Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 25 June 1870.

MELANCHOLY FATAL ACCIDENT.

On Monday evening, an inquest was held before Mr. T. T. Delasaux (Coroner), at the "Whitehall Inn," on the body of a labouring man named William Hawkins, aged 53, who had been living in the parish of Chartham, and who on Saturday night met with an awfully sudden death whilst crossing the South-Eastern Railway at Whitehall.

The jury having been sworn, and Mr. Edward Pillow elected foreman thereof, the body was viewed and Mary Horton, a woman living at Chartham, was called to identify the deceased.

Frederic Miller was next sworn. He said:- I live at Ramsgate, and am an engine driver employed by the South-Eastern Railway Company. I was the driver of the engine of the down train on Saturday night, which left Ashford at 9.12. On arriving at the level crossing at Whitehall, I observed something fly out in front of the engine, my attention being called thereto by the ballast flying up. When we stopped at Canterbury, the next station, I examined the engine, and on the left hand buffer I found some butter and sugar. This discovery I reported to Mr. Fright, the Station-master, and proceeded to Ramsgate.

The Coroner:- Was the train punctual or was it late?

Witness:- It was a few minutes behind. It was 9.40 when we arrived at Canterbury, and when we were at Whitehall it would, therefore, be about 9.38, or some seconds later.

Being further questioned, the witness said:- I received no warning whatever that there was any obstruction on the line. The first circumstance which arrested my attention was the ballast flying up. It was dark at the time. Everything was in proper order on the line. The buffer lamp of the engine was alight, and anyone facing the engine must have seen it. As far as know, nothing could have been done to prevent the accident. I do not think any blame can be attached to any of the railway officials or anyone. We were travelling at a proper pace, and my opinion is that the occurrence was purely an accident. I saw no object before the train, nothing transpired to induce me to stop the engine.

Mary White, a married woman, said she lived at Chartham. She was proceeding homewards from Canterbury on Saturday night, and it was five minutes past nine when she was going through Water-lane towards Whitehall. She saw the deceased leaning against a wall, and perceived something strange in the expression of his countenance. She went on, and afterwards noticed that he was behind her, with a basket containing provisions. When she saw him again he was a corpse, and had then been removed to the Whitehall house. She had known the deceased, and had of late noticed something rather strange in his manner, but she never heard him make use of any threat. He had appeared "queer" ever since he left Mr. Pell’s service.

The Coroner:- For my own part, I think there is nothing to lead us to believe the unfortunate man contemplated suicide.

The Foreman:- Certainly not.

Leonard Philpott deposed that he was a ticket collector employed at the Canterbury station of the South-Eastern Railway. In consequence of information which was reported to the Station-master on Saturday night, he, with the night watchman, was dispatched up the line, and on arriving at Whitehall, about 22 yards from the crossing, they found the body of the deceased lying on the left hand side of the down line, about 3 or 4 feet there from. Before taking any further steps, they awaited the arrival of Mr. Fright, and after the arrival of the surgeon and Superintendent of Police, the body was removed to the adjoining inn. A hat was picked up between the crossing and the spot where the body was found.

John Croucher, night watchman at the Canterbury Station, corroborated this evidence, and added that on Mr. Fright’s arrival he (witness) was sent by him for the nearest surgeon, and Mr. Holttum shortly afterwards came.

Mr. Charles Holttum, surgeon, of Canterbury, said:- I was sent for about half-past ten on Saturday night to go to the Whitehall crossing, and I proceeded thence immediately. On reaching the spot pointed out to me, I found the body of the deceased lying on the left hand side of the down line. He was quite dead, and on examining him externally I found he had sustained the following injuries which might have been produced by an engine knocking him down. Judging from his position his neck was apparently broken, his head being doubled back between his shoulders. The left side of his head was completely smashed and I should say every bone therein was broken. The buffer must have a track him on the left hip, of which there was a compound fracture, as also of the pelvis, the left thigh, and the left leg, both arms being broken. There was no doubt these were the cause of death, which must have been instantaneous.

This being the whole of the evidence.

The Coroner briefly addressed the jury, remarking that the most important feature in a case of this description was whether there had been any carelessness or neglect. Taking the evidence as adduced before them, they would at once arrive at the conclusion that no one was to be blamed. Then, again, although a female witness had stated that the manner of the deceased had of late been strange, he did not think any one present would believe the deceased committed suicide.

The jury shortly afterwards returned a unanimous verdict that the deceased met with his death accidentally by being knocked down by an engine whilst going over the crossing at Whitehall.

In reply to enquiries addressed by the foreman, the Coroner stated that the Railway Company had, he was informed, appointed a man to open this gates across the road for carriages to go over the line, but it appeared that as there was no public footway the Company were not bound to look after pedestrians; if they were, they would have to provide gates across the line instead of across the road.

Mr. Fright informed the jury that the man at the gates always had notice by means of signal bells of the approach of any train as it left either or Canterbury.

The proceedings then terminated.

From the Whitstable Times, 30 June, 1900.

The East Kent Coroner (R. M. Mercer, Esq.) held an inquest on Monday at the "Whitehall Inn," Harbledown, on the body of John Cornish, who committed suicide by placing himself on the railway.

Elizabeth Cornish, of 68, St. Peter’s Lane, Canterbury, deposed that deceased was between 32 and 33 years of age. He was a coal carter and formerly worked for Pilch, Collard, and Co. After he left their employ he went to Mr. Burnistone but had a quarrel with him and got the sack. He left home that morning at 5.30. He told witness he was going to Faversham by the five minutes to six train and that he had got work and would send a van down on the following day for her furniture. He had never threatened to take his life. He had complained to witness about his mates taunting him.

James Whittaker, a platelayer in the employ of the L.C. Railway, stated that that morning at 7.30 he was on the line when he saw a body lying on the rails. He went to it and found it was deceased. He had the top of his head cut off. The last train up was at 7.18.

The jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst temporarily insane."

From the Whitstable Times, 14 July, 1900.

HARBLEDOWN. A PROPER CASE FOR INVESTIGATION.

George Smith, landlord of "Whitehall Inn," Harbledown, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on the 24th June.

Mr. R. M. Mercer, appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

P.C. Vennell stated that on Sunday evening, the 24th June, he was ordered by the Superintendent to visit defendant’s house in plain clothes. He arrived at the inn at a quarter to eight and entered the front of the bar where he was served with a glass of ale by the landlord. Witness remained there about a quarter of an hour and during the whole of the time there were about ten lads out on the pleasure lawn and in the summer houses. Their ages varied from 14 to 18. Two of them were drunk and the remainder were more or less under the influence of drink. One of them gave the name of Williams. When he went from the garden out of the gate he rolled about outside. He then met a lad who gave the name of Johnson and they commenced to quarrel, pulled off their jackets, and began to fight. He stopped them and took their names and addresses. One of them gave the name of Arthur Johnson, 81 Longport, and the other James Williams, 77 Military Road, Canterbury. In consequence of the drunken condition of Williams he took him to the police station and locked him up. On the following day he was taken before the Magistrates and fined 5s. and costs. During the time witness was in the house all the lads were constantly drinking from pots. Defendant was serving in the bar the whole time. After he had locked Williams up he visited the house with Superintendent Jacobs, who told defendant he should report him. Defendant replied that he was not aware that any drink or anything wrong had been going on.

Cross’ examined:- It was raining at the time.

Mr. Mercer submitted that so far from his client being to blame he was a very badly used creature. These boys were a curse to him on Sundays and they broke his hedges and seats. Defendant deposed the evening in question there were a lot of people standing round the bar as it was wet, and he did not see any boys come in for drink. He did not hear any disturbance in the garden.

Mrs. Rosa Smith, of 66 St. Peter's Place, Canterbury, deposed that on the evening of the 24th June she and her husband took shelter from the rain in one of the arbours at the "Whitehall Inn." She saw seven lads go in the adjoining arbour. They had one jug of beer which one of the lads fetched from the public house. She saw the lads leave the ground. There was no disturbance.

Mrs. Rachael Bowen, of 55 Black Griffin Lane, who was also in one of the arbours, stated that she saw one of the boys go into the house and come back with a jug. She heard no shooting or singing, but saw a gentleman outside the door speak to the boys. He pulled out a book and wrote in it.

The Chairman said the Bench considered it a proper case for the police to bring before then, but there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction and the case would be dismissed. They hoped defendant would be careful in future as to how he conducted his house.