Folkestone Express 17 April 1869.

Monday, April 12th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith, J. Gambrill, and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Waddell was brought up, charged with robbing his employer, Mr. S. Hogben, of the Rendezvous Tavern, Broad Street. Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Stephen Hogben, sworn, said: I am a baker and publican, and live at 1 and 2, Broad Street. The prisoner was in my employ as barman, and it was his duty to count the money left at night in the till, to hand it over to me, and book it. I had my suspicions of him, and on Saturday night after the house was shut I went to bed, as he supposed, but I came downstairs again and went to the till to mark some of the money. The amount in the till was £10 3s. 4½d., of which £4 was in gold, small silver £3 6s., coppers 13s. 10½d., besides seven half crowns and thirteen florins. I marked the half crown and florins, but I don't know how many shillings there were. I marked them by a scratch from my knife. I left the money in the till and went to bed. Prisoner got up the next morning a little after seven, which was rather an unusual time for him. He got the money to hand it over to me the next morning at breakfast time. I said to him “What do you make, George, of your takings yesterday?”. He said £7 6s. 6d. (Witness here produced the book with the entry in the prisoner's handwriting, and he explained that this amount did not include £2, which he had given prisoner on the Saturday morning for the purpose of giving change.) It was the prisoner's duty to book the amount of takings, and he has done so ever since I employed him. The amount missing was 16s. 10½d. I did not say anything to him then, but I went outside, and seeing my brother, George, I asked him to come in. He came, and we went upstairs, followed by the prisoner, into a front room over the shop. I said to the prisoner “George, you have been robbing me, you have”. He made no answer, but put his hands in his pocket, and stood like a statue. I then said “Out with it”. He pulled out his purse that contained my money. I did not take the purse myself, but I asked my brother if there was any money there like I had shown him. He said “Here are some marked like you showed me”. I then locked them both in the room and went for Superintendent Martin, and I kept them locked in till he arrived, when we both went into the room together and I gave him in charge for robbing me. The prisoner said to me several times “I wish you would let me speak to you, master”. I said “You must speak to Mr. Martin”. He said “I will make it all up to you”. I said “It is now gone too far”. I treated the prisoner as one of my sons. Mr. Martin searched him and charged him with stealing the money. He made no answer that I know of. Witness identified the money produced as part of that marked by himself.

Cross-examined: I gave the key to the prisoner on Sunday morning, and no-one but him could get access to the till. He gave me the money for Friday on Saturday morning. I found that amount right. I have never made any complaint to him. I can't tell what money is taken during the day. I have entirely to trust to him. I paid him 10s. per week with board and lodging. I counted the money on Sunday morning in his presence. It was all on the counter. I said to him “Have you counted it right?”, and he said “Yes”. Of the £7 6s. 6d. there was £4 10s. in gold in the morning, as he had given change for half a sovereign. I did not know that at the time, but I have heard it since. I did not mark the sixpences or smaller change as I knew he would not take them. I have marked the money on previous occasions, and kept the marked money by me and rang the changes at night. I did that for about a week past. The smaller silver on that night amounted to £3 6s., but I can't specify the coins. I do not know how many marked shillings there were. I may have marked two pounds worth of shillings during the week. I have them all at home, with the exception of two or three. There is only a few marked shillings gone into circulation.

George Hogben, sworn, said: I am a plumber and glazier by trade, and I live in Church Street. I was standing outside my brother's house between nine and ten on Sunday morning, when he came out and called me in. I went into the house and upstairs with him. When we got into the room he charged the prisoner with robbing him, to which charge the prisoner made no reply. He then told him to turn out his pockets, and the prisoner pulled out a purse, opened it, and threw the money on the table. My brother said “That's mine. Look and see if there is any money there marked like I have shown you”. I looked, and saw two shillings and a two shilling piece marked. The mark on the shillings were on the head, and on the two shilling piece below the head. My brother had shown me two or three coins during the week, and said “I mark my money like that”. Afterwards he said “Wait here till I come back”, and went out of the room, locking us in. While he was gone the prisoner said “Where's master gone?”. I said I did not know, unless to get the bar book. He then said “I wish I could see him to make it up. I should never do it again”. I said “What did you do it at all for? It can't be for want, only temptation”. My brother then returned with Supt. Martin, who asked what money that was on the table, and I told him what the prisoner had taken out of his pocket. He then charged him, searched his box, and took him into custody.

Cross-examined: The prisoner said on leaving the room “I hope you will make it up. I can get the money from home”. I should say he had about 19s. in his purse.

Supt. Martin said: Yesterday morning about half past ten o'clock prosecutor came to my house. I returned to his house immediately, and going upstairs I found the prisoner and last witness. I cautioned the prisoner and told him he was charged with robbing his master. My attention was then drawn to this purse and some silver, which I now produce. There was 19s. 6d. in silver, and 1½d. in coppers. On one portion of the table was a florin and two shillings. I asked the prosecutor if these were the coins he had marked. He said yes. I then asked the prisoner if he had any more about him. He said no. I put my hand in his left hand trousers pocket, and found 3s. loose. I showed them to the prosecutor, and he identified them. I asked him if he had any money in his box, and what amount. He said he had £5 10s. in a purse, wages that his master had paid him. I then took him into custody. Coming down the stairs he said “Can I speak to you, master?”. Prosecutor said “No. I have nothing to do with it. The case is left in Mr. Martin's hands”. Prisoner said “If you forgive me I will make up to you all I have robbed you of”. I have had possession of the coins ever since.

The prisoner was then charged by the Bench of robbing his master of 7s.

The prisoner: I am guilty.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed to appear by the prisoner's friends, and he considered it best to advise him to plead Guilty. No doubt he had robbed Mr. Hogben, his master, under a sudden temptation, and he hoped the Bench would take into their consideration his extreme youth, and the situation he was in, being one of trust. His parents are respectable, and the prisoner has always borne a good character. He was placed in a responsible situation, and although he could not defend such an error of conduct, the Bench might feel disposed, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, to temper justice with mercy, and a small amount of imprisonment might have the effect of deterring him from future dishonesty, and then he might be able to restore himself to the position he had forfeited. He did not know if Mr. Hogben was disposed to second his remarks, but would leave the case with confidence in the hands of the Bench.

Mr. Hogben had no desire to press the charge. He had previously placed every confidence in the prisoner, and had treated him as a son.

The Bench said they were placed in a painful position, and they were afraid all this had been brought on by bad company. They had the power to punish severely for this offence, but having hope that a lenient sentence would meet the justice of the case, they would sentence him to three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 7 May 1870.

Thursday, May 5nd: Before R.W. Boarer and C. Dashwood Esqs.

William Fagg, a labourer, pleaded Guilty to a charge of being drunk the previous day at the Rendezvous, Broad Street.

After referring to the Acts, the offence being committed in a public house, the Bench were advised by the clerk that they had no jurisdiction in this case, and the defendant was therefore discharged.

Folkestone Express 24 December 1870.

Wednesday, December 21st: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Mr. Stephen Hogben, of the Rendezvous Tavern was charged with having his house open before half past 12 o'clock on Sunday morning last.

Mr. Hogben pleaded Guilty, but said he was out at the time. He left his front door open for the bakings, and he supposed the parties walked in.

Superintendent Martin said, a complaint having been made, he went to the Rendezvous. In the back room he found five men and four glasses of beer, and another quart pot was just brought in. Defendant's son was at the bar; defendant was in the stable at the back. This was the first offence.

Mr. Bateman said this offence was so common that they were inclined to inflict the heaviest penalty. It was disgraceful to see people coming from church rolled against by drunken men. They could not inflict a fine of less than £2 and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 4 April 1874.

Saturday, March 28th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, and J. Tolputt Esq.

Filmer Tyas and Thomas Fricker were summoned by Superintendent Wilshere for having committed a breach of the peace by engaging in a prize fight on the Moors on Thursday, 19th March, and believing that the offence would be repeated, prayed for sureties of the peace against defendants.

Edwin Pope, Bridge Street, said: About ten o'clock on the morning of the 19th March I saw defendants in one of Mr. Gambrill's meadows.

Witness manifesting evident reluctance to answer the questions put to him, the Clerk said: I wish you would answer the questions, and not fence about so.

Witness continued: They were fighting; that's all I saw. They had their coats off; that's all. They were not fighting more than ten minutes. I did not count the people; there were not fifty; there might be forty, but not more. Defendants were not smothered with blood after they had done fighting. I was not at the Rendezvous Tavern when any money was staked on the fight.

Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern, was sent for, the Superintendent having stated that he told him that he was asked to hold the stakes, but refused to do so. Mr. Hogben sent word that he could not leave his business.

Tyas said: We had a few words in Hogben's bar, and rather than give the police any trouble we went into the fields to settle it over a few rounds; it was merely for satisfaction. We know we have done wrong; it was merely over a paltry pint of beer. There can be no guilt of breaking a breach of the peace.

Fricker said: I wish to ask if it is a proper way to issue a summons, to tell a man he is wanted to fight at the Town Hall.

Superintendent Wilshere: I told Fricker he would have to come to the Town Hall, and to mind and be there.

Tyas: The Superintendent served the summons on me like a gentleman.

Mr. Hogben was again sent for, but as he refused to come, the Mayor said he must be summoned if he would not come without.

Defendant were remanded to Wednesday, and bound over in the sum of £5 each to appear on that day.

Wednesday, April 1st: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad, J. Kelcey, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Filmer Tyas and Thomas Fricker, on remand from Saturday, surrendered on bail on a charge of committing a breach of the peace by fighting on the Moors on the 19th March.

Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern stated the defendant were in his house on the night of the 18th March, and were quarrelling. Tyas threw down two or three shillings on the counter, which witness told him to put in his pocket. He did not hear anything about any stakes for a fight, and told defendant if they wanted to be fighting they must go somewhere else, as he would not allow it in his house, and they went away.

Defendants were bound in their own recognisances of £5 each to keep the peace for three months.

Folkestone Express 12 September 1874.

Saturday, September 5th: Before S. Eastes, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Henry Clarke was charged with being drunk and disorderly in High Street.

P.C. Hills proved the case, and said prisoner was turned out of the Earl Grey, when two young men tried to get him home. He then went to the Rendezvous, where he was refused admission, and became very violent and used very bad language.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Wednesday, September 9th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. Stephen Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern, was charged with keeping pigs, so as to cause a nuisance.

Mr. Mowll said this was a similar case to the preceding ones, with the exception that the pigs were wallowing in the filth.

Mr. Springall said: I visited defendant's pigsties on the 2nd and 3rd September, and defendant said it was the deposit of manure from the cow shed, the pigs being kept inside. There was a large quantity of manure and filth, and the pigs were up to the thighs in filth, but the stench was not so great as in the other cases, but there is no doubt it was a nuisance.

Cross-examined: It was straw from the cow shed and the pigs were kept upon it. The long straw had been taken away that morning and the manure left.

John Underwood, in the employ of the Corporation, said: I visited the pigsties, when there was a cart full of short manure. The pigs were wallowing about in the manure.

Mr. Edward Hayward, jeweller, said: My garden abuts within three or four yards of defendant's pigsties. For the last six months the sties have been a nuisance. When the wind is in the north the stench blows into my house, and I have to shut my windows. I am quite sure the stench is from the pigs.

Defendant was fined £1 and 13s. 6d. costs, and defendant, on paying the money, said he only kept healthy cows, pigs, and horses, and he always thought the smell from them was healthy. Mr. Hayward ought to go and live on Sugarloaf Hill.

The Mayor told defendant if he was convicted again he would have to pay the full penalty of £2.

Mr. Hogben: Thank you. Very much obliged.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1875.

Tuesday, August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Crowe, and J. Tolputt Esq.

Edmund Hogben, 2, North Street, Sandgate, and James Drayton, of Sandgate Broadway, were charged with being drunk and riotous in Rendezvous Street on the previous night. Hogben was further charged with assaulting P.C. Keeler at the same time and place, and Drayton with assaulting Superintendent Wilshere and Privete Isaac Brown of the 40th Regiment of Foot. William H. Cook, of 4 St. Peter's Street, was placed in the dock with the former defendants charged with resisting the police at the same time and place.

P.C. Abraham Keeler deposed that on the previous night about half past nine he was called into the Rendezvous Tavern, High Street, by the landlord, Mr. Hogben, to quell a row. Witness found defendant Hogben in the tavern, fighting with another man. Hogben refused to go out when advised to do so by witness. When witness endeavoured to put him out he caught hold of witness and pushed him against the counter. The bar was full of men and these assisted defendant Hogben in throwing witness down on the floor. When down, witness received several kicks in the side from various people whom he could not identify. P.C. Butcher subsequently came to witness's assistance, and together they succeeded in getting defendant out. He was so violent that they were obliged to drag him across the street to the Police Station. Superintendent Wilshere then took the charge. Defendant was drunk and very riotous.

Defendant cross-examined the constable with a view to show that he was not the man who pushed him down, but failed to shake his evidence. Turning to the Bench, Hogben exclaimed “It's no use asking him any more questions, as he'll deny everything”.

P.C. Butcher deposed that about nine the previous evening he was passing the Rendezvous Tavern, when he heard a disturbance and looked in. He saw P.C. Keeler inside, and defendant Hogben was at the moment in the act of striking him, but witness stepped forward and prevented him from doing so. He assisted in getting Hogben towards the door, when defendant Drayton came from behind and dragged him back. Superintendent Wilshere afterwards came into the Tavern and ordered witness and P.C. Keeler to take Hogben to the station as drunk and riotous, and witness assisted so doing. Hogben was drunk, and Drayton also, but the latter was not so bad as Hogben.

Cross-examined by Drayton: You pulled Hogben back from me. You had not a basket in your hand at the time.

Superintendent Wilshere stated that on the previous night he was called to the Rendezvous Tavern. On arriving he found P.C. Butcher at the door struggling with a man and P.C. Keeler in the bar. Witness asked P.C. Keeler what he was doing, and he replied in the defendant's hearing that he had been pushed down and kicked. On turning round witness saw that P.C. Butcher was trying to hold Hogben, but that Drayton was pulling Hogben back. Witness gave the constables directions to take Hogben to the police station, and then called the landlord, Hogben, forward, and drew his attention to the disorderly manner in which his house was being conducted, suggesting that he ought to clear the bar. The landlord replied, asking why witness did not himself turn out the fighting men. The road outside had then become impassable from the dense crowd, and the witness heard the shouting and hooting of the mob when at the Town Hall. When Hogben had been taken away to the station, the men in the house hustled witness backwards and forwards, asking him why he interfered with them. Defendant Drayton was one of the most prominent in the persons who attacked him, and witness eventually turned him out of the house. When they got into the street, Drayton, who was drunk, gave witness a back-handed blow and said he should not go to the station unless he had a go at someone. He then rushed back at a private of the 40th Regiment, striking him in the face, making his nose bleed. Witness handcuffed Drayton with some difficulty, when the third defendant, Cook, came up and pulled Drayton back by his collar in order to rescue him. Cook was very violent, and followed witness into the police station, asking why he was locked up. As he was abusive, witness ordered him also to be detained in custody. Cook was the worse for liquor.

Cross-examined by Cook: his took place in the street, near Messrs. Poole's premises. You followed me into the station, having hold of Drayton.

Isaac Brown, a private of the 40th Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, deposed that on the previous night he saw a disturbance in the Rendezvous bar, where he was drinking, when two constables were present. Superintendent Wilshere came in and advised the landlord to clear his bar. Witness was pushed out of the house by the crowd, when Drayton, who was being held by the Superintendent, struck witness a violent blow in the face with his fist, making his nose bleed. Witness at once “slipped into” the man till the police took him away. He was pushed against Drayton by the crowd behind, and had just touched his shoulder.

Cross-examined by Drayton: I did not strike you before you hit me. You struck me first, directly the man pushed me against you.

Hogben, in defence, said he had been to see Captain Boyton, and afterwards had some drink with some friends, but was not as far gone in drink that night as not to know what was taking place. He complained that he was dragged off to the police station with unnecessary violence, and that the clothes were torn off his back without his being given a chance to explain, or the option of going quietly with the constables.

Drayner denied being drunk or striking the Superintendent of Police, saying that he did nothing to rescue Hogben at all. He said he had plenty of witnesses to prove his sobriety that night, and called George Crook, who was not present during the disturbance, but saw Drayton about three quarters of an hour before. He was not drunk then, byt had had a little beer.

Drayton also called Mr. Webster, builder, who, however, knew nothing of the occurrence, but considered the defendant sober when he saw him in the police station at midnight.

The Mayor remarked that the evidence only proved that he was not exactly drunk before or after the occurrence, but that the witnesses had said nothing as to his state at nine o'clock.

Defendant Cook pleaded that what he did in walking to the police station was to assist the police in getting Drayton to go quietly. He only held his collar for that purpose, and did not pull him away. When he asked the Superintendent why they were taking the man into custody, he told him to come to the station and see, and when they got there to shut the door behind him, and he had to remain in a cell till his friends came at midnight. (Laughter)

The Mayor said the Magistrates felt they must protect the police in the discharge of their duty, and must therefore punish the resistance that had undoubtedly been offered to them. The charge against Hogben of drunkenness had clearly been proved, and for that he would be fined 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs, or in default fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour. For the violence he displayed towards P.C. Keeler and in the face of the fact that he was the cause of the other men attacking the constable as they did, he would be fined £1 and 3s. 6d. costs, or twenty one days' hard labour. As to Drayton, he would be fined 10s., and must pay the costs, 6s. 6d., in the charge of drunkenness. The assault on the Superintendent might have been, as defendant said, an accidental blow, and that portion of the charge would be dismissed, as also that of assault on Brown, who, it was evident, took the law into his own hands. In Cook's case the Bench were inclined to accept his version of the story and to believe that he tried to preserve order. The charge against him would therefore be dismissed.

Hogben and Drayton then paid the fines and left the Court, as did Cook.

Folkestone Express 22 April 1876.

Wednesday, April 19th: Before The Mayor, J. Clark, T. Caister and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Emilia Major, alias Dodd, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Rendezvous Hotel on the previous evening.

P.C. Hills said he was called to turn the prisoner out of the Rendezvous Hotel. She was very drunk and shouting.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 29 July 1876.

Tuesday, July 24th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., and Captain Crowe.

Henry Farson, dealer, of 4, Chapel Streetm Dover, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Knowles ststed that on the previous afternoon he was sent for to the Rendezvous Inn to eject the defendant, who was quarrelling with four or five other men. The defendant refused to go away, and made a great disturbance in the street, whereupon witness took him to the police station and locked him up. The defendant had previously been to the station in an excited state and demanded to know why the police had not taken into custody another man on the charge of stealing a pair of spectacles.

The Bench fined the defendant 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs, which were paid.

George Prescott, shoemaker, Maxton, Dover was charged with a similar offence at the same time and place.

P.C. Knowles said the defendant behaved in a similar manner to the last defendant. He also came to the police station and created a great disturbance.

The defendant said he came from Dover with the other man. There was some quarrelling about a pair of spectacles having been stolen from another man, and this gave rise to the disturbance.

He was ordered to pay a fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Francis Crowley, plasterer, of 4, Mill Bay, Folkestone, was also charged with being drunk and disorderly at the same time and place.

Superintendent Wilshere said the defendant came to him in a very excited manner and requested him to go and lock up another man on the charge of stealing a pair of spectacles. As he was in a very drunken state, and could give no rational account of the matter, witness requested him to go home and come and see him when he was sober. The defendant refused to take his advice, and by the disturbance he made caused a crowd to assemble. Witness therefore locked him up.

The defendant expressed contrition and asked the Bench to deal leniently with him as he had seven young children.

Superintendent Wilshere said the defendant was accused of begging in 1869, but discharged.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 1s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 17 March 1877.

Wednesday, March 14th: Before Dr. Bateman, R.W. Boarer Esq., and Alderman Caister.

William Cook pleaded Guilty to a charge of refusing to leave the Rendezvous when requested by the landlord to do so, in consequence of his drunken and violent conduct on the 5th of March, and was fined 10s. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Express 24 November 1877.

Wednesday, November 21st: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, Colonel De Crespigny, and J. Clark Esq.

Stephen Hogben, landlord of the Rendezvous Inn, was summoned for permitting riotous conduct in his house on the night of the 5th November.

Mr. Mowll appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Superintendent Wilshere said on the night of the 5th of November his attention was called to the Rendezvous Inn, soon after ten o'clock. There were about 20 people assembled outside, and several of them made complaints to him. He did not go inside the house, but stopped there about twenty minutes. Several people were in the house, but they could not stop long because of the smoke. There was a continual firing of the kind, and the bar was constantly lighted up with flames and filled with smoke. The shouting and laughing could be heard as far as the Town Hall.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: You say the firing was going on continually? – Yes.

And yet you did not go inside. Why not? - Because I was not called on.Did you not think that if there were riotous proceedings going on it was your duty to go in? – I did not consider it was my duty to go in.

Have you ever been in there on a fifth of November? – Yes. Last year I think.

Were you “squibbed” then when you got inside the house? – I can't remember.

Just recollect, will you. – I can't recollect.

There was a great deal of this going on in the town on the fifth, wasn't there? – Yes. I saw two or three landlords turn people out who attempted it.

Was your attention called to two other houses that were said to be on fire? – No.

Never heard of it until this moment? – Oh, yes; there was one. A new landlord in Guildhall Street, who complained of having his blind set on fire, and he turned all the lot out and closed the house.

No other cases in the town? – Not that I am aware of.

The fifth of November is observed here, is it not? – Yes, to some considerable extent.

And fireworks are extensively fired off on that night? – Yes.

I think you told the Bench the flames and smoke were coming out of the house? – I said the sparks from the rockets were to be seen in the house, which was in a constant flare.

You don't mean to say they fired off rockets inside? You mean squibs? – They call them rockets here.

You say people were continually going in and out? – Yes.

And did you not go in and tell the landlord he ought to close his house? – No, sir; I did not consider it my duty unless I was asked.

Thomas Dorrell, who was on duty as a special constable, corroborated the Superintendent's evidence.

In cross-examination witness said there was a great deal of squibbing going on, and someone tried to squib the Superintendent as thy were coming down the tramway.

Mr. Mowll, for the defence, said the Bench knew there had always been a good deal of squibbing going on on the fifth, and even such a high official as the Superintendent of police came in for a share of the squibs on that night. Under the section of the Licensing Act under which these proceedings were taken, he had the power of examining the defendant on oath, and he would say he endeavoured to put a stop to this practice. He, however, did not know whether the Bench would consider the case of sufficient moment for this, because their Worships probably knew the state of the town on the night of the 5th. He submitted that there was no proof of riotous conduct, and he questioned whether the occurrence as described in evidence was really what could be termed riotous, which, he submitted, would imply some assault, or a congregation of persons together for the purpose of committing an illegal act.

He called Stephen Hogben, the defendant, who said the squibbing had been common in his house on the night of the fifth for eleven years, and he dreaded the day's coming round. He used his best endeavours to put a stop to it, but did not call in the police, thinking it would only tend to increase rather than diminish the nuisance. He added that he heard two houses in the town were set on fire by the squibs.

Alderman Caister: The Magistrates have determined to put this down.

Defendant: I wish they would.

By the Bench: He heard the Superintendent was outside, but did not see him. He could not say how many persons were in the house – perhaps 30 or 40. The sqibbing continued for about an hour and a half.

The Magistrates having considered the case, The Mayor said: The Magistrates can't help thinking you were somewhat to blame in not calling in the police to assist you in clearing the house. For some years it has been determined to put down, and the Bench and other officials are endeavouring to put down, as far as possible, this practice of squibbing. We know the consequences it is likely to lead to, and you yourself have told us of the consequences it has led to. We feel that it is a very serious charge on which you appear before us this morning. It would interfere with your license, and the Magistrates have not the power to make the penalty a small one. They have no wish to strain the Act, but they have given their serious consideration to it, with the hope that it may at all events be a warning to others that such conduct may not take place again on licensed premises. We consider there is a doubt as to whether we ought to take the matter into consideration as riotous conduct, but the Magistrates would warn you against the consequences another year, and they dismiss the case against you.

The decision of the Bench was received with applause, which was at once suppressed.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1879.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, J. Clark and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs., General Cannon and Captain Carter.

The license of the Rendezvous Tavern was transferred from Mr. Homewood to Mr. John Mellows, late of the Shakespeare Inn.

Folkestone Express 28 February 1880.

Monday, February 23rd: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and Captain Fletcher.

Kenneth Shaw was charged with being drunk and disorderly in High Street on Sunday night. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sharp said on Sunday night at ten minutes to ten he saw the prisoner opposite the Rendezvous, fighting. His coat and hat were off, and his nose and mouth covered with blood, and he was drunk. Just as witness got to the spot the man with whom prisoner had been fighting ran away. He took prisoner into custody. A great crowd assembled. Witness had previously cautioned prisoner at the bottom of High Street.

P.C. Hogben corroborated Sharp's evidence as to his having cautioned the prisoner.

Prisoner denied that he was fighting. There was a skirmish in the Rendezvous, and he got a blow in the mouth. He then pulled off his coat to defend himself.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days'.

Folkestone Express 5 November 1881.

Monday, October 31st: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad, M.J. Bell, F. Boykett and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

James Rodgers, an army pensioner, was charged with stealing a watch, value 20s., the property of James Mullett, on the 22nd inst.

Rebecca Mullett, wife of the prosecutor, residing at No. 6, St. Eanswythe's Terrace, said on Saturday the 22nd she missed a watch from the dresser in the kitchen. She saw it at nine o'clock in the evening. She gave information to the police on Sunday morning. On Friday, the 28th inst., a man named Charles Gilbert went to her and showed her a watch, which she identified as her property. She had had it for five years.

Charles Gilbert said on Sunday the 10th October he was in the Rendezvous Tavern. Prisoner came in about one o'clock in the afternoon. Witness saw him take a watch from his pocket. He wound it up, and as it would not go witness thought it was broken. He offered prisoner 5s. for it, and he replied “It's yours”. He gave prisoner 5s. and took the watch. On Friday, in consequence of something he heard, he went to see Mrs. Mullett. He showed her the watch, which she identified as her property. On Saturday afternoon he gave the watch up to Sergeant Butcher. He knew the prisoner by sight, as working at the Rose Hotel.

Sergeant Butcher said he went on Saturday afternoon to last witness, and in consequence of what he told him he went in search of prisoner, whom he found at Mrs. Worsley's in Rendezvous Street. He told prisoner he had a watch in his possession. Prisoner replied “Oh”. He told him he should have to take him into custody on a charge of stealing it. He replied “I bought it one Sunday off a boy for one shilling at the Rose Corner”. He added “Joe saw me buy it” (meaning the ostler at the Rose). Witness took him to the ostler, who said he did not see him buy it. He then took prisoner to the station.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the magistrates and pleaded Not Guilty. He said a boy came up to him at the Rose corner and said “Will you buy this watch? I will sell it to you for 2s.”. He told him he had only got one. He said “You can have it”. He admitted subsequently selling it to Gilbert.

In reply to the Bench, Mrs. Mullett said two errand boys went into the kitchen between nine and eleven on the evening when she missed the watch. There was no-one else in the kitchen whilst they were there.

The Bench considered the case proved, and the prisoner was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 25 October 1884.

Saturday, October 18th: Before Captain Carter, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Fitness, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Temporary authority was granted to George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, to carry on business at the Rendezvous.

Folkestone Express 1 November 1884.

Transfer Of Licence.

Wednesday, October 29th: Before Captain Crowe, F. Boykett and A.M. Watkin Esqs.

The licence of the Rendezvous was transferred to George Burgess.

Folkestone Express 18 June 1887.

Wednesday, June 15th: Before Capt. Crowe, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, and J.H. Brooke Esqs.

There were several applications for transfer of licenses. Mr. Burgess, of the Rendezvous Tavern, applied for the transfer of the licence of the Richmond Tavern, which was held by his late brother, who died leaving no estate for which letters of administration could be taken out. The Magistrates granted the application.

Folkestone Express 18 February 1888.

Monday, February 13th: Before Col. De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Richard Thompson, a private in the Oxford Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and with wilfully damaging glasses &c., value 7s., the property of C. Burgess.

Daisy Burgess, daughter of the landlord of the Rendezvous, High Street, said the prisoner went into the bar on Sunday night about a quarter to ten with a civilian, who called for drinks, which she supplied. The prisoner then asked for more drink and she refused to serve him, and he threw the glass from which he had been drinking, and broke two glasses, a bottle of brandy, and damaged some stamps. The two glasses were valued at 1s., the brandy 4s., and the stamps 2s. She sent for the police.

Sergt. Butcher said he saw the prisoner in front of the Rendezvous on Sunday night. He was drunk, had his belt off, and was scuffling about with some civilians, and making a noise.

For being drunk and disorderly the Bench fined the prisoner 5s. and 2s. 6d. costs, and 5s. fine, 5s. for damage, and 2s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 26 January 1889.

Re Burgess Bankruptcy:

The report is identical and verbatim as was in the Folkestone Chronicle of this date, but with the following footnote:

Mr. James Flint states that the evidence given by the debtor with reference to his having been with him at the White Hart for an hour is entirely incorrect. They were not in the house for more than five minutes, and subsequently took the bus from Hythe to Folkestone, where the bankrupt cashed his cheque, and certainly was not intoxicated when Mr. Flint left him.

Folkestone Express 16 February 1889.

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court.

Before the Registrar (Mr. W. Furley), on Friday, at the Guildhall.

Re. George William Burgess, Folkestone: Mr. Ward represented the debtor, and the examination was adjourned for a week.

Folkestone Express 23 February 1889.

Local News.

Re. George Burgess. At the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court on Friday, the Official receiver (Mr. Worsfold Mowll), said the case was adjourned to enable certain parties to be examined privately. That had been done, and as a result of that private examination there would no doubt have to be motions before the court. As far as the bankrupt was concerned he had no further questions to ask him. The bankrupt was then allowed to pass the public examination.

Folkestone Express 20 July 1889.

Local News.

The Rendezvous Hotel: Very extensive alterations have just been completed by Messrs. Petts at this hotel for Mr. Bruton, the proprietor – in fact the place has been completely transformed. The old swing doors which used to open to the bar have given place to a handsomely designed portico entrance, illuminated by and artistic lamp of new design. The bar on the ground floor has been greatly improved both in appearance and accommodation. On the first floor there is now a commercial dining room and private sitting rooms, and there is also provided a comfortable smoking room. The hotel is centrally situated and under the new proprietor, who has made all these important alterations, there will doubtless be a large accession of business.

Folkestone Express 17 August 1889.

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court.

His Honour Judge Selfe held a sitting of this Court on Monday at the Guildhall.

Re. George Burgess.

The petition was filed in December, 1888. This was an application for discharge. The total debts amounted to £650 14s. 1d., and the assets realised £142 8s. 5d. A dividend of 3s. 3d. had been paid.

The Official Receiver (Mr. Mowll) alleged that the debtor had not kept proper books of account, and that he had traded after knowledge of insolvency. The debtor had been bankrupt about 24 years previously. He also said that the bankrupt had put one of his creditors, viz., the Committee of the National Art Treasures Exhibition, to unnecessary expense by a frivolous defence to an action brought against him.

Mr. Ward said the debtor had intended to appeal against the decision given in the case of the Art Treasures Exhibition, but he had thought better of it. The defence was that the guarantee was obtained by fraud and that Lord Radnor had promised to contribute £3,000. The Official receiver drew the attention of the Court to the transaction with Messrs. Flint. The bankrupt, on the eve of his bankruptcy, and when he admitted he knew he was insolvent, gave a security to Messrs. Flint. This security was carefully considered by the Official Receiver and Messrs. Flint paid £100 to the trustee of the estate and were allowed to prove for £113, the balance of the account. A sum of £5 was also paid to a man named Barrow by the bankrupt after he knew he was insolvent.

The Judge: What are your prospects now?

Debtor: Haven't any.

By the Official Receiver: The distress by Lord Radnor for rent was put in at the end of December. The valuation of the bankrupt's garden was completed a day or two before the distress was put in.

The Official Receiver said the debtor ought to have filed his petition directly after the valuation was made.

In reply to His Honour, Mr. Mowll said that his own personal opinion was that the mere suspension of the discharge was no punishment at all. What he would ask was that where a man might be in a position to earn money, and where the liabilities were not large, that the man should be ordered to pay an increased dividend. He did not think it would be too hard to make up the dividend to 5s. in the £.

His Honour said that the question was what was a practical and proper order to make upon the facts made known. In one case the Court of Appeal strongly condemned the clogging of a case with conditions of payment. How could an order be made upon the debtor? It was useless to make an order when there was no probability of the money being paid. Under the Act of Parliament the report of the Official Receiver was made prima facie evidence of the facts of the case. It was for him to consider how far the charges were sustained. Having entered into the facts of the case, His Honour said with regard to the allegation of trading with knowledge of insolvency, there was no doubt that the debtor traded on in the hope that a good season would, as he said, “bring him back to his bearings”. It was not a thing which should be dealt with very seriously. Loss had occurred to the creditors from the debtor not having called independent advice upon his position. With respect to the Folkestone Art Exhibition, he thought if the promised guarantee was not obtained by fraud, as asserted in the defence of the debtor and others, it was at least obtained in such a way as to render the fact of the debtor's objection to pay a very light matter indeed. In one case he knew, a railway guard, earning about two guineas a week, was induced to guarantee £25 towards the Exhibition upon the representation that he would only be liable for a small portion. He did not feel disposed to order a larger dividend to be paid. If no dividend had been paid it would have been a proper course to make such an order. The discharge would be suspended for 12 months.

Folkestone Express 13 December 1890.

Transfer.

Wednesday, December 10th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The licence of the Rendezvous Inn was transferred to Alfred E. Cotton.

Folkestone Express 14 April 1894.

Saturday, April 7th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Marshall William Hayes was charged with stealing a silver watch and a gold chain, the property of Mr. Joseph Bolton.

Prosecutor said: I live at Radford Boulevard, Nottingham. I am a commercial traveller, and staying at Gray's Hotel, Road. I was in the Rendezvous Hotel last evening in company with Mr. Gray. The prisoner was in the smoking room, and we talked together casually. At closing time we all left. Prisoner went to Gray's Hotel at my request. I had not known him previously. I went to bed between a quarter and half past twelve. I placed my watch and chain on a chair by my bedside. I did not lock the door of the bedroom. I missed my watch and chain when I woke about half past five. When I was dressed I found a purse and book had been shifted from one pocket to another. I sent for the landlord, and afterwards for the police. I afterwards saw my watch and chain in the constable's possession. I had had them 35 to 40 years. The value put down is £3. I missed from my pockets all my money. I had collected during the previous day under £5, and I should think I had £3 in my possession, but I cannot say.

George Gray said the prosecutor slept on the second floor and the prisoner on the first. He generally confirmed prosecutor's evidence. When the constable arrived he went to prosecutor's bedroom. The watch and chain was found about three yards from prisoner's door on a basket of linen. Prisoner was searched by the constable. Nothing relating to the charge was found on prisoner. He was the only stranger in the house.

P.C. Nash said he was called at 8.45 to Gray's Hotel. He saw a basket of linen on the second floor. He searched it but found nothing besides linen. He went up to the top floor and searched Mr. Bolton's room, and also the back servants' room. He then returned to the second floor and Mr. Gray pointed out the prisoner's bedroom, which they entered. Mr. Gray told prisoner there had been some jewellery stolen, and asked if he would mind being searched. He said “No, it would be most satisfactory to be searched”. He found nothing on him, and left the room with Mr. Gray. He made a second search of the linen basket, and found the watch and chain there. About a quarter of an hour elapsed between the first and second search. He then told prisoner he should charge him on suspicion of stealing the articles. He asked who was going to charge him. Witness replied “I will”. When he first went into prisoner's room he was washing. As he was leaving the house prisoner said “If I get a twelve month I can't help it”. When charged by Superintendent Taylor he asked when he would go before the Magistrates, and was told eleven o'clock, and he said “What a good job”.

Mr. Gray said there were four visitors in the house and two female servants.

By Mr. Pursey: Was the prisoner intoxicated? – No.

In any state between that and sobriety? – He had certainly had a beer or two, but could walk straight and knew what he was about.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. He made the following statement: I met the prosecutor and the landlord in the Rendezvous as they say. The prosecutor first suggested that we should play cards, which we did. We had two or three drinks there. We then went to Gray's Hotel. There we had another game of cards and some whisky.

The Mayor: It is a Temperance Hotel, isn't it?

Prisoner: I don't know. We did not pay for it – the landlord asked us to drink. Mr. Bolton went to bed, and we sat chatting for a little time, and the landlord showed me to my bedroom. After that I remember nothing more until the landlord called me about nine. Shortly after the landlord came back and told me of this loss, and then he went out and returned in a few minutes with the policeman, who, with my consent, searched my clothes. Up to that time I had not left my room. When I first left it I met the landlord on the landing, and he told me the watch had been found. When the constable said he should take me I said I was perfectly willing, but I have no recollection of making any such remark as the constable has made. I was taken aback by the affair.

The Bench considered there was not sufficient evidence to send the prisoner for trial, and he was discharged.

Folkestone Express 21 September 1901.

Friday, September 13th: Before T.J. Vaughan and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. W. Keilly Westropp.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was temporarily transferred to John Kohlhammer, a German.

Folkestone Express 26 October 1901.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred to John Kohlhammer.

Folkestone Express 12 April 1902.

Saturday, April 5th: Before W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, C.J. Pursey, and W. Salter Esqs., and ColonelC.J. Hamilton.

Mr. Wm. Everest was granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel.

Folkestone Express 26 April 1902.

Wednesday, April 23rd: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and W. Wightwick, W.C. Carpenter, G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. Wm. Everest was granted a transfer of the Rendezvous Hotel.

Folkestone Express 31 January 1903.

Wednesday, January 28th: Before Alderman Vaughan and Liuet. Col. Westropp.

Jack Marley was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, and Peter Kelly for attempting to procure drink for an intoxicated person. Neither of the defendants put in an appearance. This is believed to be the first case under Section 7 of the new Act.

Wiliamm Everitt, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said on Saturday night about 9.15 two men came into the bar. One of them, Marley, was drunk, and Kelly, who was sober, called for two half pints of beer and put down 2d. Witness refused to serve the men, and ordered them off the premises.

P.C. Sales said about 9.25 on the night in question his attention was drawn to the Rendezvous Hotel by a crowd assembled there. He went into the bar, where he heard the last witness say “What do you want to bring that drunken man in here for? Here's your money. You get outside”. Turning to witness he then said “Constable, I want these men outside. They have had no drink in here”. Witness obtained Marley's name and address. In company with Inspector Lilley he searched for the defendant Kelly, and at last found him in the Granville Inn, Dover Street. Witness took his name and address and told him he would be reported for attempting to procure liquor for a drunken person, to which Kelly replied “You won't find me for I shall be missing”.

A fine of 5s. and 9s. costs, in default seven days' hard labour, was imposed on Marley, and in the case of Kelly a fine of 10s. and 9s. costs was inflicted, in default fourteen days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 30 May 1903.

Monday, May 25th: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman Salter, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Charles Kosh was charged with being drunk and incapable.

P.C. H. Johnson stated that about six p.m. on Saturday he saw prisoner in High Street, rolling drunk. He went to the Rendezvous Hotel, but was refused drink. As he made a disturbance, witness took him into custody. There were 12 previous convictions against prisoner, the last offence being on the 2nd of the present month.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days'.

Folkestone Express 20 February 1904.

Saturday, February 13th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was temporarily transferred from William Everest to John Godfrey.

Folkestone Express 5 March 1904.

Wednesday, March 2nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Westropp, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred from William Everest to Gorge Albert Godfrey.

A temporary authority was recently granted.

Folkestone Express 19 March 1904.

County Court.

Tuesday, March 15th: Before Sir William Lucius Selfe.

William verist v Flint and Co. Ltd (formerly Fliunt and Sons): This was an action brought by the plaintiff, late licensed victualler and holder of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, against the defendants, brewers, of Canterbury, and the owners of the hotel, to recover a sum of £6 7s. for certain articles, and £5 5s., expenses incurred through having to take proceedings. Mr. De Wet appeared for plaintiff, and the defendants were represented by Mr. Haydon (barrister).

The case occupied a considerable amount of time,, and from the brewer's point of view as looked upon as an important one.

Mr. Everist, who ormerly held the licence of the King's Head, Whitstable, entered into possession of the Rendezvous Hotel on May 2nd, 1902, taking over the inventory of the outgoing tenant (Mr. Colehammer), which cost him £808 17s. 6d. The inventory included, among the fixtures, a dresser and copper, which were now in dispute. On the one hand the plaintiff claimed for the value of them, but on the other the brewers objected, saying the articles were their property. Other fixtures were set out in the claim, but these had been admitted as being the property of the plaintiff. Mr. Henry Hayward (of the firm of Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, Dover and London), told His Honour that the items in dispute had been included in the valuation of the tenant's fixtures for a number of years. He valued them at £2 15s.

Mr. A. Ward, managing director of the Company, said undoubtedly the dresser and copper were landlord's fixtures, and that being the case it was not the custom of an outgoing tenant to sell them to the incoming tenant. The Company, as buyers of the property, bought and paid for the fixtures, and the copper and dresser could not be claimed as a trade fixture.

In cross-examination it was gathered from Mr. Ward that there would be cases of a similar character.

His Honour: What is the importance of £2 15s. to your firm?

Witness: The actual sum is not of any importance.

His Honour: Then you have answered the question wrongly.

Witness: Well, your Honour, we are doing it on principle.

Mr. Haydon, for the defence, submitted that the proper course was to claim damage for depriving the tenant of the right to remove his fixtures, and the action must be taken against the new tenant.

His Honour, after a lengthy summing up, gave judgement for plaintiff for £6 7s., and allowed witnesses' costs. He also remarked that he thought the defendants would see that it would not be worth their while to contest the point further by going to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Haydon: I am instructed that my clients will not appeal in this case, but reserve it for another.

Folkestone Express 2 June 1906.

Wednesday, May 30th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Mr. De Wet made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel from Mr. A. Godfrey to Mrs. Colbeck, who, he stated, was the sister of the licensee and had been in the house ever since he had held the licence. He then handed in the references.

The Chief Constable said so far he had not been able to make the necessary enquiries with regard to the references. He noticed that in the notice served upon him the name was given as Mrs. Culpeck, whilst in the references was Mrs. Colbeck. Then he considered the house was not altogether a desirable one for a woman to keep.

Mr. De Wet said Mr. Godfrey had really been the manager of the house for Mrs. Colbeck. It was her money that had paid the brewers ever since he had occupied the house. Mrs. Colbeck's husband also lived on the premises, but as it was her own money that was put in the house, she wished the licence to be in her name.

The Chief Constable said he thought it was a case which should stand over until he had received replies to the enquiries he had made with regard to the references.

The Magistrates therefore adjourned the application until the next licensing meeting and ordered fresh notices to be served.

Folkestone Express 14 July 1906.

Wednesday, July 11th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Vaughan, and R.J. Linton Esq.

This being the day fixed for the special licensing sessions, the following licence was transferred: The Rendezvous Hotel, from Mr. G.H. Godfrey to Mrs. Culpeck.

Folkestone Express 24 November 1906.

Inquest.

At the Town Hall on Monday, the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) conducted an enquiry relative to the death of Edgar William Haizell Colbeck, who died on Saturday as the result of severe burns.

William E. Colbeck said he lived at the Rendezvous Hotel, and was a licensed victualler. He identified the body as that of his son, Edgar William Colbeck. He was two years and four months old. He was the only child. On Thursday morning, at half past seven, witness, who was in bed with his wife, heard a call of “Fire” by his step-daughter. Witness's son and step-daughter slept together in a bedroom opposite. Witness and his wife immediately ran into the bedroom. Witness saw deceased standing on the floor with his nightshirt in flames. The shirt was of flanellette, and was alight at the bottom and was flaring up. Witness, with the assistance of his wife, put the flames out. There was no fire in the room, and witness the previous night had taken the light out of the room. Witness was not aware that there were any matches in the room. Deceased did not play with matches, but he had occasionally picked one up and burnt it. A box of matches was found on the floor. The box, which was full, was closed. Witness found a burnt match on the floor. Deceased was only able to say a few words.

Mrs. Colbeck, who was greatly distressed, corroborated.

Maud Barnes said Mrs. Colbeck was her mother. She had been in the habit of sleeping with her brother. She went to bed on the night in question at half past ten. She was awoke in the morning by deceased screaming. When she saw he was in flames she called out for her mother. Witness had never seen deceased strike a match. She thought he must have got out of bed and taken the matches from the spare room.

Mr. Colbeck, re-called, said the two children were affectionate.

Dr. Barrett said he was sent for on Thursday morning about eight o'clock. On examining deceased he found extensive burns on the lower parts of the abdomen, and all round the loins, buttocks and thighs. The child was very much agitated. He immediately fetched a nurse and had the burns dressed. He saw deceased from time to time, but he never rallied at all. In the evening Mrs. Colbeck sent for him, as she did not think he was so well. The next morning he was unconscious. He remained so and gradually got worse, and at three o'clock on Saturday morning he died. Death was caused by shock from the burns received.

A verdict of Accidental Death was returned.

Folkestone Express 10 April 1907.

Thursday, April 4th:

Robert Walker was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs for being drunk and incapable.

P.C. Ashby said he saw the prisoner fighting with the landlord in the bar of the Rendezvous Hotel, both being drunk. Prisoner struck witness and then went out and tried to mount his bicycle, but fell, and was taken to the police station.

Mr. De Wet, who appeared for prisoner, made an application for a warrant against the landlord for assaulting his wife, who is the licence holder, saying she dared not go into the house.

Folkestone Express 13 April 1907.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, Mary Emily Colbeck was summoned for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises – the Rendezvous Hotel. Mr. De Wet appeared on behalf of defendant and pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Ashby said on the 3rd of April, shortly after midnight, he was on duty in High Street, and about 12.15 he walked towards the Rendezvous Hotel. As he came along he tried the three dors and found they were locked. As he was leaving the last one, which was nearest the Rose Hotel, he heard the door of the saloon bar open, and a young woman came out. She came running up to witness and made a communication to him, in consequence of which he accompanied her to the Hotel, and entered by the door from which she came out. There was a passageway inside the door, which extended about 15 or 16 feet from the door. Witness went into the saloon bar, and when he got there he saw a man named Walker fighting with Mr. Colbeck, the husband of the licence holder. They struggled together and witness tried to part them. Walker then turned round and deliberately struck witness in the face. Witness caught hold of him and pulled him away from Mr. Colbeck. He was very violent, but he got him to the ground, and held him until Detective Sergt. Burniston came. Both Walker and Colbeck were drunk. Mrs. Colbeck was present. There were glasses strewed about the floor, and some pots had been knocked off the mantelpiece. Several chairs were also knocked down. Both men were injured in their faces. Witness let Walker get up after Sergt. Burniston came. Burniston asked what Walker was doing there, and if he was a friend. Defendant said “No. He came in here at 10.30 with Mr. Colbeck. He had no business here, and I won't have him here”. Witness asked Walker his name and address, and he refused to give it. Mrs. Colbeck then told Walker to get out of the house, and he said “If that's it, I'll go”. He then left the house. Walker had a bicycle with him, and he struggled as far as High Street, and then fell over it. Walker was arrested and charged with being drunk and incapable to take care of himself. Before he left the premises he told Mrs. Colbeck he should report her for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises.

Cross-examined, witness said defendant was excited and scarcely knew what to do with herself. She was crying.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said on the morning of the 4th April he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel. He entered by the door leading to the saloon bar. When he got there he saw P.C. Ashby struggling with a man named Robert Walker, who resided in Alexandra Gardens. Walker was very drunk, and standing opposite was Mrs. Colbeck's husband, who was also very drunk. Standing a little further away was defendant and one of her maids. There were signs of disorder having taken place. Both men had fresh marks on their faces, as if they had been fighting. Witness asked Mrs. Colbeck the reason of the disturbance, and she made no reply. Then witness said “Is this man (meaning Walker) a guest or a lodger?” Defendant replied “Neither. He has been here since 10.30, and has no business here”. Witness told defendant he should report her for allowing Walker to remain on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and also for permitting drunkenness. Witness was quite clear about Walker and Colbeck being drunk.

Cross-examined: Defendant was excited and thoroughly agitated.

Sergt. Lawrence said he was on duty at the police station when Walker was brought in. Mr. Colbeck afterwards came to the station, and he was drunk.

Defendant then went into the witness box. She said she was the licence holder of the Rendezvous Hotel. On April the 3rd she returned to the Hotel about seven o'clock. She saw her husband and Walker in the saloon bar. They were quite sober. They had a drink and went out to have a game of billiards. The next time witness saw them was, as near as she could say, eight o'clock. Then they went out to have some supper. They were perfectly sober then. They came in about 10.30, and Mr. Walker took his cycle from the saloon bar as though he was going home. Mr. Colbeck came in with him, and they both went out together. They did not have any drink. The next time witness saw them was about five minutes to eleven. They were very “boozed”, both of them. Witness was just thinking of closing the Hotel. Mr. Colbeck said to Walker “Aren't you going to have a drink?”, and a whisky and soda was asked for. Witness walked into the four-ale bar and shut the doors. When witness came back again, Mr. Colbeck said “You have asked for a drink and been refused”. Witness said they did not want any more; they had had enough. Mr. Colbeck then knocked three or four bottles and two glasses off the counter with his stick. Walker said “You are going a bit too far”. Mr. Colbeck asked what it had got to do with him, and that was the start of the quarrelling. Witness then went upstairs to wake her maid, and when she came down again the two men were still quarrelling. Mr. Colbeck asked to be served with a whisky and soda, and as defendant would not serve him, he helped himself. Witness had occasion to go upstairs, and when she came down the maid told her that Mr. Colbeck had had some more whisky. He had not drunk it, and witness threw it down the sink. Witness then described the fight and what followed.

Cross-examined, witness said she allowed Walker to stay because her husband had asked him to stay the night. She thought if Walker stayed it might pacify Mr. Colbeck.

Mary Ransley, the maid, corroborated.

Robert Walker also gave evidence. He stated that Mrs. Colbeck did not serve him with any drink.

Mr. De Wet, in addressing the Bench, said the only evidence of the prosecution was that those men were found on the premises after closing hours. He submitted that the licensee could not be convicted of permitting drunkenness after closing hours. He also urged that the word “permitting” always assumed some power to prevent. In that case what power had the poor licence holder to prevent?

The Chairman said they were taking a lenient view. Defendant was liable to a penalty of £10, but they would fine her £2 and 15s. costs.

William E. Colbeck, the husband, was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson said at 12.45 on the 4th April he went to the Rendezvous Hotel. Defendant's wife had informed him that he had been knocking her about, and she wanted him removed from the premises.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 13 July 1907.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 11th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The only case to come before the Recorder was an appeal by Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck, the licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, against a conviction for permitting drunkenness on the premises. Mr. Dickens (instructed by Mr. A.F. Kidson) appeared in support of the Magistrates' decision, and Mr. T. Matthew (instructed by Mr. De Wet) represented the appellant.

Mr. Dickens, in opening, said Mrs. Colbeck was fined £2 and 15s. costs for permitting drunkenness at the Rendezvous Hotel under Section 13 of the Act of 1872. He would like to refer the Recorder to Section 4 of the Act of 1902, which said that where a licensed person was charged with permitting drunkenness on his or her premises, it rested on the licensed person to prove that he, or she, as it was in that case, and the persons employed by the licence holder, took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises. It would lie, therefore, on the appellant to prove that she took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness. The rateable value of the house was £110 gross, £88 net.

P.C. Ashley said at 12.15 on the night of April 3rd he was trying the doors of the Rendezvous Hotel, when a girl came out of the house and said to him “Come quick, or else there will be a murder done” He went into the saloon bar and saw the landlady's husband fighting with a man named Walker. They were both very drunk and he succeeded in separating them. Detective Sergt. Burniston came in about five minutes after and had a conversation with Mrs. Colbeck. Walker left the house with Burniston and himself. He had a bicycle with him, and when he reached Rendezvous Street he fell over it. They therefore took him into custody, and the next morning he was fined for drunkenness.

Cross-examined, he said he had seen Mr. Colbeck more often drunk than sober. He was certainly violent when in drink. There were signs of great disorder when he went into the saloon bar. The landlady, who was agitated, might have said that Walker was going to stay the night.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said when he went into the bar it was in great disorder. He said to Mrs. Colbeck “Is this man a guest or a lodger?”. And she replied “He is neither. He has been here since half past ten. He has no business here. I want him to leave”. She made no reply when he told her he should report her for permitting drunkenness. The landlady was very excited and agitated.

Cross-examined, he said he thought Mrs. Colbeck was in such a condition as to be able to judge what should be done. If she thought the man Walker was staying in the house she could not get rid of him.

P.S. Lawrence gave evidence as to the state of the man, Walker, when he was brought in.

Mr. Matthew first argued on a point of law that it was a case of coercion on the part of the husband, therefore the landlady should not have been prosecuted.

Mr. Dickens contended that there was no evidence that the woman was coerced into committing that offence.

Mrs. Colbeck in her evidence said her husband and Walker were in the house until eight o'clock on April 3rd. They went out for a walk, and were sober at the time. The next time they came in was at half past ten. They immediately went out, Mr. Walker taking his bicycle. They returned at about five minutes to eleven. A few minutes after Mr. Colbeck asked her for a drink, but she told him he did not want it as he had had enough. Her husband told her that he had asked Walker to stay the night when she informed him it was just on closing time. She later took a drink from her husband, who had drawn it for himself, and threw it down the sink.

Cross-examined, she said she knew Walker lived in Alexandra Gardens, which was only a short distance away. The man had never stayed in the house for a night. A few minutes after eleven she understood he was going to stay the night. She had never spoken to Walker about staying the night. Walker left his bicycle in the porch.

Mary Ransley, a maid at the Hotel, corroborated what Mrs. Colbeck had said.

Robert Walker, the man who was on the premises, said he was not served with any drink after he went into the house at five minutes to eleven. Mr. Colbeck asked him to stay the night and he understood he was going to do so.

P.C. Prebble also gave evidence of the husband keeping the landlady out of the house on the night in question until two o'clock.

The Recorder promised to state a case if necessary on the question of coercion.

Mr. Matthew, addressing the Recorder, said he thought he had proved that the landlady took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness. As to the facts, there was no disputing that no drink was served to either of the men after they came in at five minutes to eleven, and it was abundantly clear from the evidence of Mrs. Colbeck and Walker that Colbeck did ask Walker to stay the night.

The Recorder asked what he had to say with regard to taking reasonable steps.

Mr. Matthew said after Colbeck had asked Walker to stay the night, Mrs. Colbeck was not entitled to turn him out. As a matter of law, a man having a bed in a licensed house, as an inmate or a lodger paying rent, or whether he was invited there, was entitled to be there.

The Recorder: Supposing a man was a friend of the husband, and the husband, considering the man was drunk, said he had better sleep on the premises, would it be in accordance with the Statute that the landlady took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness?

Mr. Matthew said there were two obligations. They might permit drunkenness. At the same time, the landlady was the wife of the husband, and she had to act as such. It was a difficult position for a woman to be in. His submission was that under the circumstances she was not entitled to eject the man, and that did not amount to a permission of drunkenness.

Mr. Dickens, in addressing the Recorder, said the woman never took a single step at all to eject the man. The only means of preventing drunkenness was to turn the man out, and it was the landlady's business to decide whether the man should stay in the house. If she consented to him doing so, then she was permitting drunkenness. With regard to the argument of coercion, he contended it did not apply to a case of that description.

The Recorder said that was an appeal brought from a decision of the Justices of the Borough on April 10th last by the licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, who was convicted for unlawfully permitting drunkenness to take place on those licensed premises, contrary to Section 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872. That Section had to be read with Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902, because where a person was now charged with permitting drunkenness, and it was proved that any person was drunk on the premises, it rested on the licensed person to prove that he, or she in that case, or persons employed by her, took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises. He agreed that if a licensed person or his servant found a person drunk and turned him off the premises that would rebut the prima facie presumption at once. If, on the other hand, they found the person did supply drink, or that he lived on the premises, then it did not do away with the prima facie presumption. He had given the most careful consideration to the facts of the case, which, though coming before him in the nature of an appeal, was really a re-hearing, and he was not satisfied upon the evidence before him that Mrs. Colbeck did not take all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness. P.C. Ashby admitted in the first instance that Mrs. Colbeck might have said that Walker was going to stay the night. He agreed with both Mr. Dickens and Mr. Matthew it turned on the question aye or no did Mrs. Colbeck believe she had reasonable grounds for supposing Walker was going to stay the night. Burniston, under cross-examination, specifically said he put it to Mrs. Colbeck “Is he a guest or a lodger?” She said “Neither. He has been here since 10.30. He had no business here. I want him to leave”. It seemed to him the reply to that question put by Burniston was by no means or manner inconsistent with what she had sworn that day. He had given the most careful consideration to the whole of the facts, and he had come to the conclusion that the conviction could not stand. It seemed to him the licensee had reasonable grounds for supposing under all the circumstances that the man was going to stay. If she believed it, how could he say her failure to communicate to the police was a failure which showed that she had not taken reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises? He had come to the conclusion that the conviction could not stand, and he quashed it with costs.

Mr. Matthew asked for the costs to be taxed out of the settlement, and the Recorder allowed the application.

Folkestone Express 2 November 1907.

Saturday, October 26th: Before Aldermen Penfold, Vaughan, and Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, and R.G. Wood Esqs.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mrs. Colbeck to Mr. Hensing.

Folkestone Express 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

The following transfer of alehouse licence, for which temporary authority had been granted, was confirmed: Rendezvous Hotel, from Mrs. Colbeck to Mr. G. Kemsing.

Folkestone Express 29 February 1908.

Saturday, February 22nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and R.G. Wood Esq.

Beatrice Kemp was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Rendezvous Street the previous evening. When asked to plead, she said she would say nothing, but leave it to the policeman – his word went before hers.

P.C. Kettle said at about 10.30 the previous evening he was in Rendezvous Street, where he saw prisoner outside the Rendezvous Hotel. She was drunk and making use of obscene language, surrounded by a crowd of people. With the assistance of P.C. Toms he brought her to the police station.

P.S. Lawrence, who was on duty at the police station, said prisoner was drunk when brought in.

Kemp was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days'.

Folkestone Express 6 February 1909.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 3rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, C. Jenner, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Plans were submitted for alterations to the interior of the Rendezvous Hotel, and approved of.

Folkestone Express 8 July 1911.

Wednesday, July 5th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Aldermen Vaughan and Penfold, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, R.G. Wood, G. Boyd, and W.C. Young Esqs.

Plans were submitted for alterations to the Rendezvous Hotel, and they were passed, subject to being approved by the Buildings Committee.

From the Folkestone Express, Saturday, 17 August, 1911.

EAST KENT LICENSING COMMITTEE

THE RENDEZVOUS, FOLKESTONE

A meeting of the East Kent Licensing Compensation Authority was held at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on Wednesday, under the chairmanship of the Right Hon, Lord Harris. No objections were raised to the abandonment of the following licenses, the renewals of which were accordingly refused:- “Queens Head,” Whitstable (Frederick Eteggall); “Malt Shovel,” High Street, Milton Regis (Sarah Dodd); "Windmill," Borden Lane, Borden (William Barty); “King William IV,” (John Reuben Long); “Duke of Cambridge, Snargate Street, Dover, (Jane Kennett); “Pier Inn,” Beach Street, Dover (William Thomas Hunter); “Railway Bell,” Beach Street, Dover, (George Thomas Stone); “Albion,” Hawkesbury Street, Dover (Robert Panter); “Rendezvous,” High Street, Folkestone (James Algernon Hobson); “Conyngham Café,” Pegwell, St. Lawrence (Andrew Cahill); “Metallis Restaurant,” Fort Steps, Margate (Alice Hearn of Margate); “White Horse Inn,” Egerton, (George Francis Oliver); “Royal Oak Hotel,” Ashford (John Arnold Bacon.)

Folkestone Express 23 September 1911.

Tuesday, September 19th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Elizabeth Agnes Rogers, an elderly woman, was charged with being drunk and incapable in High Street the previous evening. She pleaded Guilty.

Inspt. Lawrence said at 5.20 the previous evening he was in Rendezvous Street, when he saw Rogers being ejected from the Rendezvous Hotel by the landlord. As soon as she got out of the door she fell helplessly on the pavement. She was drunk and incapable of taking care of herself, so he brought her to the police station.

Prisoner said she was unwell and took a little brandy.

The Chief Constable said the woman was not served in the Rendezvous Hotel.

Mr. Ensink, the landlord, said his wife called him down to the bar when she noticed the woman there. He observed the prisoner's condition, and being quite satisfied she was drunk he ejected her. She was not served in the house.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there was nothing against the woman.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour in default.

Folkestone Express 25 November 1911.

Local News.

There was a large and excited crowd at the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday, the news having got abroad that a case of serious jewellery robbery was to be investigated. The excitement was even more intense when the evidence, which was of an extraordinary nature, was given. The Magistrates on the Bench were The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, Lieut Col. Fynmore, and R.G. Wood and G. Boyd Esqs., when Edwin George Trice, a rather good-looking young fellow of about 23 years of age, was placed in the dock, and charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery valued at £700.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was charged with stealing, some time in October, a quantity of jewellery, of the value of some hundreds of pounds, from a dwelling house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, and the property of Lady Hastings D'Oyley. He was not in a position that day to complete the case, which was a very complicated one. Her ladyship was in London, and it would be necessary to apply for a remand. He proposed only to call the evidence of the officer who arrested the prisoner, and then ask the Magistrates to grant a remand.

Mr. De Wet appeared on behalf of Mr. J.H. Myers to represent the prisoner.

Detective Officer Johnson said in consequence of receiving information of the loss of jewellery from Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, on the 15th inst., he made certain inquiries and on the 16th he proceeded to Salford, Manchester. He saw the prisoner at Salford police station in custody about eight o'clock in the evening He said to him “I am a police officer from Folkestone” and then cautioned him. He then said to prisoner “You will be charged with stealing, between September and October, from a house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Folkestone, one crescent diamond bracelet, one gent's single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, two gold and diamond tie brooches, one gent's 18ct. gold Albert, one gent's gold ring set with three diamonds, one lady's gold twisted ring set with diamond and pearl, the property of Lady Hastings D'Oyley, together of the value of £700”. He replied “I don't know anything about it”. On the following morning about nine o'clock he was at the Salford police station, when he was informed the prisoner wished to see him in his cell. He went to him and prisoner said “I want to make a statement”. Witness said “Before you make any statement to me I must caution you that whatever you say I shall take down in writing and use when before the Magistrates”. He replied “Sure”. He then took down the statement in his pocket book produced. The statement was as follows: “I stole the diamond ring and diamond bracelet. I got another man to pawn the ring for £35 in London. The man I know only by sight. I showed Ensink, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, the bracelet, and he asked me where I got it from. I said “I never bought it”. Two days after, he said to me “I am going to Holland, and will dispose of it for you, if you like”. He said “How much do you want for it?” I said “One hundred pounds”. About three or four days after I gave the bracelet to him he sent me £90 from Holland. I gave Albert Cottrell about £11 of it, and Gussie about £6, and £6 to Taylor”. The prisoner signed the statement. The same day he brought the prisoner to the Folkestone police station, and there formally charged him, and he made no reply.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could take the case that morning, and asked for the prisoner to be remanded in custody.

The Magistrates granted a remand for a week.

Gerard Ensink, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, was then brought before the Magistrates on a charge of receiving the property, well knowing it to have been stolen.

The Chief Constable said Ensink was charged with receiving a crescent diamond bracelet, which he understood was stolen. In that case it would be impossible to complete the case, and after having heard two or three witnesses he must ask the Magistrates to grant a remand.

Edwin George Trice, a lift attendant,, and the prisoner in the last case, said he lived at 78, St. John's Street, Folkestone. He knew a house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, occupied by Lady D'Oyley. He was acquainted with a woman named Dalton, who was in charge of the house during the absence of the family. He also knew a girl named Laws, who was formerly employed there. He had no idea when Lady D'Oyley went away. In September last he from time to time visited the house in company with the girl Laws, and in that month and the following month he occasionally stayed in the house with the girl, with the knowledge of Mrs. Dalton. During his visits to the house he became acquainted with the fact that there was a large wardrobe in one of the rooms, and it had two small centre cupboards, both of which contained valuable jewellery.

The Clerk, addressing the prisoner, said the questions he was about to put to him would probably incriminate him if he answered; so he asked him if he was prepared to speak the truth about the matter.

Mr. De Wet said he was there on behalf of the poor boy, and everything, whether it incriminated him or not, he intended to answer, to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Trice then, in reply to the Clerk's questions, said the two centre cupboards were locked, and he unlocked them with a key which he found upstairs about five or six weeks ago. At that time Mrs. Dalton was not in the house, but was away on holiday. She had given permission to Laws that he should remain in the house during the time she was away. She wired to Laws to that effect. When he opened the cupboard he found certain articles of jewellery, and amongst them was a diamond crescent bracelet. He took the bracelet and other articles out of the cupboard, and amongst the other articles was a single stone diamond ring. He took them away from the house. He had been in the habit of visiting the Rendezvous Hotel, kept by the prisoner. He had been formerly employed there by the prisoner as barman and potman, and had remained on friendly terms with him and so was well acquainted with him. He took the bracelet to the Rendezvous Hotel and showed it to the prisoner. After having shown the bracelet to the prisoner he did not take it back to the house. He kept the bracelet in his possession a day or two. He took all the articles of jewellery back after a day or two, but during the first time he took all of them in a handkerchief to London, intending to dispose of them, but at the instigation of the girl Laws he brought them back to Folkestone and replaced them in the cupboard. She was in London with him and knew he had them. Having replaced them all, with the exception of two rings, which he wore, he did not go to the cupboard again in order to take some of the articles again until a fortnight or three weeks after. The crescent diamond bracelet was amongst them. It was then he took it to the Rendezvous Hotel and showed it to the prisoner. Ensink asked him where he got it from, and he thought he said “I never bought it”. Prisoner said “It is worth a lot of money”, and nothing else was said that day, when he went to London with the bracelet. Three or four days after, he went to the Rendezvous Hotel again.

The Clerk: Who introduced the subject of the bracelet on this occasion?

Prisoner, continuing, said Ensink asked him where the bracelet was. He said “I will get it”. Ensink then said “I am going to Holland and will dispose of it for you if you like”. There was no mistake about the prisoner saying that. The bracelet was then at Greenbank, and he went to the house again and took the bracelet, which was in the case (produced). He then brought the bracelet and the case to the Rendezvous Hotel, and handed the bracelet to the prisoner, who asked him how much he wanted for it, and he said “£100”. That was at the time he gave him the bracelet. It must be a month ago since he handed the bracelet to the prisoner, and it was on either a Saturday or a Monday in the evening when he did so in the saloon bar of the house. No-one saw him give it to the prisoner. On the Thursday morning following, so far as he remembered, he was in the Rendezvous Hotel about half past eleven in the morning, when the prisoner's wife handed him a foreign registered letter, with the Amsterdam postmark, addressed to him at the Rendezvous. Albert Cottrell, a friend of his, was with him and he opened the envelope in his presence. It contained £90 in £5 Bank of England notes, and a letter, which he read and handed to Cottrell, who also read it, and he destroyed it by throwing it on the fire, where it was burnt. He (Trice) also threw the envelope on the fire and kept the notes. The envelope and the letter were in the prisoner's handwriting. The letter was addressed from some hotel in Amsterdam, and it said that £90 was all he could get for the bracelet, and that he had not deducted his expenses. The prisoner had been away from the hotel four or five days. He next saw Ensink a day or two after, at his hotel, and he asked him if he had received his letter. He made no reference to the banknotes. He (witness) answered “Yes”. He said to the prisoner “I suppose you want some ready (meaning money)”. He said “No, that is all right”. He thought that was all that took place. Prisoner told witness either then or before he took the bracelet that he had relatives in Holland, who were diamond polishers. Ensink did not say where he took the bracelet, and made no actual reference as to where he sold it. He continued to frequent the prisoner's house afterwards, and on one occasion Ensink told him he was making a fool of himself with the money, but made no reference to the bracelet.

The Clerk: What became of the £90?

Prisoner said he got rid of it, and he made up his mind to leave the country. He left Folkestone a fortnight ago that day, and went to Manchester, where he remained until his arrest. He had about £30 with him. Before leaving Folkestone, the night previous, he told the prisoner he was going to Manchester. No reference was then made to the bracelet.

The Clerk: You referred to the fact that you had two diamond rings, which you retained in the first instance and wore. I want to take you to them. What became of them?

Trice said he put one back and the other was pawned. They were both single diamond rings, and he kept the best one. He pawned it in London, previous to the bracelet affair, for £35. He took the pawn ticket with him to Manchester, and on Tuesday last he wrote to the prisoner to the effect, asking him if he would lend him £5 on the ticket, which he enclosed. He addressed the envelope to the prisoner at the Rendezvous Hotel.

The Clerk (to prisoner): Have you got that letter?

Prisoner: I never received it.

Continuing, Trice said he wrote the letter in the name of Ted Davis, from the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. He asked him to wire the money. On the following day he received a telegram from the prisoner remitting £2.

Mr. De Wet (to Trice): With the exception of the ring you sold for £35, or pawned, and this bracelet you sold for £90, was there any other jewellery you took away from Greenbank, after taking it back again?

Prisoner: None at all; all the rest of the jewellery I returned to Greenbank. Two of the rings I have never seen.

Albert Edward Cottrell, of 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton, said he was a tobacconist and confectioner. He was a customer at the Rendezvous Hotel, and a friend of Trice. He was in the saloon bar one morning with Trice, when the landlady handed Trice a letter between eleven and half past eleven. Trice opened it, and he saw him take out a bunch of something which looked like bank notes, and immediately put it in his pocket. At the same time he stood aside and read the letter, which he handed to him. He read the letter, and, as he remembered, the contents were “Enclosed find £90”. He saw no signature whatever. He could not swear as to the writing. He did not see any address on it. He would not say that there was no heading. Trice said “I want that letter back”, and he gave it back to him. He (witness) did not burn it. He never saw it anymore. At that time Trice owed him between £5 and £6 for an old-standing debt for money lent. Trice, about an hour afterwards, took a £5 Bank of England note from his pocket and gave him the note, and he (witness) took out £2 10s. from his pocket, and gave it to Trice, who said he wished to pay £2 10s. on account. Ensink was away on a holiday at that time. Prisoner had said in his presence before leaving that he was going to the Continent.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, said about 10.20 that morning the prisoner came to the Town Hall in consequence of a message he (witness) sent over. He said to him “I am making inquiries and trying to trace a quantity of jewellery stolen from a house in Sandgate Road during the last month. A man named Trice is in custody charged with stealing it, and in consequence of a statement he has made I must caution you that anything you say I shall use in evidence if a criminal charge is preferred against you respecting it”. He then said “Have you in your possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or do you know anything about any other jewellery Trice has disposed of?” He said “No, sir”. He (witness) said “I shall arrest you and you shall be charged with receiving on or about the 20th October from Edward Trice, the diamond bracelet, well knowing the same to have been stolen”. He replied “I do not know anything about it”. He was then searched and locked up.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could take the case that morning. There would be other witnesses to be called, and further inquiries to be made. He would like a week's remand in that case.

The Chairman then informed the prisoner that he would be remanded to that day week at eleven o'clock.

Prisoner asked for bail.

The Chief Constable said he felt, owing to the complications in the case, and the fact that none of the property had been recovered, he must object to bail being granted, particularly as to Ensink.

The Chairman said bail would be refused.

Mr De Wet said in the other case he had an application to make for bail for Trice, although he admitted it was on somewhat slight grounds. They had seen the young man in the box, and he had given every possible information, and he thought it would be admitted by the police to assist them in the recovery of the property. Up to the time of that sudden temptation he had enjoyed appointments and always acquitted himself creditably. He had two sureties there who would stand bail for him. One was his stepfather, who was employed as a postman in Folkestone, and was highly respectable. He would be able, if allowed out on bail, to take the police to the place where the ring was pawned, and would give them every possible information. The lad wanted to make a clean breast of it, and whatever the consequences might be he was prepared to stand by them. He asked the Bench for the sake of his mother and stepfather to grant the application.

The Chief Constable said he agreed with Mr. De Wet to a certain extent, and also to the effect that the prisoner had expressed his willingness to assist them to recover all the property he had stolen. He was sorry for the prisoner's stepfather and the mother, but that was a serious charge. Lady D'Oyley only came down there on Wednesday, and they had a tremendous lot of work to do in getting up the case up to now. A great deal remained to be done. He did not think, having regard to all the circumstances, and the fact that he believed there were others implicated in that matter, that it was in the interests of Trice himself that he should be liberated at the present time.

The Chairman said bail would be refused.

Mr. De Wet said that decision, he took it, would not affect a similar application at the next hearing.

The Chief Constable: Circumstances would alter cases.

Mr. De Wet said he did not quite think bail would be granted on that application. He quite appreciated that other witnesses might be able to get at Trice if he was allowed out.

The Chief Constable: That is just what I feel.

The Chairman said it was in the interests of the boy himself that they refused bail.

At the request of the Chief Constable the witnesses Cottrell and Golder were bound over in the sum of £10 to attend the Court at the remand hearing.

Folkestone Express 2 December 1911.

Local News.

There was an enormous crowd at the Police Court on Saturday, and hundreds of those who desired to force their way in were unable to do so. The occasion was the adjourned hearing of the charge against Edwin George Trice, of stealing jewellery of the value of £750, belonging to Lady D'Oyly, and against Gerard Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, of receiving a diamond bracelet, well knowing it to have been stolen.

The Magistrates were The Mayor, Aldermen Vaughan, Spurgen and Jenner, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and G.I. Swoffer, R.G. Wood, and G. Boyd Esqs.

The Chief Constable said the two prisoners, Edwin George Trice and Gerard Ensink, were before the Court a week ago that day. Trice was charged, they would remember, with stealing a quantity of jewels from a dwelling house, and the prisoner Ensink was charged with receiving a diamond bracelet well knowing it to have been stolen. He had a slight alteration to make in the charge against Trice. Lady D'Oyly, since the remand, had found that she had overlooked two or three of the articles in the charge, and therefore he had struck them out. But he had added one other article which was missing. So the charge against Trice at the present time was stealing one diamond crescent bracelet, one gent's single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, one gent's gold ring set with three diamonds, and one lady's gold ring set with five diamonds, of the total value of £650, the property of Lady Hastings D'Oyly. And the bracelet that Ensink was charged with receiving was, he first understood, of the value of £200. But he had now ascertained from Lady D'Oyly that it was worth £350.

Mr. De Wet said he appeared for the prisoner Trice. He might say, and perhaps it was only fair to the other prisoner, that he did not know how the report got into the press that he was appearing for Mr. Myers. He was not. Mr. Myers, of course, represented Ensink and their interests were entirely opposite to each. Trice pleaded Guilty to certain of the articles, and not guilty to the others.

Mr. Myers, who appeared for Ensink, said he should like to make an application that no sketching or snapshotting should be allowed in Court. There was a representative of the Daily Mirror in court who had been annoying his client's wife. He had even called at the hotel.

The Clerk said he did not think the Bench could go in to what had transpired out of court. Was the gentleman in the court now?

Mr. Myers: Yes, he is – in order to snapshot my client.

The Clerk said the Magistrates could deal with that at their discretion.

Alderman Vaughan said it certainly ought not to be allowed.

The Mayor: We do not allow it.

Mr. Myers said he had another application, that all witnesses be ordered out of Court in the interest of his client.

Detective Johnson's evidence was first read over.

Trice was then put into the box, and his evidence was read over.

The Clerk said he proposed to cut out from the depositions the contents of the letter received by Ensink from the prisoner (Trice) in the name of Ted Davis at Manchester.

Mr. De Wet said he had spent a whole day at Canterbury with the prisoner and got a long statement from him. He had no wish to conceal that statement from the police, who he was prepared to let have a copy. If therefore they wished to examine Trice on that statement they could do so, or if they preferred that he should examine him on that he was quite prepared to do so.

The other evidence given against Ensink was also read over.

Lady Hastings D'Oyly was the first witness called, and was allowed a seat. She said she was the wife of Sir Warren Hastings D'Oyly, Bart., and wasd the owner of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens. She also was the rated occupier of the house. She left Greenbank on September 1st for a fortnight's change, and left the cook, of the name of Mrs. Dalton, in charge of the house. She had been in her service for eight months. She left her in sole charge. At the time she left she had in two small cupboards in a wardrobe a quantity of valuable jewellery. The cupboards were locked, one key doing for both. She came down to Greenbank on November 15th, and at once went to the wardrobe and unlocked the cupboard. She found some of the jewellery she had left there in the cupboard, but missed certain other articles. She found the case (produced) empty, exactly in the place where she left it. It had contained a diamond crescent bracelet, which was missing. The market value of it was £350. She also missed a single stone diamond ring valued at £200, another ring, set with three diamonds, valued £40, another, inset with five diamonds, valued £40, and a mohair bracelet valued at £15. Those articles were safe in the cupboards when she left in September. She saw them just before leaving the house. She at once gave information to the police. On Monday she went to Messrs. Hawes and Son's shop, Cranbourne Street, and was there shown the single stone diamond ring.

Mr. T.C. Pearch, Superintendent of the Folkestone General Post Office, produced two receipts for registered postal packets bearing the Folkestone official stamp, October 26th, 1911, Nos. respectively 109 and 110. The office of posting was stated to be Amsterdam in both cases. The address on the one was Mrs. Ensont, Rendezvous Hotel, and on the other Mr. F. Trice, Rendezvous Hotel, and they each bore the signature of the receiver, T. Golder. (Ensont was apparently a mistake for Ensink)

Mr. Peach, continuing his evidence, said he produced an application handed in at the Post Office for a telegraphic money order on November 14th. It was numbered 2384. It was for the despatch by telegram of the sum of £2, payable at Manchester to Ned Edward Davies. The signature on it was that of the applicant. It was sent by “Louis Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel”, and payable to the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. The course of procedure would be, a telegram would be despatched to the hotel and in the ordinary course of business a telegram was despatched to the Swan Hotel, the original of which he produced, which was as follows:- To Manchester. 2384. Louis Ensink. £2 (Two Pounds). Edward Davies, Swan Hotel, Fountain Street. He also produced the official receipt for the £2, signed Edward Davies.

Mr. Arthur Woodthorpe, manager to Messrs, Hawes and Son, 7, Cranbourne Street, Leicester Square, said he produced a single stone diamond ring. He received in pledge personally on Oct. 18th, 1911, from a person giving the name of Charles Hanson, 30, Newport Street, and he advanced the sum of £35. He thought he knew the man who he had seen as a customer previously.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet, witness said he did not know whether the man had a dog with him. Newport Street was close to his shop, and was a locality frequented by artists and theatricals. The value of the ring was about £60. It was nothing like worth £200. It would not raise anything like £100 at a public auction. The stone was full of flaws. He lent the money at once.

Mr. De Wet: Did you ask him any questions? Was he not in your shop twenty minutes?

Witness: I could not say. He further said they always made inquiries before they lent money. The man was a foreigner, and the neighbourhood was principally composed of foreigners.

Lady D'Oyly said the ring (produced) by the previous witness was her property.

Mr. De Wet then put several unimportant questions to Lady D'Oyly as to where certain articles were placed.

Agnes Dalton, the wife of George Thomas Dalton, a gunner in the R.F.A., stationed at Colchester, said she entered the service of Lady D'Oyly as cook on 17th December last year. She remained in her service until the previous day. A girl named Minnie Laws was in service there as parlourmaid. She remained one month, from July 20th to August 20th. Lady D'Oyly and the other members of the family left the house either on Sept. 2nd or 3rd, leaving her in sole charge of the house. She went on a visit to Colchester on October 2nd. She stayed there three weeks and one day, returning to Greenbank on October 24th. She was acquainted at that period with Trice, with whom she became acquainted on or about September 20th, since which time he had been a visitor to Greenbanks heaps of times, with Minnie Laws, who was in the house before her ladyship left, unknown to Lady D'Oyly. Laws was a friend of hers and one day after she left Lady D'oyly's service, she allowed Laws to sleep in the house. Laws stayed with her right up to the time she (witness) went to Colchester for her holiday. Off and on other people slept in the house. Trice slept there frequently. She knew him to be a friend of Laws, and, she thought, was courting Laws at the latter part of the time. (Laughter). The application (produced) for the telegraphic money order for 8s., at Colchester, bore her signature, A. Dalton, and it also contained a message: Get key Kirby. Sleep at Greenbank. Careful of lights. Make no sound”. She despatched that to Trice, 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton. The prisoner was looking after his friend's (Cottrell) business at that address. She returned to Greenbank on October 24th, and Laws and Trice came to the house the same night and slept there. Trice went away the next morning, and after that day he slept twice more in the house. Laws remained in the house for a fortnight. Trice told her he was going to Manchester, and then to America. She never saw anything of the jewellery until after her ladyship returned, and knew nothing about it. She did not know Ensink to speak to. From the time Lady D'Oyly left Greenbank she had been in the Rendezvous Hotel with Laws to see if Trice was there several times. They met him there sometimes.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet, witness said five men were in the habit of making the house a place of call. She did not know who informed Trice that there was jewellery in the house. She had told him that all the silver had gone to the bank. She remembered one night in the scullery telling Laws to take her ladyship's bracelet and pawn it. She only said it in fun. She also remembered her refusing to do so because they would ask her questions. After that Minnie Laws went up into the dining room, where there was a girl named Flossie, “Chummy” Austin, and Trice, but she was not there when Laws went up into the room. She remembered two days after at dinner in the dining room, when the same people were present and another man also, but she could not remember saying that there were some hundreds of pounds worth of jewellery in the wardrobe. She could not say whether she said it or not. In the box in the bathroom she knew there were four bracelets, because she packed them herself. In a box there were a gold coin (she thought Japanese) bracelet, two chain bracelets, and one very old fashioned bracelet.

At this stage the witness left the box in a greatly agitated state, saying she would not answer the question.

Witness said it was perfectly true that at that time, when her ladyship went away, there was a gold coin bracelet. The prisoner Trice went away on November 14th, but he did not sleep there the previous night. On that evening a man named Alec Copeland came up to Greenbank, and in consequence of what he said she, Laws, and Copeland went up into the bathroom and examined the jewellery in the box. At that time it was intact. From the moment she saw Trice at Shorncliffe Station in the train for Manchester he had not been to the house again. Alec Copeland, Gus Chilvers, and Bert Cottrell got out of the carriage in which Trice was. After the train had gone they went and had a drink, and the whole lot of them then returned to Greenbank. After lunch Copeland left, and the others left at five o'clock. Another man, whose name began with a “J”, came in in the afternoon, and Chilvers and Cottrell came in again at half past eleven, and the three men stopped the night. On November 11th Laws got another situation, and on the 14th she went to see her and told her a bracelet was missing. Laws said “Well, there is only Gus or Albert who could take it”.

At this stage the Court was adjourned for lunch.

After the adjournment Minnie Laws was called. She said she lived with her parents in Folkestone. She was in the service of Lady D'Oyly at Greenbank during the month of July. She had known Mrs. Dalton about four years. She had known Trice practically all her life, as she went to school with him. She left Lady D'Oyly's service on the 20th Aug., and on the following day returned to the house, knowing Mrs. Dalton. With Mrs. Dalton's consent she slept there until she went to Colchester. Trice used to visit her at the house from the time Lady D'Oyly went away, and he frequently slept there. After Mrs. Dalton went to Colchester, on the same day she was at 4, Camden Terrace with Trice, when a telegram was handed to him in her presence. She read it, but could not swear to the words. In consequence of that wire she and Trice took charge of Greenbank until Mrs. Dalton returned about three weeks after. They slept there every night, with one exception. The morning after Mrs. Dalton went away, she was in Lady D'Oyly's bedroom and she noticed the two cupboards in the wardrobe were open. Trice was in the room at the time. He had some jewellery on the bed. She said to him “Teddy, what are you doing?” He said “I am taking this jewellery, and I am going to London with it to sell it”. She said “Don't do it”. He did not take her advice. She then left the room. He later said “If you will not go to London, I will send you £10 if you do not say anything about it”. He and she went to London by the five o'clock train that day and stayed there until the following evening. They returned to Folkestone and went to Greenbank. In London she saw Trice with two diamond rings, and she said to him “You must either go back to Greenbank, Teddy, or I must give you in charge, as I cannot stand it”. The next morning, after they returned, she asked him again to put the jewellery back, and she went to the cupboard with him and saw him do so. She thought in addition to the rings there was a diamond bracelet in a blue velvet case, the twisted chain brooch and other articles, which she could not describe. After Mrs. Dalton's return she continued to stay at Greenbank until two days before Lady D'Oyly's return. She did not say anything to Mrs. Dalton about Trice and the jewellery. On November 4th, she saw Trice off by train to Manchester, and he said he was going to America.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet, witness said she told Trice in the bedroom that wherever he went she would follow him and give him in charge. In the railway carriage in which they went to London, Cottrell and Sam asked her if she knew anything about the jewellery, and she said she knew about it. It was on a Sunday afternoon in the Rendezvous when she introduced Trice to Mrs. Dalton. There were two others with Trice, and they all came back to Greenbank on Mrs. Dalton's invitation. One of the other men was named “Chummy”. He remained there that night, and for fourteen days afterwards, then going back to the Camp. On that evening nothing was said about jewellery. A few days after, she was in the scullery with Mrs. Dalton, who asked her if she would go to the pawnshop and pawn one of her ladyship's bracelets. She said if she did so, they would ask her questions and refuse. She then went into the dining room and told Flossie, Chummy Austin and Teddy what Mrs. Dalton said, and Mrs. Dalton said she did not think it would matter so long as it was got out and put back. On another occasion Mrs. Dalton told them that there were hundreds of pounds worth of her ladyship's jewellery in the cupboards. There were other persons present besides her and Teddy. Five other men besides Trice had slept at the house, and it was on Mrs. Dalton's invitation. Teddy never told her anything about pawning the ring in London. On November 4th she and Mrs. Dalton went to Shorncliffe to see Teddy off, and Cottrell, Gus and Alec Copeland got out of the carriage and they all returned to Greenbank.

Robert H. Court, watchmaker and jeweller, 72a, High Street, said he had known Trice for some years. About six weeks ago he saw Trice in the Harbour Hotel, and he was wearing two rings. He took one ring off his finger and asked him to value it, and he told him it was worth at least £20. It was a single stone diamond. A few days after, he again met Trice at the Harbour Hotel, and asked him if he was open to do a deal and make a bit for himself. Witness asked him to explain himself, and the prisoner asked him if he could dispose of about a couple of hundred pounds worth of of jewellery, diamond stuff. He also said they were bracelets. Trice then said “I may as well tell you it is not on the square”. He also told witness it would not be found out for another three months and he (witness) then said he would think about it. He had seen Trice since, but he had never mentioned the matter of the jewellery again. He did not think Trice was talking seriously, as he was the worse for liquor at the time.

Trice was then placed in the box. He said he had known Ensink ever since he was employed as a page boy six or seven years ago at the Pavilion Hotel, where Ensink was also employed as lounge waiter. After he (witness) left the hotel he did not keep up the acquaintance, which was renewed when Ensink about four years ago took the Rendezvous. At the end of the season 1908 he entered Ensink's service as barman and remained as such for about eighteen months. They did not part exactly on very friendly terms. He still continued to visit the Rendezvous. He ultimately came out of employment about midsummer this year. From that time he began to use the Rendezvous frequently and went there every day. He was then on excellent terms with Ensink, and he used the billiard room extensively to his (Ensink's) knowledge.

Witness continued that after his return from London with the girl Laws he showed Ensink the bracelet. Previous to that Ensink knew he was out of work. Ensink had seen the girl Laws in the saloon bar of the house with him before he showed him the bracelet. He had also seen Dalton there with him and Laws. He did not remember ever making any reference to Greenbank to Ensink. It was on the 26th Oct. that he received the registered letter containing the banknotes from Ensink. He remembered going to London on two occasions before he received that letter. On Wednesday, the 18th October, he went to London with Chilvers and Ensink. Before leaving he produced the single stone diamond ring, and showed it to them at Folkestone Central. Ensink, who had previously seen the ring, said he would like it. When they got to London they met a man named Bittner, a German waiter, whom he had known in Folkestone. Bittner had been employed at the Metropole Hotel, and Chilvers, Ensink and he went to look for him, as Ensink said he would pawn the ring for them. Previously he (witness) had mentioned that he would like to pawn it. Ensink then said “Fatty” Charlie would pawn it. Ensink was the guide, and took them to the Artists' Club, Little Newport Street. Bittner was not there, and later, on returning, they met Bittner in the street nearby. Ensink spoke to him and walked with Bittner in front of Gus and him. “Fat” Charlie turned round and said to him “Let me look at it”. He showed him the ring, and Charlie said “You are sure it is not a white sapphire?” Ensink stood by and heard the conversation, and he (prisoner) said “I am sure it is not. It is a diamond”. Bittner said “How much do you want on it?” Either Ensink or Chilvers said “Forty pounds”. With that Bittner walked away with the ring, and he followed him. He went to a pawnshop not far off, and he (prisoner) thought it was kept by Hawes. Bittner entered the shop and stayed there about twenty minutes. “Fat” Charlie said he would not go through it again for a fiver. Chilvers, Bittner and he then went to the bar of the Hippodrome and before Ensink's arrival had drink. Bittner offered him £35, less 6s. expenses, for pawning the ring. He said to him as he was handing him the £5 notes “Give me one of those”, but he eventually gave him £2 10s. after Ensink joined them. Bittner handed him the pawn ticket, which was made out in the name of Charles Henson. They left the bar and went to Dunn's hat shop in the Strand, where he bought each of the three others a new hat. Chilvers afterwards left them and Ensink and he came home by the night excursion. On the official receipt (produced) for £2 on a money order, the signature Edward Davies was in his handwriting. The prisoner Ensink was known locally as Louis Ensink.

Mr. Myers then cross-examined the prisoner, who in reply said since he had had the money for the bracelet and the ring he had thrown money about. At Ascot on the Cup day he borrowed money from Ensink. He had never given Ensink to understand he had money. He had never told Ensink he was engaged to a lady with money. He had been betting a little lately and had occasionally won money, but he had never told Ensink he had. During the last three months he told Ensink he had won money by backing “Long Set”. All the customers at the hotel were more or less gamblers. He had not spent money freely at the Rendezvous, for sometimes he was broken, and he added “I could not then get a drink”. He never remembered saying that he was engaged to a young lady with money, but one never knew what they said when they felf half-past-eleven. (Laughter)

Cross-examined by Mr, De Wet, Trice said he borrowed £3 5s. from Ensink at Ascot. He paid him £1 back afterwards, and later Ensink took £3 out of the money he received for the ring. Of the £35 and the £90 a little gang kept drawing on him by threatening him if he would not give them anything. He had even been asked by one of the gang for a list of the jewels to be sent to Manchester to be disposed of. It was at Ensink's suggestion that he should go to London to pawn the ring. Ensink said at eleven o'clock outside the Rendezvous he knew a man who would buy the ring, and suggested that they should go to London by the 1.55 train on the following morning. It was arranged that they should do so. Cottrell and Chilvers were also present. He was prevented from getting the other jewellery by Laws. On the day they went to London (October 18th), after they had been to Dunn's, Ensink, Chilvers and himself went into an inn in the Strand. He there gave £25 to Chilvers in Ensink's presence, and Ensink told him to take it to the Rendezvous and leave it with Mrs, Ensink. On the following morning he was given the notes by Ensink at the hotel. He remembered being in Mr. Brett's shop one day when Ensink told him he had better get away, as the boys were kicking up a row, as they wanted more money.

William Lawrence Chilvers, an hotel employee, living at Cheriton, said he had known Trice about twelve months. He accompanied Ensink and Trice in October by an excursion train to London and was present when Trice had an interview with a man named Charlie. They had a friendly meeting. Before meeting him they had not been to try and find another man anywhere. He saw Trice with a single stone diamond ring on his finger. They went into two or three public houses and also into the Hippodrome bar. Ensink, Trice, Charlie and himself were present. He did not see Charlie hand anything to Trice. They were all drinking together. He did not see anything pass between them. Trice handed him a letter in the Strand, but he could not say what it contained. He was asked to bring it to the Rendezvous.

The Clerk, after a consultation with the Magistrates, told him he would be treated as a hostile witness, and cautioned him as to his answers.

Witness, however, adhered to his statement.

In answer to Mr. De Wet, he said he did not have £1 from trice in London. He remembered playing billiards with Ensink in a public house in London. The only money he had received from Trice was £1. Trice asked him to leave the letter on the shelf behind the cash register in the Rendezvous Hotel.

Elizabeth Whittaker, the wife of James Whittaker, living at 35, Charles Street, Broughton, Salford, said she was temporarily engaged as a waitress at the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester, which was kept by her sister-in-law, Mrs. Parker. About November 5th she was introduced to Trice in the Swan Hotel. Trice a week last Monday told her there might be a wire for him and asked her to put it on one side. On the following day a telegram did arrive, addressed in the name of Edward Davies. Trice subsequently called and received it.

Edward Tattersall, living at 61, Darley Street, Salford, said he was a bookmaker's clerk. On Tuesday, 16th November, he was in the bar of the Swan Hotel, Manchester. About 10.20 a.m. Ensink came into the bar and asked Mrs. Parker if anyone named Teddy was staying there. Mrs. Parker said “No”, but shortly afterwards said “Oh, yes; it would be a friend of my brother's”. Ensink asked Mrs. Parker where he could find him, and she directed him to her brother's house, Mahlan street, Broughton. He (witness) volunteered to put him n his way, and proceeded with him in a taxi cab which Ensink engaged and went to Tully Street. On arriving at 27, Tully Street they both went inside, where they saw Mrs. Whittaker. Ensink asked her if anyone named “Teddy” lived there, and she ultimately replied “No; you are too late; they have got him”. She said to him “Are you a detective?”, and he replied “No; I am a friend of his”. Ensink then accompanied her into the kitchen. Later her returned and gave him 2s. for his trouble and he (witness) left him.

Emma Whittaker, the wife of Isaac Whittaker, said she resided at 27, Tully Street, Broughton. She recognised Trice, who came to her house on November 4th, being brought by her son, John, who had known him in Folkestone. Her son was about to leave for America. Trice said he was also going there. He had his food at her house until November 15th, the night of his arrest. On the following morning, between ten and eleven o'clock, Ensink called at her house and said “Is Edwin Trice in?” She replied “No; you are too late. They took him last night. Are you a detective?” He replied “No, I am not a detective, but a friend”. She called her son, who had a conversation with the prisoner. Ensink seemed excited.

The Chief Constable said that completed the case for the prosecution and if the Magistrates were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out he would ask them to commit both prisoners for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

The Chairman said they were agreed that a prima facie case was made out.

Ensink, in reply to the charge, said he was Not Guilty, and reserved his defence.

Mr. De Wet said Trice had already made his statement, and on the previous occasion was warned by the Clerk as to the probable consequences of such a statement. As he told them on that occasion he told them now, Trice pleaded Guilty to the theft of the diamond bracelet and also of the ring that had been pawned, and produced in that Court. He submitted to the Magistrates that as regarded the other articles of jewellery there was not one tittle of evidence to disclose before the Magistrates a prima facie case on which he should be committed for trial. Trice was perfectly willing to give every possible assistance to the police.

Trice said he pleaded Guilty to stealing the crescent bracelet and the ring but Not Guilty in respect of the other articles.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had decided that each of the prisoners should be committed on the whole charge.

Mr. De Wet then applied for bail and referred to the fact that Trice had given every assistance.

The Mayor said the Magistrates were unanimously of the opinion that it was in the best interests of Trice himself that bail should be refused.

Mr. Myers said he had to make an application for bail for Ensink. He had two sureties present, one a gentleman of independent means, and another, a tradesman in the town.

The Chief Constable said he most strongly objected to bail being granted.

The Mayor said in Ensink's case they were unanimously of opinion that bail must be refused.

Folkestone Express 6 January 1912.

Local News.

At the Petty Sessions on Friday application was made for temporary authority to sell at the Rendezvous Hotel by James Algernon Hobson, who asked for the temporary transfer of the licence from Gerard John Ensink. The Magistrates present were J. Stainer, G. Boyd, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Major Leggett. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Myers, on behalf of Ensink, assented to the transfer.

Mr. Mowll, at some length, detailed the circumstances under which the application was made. It was, he said, made under Section 23 of the Consolidation Act of 1910, and Mr. Hobson was now the tenant and occupier of the premises. The present licensee, a Mr. Ensink, was not on the premises himself, being, as the Bench would understand, at Canterbury, awaiting his trial. But he had assented to the application, as he (Mr. Mowll) was prepared to prove to them. He would like to say at once, and he thought the Bench would agree with him, that it would be unfair of him to in any way reflect upon the present licensee. He was awaiting his trial, and obviously he might say something to the Bench which might tend to prejudice him in having a fair hearing at the ensuing Quarter Sessions. But it must be apparent to the Bench that through his unfortunate position at Canterbury that he was unable to exercise that control and supervision over the premises at Folkestone which really tended to the proper conduct of a licensed house. Consequently, Messrs. Flint and Co. had taken steps to obtain a new tenant, Mr. Hobson, in order really that there should be no question as to the complete supervision, good conduct, and management of the house. He might just there explain who Mr. Hobson was, and he might say at once that they would find from the Superintendent of Police that there was no possible objection to the personal good character or suitability for holding a licence, of Mr. Hobson. He kept, for six years, the Bellevue Hotel in Folkestone, as the licensee, and afterwards he made probably the only mistake of his life when he left Folkestone and went over for a short period to Dover, where he maintained his good character, and was the licensee of the Cricketers' Hotel, immediately outside of the cricket ground. He held that licence for four years, and came out of it within the last few months. Mr. Hobson was a man of irreproachable character. He had held a licence for a number of years, and, moreover, he was a man acquainted with and having had some experience in the catering side of the business, having acquired a knowledge of all that was so necessary to make a licensed victualler what he really was intended to be in the first instance, and not merely a seller of intoxicating liquors, but everything for the refreshment of man. He felt confident there could be no possible objection to Mr. Hobson on personal grounds. The application was made, as he had said, at a time when the licensee was awaiting his trial, and therefore he desired to say nothing that would prejudice him, but he would like to point out to the Bench, if the licensee were to be convicted, the law had provided for such a contingency, and now gave the owners power in case of a man's conviction for a first offence of felony, to come forward and apply for a protection order. But that, of course, was not the case there. The man had not been convicted, but he mentioned it just to show the tendency of the legislation was not to prejudice the carrying on of a licensed business in consequence of any irregularity on the part of the licensee, but rather to give the owner of the premises an opportunity of obtaining the assistance of the Court to enable the business to be carried on. He thought he had said sufficient to satisfy them as to the motives of making this application, which was really for the good conduct and management, and the proper carrying on of the business, and he would not say any more if it were not for the fact that he understood privately from the Chief Constable that it was his intention to offer objection to this application, not on personal grounds against Mr. Hobson, but because he was not satisfied with the man who up to the present was the licensee. He could only say one word upon that. It was obviously impossible for him to deal with the state of affairs which existed, but he desired to put before them what seemed to him to be, if he might say so, the commonsense way of looking at it. If there was any question of misconduct on the premises, the proper time to inquire into it would be at the annual licensing meeting, when the notice could be given, and the whole matter thoroughly thrashed out. That was only an interim hearing, and it was only another month before the licensing meeting would be brought on. But the present licence, as they knew, went on until the 6th of April. It did not seem to him that in the good interests of the public that is was important to get the very best character of man to hold the licence immediately, and not in any way to prejudice the good order of the town. He did not know whether he could dispose of the Chief Constable, but he would make a suggestion to the Bench that the Chief Constable could now say “While there are questions about the conduct of the house which I should like to bring before the Bench, and having brought them in a general way now, it would be best that the present application should be granted without prejudice to the rights of the Chief Constable to lay the whole matter before the Bench at the annual licensing meeting”. He only suggested that as a proper course, and he had another reason for making the suggestion, inasmuch as the Bench at the annual licensing sessions would be a full one, whereas that day they were only sitting as the Petty Sessions. If there was anything further which the Bench would like to know with regard to the arrangements as to between the brewers and Mr. Hobson, he would be only too pleased for them to make the fullest possible inquiry regarding the actual tenancy agreement which had been filed. They did not require it, but he was quite willing to show it to them to show them that Mr. Hobson would have a substantial interest in the premises, and was, in fact, a man of substance himself.

The Clerk said it was a point that the applicant should be shown to have a real and substantial interest in the house.

The Chairman said they should ask Mr. Mowll to furnish them with the agreement.

Mr. Mowll produced and read it. It set forth that the applicant had paid £200 and given a promissory note for a further £100, payable at the end of twelve months, and he was to be responsible to the owners for the proper use of the furniture in the hotel, which would remain the property of the owners.

Mr. Mowll also said there was a signed consent by Ensink to the transfer of the licence.

Mr. Myers, who represented Ensink, said the agreement could be put in.

After a few further observations, the Chief Constable said if Mr Mowll would allow him, he would like to say that he had no objection to offer to Mr. Hobson as a tenant, but he strongly objected to the transfer being granted that morning.

The Clerk: Now, that comes to grips. That was an application to the Court as a court summary jurisdiction – under Section 23 of the Act which gave power to give protection – not a transfer – until the next transfer day or the general annual licensing meeting. It was in the discretion of the Magistrates to say whether they would grant the protection asked for. He quoted the words of the section, and added of course they would hear what the Chief Constable had to say.

Mr. Evelyn Phillips was then called by Mr. Mowll, who said he served the requisite notices on the Superintendent of Police on the 21st inst. He had also seen the licensee, Mr. Ensink, in Canterbury Gaol on the 23rd December, and handed him a copy of the notice of intended application, and produced a statement signed by him.

This was then put in.

Mr. Hobson gave evidence as to the terms on which he was about to take over the premises, and as to his experience.

In reply to the Chief Constable, he said he was quite willing to take over the licence, whether it was proposed to be opposed at the annual licensing meeting or not.

Mr. Mowll said the applicant quite understood the risk.

The Magistrates having retired to consider their decision, on their return into Court the Chairman said they granted the application temporarily. It was without prejudice to anything that might transpire at the annual licensing sessions or the transfer sessions.

The original licence having been mislaid, it was agreed that a duplicate should be issued to the applicant.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 20 January 1912.

Local News.

The Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning, when the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel again came before the Bench. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared in the case of the Rendezvous Hotel, and he applied for the transfer of that licence. Temporary permission had already been granted. He proposed to formally prove the notices, and he called Edwin Phillips, who said he served a copy of the notice on the Superintendent, the Justices' Clerk, and Mr. Vaughan, one of the Overseers, on the 2nd January.

Mr. Mowll said in regard to that case he did not know how far it was necessary for him to really argue the matter before them that morning. He had the pleasure of arguing it before the Petty Sessions on the 29th December, and he then explained the application was really one to enable the licensed business of the Rendezvous to be carried on under the best possible conditions, and in a manner in respect of which the respectability of the applicant could not possibly be questioned. And that argument very much appealed to their brethren sitting in Petty Sessions and they then granted the application for a temporary transfer in favour of Mr. Hobson without prejudice to the future. There was a point about it, which was that the then licensee, Mr. Ensink, was compulsorily away from the premises, and it was felt on one hand that being away he could not exercise the supervision which it was desirable every licensed house should have from the licensee; and at the same time it was hardly fair to go into other matters which might possibly prejudice that man on his trial at Quarter Sessions. It seemed better to deal with the matter in such a way that the licence should be transferred into the name of Mr. Hobson, a very experienced licensed victualler, about whom personally there was no possible question, and leave any question of other matters to be more suitably considered at the annual licensing meeting. On that occasion the Chairman of the Bench put it to Mr. Hobson whether he quite understood the risk there might be at the annual licensing meeting, and he said he did and was willing to take the licence under those conditions. That really seemed to be the position that day. And subject to what the Superintendent might say – he thought he had the right to reply – he proposed to formally ask them to ratify that arrangement, so that the licence might be in Mr. Hobson's name without the question as to the renewal.

The Chief Constable said in the first place he offered no objection to Mr. Hobson as the incoming tenant of the house, as his character was in every way satisfactory. He had given the matter most careful consideration, and of course he was very anxious not to do or say anything likely to prejudice Ensink at the trial at Quarter Sessions. Therefore he proposed that morning not to object to the transfer, but reserved himself the right of opposing the renewal at the annual licensing meeting.

The Chairman, addressing Hobson, asked him whether he clearly understood – it was put to him the last time – that if they granted the transfer now it was without any question affecting what might take place at the annual licensing sessions.

Mr. Hobson replied in the affirmative.

The Chairman said under those terms it would be granted.

Folkestone Express 10 February 1912.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The annual Brewster Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning. The licensing Justices were E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd Esqs., Major Leggett, Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton, and Alderman Jenner.

The Chief Constable reported as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 121 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.: Full licences 74, Beer “on” 7, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 14, Grocers, etc., “off” 10, Confectioners Wine “on” 3, Chemists Wine “off” 7. This gives an average, according to the Census of 1911, of one licence to every 276 persons, or one “on” licence to every 413 persons. This is a decrease of two “on” licences as compared with the return submitted last year.

At the last adjourned general annual licensing meeting, the renewal of three “on” licences was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the meeting of the Compensation Committee held at Canterbury on 19th July, one licence, viz., the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, was renewed, and the other two, the Duke of York and the Castle Inn, both situate in High Street, Sandgate, were refused. After the payment of compensation, the two latter houses were closed on December 30th last.

Since the last annual licensing meeting, 12 of the licences have been transferred.

Five occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 38 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions.

During the year ended 31st December last 85 persons (54 males and 31 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 66 were convicted and 19 discharged. This is a decrease of 15 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year. Of those proceeded against, 35 were residents of the borough, 27 persons of no fixed abode, 10 soldiers, and 13 residents of other districts.

No conviction has been recorded against any licence holder during the past year. Proceedings were taken in one case for a breach of the closing regulations, but the case was dismissed.

Four clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.

There are 20 places licensed for public music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing.

There is also one house licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of wines and spirits off the premises, for which no Magistrates' certificate is required.

I am pleased to report that the licensed houses generally have been conducted in a satisfactory manner, and beg to point out that this is the second year in which no conviction has been recorded against a licence holder for a breach of the licensing laws.

I beg to give notice of my intention to oppose the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel, on the ground that the premises have been ill-conducted, and respectfully ask that the consideration of the renewal may be deferred until the adjourned meeting.

I have received notice of one application to be made at these sessions for a new licence, viz., one beer “off”.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman said it was very satisfactory to think that there had been no proceedings or convictions against any licence holder during the past two years. He thought the cases of drunkenness were the smallest this century. There was only one regrettable fact – that was the number of females that were charged with drunkenness. Of the 85 persons charged at the police court with drunkenness during the year, 31 were females. It seemed to be rather a pity. Before they heard the Chief Constable's report they had decided in their own minds to instruct him to give notice to the Rendezvous Hotel on the ground of redundancy.

The Chief Constable asked whether the Magistrates to give notice to that effect as well?

The Chairman said the case would be adjourned to the adjourned sessions.

Quarter Sessions.

The long-deferred trial of the two men, Trice and Ensink, the first charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery belonging to Lady D'Oyly, on the 21st October last, and the latter with receiving the same, well-knowing it to have been stolen, came on at the Quarter Sessions before the Recorder on Monday.

The Recorder, in the course of his charge, pointed out the salient features of the jewellery robbery case, which are quite familiar to our readers. He said Lady D'Oyly left her residence in the charge of a servant named Dalton, who appeared to have shamefully abused her trust. But into what transpired in that house during the month of October, it was not necessary for him then, nor would it probably be necessary for him to refer to it. But there was this fact, that Trice had admitted that he had taken a diamond crescent bracelet, valued at £350, and a diamond ring, worth £200. Trice had been for eighteen months in the service of Ensink as potman, and at the time the transactions he referred to took place he knew Trice was out of employment. Nevertheless, they went to London together, and the diamond ring was pawned for £35 at a pawnbroker's in the neighbourhood of Leicester Square, and out of the proceeds Ensink received a new hat. He had knowledge of the bracelet being in the possession of Trice, and told him he was going to Holland and would dispose of it for him. It would be proved that he sold the bracelet in Amsterdam for £180. The person who bought it would be called before them. Ensink appeared to have sent half the money to Trice and kept half for himself. He did not propose to go at length into the evidence before them. It was not within their (the Grand Jury's) province to try the case. All that they had got to do was to see whether a prima facie case existed against the man of receiving that property and disposing of it well-knowing it to have been stolen. He only just wanted to point out to them the evidence of what took place when Ensink was charged with receiving the valuable diamond bracelet. He was sent for by the Chief Constable, who said to him “Have you in your possession or recently had in your possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or do you know anything about any other jewellery that Trice has disposed of?” Ensink said “No, sir”, whereupon the Chief Constable said “I shall arrest you and charge you with receiving a diamond bracelet, well-knowing it to have been stolen”. Ensink replied “I don't know anything about it”. He had taken the trouble to put the salient facts of the case before them so that they would understand what portions of the evidence to direct their minds.

The Grand Jury returned true bills in each case.

Trice was then placed in the dock and formally charged with, on the 18th October, 1911, at Folkestone, feloniously stealing in the dwelling house of Amy Agnes D'Oyly, one crescent diamond bracelet, one gold ring set with diamond, one gold ring set with three diamonds, one gold ring set with five diamonds, and one gold mohair bracelet, the goods and chattels of the said Amy Agnes D'Oyly, and of the value of £645, and pleaded Guilty to stealing the diamond crescent bracelet and the diamond ring.

Mr. Wardley said, on behalf of the Crown, he proposed to accept Trice's plea.

Ensink was then charged separately with stealing and receiving the articles named in the indictment, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. A.W. Wardley prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr. G.H. Rooth (instructed by Mr. De Wet) appeared on behalf of Trice, and Mr. Ernest Wetton (instructed by Mr.H.J. Myers) on behalf of Ensink.

Mr. Rooth, on behalf of Trice, said he thought it be desirable, perhaps, if the Recorder sentenced his client before hearing the evidence against the other prisoner. The invariable practice at the Central Criminal Court and at the London Sessions when such a state of things takes place was to sentence the man, before he gave evidence, for it was considered he would not be under any fear or favour, or imagine he would gain any favour for the evidence he would give in the other case.

The Recorder said it had not occurred to him in that light, and he must say his own opinion was that he should not sentence Trice until he had had all the facts before him in connection with the case against Ensink, for Trice and Ensink were very much mixed up together in that case. It seemed to him under all the circumstances that it would be desirable to postpone sentence until the other case was heard.

Mr. Wardley said it was entirely a matter for the Recorder. The only difficulty he saw was that it would mean repeating the story if Trice was not sentenced first.

The Recorder: I shall not sentence Trice until I have heard all the evidence.

Mr. Rooth thereupon asked if the Recorder would allow him to address him on behalf of his client.

The Recorder: I fail to see what locus standi you have at this stage.

Mr. Wardley then opened briefly, relating the circumstances of the case to the jury.

Lady Agnes D'Oyly, wife of Sir Warren Hastings D'Oyly, said she was the owner of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens. On the 1st September last she left Greenbank, which she left in charge of the cook, Dalton, who had been with her some eight or nine months. She had had a girl named Minnie Laws in her service in June and July as a parlourmaid. She did not know anything about her coming back again. When witness left she had a quantity of jewellery in her bedroom. The case contained the diamond bracelet. When she left on the 1st September the bracelet was in the case in the wardrobe. She also had in the same place a gold ring set with a diamond, another gold ring with three diamonds, one with five diamonds, and two mohair bracelets. When she returned on the 15th November she missed the diamond bracelet, the diamond ring, the ring with three diamonds, and one with five diamonds. She valued the bracelet at £350, single diamond gold ring within £200, and other rings about £35 and £50. She had seen the single diamond ring in London at the pawnbroker's at Leicester Square, and she identified it as her property. The ring produced by Mr. Woodthorpe was her property, and it was in the same case as when in her wardrobe.

Mr. Wetton cross-examined the witness as to the values she set on the various articles of jewellery, and the Recorder pointed out that it did not matter a straw what the value of the jewellery was. Hey wanted to keep the thing in narrow limits. The question of the value was not a question for the jury.

Lady D'Oyly said she was given to understand that the ring had a flaw in it when it was given to her.

Edwin George Trice said he was a lift attendant, and had not been in employment since last June. He had been a barman and page at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, where he first met Ensink, who was a lounge waiter there. His acquaintance with him had ripened after Ensink took the Rendezvous Hotel, which he (witness) used pretty frequently. He was employed about eighteen months by Ensink as barman and billiard marker in September, 1907, till June, 1909. He was then nearly two years at the Harbour Hotel. He kept up the acquaintance with Ensink. He was introduced to Mrs. Dalton by Minnie Laws. After that he visited Greenbank, where Mrs. Dalton was. That was in September. While he was there he learned from conversation of a quantity of jewellery being in the house. It was in the wardrobe in Lady D'Oyly's bedroom. He remembered Mrs. Dalton going away. The next morning he went to the wardrobe and found some jewellery there. Mrs. Dalton left on October 2nd. Witness took all the jewellery out of both cupboards and put it in a handkerchief and took it to London. Laws went with him and they returned the next day. There was then a conversation between witness and Laws about the jewellery, but it was not in consequence of that he put the jewellery back. He put it back of his own accord in the wardrobe, with the exception of two rings. They were two single stone diamond rings. Amongst the things he took on the first occasion was the bracelet referred to. Witness had a conversation with Ensink with reference to the jewellery. He first spoke to him about it after Mrs. Dalton went away. It was a week after his return from London. The conversation was in the Rendezvous Hotel. Chilvers, in witness's presence, had tickets for America, which he wanted to dispose of. Witness had the diamond rings on him, and they were referred to. It was suggested the single stone diamond ring should be pawned in London, and Ensink knew a man in London who would buy it. The next day they went to London by the midday excursion train. Witness, Chilvers and Ensink went together. When they got to London they went to find a man named “Fat Charlie”. At the Folkestone station they spoke about the diamond ring, and Ensink said “Fat Charlie” will pawn it”. “Fat Charlie” was a waiter who had worked at the Metropole. His name was Bittner. Witness had met him at the Rendezvous Hotel. Ensink took them to the Artists' Club at London, and from there they went to the Devonshire Arms, Picadilly. Ensink found “Fat Charlie” in Little Newport Street, and they walked a few paces in front of witness and Chilvers. “Fat Charlie” turned round to witness and said “Show me it”. Witness gave him the ring, and “Fat Charlie” went round the corner, followed by witness. Ensink was close by. “Fat Charlie” went into Hawes, the pawnbrokers. Subsequently he came out and gave witness six £5 notes and £4 10s. The other diamond ring he put back. While in London it was worn by Ensink, who gave it back to witness next day, at the request of witness. Ensink was going to buy it for £5, but there was an engraving on it and witness replaced it. A few days later, at the Rendezvous Hotel, Ensink asked witness where the diamond bracelet was. He said it was at Greenbank. Ensink said he was going to Holland the next day, and would dispose of it. Witness fetched the bracelet and gave it to Ensink, who asked him how much he wanted for it. Witness said “£100”, and Ensink said “All right”. Witness had previously showed Ensink the bracelet. He had not seen the bracelet since handing it to Ensink. He identified the case (produced). On the Thursday following the Monday he received a registered letter containing £90 in £5 Bank of England notes. It was handed to him by Mrs. Ensink at the Rendezvous Hotel. It was addressed to “Trice, Rendezvous Hotel”. It was accompanied by a letter which he handed to Cottrell, who was present, and he had not seen it since. The letter said that £90 was all that Ensink could get for the bracelet and he was to hand Mrs. Ensink the cost of the journey and destroy the letter. He also told witness to fetch the ring out of pawn at London and send it to Ensink. It must be there before Friday. Witness showed Cottrell the letter. He did not hand Mrs. Ensink any money. Cottrell and witness then went to the Post Office and wrote to Ensink at an hotel in Amsterdam that he was not troubling about the ring. The date was the 26th October. On Ensink's return from Holland he asked witness at the Rendezvous if he had received it all right, and witness said “Yes”. He never said how much he had got for the bracelet. Witness saw Ensink every day after that. One day, in at Brett's, Ensink said the boys were kicking up a row because they had not had enough money. He said “I should get away if I was you” Witness then went into the Rendezvous and saw the boys there. He also saw another man named Moser, who had heard something about the jewellery. Witness gave Moser a sovereign to keep his mouth shut. Witness went to Manchester on November 4th, intending to go to America. He told Ensink he was going to Manchester, to his friend's. About ten days after, witness wrote to Ensink from the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. He told him he was going to America, and asked him to advance £5 on the pawnticket. He wrote in the name of Ted Davies. The next day Ensink wired him £2 in the name of Ted Davies. He saw no more of Ensink until after his arrest, the next day, when he was taken to Salford, and brought to Folkestone.

The receipt for £2 was produced, and identified by Trice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wetton, witness said he had lived in the town all his life and had always borne a good character. He had known Ensink some six or seven years. He was employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, and Ensink, who was a lounge waiter there, always found him straightforward in his dealings. From 1908 to 1910 witness was employed as barman at the Rendezvous Hotel by Ensink, who trusted him implicitly. Then he was employed at the Harbour Hotel and then as lift attendant at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. He fell out of employment. Mrs. Dalton invited him to Greenbank as her guest. On the morning of the third October he and Laws went in all the rooms and he remembered having the jewellery on the bed. Laws asked him not to take the jewellery in the first instance, and he took it to frighten her. In the first place he intended to steal it, but he also took it to frighten Laws. He did not know why. He had the bracelet with him when he went to London with Laws on October 3rd, and also when he went to London the second time ten days later with John Wyllie and Chilvers. Between the two visits to London he had shown the bracelet to Ensink. He had been wearing the two diamond rings all the time. On the 18th October he met Ensink accidentally at the railway station and he (Ensink) said he should like the ring. Ensink was going to the Brewers' Exhibition. Mr. Chapman, the landlord of the Devonshire public house, Picadilly, was the man who Ensink suggested to witness would buy the ring. With regard to the bracelet, he asked Ensink £100 for it, not £90. Questioned about the contents of the letter from Ensink, Trice admitted that he did not divulge it all at the Police Court proceedings.

Ludovius J. Linnekamp, carrying on business at 52, Agatha Dehenstraat, Amsterdam, was the next witness. His evidence had to be interpreted, as he could not understand English. He said he was a cafe keeper and carried on business as a diamond polisher at Amsterdam. He remembered a Tuesday some weeks ago, when two men came into his cafe. He believed he recognised one of the two men, who were brothers, in Ensink, the prisoner. One of the two men who came to his shop that day showed him a diamond bracelet and asked him to buy it. He offered them 2,000 guilders or florins for it, but they would not take it. The men returned again, and he eventually bought it for 2,200 guilders, and paid the money the next day in two one thousand notes and two one hundred notes. He polished the diamonds and sold them for 3,000 guilders.

Thomas John Golder, billiard marker at the Rendezvous Hotel, said he had been at the hotel since February of last year. He knew the prisoner, and he remembered his going away for a holiday about October 15th. He was gone five days. While he was away the postman brought two registered letters, one for Mrs. Ensink and one for Trice, and he signed the receipts for them. He identified the receipts (produced).

Albert Edward Cottrell said he knew Trice. He was in the saloon bar of the Rendezvous Hotel one morning when Mrs. Ensink was in the bar. She handed Trice a letter, who opened it and took out some bank notes and put them into his pocket. Trice handed him the letter. It was not signed. It said “Enclosed banknotes to the value of £90”. The letter was not signed. He did not see any address. He gave it back to Trice and never saw it again. At the time Trice owed him between £5 and £6. Trice gave him a £5 note, and he took 50s. out of it, and gave him back the change. Ensink was supposed to be on the Continent.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not see “Go and fetch “R”” in the letter. He did not burn the letter.

William Lawrence Chilvers, a telephone clerk at an hotel, said he had known Trice about twelve months. On October 18th he went to London with Ensink, Trice, and a valet from the Metropole, named Wagner. In London they met a man he knew by the name of Charlie. They went into various public houses. Trice gave him a sealed envelope, which he left at the Rendezvous. Witness got a new hat, which was paid for by Ensink, who bought four hats altogether.

Mr. Woodthorpe, assistant at Messrs. Hawes and Son, pawnbrokers, Cranbourne Street, Leicester Square, said the ring produced was pawned at his premises on October 18th by a man named Charles Hanson for £35. He knew Hanson, and heard he was a waiter. He had done business with him three or four times before. He showed the ring to Lady D'Oyly, who identified it as hers.

In reply to the Recorder, witness said Hanson gave his address as 230, Newport Street, Leicester Square. He had not looked to see if the previous transactions with Hanson were in the same name and the same place. He could not tell him the most recent transactions with Hanson prior to 18th October.

William James Rule, Clerk at the General Post Office, Folkestone, said he produced two receipts for two registered postal packets, from the office, Amsterdam, dated October 26th, 1911, addressed Mrs. Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel, and F. Trice, Rendezvous Hotel, and each of which bore the signature of Golder; a request for a money order at Folkestone, despatching by telegram £2, payable at Manchester, and signed Louis Ensink to Ned (Edward) Davies, Swan Hotel, Fountain Street; a telegram dated 26th October from Amsterdam, addressed to Ensink; and a telegram of the same date addressed to Ensink, Dam Hotel, Amsterdam, and which was to the effect “Received letters safely. Have written. Lily”.

Elizabeth Whittaker, of 35, Clarence Street, Broughton, Salford; Edward Tattersall, 61, Durham Street, Salford; and Emma Whittaker, 27 Tully Street, Broughton, gave evidence as to Ensink being in Manchester on the day after Trice's arrest and inquiring after him, in both the names of Davies and Trice.

Mr. Reeves, the Chief Constable, said about 10.30 on the morning of November 18th he had a conversation with Ensink. He said to him “I am making inquiries and trying to trace a quantity of jewellery stolen from a house in Sandgate Road last month. A man named Trice is in custody charged with stealing it. In consequence of statements he has made I must warn you that anything you shall say I shall use in evidence against you should a criminal charge be preferred against you respecting it. Have you now or had recently in your possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or do you know anything about any other jewellery trice has disposed of?” Ensink said “No, sir”. He then said to prisoner “I shall arrest you and you will be charged with receiving, on or about 20th October, from Edward Trice, well-knowing it to have been stolen, a diamond bracelet, and on that charge you will be detained in custody”. He replied “I do not know anything about it”. He was then taken into the police office, searched and locked up.

In reply to Mr. Wetton, Mr. Reeve said he sent across to the hotel for the prisoner three times on Thursday and three times on Friday. On Friday morning he sent word across to him that he (the Chief Constable) would like to see him at ten o'clock the following morning. He did not come, so he sent one of his men across and told him to see that Ensink came. He then came across to his office. When he sent for him on Thursday morning they told him Ensink was in bed, and all the time he was away.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

The prisoner was then placed in the witness box and gave evidence. He said his name was Gerard John Anton Ensink (31), and he had been in England 15 years, and had lived in Folkestone for the last nine years. He was employed at the Pavilion Hotel for four and a half to five years, first as second head waiter, and then as lounge waiter. He took the Rendezvous Hotel in 1907, and had had a licence granted ever since. From first to last he had always borne a good name. He had known rice about eight years. He took him into his employment in 1908 and he remained with him for eighteen months. He always found him honest and straightforward, and entrusted him with money to take to the bank, sometimes large amounts. Trice left his employment in 1909, and witness had continued to be friendly with him. Trice was then employed at the Harbour Hotel as barman, and then as liftman at the Pavilion Hotel. Trice was frequently at the Rendezvous Hotel in October of last year. He had two rings on his fingers. Witness had no idea the rings were stolen property. He never heard of the goings-on at Greenbank. He remembered Trice showing him a bracelet. He did not take particular notice of it, and he did not think it was a stolen bracelet. On the 11th October witness was going to the Brewers' Exhibition at London by the Wednesday excursion. On the railway station he met Wagner, Trice and Chilvers. He had not pre-arranged to meet the two latter. When they got to London, Trice and Chilvers asked him where he was going. He said he was meeting Charlie. They subsequently went to the Devonshire public house, Picadilly, and had a game of billiards, and then Trice asked the landlord the value of the ring. They met “Fat Charlie” outside the Artists' Club, and he showed Trice where the pawnshop was. Witness then went to have a shave. He had no idea the ring was stolen. He did not know Trice was going to pawn the ring. He did not know anything about the envelope which Chilvers left at the hotel till he found it the next morning. He went to Amsterdam in October for his holidays. He might have told Trice he was going. Trice came in at eight o'clock on Monday, and said he heard he (witness) was going to Amsterdam. He said that was quite right. Trice then went out to have a drink, and a little while after he came back and brought a bracelet with him. He had seen the bracelet two or three weeks before. Trice asked him whether he would mind selling it for him. Witness asked him whether it was his to sell, and Trice said “Yes”. He asked him how much he wanted for it. Trice said “£100”. Witness asked him what was the lowest he would take. Trice said he would take £90. Trice gave him the bracelet and he sent Trice eighteen £5 notes. He did not mention in the letter “Go and get “R””, meaning the ring. On the Wednesday, he heard the property was stolen, and he went to find Trice and learn the truth of the rumour. When he got to Manchester he found that Trice was arrested. When questioned by the Chief Constable he felt a bit nervous, and in saying he knew nothing about it he was not telling the truth. He was sorry now that he had said that.

Mr. Wardley, cross-examining: Tell me, first of all, when you made up your mind for the first time to tell the story you have told today?

Prisoner: I have not made up the story.

Mr. Wardley repeated the question, but Mr. Wetton objected to it, when the Recorder said it was a fair question to ask.

Mr. Wardley again asked him the question, and the prisoner replied that he decided on the next Monday after the first trial to tell the story.

Mr. Wardley: Having made up your mind on the previous Monday to tell the story you have today, why did you not tell it at the Police Court on the second occasion?

Prisoner: I did not have the chance.

But you reserved your defence? Your solicitor knew on that day that you were going to say that Trice brought you a bracelet and asked you to sell it for him? – Yes.

Did you instruct your solicitor to see that that question was put to Trice in cross-examination? – No.

You know as a matter of fact it was not put to Trice by your counsel? – No.

Further cross-examined, Ensink said that some of Trice's story was true and some not. Trice must have earned 25s. or 30s. a week when employed by him. It surprised him the first two or three days that Trice wore the rings.

Mr. Wardley: Then you got over the shock? (Laughter)

Ensink: It was not a shock.

Did you ask him where he got them? – I had no business to do so.

The Recorder: Did you ask him where he got them? – No.

The Recorder: Did you ask him where he got the bracelet? – He said it was his.

The Recorder: Did you ask him? – No.

The Recorder: Why not? – The man might feel insulted if I did.

In reply to Mr. Wardley, the prisoner said he was not in the habit of buying valuable things from waiters and billiard markers. That was the first time he had done so and was quite a new event in his life. He had no nervousness about it at all. He did not think it at all strange that a young man in Trice's position should have a bracelet like that, for he had got some good friends. He had never seen a young man in that position in life with such a bracelet before. It did not occur to him at all strange that he should take it Holland instead of London. It was well known that Holland was a better market for diamonds. He knew Hatton Garden was occupied by diamond merchants, including Dutch merchants.

Mr. Wardley: Do you know how to get rid of things?

Ensink: Yes.

Is it true that you said to Trice “You can't do it without your father?” – Not a word of it.

You thought that Trice was willing to take £90 for the bracelet if you could not get more? – No. I said “If I can't get £100, what will you take?”. He said the lowest he would take was £90.

Did you tell him you could only get £90? – He did not ask me.

Then that is a lie of his? – Yes.

How was it you got this £183 and you only sent him £90? – Business is business. He asked me £90 for it and I gave it to him.

Is that usually the way you treat your friends when you sell anything for them? Do you regard it as an honest transaction? You are not ashamed of it? – No.

Did you tell him you had some difficulty in getting the banknotes? – I got them all in one place.

Is that an invention of Trice's? – It must be.

Then this honest, straightforward young man has told us lies? – He must have gone wrong all at once.

You did not think he had gone wrong when he had all this valuable jewellery? – No.

Who first told you about the jewellery being stolen? – I think it was Cottrell.

Will you swear it was? – It was either Cottrell or John Wyllie.

Replying to further questions by Mr. Wardley, prisoner said he had not spoken of Cottrell as one of the boys. He never knew who the “boys” were. Referring to the ring incident, he had no need to introduce Trice to “Fat Charlie” because he knew him previously. He did not know Trice was going to pawn a ring when they went up to London together. Trice first mentioned the subject by saying he wanted to know where a pawnshop was, as he wanted to pawn something. He (Ensink) wanted to see “Fat Charlie” to take him to the Brewers' Exhibition. All four of them walked abreast in Little Newport Street. He did not hear any conversation between Trice and “Fat Charlie”. It was not true that “Fat Charlie” went to the pawnbrokers while Chilvers went to do some business, and he (Ensink) went to have a shave. Nothing was said in his presence about a white sapphire. The pawn ticket for the ring was sent to him from Manchester. He sent it back to the same address a few days after he got the money. The pawn ticket was sent as security for the loan of £5, for which Trice wired. He did not send Trice £5, but £2. He had not heard anything about the pawning of the ring then.

Mr. Wardley: You remember when you were before the Magistrates you made a statement when called upon to produce that letter. You said that you had not had a letter. That was untrue.

Ensink: Yes.

Mr. Wardley: I give you one more chance. How much do you know about the pawning of the ring in London before you got the pawn ticket from Manchester? – I was told after the occasion; after I had shaved.

Who told you? – Trice.

Did you not know he had pawned the ring when you were in the public house, and also when you bought the hats? – I knew he had pawned something.

Were not the hats purchased because of the successful pawning of the ring? – I wanted a new hat; Chilvers wanted one, and we tossed for them.

Have you ever tossed for hats before? – I won one as a bet once, but I never tossed for any before.

This completed the evidence.

Mr. Wardley then addressed the jury, and in the course of his remarks said he thought they would agree with him that Trice's statement bore the impress and the indelible stamp of truth. He suggested to them that Trice had fallen into temptation. On the other hand, they had an experienced man of the world, asking them to believe the incredible story that the young man asked him to dispose of the jewellery. He suggested to them, however, that the arrangements were made by the older man. He submitted that Ensink was the mastermind of the whole matter.

Mr. Wetton spoke at some length in his address to the jury, and he argued that Ensink had been the dupe of Trice, because his client thought Trice was an extremely honest man. He suggested that there was no evidence at all that Ensink knew that the bracelet or the ring was stolen, and that Ensink, in selling the bracelet, was doing an innocent business deal.

The Recorder, in the course of a lengthy summing up, said Mr. Wetton had made a powerful appeal to the jury on the prisoner's behalf. He asked them and warned them that they were not to act wholly and solely upon the evidence of Trice. If there had been no corroborative evidence he would have withdrawn the case from them. They had to consider the case in the light of the corroborative evidence. He supposed they had not the slightest shadow of doubt that those articles were stolen. The man Trice said he stole the articles and he took them in a fit of temptation, and he disposed of them because he had had a market in which he could dispose of them and in which the prisoner at the bar assisted. They had to consider the position and the relationship of these two people to each other. Trice was found bringing from time to time jewellery to the hotel, and one would have thought Ensink would have said “Where on earth did you get this jewellery? You have only been getting 25s. a week”, and would not have had anything to do with it. He, however, did not adopt that course. The Recorder then went through the evidence as to the ring incident, which Ensink denied, and said although it was true he went to London he did not participate in the pawning. The Crown, he said, did not so much rely on that portion of the case. Mr. Lewis Coward then touched upon the evidence regarding the bracelet, and continuing, he said did the jury think it was the act of an honest man to have taken that jewellery without any inquiry at all, knowing the position the man Trice held. The Recorder commented upon the fact that Ensink advised Trice to get away, and also sent him £2 on a pawn ticket for a ring, so it appeared perfectly clear that he was assisting Trice to get away. He also referred to the fact that Ensink went to Manchester, and inquired for Trice under his assumed name. In conclusion, he dealt with the Chief Constable's evidence fully and said Ensink denied all knowledge of the jewellery. Obviously Ensink now said what he told the Chief Constable was a lie. He had endeavoured to put before them the salient facts in connection with the case, and he told them not to act solely on the evidence of the informer or the accomplice. Happily in that country they did not rely on such evidence, but required corroborative evidence. Mr. Wetton had said that was an innocent business deal. It was certainly a most unfortunate thing for Ensink that he should have made those answers to the Chief Constable he did.

The jury, after a very brief consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty against Ensink of receiving the two articles well-knowing them to have been stolen.

The Chief Constable, in reply to the Recorder, said there was nothing known against Ensink.

Mr. Wetton asked that his client should be dealt with under the First Offenders' Act. He further said if the Recorder felt inclined to postpone sentence to the next Sessions Ensink would try to make reparation.

The Recorder: He has been waiting his trial long enough now.

Trice was then placed in the dock with Ensink.

Mr. Rooth said Trice had pleaded Guilty to the charge of stealing the diamond rings and diamond bracelet, and nothing else. And though unfortunately Lady D'Oyly had lost apparently a number of other articles of jewellery, it was not suggested that any other articles had even been seen in his possession or ever been traced to his possession. Apart from taking them to London and back, Trice apparently succumbed to the temptation, but he had endeavoured to show his contrition for his deed. He had endeavoured to render every assistance to the police. They practically knew Trice's history. He was 23 years of age, and had served since July 9th, 1903, in various capacities, and in each case had given satisfaction to those who employed him, and had conducted himself with honesty and respectability. Ensink was a man who could have put Trice right when he was inclined to go wrong, but instead of that he assisted, in fact, he did more, he tempted him to go wrong. Lady D'Oyly had recommended Trice to the Recorder's merciful consideration, and the prosecution desired him to deal with him leniently. He was the son of very respectable people, and efforts had been made to send him into another country where perhaps he might have another opportunity of reclaiming the name which he had so nearly forfeited. He knew he was appealing to no heart of stone when he appealed to the Recorder.

Lady D'Oyly said she agreed with what Mr. Rooth had said, and that she felt the temptation was put in Trice's way by others.

The Chief Constable said in reply to Mr. Rooth that he had known Trice for some years, and he knew up to a few months ago he bore a good character. A few months ago, however, he got led into gambling.

Mr. G.P. McKernan, Trice's stepfather, a postman, said for the nine years he had had charge of the boy he had found him honest, upright and straightforward until lately, when he got into bad company.

The Recorder (to Mr. Reeve): Where was this gambling? At the Rendezvous?

The Chief Constable: Yes, sir.

Mr. F.T. Hall, of Parson's Library, gave Trice a good character.

Mr. McKernan said he was anxious to send the boy to another country. Efforts had been made to get him out under the Church Army, but if those failed he was going to get him out. He would undertake that he would get him out of the country in a fortnight.

Mr. Easton, the Police Court Missioner, said that case had been brought to his notice by a lady and gentleman, and the stepfather and mother of Trice. A lady wrote to the Social Department of the Church Army and he went up and interviewed the head. He thought it was clear there would be a difficulty in getting Trice out under the circumstances. He was safe in saying that the Canadian Government were very slow to accept any doubtful cases – in cases in which there had been a conviction. It had been suggested to him – it was not his (Mr. Easton's) suggestion – that if Trice went into a home for a period to be tested, there might be a possibility of getting him out.

The Recorder: He might go out privately to friends.

Mr. Easton: Yes.

Mr. McKernan said he could arrange to send him out to friends at Montreal. The lad had left everything to his arrangement and agreed to whatever plans he made.

Ensink, when called upon, had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon him.

The Recorder said the jury had found him Guilty of receiving the jewellery. In that verdict he entirely concurred. In addition to having committed the crime of which he stood charged, he thought fit to commit perjury in the witness box. An appeal had been made by his counsel to treat him as a first offender. He was a man of years. It was perfectly clear if he had not been the person to offer to enable Trice to dispose of those goods they would never have been stolen. He took into consideration the fact that he had been awaiting his trial for some time. He seriously questioned whether he ought not to send him to penal servitude. He, however, ordered him to be detained in hard labour for one year and six calendar months.

Trice said he had handed in a statement and he hoped the Recorder would read it. He was very sorry for what he had done. He felt the degradation he had brought on his people, and felt a disgrace to them and to the town in which he was born. He only hoped they would give him one more chance to make some recompense to his people for what he had done.

The Recorder said he read every word of the statement, painful though it had been for him to read it. The Court could accede to the appeal made to him. He thought that was a case where the prisoner had been led away by others, and he felt, although the responsibility was great, having regard to the great value of the jewels, he ought to accede to the appeal. He trusted the prisoner would hold his head as an honest man. He must bind him over to be of good behaviour for one year. In the meantime the arrangements would be made for him (the prisoner) to be sent abroad. He thought it best in Trice's own interests that that should take place.

With regard to the ring, the Recorder made an order for its restitution to Lady D'Oyly forthwith.

Folkestone Express 9 March 1912.

Local News.

The adjourned licensing sessions for the borough of Folkestone were held at the police court on Wednesday morning. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., Major Leggett, and Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton. Only one licence had been deferred – that of the Rendezvous Hotel.

Rendezvous Hotel.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was then taken.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared to formally apply for the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel. It might perhaps be convenient if he mentioned at the outset that there were two notices of opposition which had been served, both bearing the name of the Chief Constable. The first one was by the direction of the Magistrates, and objected to the renewal of the licence on the ground of redundancy. The other notice, which he was glad to see was not by the Magistrates' direction, was on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted. Those two notices involved two entirely different methods of procedure. If the Magistrates decided to hear the case on the notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct, then presuming they were to consider the case proved, and if there were misconduct such as to disentitle the licensee to the renewal of his licence, then their refusal would mean that the licence was gone without any compensation, and it would be for the persons interested in the licence to appeal to the East Kent Quarter Sessions. But if they decided to proceed only upon the other notice – the one with regard to redundancy – then it would simply be a question of referring the licence to the compensation authority. He did not know whether it would be convenient for him to throw out the suggestion, but it did seem extremely difficult to consider the refusal of the licence on the ground of ill-conduct, because up to the present moment there had not even been a summons against the late licensee in respect of his conduct on the premises. They all knew he had been convicted of a very serious charge, which in itself had nothing whatever to do with the conduct of the premises. He suggested, for the consideration of the Bench, whether it was not a case where the Chief Constable might very properly not press his objection on the ground of ill-conduct, and leave the matter to be dealt with on the other ground, viz., of redundancy.

The Chief Constable said he fully intended asking the Bench to allow him to abandon the first notice of objection – that was the one referring to misconduct – and allow him to proceed on the second notice.

The Chairman said they agreed to the first notice being withdrawn. It was simply a question of redundancy.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he put in a plan, and on that he had marked the congested area, which embraced all the old portion of the borough. Within that area there were 866 houses, with a population of 4,330 persons approximately. Within the area there were 31 on licences – 27 full licences and four beer licences. There were also seven other licences, making a total of 38 premises, and giving a proportion of one licence to every 113, or one on licence to every 139 persons. For the borough at large they had 120 premises licensed for the sale of drink, giving a proportion of one to every 279 persons. Out of those there were 81 on licences – 74 full licences and seven beerhouses – giving one on licence to every 413 persons. That was according to the Census of last year, when the population of the borough was returned at 33,495. Within the congested area there were also three registered clubs for the sale of drink, with a total membership of 1,826. During the past year there were 85 charges of drunkenness dealt with in the borough, and out of that number 33 arose in that congested area. The house in question was situated at the top of High Street, next door to the Rose Hotel, and was an old on licence. The present licensee was James Algernon Hobson, who obtained the transfer of the licence on the 17th January of this year. The registered owners were Flint and Co. Ltd., of Canterbury, and the rateable value of the house was £88. It had a frontage to High Street of 27ft. 7in. There were three entrances to the house from the street, and no back yard or backway. Having detailed the accommodation of the premises, the Chief Constable said within a radius of 150 yds. there were ten other on licensed houses. As he said before, the premises were next door to the Rose Hotel, the rateable value of which was £116. The late tenant, Ensink, obtained the transfer of the licence on the 4th December, 1907, and was the eighth tenant in less that eleven years. Prior to Ensink's tenancy and since the trade of the house had been, in his opinion, small, but during the tenancy of Ensink it undoubtedly considerably increased. And that he attributed in a very great measure to the fact that it was made the headquarters of the Geneva Association, a society of foreign waiters, and the house was greatly frequented by foreign waiters. Ensink was a foreigner, and formerly a waiter. Since the tenancy of the new tenant the Geneva Association had left the house, and the trade appeared to be very small. During the latter part of the late landlord's tenancy the conduct of the house was not satisfactory. For some few months prior to Ensink's arrest the house was not, in his opinion, conducted in a satisfactory manner, being the resort of gamblers. The licence, in his opinion, was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, and if the house was closed ample accommodation would remain in the adjoining houses to meet the legitimate needs of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Mowll: Was the man Ensink ever proceeded against for the misconduct on his licensed premises?

The Chief Constable: No, sir.

Detective Officer Johnson said in the course of his duties he frequently visited the Rendezvous Hotel, and in consequence of instructions he received at the end of last summer, he and P.C. Butcher frequently visited the house. The class of customers were gambling and betting men and foreigners. It was not a house used by many residents of the neighbourhood, and if the licence was taken away he considered there would be sufficient accommodation in the other houses in the neighbourhood.

P.C. Butcher said he had heard the evidence of Det. Johnson, and he corroborated it as regards the customers who used the premises. One man whom he knew to be a professional gambler frequented the house last summer.

Mr. Mowll briefly addressed the Magistrates, in whose hands he said he left the matter. It was a very sad case (laughter), and he hoped the compensation authority would be very kind to them.

The Magistrates provisionally renewed the licence, which they referred to the compensation authority.

Folkestone Express 3 August 1912.

Local News.

Among the jewels stolen from the residence of Sir Warren Hastings and Lady D'Oyly, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, during last autumn, was a diamond bracelet, which, it was stated at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions in February, had not been traced. However, since then the efforts made to find the valuable jewellery have proved successful. It is now in the possession of a Chinaman in Rangoon, and proceedings have been commenced there by Sir. W.H. D'Oyly to recover it from the man who purchased it. The matter will be engaging the attention of the Court in that place in a short time, and there is very little doubt that Lady D'Oyly will before long have regained possession of the bracelet, which she highly prized.

It will be remembered that the diamond polisher from Amsterdam who gave evidence when the case was before the Recorder, stated that he bought it from one of the men implicated in the case for 2,200 guilders or florins, which are equivalent to about £183 in English money.

Folkestone Express 17 August 1912.

Local News.

A meeting of the East Kent Licensing Compensation Authority was held at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on Wednesday, under the chairmanship of the Right Hon. Lord Harris.

No objection was raised to the abandonment of the following licence, which was accordingly refused: Rendezvous, High Street, Folkestone (James Algernon Hobson).

Folkestone Express 18 January 1913.

Local News.

The Rendezvous Hotel.

Messrs. Banks and Son announce that they will offer the building and also the furniture and fixtures of the above hotel for sale by auction.

Folkestone Express 1 February 1913.