and analysing what he alleged to be the motives of the parties who had appeared the most prominently against the prisoner. In this strain he commented upon the part which Mr. Mark Richards had taken in the matter, and drew the attention of the jury to the fact that his statement that day, with respect to the admissions of the prisoner at the time of his apprehension were altogether new, and had not been brought out at either of the examinations before the magistrates. He also adverted with some severity to the fact of Mr. Hart being the solicitor for the prosecutor in this case while he also held the post of magistrates’ clerk, and consequently the magistrates’ adviser in any step they might have deemed it their duty to take with reference to the prisoner; and, after contrasting the credibility of Superintendent Coram with that of Mr. Mark Richards, he proceeded to reply to the facts which had been advanced in evidence. He did not attempt to deny that Hastier took to London the notes and securities found upon him, but he denied that the prisoner took any greater amount than the amount found upon him, or that he even took it with a felonious intention. He could well understand how it suited the purpose of Mr. de la Motte to represent to his creditors that he brought to England £1,500 more than he really did bring, and how, therefore, it answered the object of those acting on de la Motte’s behalf to make out that the prisoner had taken from the escritoire £3,000, instead of £1,500. But on discovering that the notes had been taken, what was de la Motte’s first observation? Why, that there ought to be 35,000f. in the bag – a sum representing but £1,500, and this was the sum which Hastier had been originally charged with stealing. The £3,000 was an afterthought, and he left the jury to put their construction on it. The prisoner, he admitted, went to London with the notes, but for what? To appropriate them for his own purpose? Certainly not. He had had a conversation with de la Motte, they would remember, as to the rate of exchange for which he could get these notes converted into English money, and he had informed Mr. De la Motte that he could get the notes changed at a more advantageous rate to the holder than the rate proposed by Bond, the waiter; and what, then was more natural to conceive than that, being left in possession of those securities, the prisoner yielded to the force of temptation presented to him of making a few pounds by their exchange in London? This, he urged, was a construction of which the prisoner’s proceeding was fully compatible, and it was further borne out by the prisoner not taking with him any of the gold. Not that he contended for a moment that even this construction exonerated the prisoner from blame of the severest character. Undoubtedly the prisoner had greatly violated the confidence reposed in him, and whether found guilty or not guilty of the present charge, he had done that which irretrievably ruined him and blunted his character for life; but this, the jury must remember, was not a felonious intention, and however great a breach of confidence, it was not an act which would warrant them returning a verdict of guilty of the offence with which the prisoner was charged. The learned counsel went with great minuteness over most of the questionable parts of the prisoner’s conduct, and combated the deductions made by the prosecution with great ability. His speech occupied nearly an hour and a half in its delivery, and more than once elicited in the court an ebullition of sympathy, which, however, was immediately suppressed.

The learned Recorder then summed up, and the jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty, but with a recommendation to mercy, on the ground of the temptation thrown in the prisoner’s way, and of his previous good character.

The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to three years’ imprisonment, with hard labour.

On hearing the sentence, the prisoner appeared much moved, and there was a general expression of similar feeling throughout the court.

The trial lasted between six and seven hours.

Folkestone Chronicle 2 August 1856.

A special sessions was holden at the Guildhall, on Wednesday last, July 30th, before J.J. Lonsdale esq., the Recorder, J. Tolputt esq., (Mayor). S. Mackie, W. Bateman, W. Major, J. Kelcey, G. Kennicott, and J. Kingsnorth esqs. Were on the bench.

These special sessions were held for the purpose of trying Auguste Hastier, the late manager of the Pavilion Hotel, on a charge of stealing £1,500, the property of Alfred De la Motte.

The Recorder, in addressing the grand jury, said he was sorry for the occasion that induced him to hold these sessions. They, the grand jury, had no doubt heard of the prisoner who was there to take his trial. He however need not detain them long, but would offer briefly a few remarks on the case that would be brought before them. The bill of indictment to be laid before the grand jury contained three counts: - 1st, for stealing £1,500 the property of James Gaby Breach; 2nd, for stealing £1,500 the property od Alfred De la Motte; and the 3rd, for stealing £1,500 from the same J.G. Breach, the prisoner being then a servant of the said J.G. Breach. The grand jury however, in considering this case, had more particularly bear in mind that the tracing of any portion of the property stolen to the possession of the prisoner would be sufficient for them to return a true bill. By a recent Act of Parliament the foreman of the grand jury was empowered to administer the oath to witnesses to be examined before them, but he would impress upon the foreman to be very careful at to the manner in which the oath was administered. He (the Recorder) had now been a County Court Judge for a year and a half, and he had had sufficient experience in that time to observe that the sanctity of an oath was not regarded with that reverence it ought to command. The learned Recorder then desired the grand jury to withdraw and consider the bill to be brought before them.

Some delay arose to the grand jury by the bill of indictment not being prepared properly; the time of the jury and court being wasted while the counsel and solicitors were arranging a new form of indictment. This being handed to the grand jury they very shortly returned a true bill.

Mr. Sergeant Perry and Mr. Biron appeared to support the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Robinson, instructed by Mr. Lewis, of Ely Place, Holbord.

On the prisoner being called upon to plead, he in a loud and confident tone answered “Not Guilty”.

Mr. Sergeant Parry then opened the case by observing that he had the honour to appear before the court to conduct the prosecution, assisted by his friend Mr. Biron. He begged the jury to dismiss everything from their minds that they might have heard out of doors, and be guided entirely by the evidence that would then be adduced. The prosecutor would be Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, and the prisoner Auguste Hastier was the manager. He would be indicted under three counts as the learned Recorder had explained to the jury. The prisoner had committed a serious crime in a crafty manner, and he was happy to say one not common to his class, (that of a waiter) who he (Mr. Parry) must bear testimony were generally most trustworthy persons. The prosecutor had received a most excellent character with the prisoner, and reposed the most implicit confidence in him. The circumstances of the case were briefly as follows: Mr. De la Motte, the gentleman who had lost the money, it appeared had arrived at the Pavilion Hotel on June 22nd, by the boat from Boulogne; he then saw Bond, a waiter, and spoke to him about a large sum of money which he (De la Motte) had in his possession, and which he wished to deposit for safe custody with Mr. Breach. He ultimately saw that gentleman, and deposited with him notes and gold amounting in the whole to about 485.000 francs, amongst which were one or two bank Post Bills, which he, Mr. Parry, desired the jury particularly to remember, as they would be positively identified, and be the chief means of bringing the robbery home to the prisoner. Mr. De la Motte would be brought before them in custody, he was an agent on the Bourse at Paris, and had in his possession a large quantity of money, the property of several persons, his clients. A crisis came in the money markets, and De la Motte being unable to meet his creditors, came to this country with this large sum of money which would now be given up, and he might add that Mr. Breach was personally liable for the loss Mr. De la Motte and his creditors might suffer from the robbery that had been committed. It would appear from the evidence that Mr. Breach being about to go to London, entrusted the money that had been deposited with him to the custody of the prisoner, giving him instructions that in the event of Mr. De la Motte not claiming it the next day he should take it to the bank and deposit it there. This however he did not do, but on a day or two after Mr. Breach's departure, he left Folkestone by the 2 a.m. train and did not again return. Mr. De la Motte being anxious about his money a consultation took place amongst the principal servants of the hotel, and the result was that a cupboard was opened where the money had been deposited, and it was then discovered that a robbery had been committed. Suspicion at once fell on the prisoner, and means were immediately taken for his apprehension, which was ultimately effected at Dover by a witness named Richards, who would be examined before them. The learned Sergeant then concluded his address and called Alfred De la Motte, who was examined, through an interpreter, by Mr. Biron. The substance of his evidence, which has already appeared in extenso in our columns, was to the effect that he had brought a large sum of money from Paris to the Pavilion Hotel, which he had deposited with Mr. Breach, and that in the absence of Mr. Breach and the prisoner he, becoming anxious about it, had had the place where it was deposited opened, and found he had been robbed of a sum of 75,000 francs, or about £3,000.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was now a prisoner in the Queen's Bench – went from Maidstone Gaol there; was apprehended on Thursday last. When at home was an independent gentleman, but was not so now. (A laugh). Was not in debt when he left France, but was so now from being robbed. His accounts were not in order so therefore he left. He brought with him about £19,000. Had stated at first it was £1,600 he had lost, but now found it was nearly double that amount. Had had conversations with the prisoner, and showed him several valuable articles he had with him, and also some pictures. Witness had a conversation with a waiter named Bond with reference to the amount of exchange he would give for French money.He had offered him £39 5s, being a discount at the rate of 15s. for every 1,000 francs. Prisoner told witness that Bond had asked too much, and that he would write to London and ascertain the amount he could get there for every 1,000 francs. Witness had heard that the prisoner had received a letter from Speilman, a money changer, with reference to this matter. Had played at billiards with Hastier; did not borrow £5 from him. Had asked prisoner to go to London with him to deposit his money at Rothschild's, which Mr. Breach would not allow. Wished Bond to go with him after Mr. Breach had left home, but prisoner would not allow him to go. Had received 510,000 francs in Paris, and had expended about 50,000, making the sum he deposited to be about 475,000.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – The money was now deposited by Mr. Hart at the French Embassy. The arrest he was under was a civil, not a criminal one.

James Gaby Breach, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, deposed he was proprietor of the Pavilion, and repeated the evidence which has already appeared, to which nothing new was added.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Had received a good character with the prisoner. He was peculiarly useful to him in his hotel, and had placed great confidence in him.

Francis Bond, examined by Mr. Biron, added nothing new to his previous statement, and was cross-examined by Mr. Robinson. – Had had a conversation with Mr. De la Motte about changing money; had offered £39 5s. per 1,000 francs. Had never received a letter addressed to the prisoner from Spielman's; would swear to it. The bag produced was the one given to him by Mr. De la Motte. Told Hastier that there was a great quantity of money in Mr. De la Motte's possession.

Examined by Mr. Parry – The bag produced could not have been torn by the weight of the gold, but in his (witness's) opinion had been cut.

Frances Pollock, housekeeper at the Pavilion, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, repeated her former evidence in chief, as given before the magistrates, and already reported.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Had heard from the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte was friendly with him. Mr. De la Motte, when the cupboard was opened, found out the cut in the bag. Bond took the bag out and gave it to Mr. De la Motte.

Francis Bond re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – The bag was cut when found in the cupboard.

Mark Richards, examined by Mr. Biron, also repeated his former evidence in chief as to the apprehension of the prisoner, and added that the prisoner told him at Dover that hi did not think it was Mr. De la Motte's money at all, and that he (the prisoner) wished that Mr. De la Motte had never come across the water, he did not know why he took it, he could not resist the temptation.

Cross-eaxmined by Mr. Robinson – Was a custom house agent. Volunteered to go to Calais. Made no arrangements as to being paid for going.Had stated in conversation in Folkestone what the prisoner had said to him regarding the money, but did not give it in evidence before the magistrates. The conversation with prisoner about the money took place in the street, Bayly is not present when this was said. Bayly is not here today. Did not tell the prisoner it would be all right. Never said in Coram's presence it would be amicably settled. Witness told the prisoner he was a very foolish young man; stated this before the magistrates. Never told the prisoner no charge would be preferred against him. Would not give up the bag till he had seen Fleet. Never saw Coram before. Did not know him. Stayed at Dover about three hours.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Went from Folkestone to go to Calais and then to Boulogne.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that the witness was an amateur police officer, who seemed more anxious that anyone else in this case, he (Mr. Robinson) thought it would not do him much good.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Did not know Coram; but gave up the bag to Sergeant Fleet. Coram shook hands with the prisoner and seemed to be on friendly terms with him, he also spoke to him in a low tone of voice, but the witness did not hear what was said.

Police sergeant Fleet, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, repeated his evidence in chief, as given at the examination before the magistrates, and added, that the prisoner after he was in custody said to him “had I not seen my folly you would not have caught me these three or four months”. He afterwards said “I am guilty to a certain extent”, this was after an answer to a question who would charge him, when Mr. Davidson said “that he would”. Witness here described the things found on the prisoner when searched.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was Sergeant of police at Folkestone.Coram is superintendent of police at Dover. Told the prisoner the loss was about £1,600. The prisoner before he was charged said that he was going to Folkestone.

Alfred De la Motte, re-called and examined by Mr. Sergeant Perry – The two £5 notes and the bank bills, &c., produced, were pinned together by him, and were his; he had received them from Mr. Pay, of Boulogne. Believed the whole of the money found on the prisoner was his.

William Cook, examined by Mr. Biron, proved that the prisoner had a first-class return ticket from Folkestone to London, but could not identify the half produced as being part of the one so issued.

Framcis Macnamara Faulkner, examined by Mr. Sergeant Perry, proved the passport produced to be a Belgian one, and that it was vised on the 26th of June to enable the holder to pass through into Belgium.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Would have vised the passport himself for the prisoner if he had applied to him.

Mr. Sergeant Parry, addressing the bench, said that was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that he observed on the back of the bill of indictment the name of Coram, he would therefore call upon the learned Recorder to put Coram in the witness box, which his Honour having acceded to –

James Coram deposed he was superintendent of Dover police; had been so for six years. Had known the prisoner for about a year and a half. Was not on friendly terms with him, but saw him frequently in pursuance of his duty. Fleet and witness went into Galantie's Hotel together, when he apprehended the prisoner. Never shook hands with the prisoner, but went up to him and apprehended him at once, laying his hand on his arm. Had seen the witness Richards before; received money from him with respect to one or two warrants he had to serve when he (Richards) was at the Pavilion Hotel. Richards said no charge would be preferred.

Examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Went to the hotel about 20 minutes to 12 o'clock. Would have taken the prisoner into custody from the information received. When Davidson came he wished the prisoner to be taken to Folkestone, but witness would not accede to this.

Mr. Robinson then proceeded to address the jury in favour of the prisoner, and occupied about an hour and a half in the luminous and certainly ingenious defence, urging that there was no proof that the prisoner intended to steal the money of Mr. De la Motte, but though he might have taken it to London for the purpose of exchanging it as was requested by Mr. De la Motte and so profit by the exchange, he strongly condemned the conduct of some of the witnesses, and concluded by exhorting the jury that if they had a doubt, they would give his unhappy client the benefit of it.

The learned Recorder then proceeded to sum up the evidence, and said no defence was attempted to be made, except the assumption brought before them by the counsel for the prisoner, but which he must beg to remind them did not appear in the evidence at all: the sending to London for a telegraph dispatch to be sent to him was not consistent with innocence, the getting his passport vised also told strongly against him, the suggestion also of the counsel that the bag was not cut was not borne out in the evidence, but rather to the contrary; the jury must however dismiss from their minds every suggestion then given, and give their verdict solely on the evidence brought before them, if they had reasonable doubt about the guilt of the prisoner he hoped they would give him the benefit of it but not otherwise.

The jury then retired for about 10 minutes, and on their return into court delivered a verdict of “Guilty” but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy from his previous good character, and also believing that he had yielded to a sudden temptation.

Mr. Sergeant Parry addressing the learned Recorder said he was instructed by the prosecutor Mr. Breach, also to recommend the prisoner to mercy on precisely the same grounds that the jury had done.

The Recorder then, addressing the prisoner, told him he had been convicted on the clearest evidence of having committed a very serious crime. It was most painful to see a young man like him, possessed of his superior advantages of education, and from the situation in life he previously occupied, placed in such a degraded position. From the serious nature of the crime, which was a double robbery, not only of Mr. De la Motte, but also of his employer, Mr. Breach, a clearer case could not be, and he had the power to sentence him to 15 years' transportation; but taking into consideration the recommendation to mercy of the jury, and also that of Mr. Breach, he should pass a comparatively lenient one, which would be 3 years' imprisonment, with hard labour.

The prisoner seemed astounded at the sentence, and burst into tears. Great surprise was also manifested by a number of persons in the court, at the heavy sentence, considering all the circumstances of the case.

Folkestone Chronicle 27 September 1856.

Local News.

It has been suggested to us by a correspondent from the Great Western Hotel, Paddington, that as Mr. Giovanni, late manager of the Pavilion Hotel (which he left for the Great Western) was for a long time a resident here, and well known by most of our readers, it might be interesting to his friends to know that a handsome testimonial was presented to him the other day, on quitting that hotel, by all the servants of the establishment. The testimonial consisted of a chased silver inkstand for himself, and a handsome gold bracelet for Mrs. Giovanni, as a mark of the esteem in which they were held by all, and of the appreciation of their kindness and consideration towards them. The whole of the servants were assembled on the occasion, and the oldest of them deputed to present the testimonial with a suitable address.

Folkestone Chronicle 31 January 1857.

Local News.

Our readers at a distance will learn with equal regret to that manifested in the town that the excellent proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Mr. J.G. Breach, is about to quit that establishment, which his superior management has rendered so universally celebrated. The uniform courtesy and kindness of this gentleman have gained for him the esteem of all his fellow townsmen, and his munificent contributions to all benevolent purposes, both public and private, will be greatly missed, unless we should be fortunate enough to include him among our permanent or temporary residents.

Dover Chronicle 31 January 1857.

Mr. J. G. Breach is about to vacate the "Pavilion Hotel." The generous support given to all public institutions and subscriptions has rendered that gentleman deservedly popular amongst his townsmen, and his excellent management and gentlemanly conduct to all visitors has rendered the "Pavilion" one of the most flourishing hotels in the kingdom. A misunderstanding with the directors of the South Eastern Railway Company is said to be the cause of the discontinuance of his tenancy.

Dover Chronicle 10 October 1857.

A few weeks since, an Irish gentleman, worth some £10,000 or £12,000 a year, arrived at the "Pavilion Hotel," and after staying a few days fell in love with a pretty chambermaid, to whom he offered his hand, which, after some conversation, was accepted. The wedding took place in London, and the happy couple are now sojourning in Ireland. The gentleman's age was 65; his bride is about 36.

Dover Chronicle 11 May 1861.

Marriage: May 8, at St. Catherine Cree church, Leadenhall Street, London, Charles Doridant Esq., of the "Royal Pavilion Hotel," Folkestone, to Adeline, second daughter of Mr. George Painter, of the Ship and Turtle Hotel, Leadenhall Street, London.

Folkestone Chronicle 28 October 1865.

Extensive Jewel Robbery At The Pavilion Hotel.

This day week it was discovered that a large quantity of jewellery, in value estimated at £1,500, had been stolen from a drawer in the apartments of the Dowager Countess of Dunraven, at the Pavilion Hotel, where she has been staying for some time past. Information was at once given to the police and detectives placed on the alert, but no clue has as yet been obtained as to the perpetrator of the robbery.

Folkestone Chronicle 20 October 1866.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday October 17th:- Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Vincent Brown, 22, man cook, was charged with stealing £8 10s, the property of George Peal, in his dwelling house, at Folkestone, on September 21st, 1866. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

The petty jury having been sworn, the following evidence was adduced in support of the charge:

George Peal: I am a brickmaker. I know the prisoner, who lodged at my house. He came on the 8th September, a Saturday. I live at 5, Bayle Street. He occupied the back room on the middle floor. He lodged with me a fortnight and a day or two. Prisoner often slept out. A gas pipe layer named Arnold also lodged with me. He slept in a room next to mine, on the top floor, above the room the prisoner occupied. One was to the right, and the other was to the left of the staircase. Whilst the prisoner was lodging at my house I lost £8 10s. from a square box in my bedroom. The money was in a little box. The large box was kept in a corner of the bedroom, furthest from the door. The large box I kept locked. The key was tied to the handle at the side of the box. I last saw the money safe in the box on the 16th of September, on a Sunday morning when I counted it, and put some more to it. It was pretty much all silver. I don't suppose there was a terrible sight of gold, as my wife brought me three sovereigns from it the night before. I sent her for the three sovereigns. I knew there was £3 10s. in silver in a little bag, kept for the rent, and £8 besides. There might have been two half sovereigns besides the three sovereigns she brought me down. I first missed the money on Sunday morning, the 23rd. I went to put some more money in the box, and found the key of the big box in the lock instead of hanging by the side. I looked in the little box and found it empty. Prisoner could not get into my room without going upstairs. There was another lodger and a little boy who slept with him. It was my wife's brother. The boy is a good boy for what I know. I have no reason to suspect him. Arnold is respectable as far as I know. He never went into my room. I never found the prisoner up the stairs away from his room. On the night of Saturday the 22nd prisoner did not sleep at home. He said he had been to a cousin's at Dover. He had been absent several times – nearly half the time he lived with me. I did not go to the box from the time my wife fetched down the £3, to the time I missed the money. I never looked to see if the key was there. I gave information to the police, and looked for the prisoner. My wife told me prisoner had been home on Monday. I saw him on Monday, the 24th, under the Cheriton arch about a quarter past twelve. He was walking along the road. I held my hand up to him, called him, and told him I wanted him. He said “All right. I'll come”. He came to me at once. I told him I had lost mu money, and I told him I thought he must have had it. He said “I am sorry for that. Do you think if I had your money I should not have said “I have had your money and will pay you back when I can”?. I can't think how you came to pick on me”. When in the market he said he would make me suffer for this, because a crowd of people were looking at him. Prisoner walked voluntarily to the station house with me and my wife's father. I gave prisoner in charge. He did not object to going to the station, and when I charged him with stealing the £8 10s., he said nothing. The lad is just turned twelve, and is here. I have never had occasion to find fault with my wife for spending too much money, but rather t'other way. (laughter).

The Recorder: Do you mean she does not spend enough?

Prosecutor: Neither of us put our hands on prisoner.

Mary Alice Peal: I am wife of prosecutor. On Thursday, September 20th, my husband sent me to get some money out of a box in the bedroom. He sent me for £3. The key was on the handle of the box, not in the lock. I took out $3 in gold; the rest was pretty much all in silver. I don't think there was much gold left. I went up in a hurry, and I am not sure that I did not leave the key in the lock; I might have left it in as it was found in on the Sunday morning. I never did so before, but always locked the box. I never saw the prisoner near my room. Prisoner did not sleep at home on Saturday night, but came in between 12 and 1 on Sunday and told me not to cook his dinner as he was going out. He went upstairs to get a book and went out again. I said nothing to him about the loss of the money because I was there by myself and was afraid to do so. Prisoner came in again about 12 on Monday and asked me what he owed me. I told him 3s. and he gave me half a crown. I told him that was not enough and he then gave me half a sovereign. I gave him the change. He also gave me 2s 6d for the laundress. He took the money from his pocket. He gave me a sovereign on the Thursday previous. The day before he borrowed 4s. to pay for his boots. He said he was employed in cooking for a ball on Shorncliffe Camp. He said he was to have £3 for it. It was the same week, before he game me the sovereign to change. The ball had taken place before the money was missed. It was before he borrowed the 4s., which was repaid out of the sovereign. He did not tell me where he got it from. After prisoner paid me the 3s., he dressed and went out. I said nothing to him about the money being missed because I was afraid he would go right away if I did. Someone followed him; it was my husband's mother, Mrs. Peal. On Sunday morning I sent the little boy to follow him.

James Standing, a lad 12 years of age: The last witness is my sister. I recollect Sunday morning, 22nd September. That morning my sister told me to follow prisoner and see where he went. I did so. He went down Grace Hill, up Mill Lane, and when near the new school he saw me and ran away. I ran after him but lost sight of him. I know Arnold and slept in the same room as his. I have been in my sister's bedroom, but never saw the key in the box. I am sure the prisoner saw me because he turned round and looked. I don't know whether he cannot see persons at a distance.

William Martin: I am Superintendent of Borough Police in Folkestone. On the 24th September I went into the station house and saw the prisoner there. Prosecutor and one of the constables were also there. Prosecutor accused prisoner of stealing £8 from a box in his house. I cautioned prisoner and asked what money he had about him. He made no reply, but pulled out the portmonnaie I now produce. I opened it and found three sovereigns in a compartment, one half crown, three shillings and two sixpences. Prisoner denied all knowledge of the robbery and he was detained. We found on him a bunch of keys and two gold rings. The portmonnaie is a new one.

This was the case.

In his defence prisoner said he could account for the money he had. I received £10 8s 3d from the Pavilion. I went to the prosecutor's house the same night. For getting up a ball dinner on the Camp, Captain Talbot gave me £2 4s 6d. For getting up a ball dinner I had £1 5s. I have summoned no witnesses to prove this, but my letters will show that I did get up the ball dinners. The reason I borrowed the 4s was because I did not wish to change a £5 note which I received from the manager at the Pavilion.

The Recorder, in summing up, reminded the jury of the offence, which (at the discretion of the Court) could be punished with 14 years penal servitude, and said it was for the jury to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him. When the money was missed the prisoner was away from the house, but on enquiry he found that he was frequently absent, which did away with any little suspicion which might attach to him on that account. The next thing was the evidence of the lad, who said that the prisoner ran away when he saw he was being followed. Nothing had been said about it, but they jury could see that prisoner wore glasses and was near-sighted, and it might be could not see a person at six or seven rods distance. His running at that time, if they believed the lad, might only have been a coincidence. There were these strong facts in his favour, that neither prosecutor nor his wife could speak of any gold having been taken, and he had never been seen beyond his own room. Where other persons might have had access to the money the evidence ought to be very direct and conclusive to fix the theft on any single person. If they thought there was any reasonable doubt, they should give the prisoner the benefit of it.

The jury consulted, and the foreman had collected the opinion of his fellow jurors, and was waiting till the Recorder had finished his perusal of some letters and papers belonging to the prisoner, when the Recorder told the jury that the prisoner had, of his own act, asked him to look at the papers, and it was only right to tell them that they showed his habits to have been very extravagant.

The jury, after hearing this, requested to retire, and after an absence of about five minutes they returned and found a verdict of Not Guilty.

Prisoner thanked the jury for their verdict, and was about to make a speech, when the Recorder told him he had better say nothing, but go.

This ended the business.

Before they were discharged the foreman of the Grand Jury called attention to the inaccuracies in the calendar. In this case prisoner was charged in the indictment with stealing £8 10s.; in the calendar it was £8.

Folkestone Chronicle 11 January 1868.

Pavilion Hotel.

Arrangements were concluded on Tuesday last for transferring the lease of this important hotel to Mr. Edwards, and as soon at the valuation and other necessary preliminaries are executed the new landlord will take possession. Although Mr. Doridant leaves the hotel, he will not necessarily absent himself from Folkestone, reserving to himself as a summer residence for occasional visits to Folkestone his own private establishment on the Marine Parade.

Folkestone Chronicle 15 February 1868.

Presentation.

The employees of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, determined to present Mr. Doridant, on his relinquishing the hotel, with some memento of their long association, set on foot a subscription among themselves with that object, and within two hours of it being mooted they raised sufficient to enable themselves to purchase a large and very handsome Tureen, weighing over 100 ounces, which was presented to Mr. and Mme. Doridant on Monday evening at the hotel, the occasion being the birthday of their little son. Mr. Quiddington, the manager, with all the servants of the establishment having assembled in one of the saloons, requested the attendance of Mr. and Mme. Doridant, who were entertaining a few friends, and upon their coming in with their friends, Mr. Quiddington stepped forward and begged their acceptance of the tureen, at the same time reading the following address, and presenting each of them with a copy of it, which had been very neatly printed on white satin:-

To Mons. And Mmme. Doridant

Respected Sir and Madam,
We find with much regret that you are about retiring from business, and we cannot permit such an event to take place without expressing our gratitude for you kind and generous consideration at all times, and our deep sorrow at parting.

We, the undersigned, beg to offer you this tureen as a proof of our attachment to you, and as a remembrance of the event which separates us from an excellent Master and Mistress.

That you may be blest with health, long life, and happiness, with your little son, is the sincere prayer of your faithful and humble servants. (Here follow the signatures, 76 in number)

The inscription on the tureen was as follows:

Presented to Mons. and Mme. Doridant on their leaving the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, by their servants, as a token of regard and esteem.

Mr. Doridant, who was very much moved, replied that he did not expect so valuable a memorial from his servants, and but for the manner in which it was presented, would certainly have refused it. If it had been a gold pencil case, or something of that sort, he should have been quite satisfied, but he was now quite overcome by their kindness. Every person must make his own place in the world, by his ability, and he wished every one of them might do as well as he had done. It was not his position or his fortune that caused him to retire, but the delicate health of Mrs. Doridant. He did not like changes, and some of the servants had been in the house 20 or 30 years, which showed that they were good servants, and that it was a good house. After again thanking them for the expression of good will, he asked them all to drink the good health of little Charlie. A first rate supper was provided for them in the servants' hall, to which they repaired, and after justice had been done to it songs and toasts were given, and the party did not break up till after two o'clock, having thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

Folkestone Chronicle 28 August 1869.

Tuesday August 24th: Before S. Eastes, J. Gambrill, J. Clark, and J. Tolputt Esqs.

The court was crowded chiefly with visitors from the Pavilion Hotel.

Theophile Alexandre Gohier was charged with stealing certain articles from the Pavilion Hotel on Monday morning last.

Henry King, a barrister, said: I am staying at the Pavilion Hotel. On Sunday evening I occupied a private room, No. 39 on the second floor. I was disturbed soon after four o'clock on Monday morning by a noise, and on rousing myself I saw the figure of a man by my bedside. I jumped up and said “Who the Devil are you?”, and the man glided out of the room. I jumped out of bed, ran outside the door, and saw him retreating along the corridor, disappearing about the centre of it, on the right hand. I made a great noise shouting “Friends” and “Porter”, and lots of people came out. It was not light, but there was a dim light. I searched my room, and missed my gold watch with two gold chains attached, a gold pencil case, (one chain was a neck curb, the other an Albert, with a seal attached), a silver fusee case, and my purse, with £6 in gold, and 22s. or 23s. worth of silver, to the best of my belief. The purse was a green and brown knitted silk purse with gold slides. My bedroom door was not locked. A chair was placed against it, but I am a heavy sleeper and I did not hear it pushed away. About the middle of the day I saw my property in the hands of Supt. Martin. That now produced is mine. I identify it by it's general appearance. The value of the property stolen was about £60.

Charles Badois having been sworn, interpreter, translated the evidence to the prisoner, who did not cross-examine any witness.

William Frederick Goldsmith, head waiter at the hotel, said prisoner came to the hotel three or four days ago, occupying room 55 on the second floor, nearly close to that occupied by prosecutor, in the centre of the corridor on the right. On Monday morning prisoner paid his bill to go by the 9 a.m. train.

Supt. Martin said: Yesterday morning I was sent for to go to the Pavilion, and from information received I watched prisoner's room. He left it soon after eight o'clock, and I saw him leave the hotel. I directed a constable to watch him, and going up to his room, examined it. In a black bag I found those (thieves) tools produced, which made me suspect prisoner. The tools are a pair of key nippers, and of cutting nippers. I afterwards went to the railway station, and apprehended prisoner just as he was leaving by the nine up train. I searched him in presence of Inspector Burr of the railway police, and found the purse with the watch and chains inside his left hand breast pocket, the fuse box and pencil case in his waistcoat pocket. They were afterwards identified by prosecutor as his property. Another gold watch, knife, portmonnaie with £3 in gold and 12s. 6d. in silver, and a snuff box in one trouser pocket, and 10s. loose in another trouser pocket. 20s. was returned to me by the South Eastern Railway Company as cash put down to pay for his ticket. An hotel bill was in his pocket. I charged him with stealing the articles from the hotel. He made no reply. I think prisoner understood what I said, although he is not an Englishman, for he has since spoken in English to ask for food.

Prisoner was then formally charged with stealing the articles mentioned, and having been cautioned said he had only been in England six weeks. He was a stranger here, and knew no-one that he could call as a witness to character. He acknowledged himself guilty of the crime imputed to him, and he was committed for trial at the ensuing Quarter Sessions for the borough.

Prosecutor applied to have the articles given up into his possession, as they were the daily necessaries of existence, but the Bench was unable to comply with his request.

Folkestone Chronicle 9 October 1869.

Quarter Sessions.

The usual Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the borough were held yesterday before the learned Recorder J.J. Lonsdale Esq., who in his charge to the Grand Jury referred to various changes in the law during the past session, and as they are important, and the demand on our space this week prevents our giving them, we shall probably do so next week. There was only one case for trial, that of Theophile Alexandre Gohier, alias Leon Antoni, for stealing on the 23rd August, at the Pavilion Hotel, a gold watch, two gold chains, a gold pencil case, a silver fusee box, a slik purse with gold slides, and £7 3s. in money, the property of Henry King, a barrister, staying at the hotel. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude.

Folkestone Chronicle 7 September 1872.

Wednesday, September 4th: Before The Mayor, Col. Crespigny, T. Caister, J. Kingsnorth and W. Bateman Esqs.

The Pavilion Riots.

Richard Mercer was charged with assaulting P.C. Smith on the 2nd inst., while in the execution of his duty.

Mr. Minter appeared to defend the prisoner, who pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

P.C. Smith said that he was on duty outside the Pavilion on the 2nd inst., when his attention was called to a crowd in front of that place. He saw the prisoner there along with twenty or thirty more. He heard someone shout out “Let him have it”. He turned round immediately, and saw the prisoner, who kicked him in the leg and struck him on the shoulder. Prisoner tried to throw him on the ground, and he (witness) said “All right, I know you”.

Mr. Minter said he must ask the magistrates to adjourn this case, as he had not had time to procure witnesses for the defence. The prisoner had no opportunity to consult him, and persons would not care to come forward to give evidence, unless summoned to do so.

After a consultation among the magistrates the Mayor said the Bench considered the application ought to have been made before P.C. Smith had given his evidence, and the Bench must decline to grant it.

P.C. Smith, cross-examined, said: It was about twenty minutes to twelve when the assault occurred, and I saw the prisoner when I first went there. He stood outside the Pailion about ten minutes. The prisoner was close by me in the middle of the crowd. He pushed on to me.

P.C. Sharp said he was on duty at the Pavilion on the night in question. He did not see the prisoner there. There was a great number of people, and much noise and shouting, and a great disturbance for a time.

Mr. Minter said, in defence, that he regretted that his application for an adjournment had not succeeded. On other occasions, when making a similar application, he had not been met with the observation “Wait and see what the prosecution has to say”. The evidence, however, that had been produced had quite failed in substantiating the charge that had been made. He would ask the Bench to look at the circumstances: Smith said he had been kicked on the calf of the leg by Mercer. How little reliance could be placed on such evidence was manifest, when Smith said that Mercer rushed on to him, and that he (Smith) turned round and faced the prisoner. How, then, could he kick him on the calf of the leg if Smith was facing Mercer? The fact was that Mercer was pushed in by others in the crowd, and accidentally pushed against the shoulder of the police constable. Mercer had been brought before that Court before, and that had operated on the minds of the police on the principle of “Give a dog a bad name and hang him”. Other persons were concerned in this riot, and it was astonishing that they were not there that day, but the fact was the police intended to make the prisoner the scapegoat. Evidently there was a riot, and in the affray the police constable was struck, but there was no evidence whatever in proof that this had been done by the prisoner.

The Court was then cleared, and at the expiration of about twenty minutes was re-opened.

The Mayor, addressing the prisoner, said the magistrates were determined to put down these disturbances, which seriously interfered with the quietude and peace of the town, and tended to drive away visitors. The assault upon the police had been proved, and the Bench intended to visit on prisoner the severest sentence of the law, and he would be committed to six months' imprisonment in Dover gaol, with hard labour.

The prisoner was then charged with assaulting William Pett, waiter at the Pavilion.

William Pett said that between eleven and twelve o'clock he was standing outside the Pavilion, when he received a severe blow by one man, and was partly knocked down by another. The head cook and porter came to his assistance.

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion, said he was on the scene of the disturbance when he heard someone exclaim “Here, Sir Roger Tichborne, let the b------ have it”. He saw two men rush at the last witness. One struck him and ran away, and the other also gave him a blow. It was too dark to distinguish the men, whom he did not recognise.

P.C. Hogben said he was on duty near the Pavilion on Monday evening, when he heard a number of people shouting and making a great noise. He saw Spurgeon leaving the hotel and going towards the harbour. He heard some scuffling, and a threat used against Petts by Mercer, who struck him on the head and ran away. He did not hear Petts say anything to Mercer to provoke him. Immediately after Mercer had said “Drop the ------ one”, he struck him a blow. He went towards him a second time in a fighting attitude, and then ran away.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, to commence at the expiration of the first sentence.

Folkestone Chronicle 21 September 1872.

Tuesday, September 17th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Mary O'Driscoll was brought up in custody, charged with stealing one sheet from her master, Mr. J. B. Edwards, of the Pavilion Hotel, on the 16th instant, value 7s.

Mary Littlewood said she was housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel, where the prisoner was a servant. She searched her bedroom on Monday afternoon with Mr. Edwards, and in her bed she found a linen sheet cut up, which belonged to the men-servants' beds in the hotel. The sheet produced by P.C. Hills was the property of Mr. Edwards. She asked the prisoner, who was present, how she came to cut up the sheet, and she replied that it was her property. The prisoner had been in the hotel about 8 months.

Cross-examined by prisoner: The sheet was in pieces on the bed when I first went into the room. When I went into the room the second time, prisoner had put part of the sheet into her box and I took it out.

Harriett Cornish, linen keeper of the hotel, said the sheet produced belonged to Mr. Edwards. It was marked “Pavilion Hotel” in red letters. The prisoner had nothing to do with the linen, except coming to her for it to put on the beds.

P.C. Hills deposed to apprehending prisoner, who said at the time that it was her sheet.

The prisoner, electing to be tried under the Criminal Justices Act, and pleading Guilty, was sentenced to two calendar months' imprisonment with hard labour.

The same prisoner was also charged with stealing four pocket handkerchiefs of the value of 2s.

Charles Preston, waiter at the Pavilion, being sworn, said he had missed several pocket handkerchiefs from his bedroom, and saw them on Monday afternoon in the prisoner's bedroom. They are the same as now produced, and the name is marked on them.

P.C. Hills, who apprehended the prisoner in this charge, said at the time she said they were her property.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 7 December 1872.

Notice.

Who will help?

A man, advanced in years, has a wife and 6 children, the eldest of whom (a girl) is alone able to support herself, having just got a place as a pupil teacher, the rest are in childhood. He is well known to the public as Manager of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, from 1845 to 1856, since when he has experienced nothing but losses, and now through the bankruptcy of a trustee his property is entirely gone, leaving him quite destitute. Particulars, if desired, and subscriptions received by the Honble. Mrs. B.J. Bingham, Shirley Lodge, Southsea, and Henry Lewis M.D., West Terrace, Folkestone.

Folkestone Chronicle 5 April 1873.

Thursday, April 3rd: Before J. Kelcey, J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer and J. Clarke Esqs.

Thomas Syers was charged by Mr. Edwards with stealing a quantity of bread from the Pavilion Hotel, where he worked as a porter.

William Mortimer, waiter at the Pavilion, sworn, said tha prisoner was a porter connected with the Pavilion Hotel. After the boat came in on Sunday he saw the prisoner with half or whole of a loaf in his pocket. He was in the kitchen near the Refreshment room of the station. He told prisoner not to go out because he had some bread sticking out of his pocket. He did not see him leave the station.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Did not see you take the bread from the station.

Eliza Watkins said she was attached to the Pavilion Hotel in the capacity of a still-room maid. About half past five on the day in question she saw prisoner take some meat and bread from a shelf at the Harbour Station. His business there was to clear the things away. She saw the prisoner take the sandwiches off the plate on the counter. She asked him what he was going to do with them, and he replied he was going to give them to someone who would be glad of them. She had seen him cut sandwiches before. She saw him put the sandwiches in paper, and then place them in his pocket.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Did not hear you say that you took it away to bait a rat trap. The sandwiches were not left by visitors, as there was no business on that day.

This being the only evidence the Bench dismissed the case, as there was no evidence of felonious intention.

Mr. Edwards said that he was sorry to bring this case before the Bench, and he hoped the Magistrates would not think him severe, but the fact was that he had so many servants in his employ that he thought it his imperative duty to bring any cases of dishonesty before their worships as a protection to those servants who were honest.

Folkestone Chronicle 30 October 1875.

Quarter Sessions.

Tuesday, February 26th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

James Hunt Angell, 28, waiter, on bail, was charged with stealing a pencil case, of the value of 2s., the property of William Pike, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Forbes Mosse prosecuted, and Mr. Minter defended.

From the evidence of William Pike, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, it appears that in September prosecutor lost a pencil case, which he left in bench in the pantry. He enquired of prisoner if he had seen it, who declared that he had not. He afterwards saw Mr. Spurgeon, the assistant manager, who showed him a pencil case, which he identified as his own by a mark near the point, caused by using it as a tooth pick, and by a black spot on the groove. On the day the pencil case was found he saw prisoner and asked prisoner to show him the pencil case he had, and he replied he had not got one, but that he did have a plated one, which was in his box. On going to his box with him, prisoner took a collar-box out and said “You can see for yourself”. No pencil case was found, and prisoner said he had not seen the pencil case since he had seen it in the Superintendent's hands.

Mr. Spurgeon, assistant manager of the Pavilion, deposed that on telling the prisoner that a pencil case was seen in his box, he said “Well, if it was there then, it is there now”. The pencil case produced was brought to him by Jane Challis, and when showed to the prisoner, he exclaimed “This is my pencil case”.

Supt. Wishere said that on Tuesday, the 7th September he went to the Pavilion Hotel and saw Mr. Edwards, and prisoner was sent for and he told him a cash box had been stolen. He was asked if he had any objection to have his box searched, and he said he had not. He (the Supt.), Mr. Edwards, and the head waiter went to prisoner's room, and prisoner produced a small tin which he took out of his large box. He (the Supt.) was searching for the cash box, not knowing anything about the pencil case. Among prisoner's clothes was found the pencil case produced, and he held it in his hands five or six minutes. He endeavoured to remove a black mark in the groove, which he could not. He (the Supt.) asked prisoner if it belonged to him, and he said he had had it four or five years, and he gave it back to him. On the following day the pencil case was brought to him by the assistant manager. He (the Supt.) apprehended the prisoner at the Randolph Mews, Bayswater. He gave him the usual caution, read the warrant, and asked him where the opera glasses were, which were in the box with the pencil case, showing him the case, and he said he had given up the opera glasses to the owner.

Jane Challis said she was in employ at the Pavilion in September. She remembered finding a pencil case in a dust box in the basement, which was similar to the one produced. Prisoner slept in the end room in the basement, about ten or twelve yards from where she found the case, which she gave to Mr. Spurgeon.

Alfred Back, head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said he was present when prisoner's box was searched and Supt. Wilshere found a pencil case. Prisoner said it was his.

Each of the above witnesses were severely cross-examined by Mr. Minter, and although the facts were not wrong, the drift of their meaning were shown to be considerably altered.

Mr. Minter, in a most able address, rebutted the facts produced against the prisoner, and showed the impossibility of his guilt, and in defence of character he called Mr. Charles Bateman, 14, Cambridge Street, Hyde Park, who said he was 13 years in service in Connaught Square, and that he had known prisoner eight years, he lodged with him four years, and he had always known him as an honest man.

After the Recorder summed up, the jury immediately acquitted the prisoner, a verdict that was received with considerable applause.

Folkestone Chronicle 10 September 1881.

Monday, September 5th: Before J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Ellen Hodges, late a chambermaid at the Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing a diamond cross, of the value of £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, a lady who had been staying at this hotel, on the 4th August.

Mr. Minter, who prosecuted, in opening the case stated that in order to secure the attendance of witnesses from London, he should have to apply for a remand. It appears that Mrs. Saunders and her husband were staying at the hotel on the date named. From Folkestone she went to the Alexandra Hotel, London, when she discovered she had lost the jewel, and a communication was made to Mr. Edwards, who had the hotel searched, but the cross could not be found. Suspicion rested upon a person who was seen to go in and out of another room. The girl was watched, but nothing was found against her. The prisoner was observed to go into this room, and the place was thoroughly searched by a Mr. Tickell, when behind a cistern over the sink, where the knife box was kept, a little paper box was discovered. On opening it, the diamond cross was found there, with a silver spoon and some trinkets, which were no doubt stolen property. The box was taken down to Mr. Edwards, the cross taken out, but the box returned to the place where found in order to lay a trap for the thief. From a window looking into this room Tickell kept watch, and he saw the prisoner come in, raise the knife box, take something out, and she was immediately secured with the box in her possession. The box must have been hidden there by herself or some confederate. He believed she had a confederate whom he thought they could bring to justice. First of all, prisoner denied knowing anything about it, then she admitted she knew the cross was in the box. She said she did not intend to steal it, but wait for an offered reward. Then she told Mr. Spurgeon she was afraid to give it up for fear of being charged with the theft. It looked very much like stealing when she knew that a reward of £100 was offered for it's recovery, and prisoner admitted seeing an advertisement offering the reward. It transpired that she had intended to wait until the room occupied by Mrs. Saunders was vacant, and then having previously put the cross behind a chest of drawers, to get one of the other servants to pretend to find it, and to claim the reward. These matters would be gone into at the trial, and it would be necessary to ask for a remand, which was granted until Saturday.

Folkestone Chronicle 17 September 1881.

Saturday, September 10th: Before Alderman Banks and Caister, A.M. Watkin, M.J. Bell, F. Boykett, and J. Holden esqs.

Ellen Hodges was charged on remand with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders.

Mr. Minter again appeared to prosecute, and for the information of those magistrates not present at the former hearing, briefly narrated the facts of the case as already reported.

He then called Theodore Tickell, who said: I am employed at the Pavilion Hotel, in the service of Mr. Edwards. Prisoner was also employed there. I remember a letter coming from Mrs. Saunders, stating that she had lost a diamond cross. She had been occupying rooms on the first floor. Search was made for it, and the prisoner and another servant named Thomason were among the rest informed of the loss. The cross was ultimately found in the housemaid's pantry, and into this room I noticed Thomason go very frequently, and I received instructions from the manager to make a thorough search there, with the result that on Friday morning I discovered a paper box containing the cross, with several other articles, behind the cistern over the sink. It had been placed between the cistern and the wall, and I had to reach down to get it. After I had seen what was in it, I put the box back, and communicated with Mr. Spurgeon, the manager, and by the direction of Mr. Edwards, the proprietor, the cross was taken out and the box replaced. I was directed to watch the room from a ladder placed outside a window, and on Saturday morning between eleven and twelve o'clock I saw the prisoner come in, and, getting upon the sink, remove a knife box, and, putting her arm between the cistern and the wall, take up the box. I immediately got down and ran round and asked the prisoner what she had done with the box. She denied all knowledge of it, although I told her I had seen her with it in her hand. I left her in charge of a waiter, and went to report the matter to Mr. Edwards, who told me to bring the prisoner down to him. On taking her to Mr. Edwards, he asked her whether she knew what the box contained, and she said she did not. Afterwards she said “If I tell the truth, will you believe me?”. She said “I found the cross four or five days ago, after the people had gone, behind the drawers. I did not intend to steal it, and I was frightened to give it up for fear of being accused of stealing”.

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion Hotel, said last witness had informed him that he had discovered the cross, and witness took the diamond cross away and instructed Tickell to put the box back again with a watch. After the prisoner had been taken into custody he was sent for by her, and she told him she did not steal the cross, nor did she find it as stated to Mr. Edwards, but she saw the cross in the bedroom in the possession of Thomason. She took it in her hand and looked at it, and gave it back to Thomason, who took it out of her room about a week after this time. Thomason told her where she had secreted it, and on the Friday on which it was found, Thomason and her had agreed between them to get a third party in the bedroom the next time it was vacated, and that she (the prisoner) should take the cross from it's hiding place, and, taking it into the room, pretend to find it there, and then share the £100 reward which had been offered.

Supt. Rutter, of the borough police, who was present when prisoner made this statement, confirmed the version given of it by the last witness.

Agnes Thomason was then placed in the witness box, but on the Superintendent making a communication to Mr. Minter, that gentleman declined to question her on the ground that she perhaps might be placed in the dock herself.

Mrs. Saunders, the lady to whom the cross belonged, and Mr. Streeter, a jeweller, of New Bond Street, were next called, but neither answered to their names.

Supt. Rutter proved the service of summonses upon both directing their attendance here that day.

Mr. Minter said this was as far as he could carry the case that day, with neither of the witnesses down here. He rather anticipated that they would not come from what they said when the subpoenas were served, but he was in hopes that in consequence of what he pointed out to them at the time that they would feel it their duty to obey and to attend there. He believed Mrs. Saunders was going abroad. Mr. Edwards, who had directed the prosecution so far, and had now fulfilled his duty, would leave the matter in the hands of the Bench to deal with it in such a way as they might think proper. He (Mr. Minter) suggested that it was a case for the public prosecutor, whom he thought could carry on the prosecution, and compel the attendance of the witnesses. Mr. Edwards had delivered up the cross to Mrs. Saunders, who no doubt did not care to trouble further in the matter.

Ald. Banks: If she had not got the cross, she would have come forward to prosecute.

Mr. Minter: No doubt she would.

After some further discussion as to the course which should be pursued, the Bench adjourned the case until today (Saturday).

The prisoner wished to make a statement, but was strongly advised not to do so by the Clerk to the Magistrates, and she accordingly desisted.

Folkestone Chronicle 24 September 1881.

On Saturday, at the Borough Police Court, Ellen Hodges was again brought up on remand, charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders.

Mr. Pollard, the solicitor to the Treasury, now appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, and addressing the Bench said he was sorry to say he could not complete the case, owing to the absence of Mrs. Saunders, who was not well enough to be present, and therefore he would suggest that the evidence should be read over and signed by the witnesses, in order that their presence might not be required again. He had one or two questions to ask the witnesses, and their answers would be added to the depositions. He should then ask for a further remand.

The depositions were then read over by Mr. Bradley.

Theodore Tickell, re-called, said the place where the housemaid's box was found above the sink was not the proper place for it.

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion Hotel, said Mr. and Mrs. Saunders came to the hotel on the 4th of August, and occupied E and F rooms on the first floor. The prisoner was engaged on that floor, and it was her duty to clear out the rooms after the people had gone. When the cross was found behind the cistern, he examined it before taking it to Mr. Streeter in London. He would know it again.

Mr. Pollard here called upon Mr. Saunders, who was present, to produce the cross, and that gentleman did so.

Mr. Pollard then applied that the cross should be detained for the purpose of the trial, and although Mr. Saunders objected, saying he would much rather take it back with him, the Bench granted the application, and remanded the further hearing of the case until Saturday next, when Mrs. Saunders will attend.

Folkestone Chronicle 1 October 1881.

Saturday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Gen. Cannon, Capt. Carter, Ald. Caister, J. Clark, W. Jeffreason, J. Holden, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Ellen Hodges, a domestic servant, who stands charged with stealing a diamond cros, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, at the Pavilion Hotel, was again brought up on remand.

Mr. Pollard, solicitor to the Treasury, again appeared on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, and the prisoner was undefended.

Mrs. Saunders, to whom the cross belongs, now appeared, and said: I am the wife of Charles Wickenden Saunders, of Nonning Hall, Penryth, Comberland. In July last I was staying at the Pavilion Hotel, and was there about three weeks, leaving on the 4th August. During the time I was there, I wore a diamond cross, which I kept in my jewel box on the drawers in my bedroom – F, on the first floor. After wearing it, I put it away in the jewel case, which was kept locked, and the key left in the lock. I afterwards left the Pavilion and went to the Alexandra Hotel, London, and having occasion to wear it on the 9th August, I looked for it in my jewel case, and found it gone. I communicated with the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, and afterwards, at the suggestion of Mr. Streeter, of New Bond Street, £100 was offered for it's recovery. On the 5th September, I received the cross from Mr. Streeter, and paid the reward.

Nathan Clayton, manager to Mr. Streeter, proved the receipt by Mr. Streeter of the cross from Mr. Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion Hotel, and afterwards saw it handed to Mrs. Saunders. He did not know what became of the reward.

This was the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

An application by a solicitor, on behalf of Mrs. Saunders, for the return of the cross until the trial was refused.

Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kentish Advertiser, Friday 30 September 1881.

Folkestone. The Alleged Hotel Robbery.

On Saturday Ellen Hodges, a domestic servant, who stands charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600 the property of Mrs. Saunders, at the "Pavilion Hotel," was again brought up on remand, at the Borough Police cought. The prison was now committed for trial.

Folkestone Chronicle 22 October 1881.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 17th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

The only case for trial was that of Ellen Hodges, a domestic servant, who was charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Charles Richardson Saunders.

Mr. Stuart Sankey, instructed by Mr. Pollard, solicitor to the Treasury, prosecuted, and the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended.

Fanny Elizabeth Saunders said in July last she was staying at the Pavilion Hotel with her husband, and whilst there wore a diamond cross. She was in the habit of keeping it in her jewel case, which she kept on the drawers in her bedroom. She last saw the cross, now produced, on July 31st, when she put it away in her jewel case and locked it up, leaving the key in the lock. On August 9th, at the Alexandra Hotel, London, she discovered that the cross had been taken, and she immediately telegraphed to the Pavilion stating her loss. She also communicated with the authorities at Scotland Yard, and inserted advertisements in several newspapers, offering £100 reward.

Theodore Tickell, a waiter at the Pavilion, said prisoner was employed there as housemaid, and it was part of her duty to keep the rooms occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Saunders in order. He remembered a letter coming to the Pavilion Hotel respecting the loss of the cross, and on Friday, September 2nd he made a search for it in the housemaid's pantry. He got up on the sink, and, removing the top of a housemaid's box, saw between the cistern and the wall a cardboard box, which he took up, and found it to contain the missing cross. He communicated with the manager, who, taking the cross out, caused the box to be replaced. Witness was set to watch through a window, and on the following day he saw the prisoner come in, get up on the sink, and reach the cardboard box down. He then came round to the room and asked prisoner what she had done with the box, but she denied all knowledge of it. On being taken down to Mr. Edwards, the proprietor, she at first denied all knowledge of the box or it's contents, but afterwards said she found the cross behind the drawers after Mrs. Saunders had left.

George Spurgeon, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, gave corroborative evidence, and added that on being sent for to the police station, prisoner said to him that she did not steal it, nor did she find it. She saw the cross in the possession of Thomason (another servant employed in the hotel), who showed it to her, and arranged to get a third party into the bedroom and then pretend to find it, so that they might get the reward and share it between them. Witness took the cross to London, and left it with Mr. Streeter of New Bond Street.

Easton Clayton, manager to Mr. Streeter, proved the receipt of the cross and Superintendent Rutter gave corroborative evidence as to the prisoner's statement at the police station.

This completed the case for the prosecution.

Prisoner repeated her story of the cross having been shown to her by her fellow servant Thomason, she denied that she stole it, and said that it was arranged that they should put it in the room where it was lost, and that in the presence of a third party it should be found.

The Recorder, in summing up, strongly put before the Jury the fact that prisoner had told two different stories to account for her possession of the cross; also the fact that in spite of enquiries which had been made about the article, which she must have heard of, she persisted in keeping her knowledge about it to herself.

The Jury acquitted her, and the prisoner left the Court amid applause.

Folkestone Chronicle 13 May 1882.

Local News.

We regret to record the death of James Gaby Breach Esq., some years ago proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. His courtesy and kindness rendered him a gentleman deeply respected by the visitors to the Hotel, whilst his interest in the town was manifested in the large property he acquired here, and his desire when opportunity offered, to promote its welfare in every way. He was buried at the Cemetery this week.

Folkestone Chronicle 9 February 1884.

Tuesday, February 5th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Emily Dyer, a married woman, living at Walton Terrace, was charged with feloniously receiving fifteen linen sheets, the property of Messrs. Spurgeon and Waite, of the Pavilion Hotel, valued at £10. Mr. Minter prosecuted and Mr. Ward defended.

It appeared from the evidence that the sheets came in the possession of the accused some time ago, and that she had sent, on two different occasions, five of them to be pawned at Mr. Joseph's, who received them in pledge. A witness named Hoad had pawned them each time, and on Saturday he went again with the remaining five sheets to be pawned, when Mr. Joseph's suspicions were aroused, and he communicated with Messrs. Spurgeon and Waite, who identified the sheets by the texture, &c., the stamp of the hotel which had been upon them having been torn off and rendering them shorter than those in use at the hotel. It is alleged that a French woman named Georgina Miller, who was employed in the Pavilion laundry, and who lodged with the accused, purloined the sheets and gave them to her landlady in discharge of rent, &c., that she owed her. Miller made her escape by taking train to Dover and crossing to Calais on Sunday.

Defendant was committed for trial at the next Quarter Assizes; two sureties of £25 each being accepted, and herself in £25.

Folkestone Chronicle 12 April 1884.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday, April 10th: Before F.W. Maxton Esq.

The jury returned a true bill against Elizabeth Dyer, charged with receiving 15 sheets, value £7 10s., the property of Messrs Spurgeon and Waite, of the Pavilion Hotel, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Denman prosecuted. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Spurgeon, sworn, said that on the 1st of February he received a communication from Mr. Joseph about some sheets. The sheets produced were the same as those in use at the hotel. There was a piece short in the sheet – a width and a length – on one side, on which the mark of the Pavilion Hotel would be put. The piece cut off would about cover the stamp. They had missed twenty sheets from their establishment. There was a girl named Miller in their laundry, and the girl left the establishment on the day when the sheets were pawned at Mr. Joseph's. When the sheets were shown to him they were wrapped in a kind of towelling, similar to that produced. The value he put on the sheets was £7 10s.

Alfred Hoad said he lived in Walton Terrace, next to Mrs. Dyer, and on the day in question he was asked by her to take a bundle to Mr. Joseph. He went back and said Mr. Joseph wanted to see her. He had been to Mr. Joseph on previous occasions and pawned things for her, and gave prisoner the money.

Mr. Simon Joseph deposed to the last witness coming to him with the sheets. The prisoner was known to him as a customer. He sent for her and asked her where she got the sheets from. She said she had them from a girl named Miller, who had lodged with her, and worked at the Pavilion laundry, and he told her she had no business to take them. She told him that the sheets were given to her as a security by her lodger, and as she could get no money from her she wished to pawn them. He then informed the proprietor of the Pavilion. He had advanced money on two lots of sheets before.

Alice Morgan, who is deaf and dumb, was examined. Edward Phillips, acting as an interpreter to witness, said she lodged with prisoner, and knew a girl named Miller, who in January last lodged at the same place. She had often seen prisoner and Miller together. She had seen tablecloths and sheets there, and prisoner had given her the pieces produced, which had been torn off the sheets. Prisoner was cutting the pieces in the kitchen when she gave them to her. She had seen prisoner sewing the sheets.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Was it not new unbleached sheets you saw me sewing, and not the ones produced?

Witness said it was the sheets produced.

Prisoner: I beg pardon; it was not.

In answer to a further question witness said that she did not know that Miller had given the sheets to prisoner.

Prisoner, in defence, said that the French girl, Miller, lodged with her, and asked her to give to the witness the pieces from the sheets, but the sheets witness saw her cutting up were her own. She denied that she was aware that the sheets had been stolen.

The Recorder summed up, and pointed out that the pieces cut off showed that whoever did that wanted to hide the identity. Prisoner alleged that she took them from Miller, but they must consider that she knew that Miller was employed at the Pavilion. Then she pawned them for a small sum, and sent someone else to do it.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

The Superintendent said prisoner had been in the town about seven years, and nothing was known against her.

The Judge, in passing sentence, said that perhaps she had yielded to a sudden temptation, but hearing there was nothing against her, and that she was 54 years of age, he should sentence her to only three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

The Judge warmly praised Mr. Joseph for the assistance he had rendered to the police in the information he had given.

The Superintendent said it was not the first time that Mr, Joseph had assisted him in the recovery of stolen property.

Mr. Joseph thanked His Honour, and said he had always endeavoured to be most particular in his business transactions.

Folkestone Chronicle 13 June 1885.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death of Mr. Charles Doridant, at the age of 71, formerly proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, and for many years member of the Town Council, which took place at Paris, after a long illness. Mr. Doridant was four times Mayor of Folkestone, 1864-65-66, and again in 1869. He presented to the town the gold chain of office, to which successive Mayors are expected to add a link. No public man was more esteemed. His hospitality was unbounded, and he was most energetic in promoting every movement for the interest of Folkestone, in which he was much assisted by his respected wife. Mr. Doridant was a Nationalised Frenchman, but he had lived so long in England as to share our insular tastes and prejudices. He was an ardent Conservative. He had seen so much of the evil effects of Revolution in his own country as to dread the tendency of Liberal doctrines in England, in the commercial prosperity of which country he had a great interest. In the contest of 1868 he rendered great service to the Conservative cause, and his warm advocacy of Mr. Nugent's candidature secured for that gentleman considerable support. Then the Conservative Party were thoroughly united, having as their agent and legal advisor that astute and able organiser, Mr. John Minter. The pluck that fought an opposition against the enormous influence of Baron Rothschild, who was supported by the late Mr. R. Hart, can readily be appreciated by those who have a knowledge of the influences at work at the time. The unity of the Party; the abandonment of all petty and personal motives; the open and confidential dealings of the leaders of the Party with the rank and file, contributed to the respectable defeat the Conservatives received, and the enthusiasm, and energy displayed. It was Mr. Charles Doridant who helped to infuse this spirit into the Party, aided by the gentlemanly tact and courtesy which distinguished all the actions of his public life. With the approach of a general election, his death reminds us of the great loss the Conservative Party sustained when he separated his connection with Folkestone, by the inhabitants of whom, whether Liberal or Conservative, he was so greatly respected.

Folkestone Chronicle 21 March 1891.

Local News.

At the Police Court yesterday before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs., Thomas Ford was placed in the dock, charged with stealing a half sovereign and a pair of eye-glasses from the Pavilion Hotel on the 19th inst.

Elizabeth Churchill Morrison said: I am housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel. Prisoner has been in the employ of Mr. Spurgen as waiter for about two years. In consequence of having missed money from my desk, in my private room, I communicated with Mr. Spurgen. I received two marked half sovereigns yesterday morning. I put them in my purse and placed it in my desk, placing an empty purse on top of it. I put them there about half past eight in the morning. I locked the desk and took the key out. I went back about quarter to two in the afternoon. The position of the purses was the same. I went there again about four o'clock. I then found that the empty purse had been moved on one side, and when I opened the other purse, which had contained the marked coins, I found one of them was gone. I then made a communication to Mr. Spurgen, and saw the prisoner about six o'clock in the presence of Mr. Spurgen and Sergeant Butcher in sitting room No. 2. Mr. Spurgen handed me the half sovereign produced and a key. It is not my key, but it is like mine. I gave him into custody for stealing the half sovereign. He said he would not rob anyone a penny piece. He first said the money was his wages and then said his mother had given it to him. About seven o'clock, after the prisoner had been taken to the police station, Sergeant Butcher handed me a pair of eye-glasses. They are mine. I can identify them by the knot, which I tied myself. They are worth about 5s. I left them in the table drawer in my private room and missed them on Wednsday. It was part of prisoner's duty to attend to my room.

The Mayor (G. Spurgen Esq.) was then sworn and said: I am proprietor of the Royal Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner has been in my services about two years. From a communication that was made to me by Miss Morrison I handed her two marked half sovereigns. The one produced was one of them. About four o'clock Miss Morrison again made a communication to me and I sent for the prisoner to come to my room. I asked him if he had cleared Miss Morrison's dinner table. He said “Yes”. I then told him Miss Morrison had lost some money, and took him into room No. 2, which is Miss Morrison's private room. I asked him if he had taken any money, and he said “No, certainly not”. I asked him to show me his keys. He produced three box keys on a ring. I said “These are not all the keys you have. Let me see the others”. He then gave me the key produced. It was single in his pocket. I tried it and it fitted Miss Morrison's desk. I then asked him to produce the money he had in his pocket. He produced a token like a half sovereign, some coppers, and a half sovereign. I asked him to account for the possession of the half sovereign and he said he had taken his mother his two weeks' wages, and she returned the half sovereign out of it. Sergt. Butcher then came in and he was given into custody.

Sergeant Butcher deposed: At 6.20 last night I went to the Pavilion Hotel. I saw the prisoner in No. 2 sitting room in the presence of Mr. Spurgen and Miss Morrison. I received a half sovereign and a key from Mr. Spurgen. I examined the half sovereign and found that it had been marked with a small scratch a little under the ear, and bore the date of 1884. He also handed me a key, which I found unlocked the desk. Miss Morrison said “I shall give him into custody for stealing the money”. I charged him with stealing the half sovereign. He said “You might look over it, Miss Morrison”. She replied “I cannot”. I brought the prisoner to the police station, and on searching him I found a pair of eye-glasses in his waistcoat pocket. He made no reply to the charge, but said he hoped it would be kept out of the papers. I then went back to the Pavilion Hotel, and Miss Morrison identified the eye-glasses as her property.

Prisoner, who pleaded Guilty, said he was very sorry and hoped the Bench would be as lenient as possible.

Miss Morrison pleaded for mercy, and the Mayor said he had behaved himself very well during the time he had been in his service. His parents were very respectable and lived in Darby Road. He was very sorry to see him in such a position.

Alderman Sherwood said the Bench had decided to take a lenient view of the case, and he would be fined 40s., or 14 days' imprisonment.

The money was paid by prisoner's father.

Folkestone Chronicle 16 July 1892.

Wednesday, July 13th: Before Councillor J. Holden, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, Mr. J. Fitness and Mr. H.W. Poole.

Stephen Maxted, a little lad of about nine years of age, was charged with stealing a quart of gooseberries, value 3d., the property of Mr. George Spurgen, of the Pavilion Hotel, on the 10th inst.

The gooseberries, still hanging to the branch of the tree, were produced in court, and Mr. Fitness observed that the lad was not satisfied with the gooseberries, he wanted the tree also!

Percy Amos, of Pavilion Gardens, said on the 10th inst. he saw the defendant in the gardens during the afternoon. Witness told him that he ought not to be there. The defendant made no reply to this. Witness attempted to sieze the lad, but he kicked him and got away.

The Superintendent of Police said the boy was one of a large family which was a continual nuisance to the neighbourhood. In fact, as soo as the defendant got away from the garden, he and another went and damaged a stack of hay belonging to Mr. Spurgen, and when remonstrated with they pelted the woman in charge of the stack with stones.

Mrs. Maxted was present, and the Bench advised her very strongly to keep a watchful eye over the boy in the future. They imposed a fine of 1s. and 10s. costs, and 3d., the value of the gooseberries.

The woman asked the Bench to “birch” the boy, as she thought it was very hard to make her suffer for the boy's depradations.

Folkestone Chronicle 3 September 1892.

Local News.

On Sunday afternoon, we learn, a large quantity of valuable jewellery was stolen from a bedroom at the Pavilion Hotel. It is stated that a lady saw a man in her bedroom, and asked his business. He said he had mistaken the room, apologised, and departed. Soon after another lady, having an apartment on the same floor, discovered that her jewels were stolen. It is presumed that the thief went off to London by the boat train with his booty. The police have issued the following notice: Stolen, 28th August, 1892, one yellow gold and cameo brooch, subject “Psyche and Cupid”; two gold rings, each set with five large oval turquoise and diamonds; one steel bead purse, gold slides. Gold seal, at one end set bloodstone, engraved “H.G.W.”, containing six sovereigns and a George IV sixpence (bent); one small gold pin, set single paste stone; one small gold and coral pin; one small gold open-face watch, white dial; one long snake pattern gold chain, with gold chatelaine; Napoleon guinea, half guinea, and seven shilling piece; gold lockets containing photos of a gentleman, child, and hair, gold seal, set white stone, engraved “H.R.”, and a number of other gold trinkets and three bars attached; one gold brooch, set paste, shape of leaf; one gold brooch, set paste, bar shape; by a man, aged 28 to 30, fair, square build; Dress, light clothes.

Folkestone Chronicle 10 October 1896.

Local News.

It is stated, apparently authoritatively, that Mr. Spurgen is giving up the Pavilion Hotel, having disposed of it to a company, who propose to entirely rebuild it in modern style. However, the popular Mayor will continue to take an active part in the town, and will reside in the ward he represents on the Town Council (the North) at Radnor Park, where he has built a splendid villa.

Folkestone Chronicle 12 December 1896.

Wednesday, December 9th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Fitness, and General Gwyn.

The licences of the Pavilion Hotel and Harbour Refreshment Room were transferred to Mr. Evans.

Folkestone Chronicle 25 February 1899.

Inquest.

Mr. Minter, the Coroner of the Folkestone district, has had many sad stories of death to hear during the last few months, but no other so tragic as that told by the witnesses of the death of George Henry Teandle Newington, who was crushed to death beneath the ram (a rod of six ton power) working a hydraulic lift in the Pavilion Hotel. The lift is used in carrying food from the kitchen to rooms above, and Newington, a bricklayers' labourer employed in the rebuilding of the Pavilion, had been engaged assisting an engineer in repairing the lift.

Reginal Meyer, foreman of the works, said the manager had told him to get some small work done at the bottom, underneath the cage. The cage could not reach the ground, as there were two India-rubber stops 2ft 8½in. from the ground. The counterpoise, however, came right down to the ground when the cage went up to Floor 2. The work required was allotted to Edward Gibbons, bricklayer. It could safely be done while the lift was in work. The ram was in a separate place, by the side of the cage, and closed in. There was no necessity at all to go in the place where the ram was.

Edward Gibbons said deceased was serving him at the time of the accident as his labourer. Deceased had no occasion to go near the ram. His duties were outside altogether. The work occupied about an hour. During that time deceased had found a few knives and spoons at the base of the ram box. About one o'clock the cook asked whether the lift could be used, to which he replied “Yes”, and began to clean his tools. On hearing a shriek he turned round and saw deceased crushed under the ram. He tried to release him but was unable to do so until the engineer arrived about ten minutes later. He was of opinion that deceased had voluntarily gone into danger with the object of picking up some other spoons.

William Jenner, engineer at the hotel, gave evidence as to the nature of the lift, and as to finding deceased under the ram.

William Lageu, billiard marker, stated that as he was passing the lift he saw the deceased kneeling in the ram box, looking up the lift with a lighted candle in his hand. He saw him immediately drop the candle and groan. The man was killed instantly.

Dr. J. Hoggan Ewart said he was summoned by telephone to the scene of the accident. The ram had then been raised from deceased, who was so crushed against the wall that it was difficulty that he could be extricated. Artificial respiration was tried. Death was primarily due to asphyxia. Five ribs were broken and there was internal haemorrhage.

The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

During the week, at the request of the unfortunate man's mates, Mr. Meyer the foreman of the works, and Mr. Ovenden, the foreman of the rebuilding, opened a subscription list for a burial fund, the deceased being one who was believed to have no friends or relatives, but who had earned the affection of his fellow workmen. Messrs. Meyer and Ovenden found their staff readily responded, with the result that £8 was subscribed. The funeral will take place today (Saturday), with Messrs. Meyer and Ovenden in attendance with the men.

Folkestone Chronicle 5 May 1900.

Thursday, May 3rd: Before Alderman Banks and Messrs. Herbert and Fitness.

Caroline Norris and Harriett Hall, alias Rye, were charged with larceny from the bakehouse of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, the articles stolen being some electric incandescent lamps.

Detective Burniston and Wm. Jenner, the engineer at the Pavilion, gave evidence, and the Chief Constable said he would like a reman for a day. From a statement made by one of the prisoners he had reason to believe that they were taken into the hotel by one of the employees. He wished to investigate this statement.

The Bench granted the application.

When the case was resumed on Friday, before Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, and Wightwick, the Chief Constable explained that a certain man had been found, but the accused failed to positively identify him. Under the circumstances he did not intend to carry that part of the case any further.

Thursday's witnesses had the evidence of the previous day read over to them, and prisoners pleaded Guilty. They were, they said, coming down the slope, when an employee of the Pavilion whistled to them, and took them inside. He gave Norris a shilling and a loaf. They were both very sorry for the theft.

The Chief Constable said neither of the prisoners had been charged with a similar offence, but Norris had been before the Bench on five occasions for drunkenness.

The Chairman told the prisoners that even if they were taken into the hotel there was no reason why they should commit a theft. They would both be sentenced to one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 1 March 1902.

Local News.

The authorities at Folkestone are seeking to clear up the mystery attached to an alleged daring safe robbery at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. A few of the particulars, which are religiously guarded, have leaked out. From these it is gleaned that between Friday night and Sunday last the safe at the hotel was in some mysterious way rifled of its contents, one item being the proceeds in gold of a recently cashed cheque amounting to considerably over £100. A peculiar circumstance of the case is that the safe was locked up with every precaution, and the key deposited elsewhere. What then was the astonishment of one of the responsible officials, when, on visiting the safe, it looked as if the money had disappeared without any evidence of the iron walls having been tampered with? That is all we know for certain at present, but it is understood that the police have a clue.

Folkestone Chronicle 21 February 1903.

Local News.

Just twelve months ago a great mystery attended the loss of £100 in gold from a safe at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone. Many people were suspected, and many were shadowed, yet the money was never found.

The mystery was on Saturday morning voluntarily cleared up by a person whom neither management nor police had ever suspected.

This individual was William James Abbott, late a plateman at the Royal Pavilion, who was charged upon his own confession with having stolen, in February, 1902, the sum of £100 in gold from a safe in the manager's office.

Samuel Eeley, manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, and the Burlington, Dover, said that he mostly resided at the Dover hotel, the assistant manager, Mr. Percy James Hope, being left in charge in his absence. He remembered Tuesday, February 18th, 1902, because on that date he placed £100 in gold in a canvas bag, and put the bag in a cash box in a drawer in a safe. The money was made up of 80 sovereigns and 40 half sovereigns. The safe, which stood in the general office, was not locked, but the drawer inside it was. No-one but himself had a key to the drawer, and the key was with others on a bunch. When he left the hotel he always left the key in charge of the assistant manager. On the 22nd of February witness went to the safe, and on looking into the cash box missed the money. The canvas bag remained, but was empty. Prisoner had been employed in the hotel as plateman from February 23rd, 1901, until April 21st, 1902, and formerly from July, 1898, until September, 1900. In the dates between those mentioned he had been employed at the Burlington, Dover.

Percy John Hope, assistant manager, said he saw the money placed in the safe by Mr. Eeley. He was in the habit of placing the keys in one of the drawers of the manager's office. It had been usual to leave the drawers unlocked.

Minnie Bassett, book-keeper at the Royal Pavilion, said she remembered the 22nd of February last year, when she found a half sovereign on the desk in the general manager's office just underneath the ledge. She had kept it ever since, and now produced it. The key of the safe was left in her charge. The drawer in the safe was always kept locked.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said that on Saturday, from information received, he proceeded to London, and at 9 p.m. saw the prisoner detained at Tottenham Court Road police station. Witness, after duly cautioning him, said “I am a police sergeant from Folkestone, and shall charge you with stealing £100 in gold between the 18th and 22nd February last year, from a locked drawer in a safe at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone”. Prisoner replied “There was only £99 10s. I dropped one half sovereign. I counted the money when I got into my bedroom. It was about midnight when I took it. I found the key of the safe in the office, I opened the safe and unlocked the drawer, and took out the money. The reason I gave myself up to the police is because I had no work and no money”.

Inspector Ellis, of the Metropolitan Police, who was present, then handed witness (the inspector) the written statement produced, which had been signed by the prisoner. Inspector Ellis said “This is a written and voluntary statement made by prisoner to Inspector Moody”. Prisoner testified to its being his handwriting and signature.

The Clerk of the Court read over the statement, but owing to the noise made by the new electric fans not a word could be heard by anyone in Court.

When formally charged, prisoner made no reply.

The Bench committed him for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, offering bail, himself in £50 and two sureties in a like amount.

Folkestone Chronicle 25 April 1903.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, April 20th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward.

William James Abbott, 23, pleaded Guilty to stealing from the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, £100 in money, belonging to the Fredericks Hotels Limited, on the 22nd of February, 1902.

Mr. T. Matthew (instructed by Mr. J. Minter), for the Crown, said the prisoner had been employed in the hotel, where he had by some means got possession of the keys of the safe, from which he stole £100 in gold, less half a sovereign, which he dropped. Almost twelve months afterwards he made a voluntary confession to the police. Needless to say, by that time the money had gone.

Mr. Eeley, the manager of the Pavilion Hotel, said that prisoner had been previously engaged in the hotel for three years.

The Chief Constable said there was no previous conviction against the accused to his knowledge.

The Recorder (to prisoner): Well, what have you got to say?

Prisoner: Nothing.

The Recorder: Nothing! This is a serious offence. What made you write a confession?

Prisoner: Because I had no money, sir.

The Recorder said that, considering that prisoner had been in prison awaiting trial since the 14th of February, he would now be sentenced to four months' hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 16 May 1903.

Saturday, May 9th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

The Manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel applied for an extension of licence until 4 a.m., for the 15th and 19th of May, the occasion of social balls.

Alderman Banks, in granting the application, remarked, amid laughter, that it was rather late for ladies to stop up.