Folkestone Chronicle 10 October 1857. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Quarter Sessions

Thursday October 8th :- Before C. Harewood esq., Judge of the County Court, the Mayor, W. Major, J. Kelcey, G. Kennicott and W. Bateman esqs.

John Leigh, carpenter, pleaded not guilty to a charge of breaking into the "Red Cow" public house, and stealing some wearing apparel, on the 24th July, the property of Mr. Prebble. The prisoner pleaded guilty to another charge of stealing a pair of trousers, the property of Mr. Harris, tailor, High Street.

The first case was as follows: - The prisoner offered a pair of trousers and two pairs of boot for sale at a low price; this raised suspicion. It was afterwards discovered that the "Red Cow" had been broken into, and the property sold by the prisoner was identified by the prosecutor. The prisoner was also seen about 3 o'clock in the morning, by a man who was putting out the street lamps, going in the direction of the "Red Cow".

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty. The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to 6 months hard labour for this offence, and 3 months hard labour for stealing the trousers. This prisoner has since turned out to be a ticket-of-leave man.

A ticket of leave was a document of parole issued to convicts who had shown they could now be trusted with some freedoms. Originally the ticket was issued in Britain and later adopted by the United States, Canada and Ireland.

The ticket system began in 1853 when prisoners transported from the United Kingdom to Australia, and subsequently other colonies, who had served a period of probation and shown by their good behaviour that they could be allowed certain freedoms. Once granted a ticket of leave, a convict was permitted to seek employment within a specified district but could not leave the district without the permission of the government or the district's resident magistrate. Each change of employer or district was recorded on the ticket.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 6 February 1858. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Wednesday June 3rd:-

Extract from Town Council Meeting.

The Mayor alluded to a committee meeting which had taken place, and read a report (which, although irregular, had been adopted), from the surveyor respecting the costs for the improvements at Foord. The report recommended the laying down a 14 inch drain, pulling down and widening the bridge, and building a wall in lieu of the present fence near the "Red Cow". The estimated cost was £23 11s.

Alderman Kennicott here said he had seen Mr. Poulter, the owner of the "Red Cow", who had requested that he might have an additional wall in lieu of the fence at present standing on the south side of his house; if that was built for him, he should have no objection to the fence being removed, nor of giving up the land required.

Mr. Jinkings observed that it appeared to him to be very selfish on the part of Mr. Poulter; to ask for such an addition to the offer already made him; the proposed alteration would be of great benefit to his property, and he for one should not vote for anything of the kind.

Mr. Gambrill asked if the surveyor could tell him the cost of the bridge and drain irrespective of the wall.

The surveyor in answer said the wall would be about £6.

Mr. Jinkings moved that the minutes of the committee be confirmed, thus virtually negativing the proposal of Alderman Kennicott.

The Mayor then said he had caused tenders to be put in for the labour in taking down and rebuilding the present bridge, laying the proposed drain, and building the proposed wall – the parties tendering, to fin mortar and the cement required. When opened, there appeared one from Mr. C. Foreman £26; Mr. W Green £28 2s. 6d.; Mr. T. Field £40; Mr. Henry Unwin £24 11s. After the opening of the tenders, the discussion of the question between Mr. Poulter and the Corporation was resumed. Mr. Tite argued that Mr. Poulter`s offer was a liberal one and ought to be accepted.

Mr. Gambrill differed with Mr. Tite, and moved that Mr. Unwin`s offer be accepted, but that the surveyor arrange with him respecting the difference, supposing the wall was not built. Alderman Kennicott begged them to consider that Mr. Poulter`s offer was a liberal one – he was of opinion it ought to be accepted. After some further desultory conversation, Mr. Cobb seconded Mr. Gambrill's motion, which was carried.

“In the course of the discussion it came out, that the dispute was that Mr. Poulter, not satisfied with having a new wall to his gardens in front of the cottages parallel with the road, also required one in front of the "Red Cow", in lieu of the wooden fence, which the Corporation, very properly, did not think themselves justified in allowing”.