DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 16 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1866

Rendezvous Hotel

Latest 1912

1 High Street

Folkestone

Former Rendezvous

Above photo kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 20 May 2011.

 

Open on 28 August 1866 and referred to as the "Rendezvous Luncheon Bar" in the Post Office Directory 1874.

The premises was acquired by brewers Flint and Co. in 1888 after George Burgess ran up a debt of 900. The following year the brewery did some extensive alterations to the house and added a commercial dining room on the first floor with  private sitting and smoking rooms.

The house has been in its time a shoe shop, but today (2011) it operates as an Indian restaurant.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 February 1866.

Advertisement.

To Builders.

Tenders are invited for Re-Building the premises in Broad Street, late in the occupation of Mr. S. Hogben. The plans and specifications may be seen at my Office, on or after Wednesday, the 28th inst. The tenders are to be sent in at or before six o'clock on Wednesday, the 7th of March next. Early application is requested.

Mr. Hogben does not bind himself to accept the lowest or any tender.

Joseph Gardner, Architect, Folkestone,

23rd February, 1866.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 March 1866.

Local News.

For building two houses and a shop in Broad Street for Mr. Hogben, the following tenders were received: Messrs. J. Bowley, 1,590; G. Lepper, 1,369 19s. 10d.; J. Hoad 1,330; Holdom and Co., 1,296; J.Q. Petts, 1,227 12s. The tender of Mr. Petts was accepted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 August 1866.

Advertisement.

Opening of New Premises!!

The Rendezvous, No. 1, Broad Street, Folkestone.

The above will be opened to the public on Tuesday, August 28th, 1866, for the sale of first class ales and stout in the highest perfection, on draught and in bottle.

Proprietor:- Stephen Hogben, who earnestly solicits a share of Patronage and Support.

 

Folkestone Observer 24 August 1866.

Licensing Day.

The magistrates issued their licensing certificates on Wednesday to all established publicans who applied for them, Mr. Morford, of the Fountain, being the only pub who got a lecture, and that a not very severe one. There were seven applications for new houses, and certificates were granted for four, namely: The Rendezvous, Mr. S. Hogben (another publican lost a 10 bet over this, we hear); Alexandra, Mr. Spurrier: Raglan, Mr. Lepper; and a house in Bouverie Mews, Mr. J. B. Tolputt.

Notes: If this is the first license for the Raglan it puts the accepted date of 1864 into doubt. Also, no record of Tolputt having a license anywhere. Could this, however, be the first license for the Albion Hotel?

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 August 1866.

Licensing Day.

A Special Sessions was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the purpose of renewing old and granting new spirit licenses &c. The magistrates present were Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs. There was a large attendance of publicans, some interest being excited in consequence of strong opposition being raised against the granting of several new licenses. The first business was to renew old licenses, and about 70 names were called over alphabetically.

The second applicant was Mr. Stephen Hogben, for a license to his new house in Broad Street, The Rendezvous, in support of which he presented a petition signed by a great number of the gentry and inhabitants of the town.

Mr. Minter opposed the application.

Mr. Foad, clerk for Mr. R. Hart, proved that the proper notices were served on the overseers and posted on the door of the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The house was not finished when the notice was posted. It was a new building in course of erection. The notice was posted on the door, but it was not hung on hinges.

Mr. Minter asked Mr. Hogben whether he explained to all the persons who signed his petition that it stated the house was necessary for the accommodation of the inhabitants and visitors.

Mr. Hogben said he did, and that all who signed had an opportunity of reading the petition for themselves. He said he did not ask them to sign the petition as a certificate of respectability for himself, but for the purpose of getting a license.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed to oppose the petition, on the ground that the license was not necessary, and it was ridiculous to think it was when the bench had only just granted licenses to a house next door, to several in High Street, Rendezvous Street, and the immediate neighbourhood. The bench would find by the memorial which he had presented that there were already 70 licensed houses in Folkestone, and no fresh ones ought to be granted unless under exceptional circumstances, and this one was not at all necessary. Besides, the application had been made too early, for by the evidence of Mr. Foad it had been shown that the house was not finished, but only in the course of erection. The Act says that the notice must be posted on the door of the house, and it was not a house till it was inhabited. He had no objection to Mr. Hogben personally, but there was no necessity for a license to the house which had The Rose staring it in the face only next door, and on which the landlord had lately expended a good deal of money for the accommodation of the public.

Mr. Hogben, in reply, said that The Rose had to let beds out for their commercial travellers. He wanted the license for the sake of his luncheon bar. Before he had the house built there he had been offered 1,000 for the ground to build an hotel on it.

The court was then cleared for a short time, and on the re-admission of the public Captain Kennicott said the magistrates had decided on granting a license to Mr. Hogben.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28 August 1866.

Local News.

Wednesday last was the annual licensing day, when the magistrates on the bench were Capt. Kennicott, R.N., J. Tolputt and A. M. Leith Esqrs.

All the old licenses were renewed. There were seven applications for new licences namely, Mr. Hogben for the Rendezvous, in Broad Street, (lately opened as a luncheon bar); Mr. Spurrier, for the Alexandra, in Harbour Street; Mr. Lepper, for a new house, the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Road; Mr. J. B. Tolputt, for a house in Bouverie Square; Mr. Elliott for the Gun, Cheriton- Road; Mr. Tite, for the Shakespeare, Cheriton Row; and Mr. Mullett, for the Star, in Seagate Street. The Bench granted licences to the four first-named, and refused the other applications. Mr. J. Minter presented a petition signed by all the publicans in the town against new licences, and appeared specially to oppose the granting of licences to the Rendezvous and Star.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 October 1866.

Advertisement.

The Rendezvous. Hotel.

Broad Street, Folkestone.

S. Hogben.

Begs to inform the visitors and residents of Folkestone that he has opened the above premises for the sale of first class wines and spirits of the purest and finest quality, and hopes to be favoured with one trial to prove the correctness of this statement.

P.S. All orders will be executed with punctuality and despatch.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 February 1868.

Wednesday February 29th: Before J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Felony: Patrick O'Brian, a villainous looking fellow, was charged with stealing a watch, the property of William Parker Adams.

Prosecutor deposed he was a baker, in the employ of Mr. Hogben at the Rendezvous, Broad Street, and that on the previous morning, having left the bakehouse for a moment, he found the prisoner there when he got back, and went into the bar to have a glass with him, after which he went home to dinner, leaving his watch and chain hanging on a nail in the bakehouse. On his return from dinner it was gone, and he gave information to the police. About half past eleven o'clock in the evening he accompanied P.C. Swaine to the Royal Oak, at Sandgate, where they found the prisoner in bed, and on searching him the watch was found in his trousers pocket. The value of the watch was 30s.

John Moody, landlord of the Royal Oak, said on Tuesday evening prisoner came to his house, called for a pot of beer, and asked for a bed. He wanted trust for a pot of beer, saying he had more than the worth of a pot of beer in his hand, and witness saw a watch in his hand. He then went to bed, and just after twelve prosecutor and a constable came, and he took them up to prisoner's room and saw the stolen watch produced.

P.C. Swain said he went with prosecutor down to the Royal Oak, and on awaking the prisoner and finding the watch, charged him with stealing it. This he at first denied, but afterwards said he had taken it in a lark.

Prisoner declined to cross-examine either of the witnesses, and pleaded guilty without making any defence. He was committed for six months hard labour.

 

Folkestone Observer 1 February 1868.

Wednesday, January 29th: Before Captain Leith R.V., and James Tolputt Esq.

Patrick O'Brian was charged with stealing a watch and chain, the property of William Parks Adams.

The prosecutor said he was a journeyman baker and worked for Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Street. Mr. Hogben was proprietor of an inn adjoining the baker's shop. Saw the prisoner about twenty minutes past twelve yesterday; prisoner came down the passage, looked into the bakehouse, and went into the yard. He afterwards came back to the bakehouse. Prisoner said “Then you have a bakehouse as well as a public house”. Prosecutor said “Yes”. Prisoner then entered the bakehouse and began to talk, and remained about five minutes, when he asked prosecutor if he would have anything to drink, and they then adjourned to the bar. Prosecutor left prisoner at the bar and went to dinner at his own home in Gloucester Place. He returned to the bakehouse about a quarter past one, and immediately missed his watch and chain from a nail on which they hung under a little shelf. It was in the reach of anyone who might enter the bakehouse. He then went to the bar and enquired if anyone had been to the bakehouse since he had been to dinner, and ascertained that the prisoner had been there, then went to Mr. Hart's office, and afterwards gave information to the police. At half past eleven last night he accompanied P.C. Swain to the Royal Oak, Sandgate to ascertain if the prisoner was there. Went with Swain and the landlord upstairs, and found the prisoner in bed. Immediately identified prisoner as the man who had been in the bakehouse that day. P.C. Swain ordered prisoner to get up and then he searched the bed and his clothes, and in his trousers pocket the watch was found. Prosecutor identified it as his property. The constable asked the prisoner where he got the watch from, when he made no answer, but afterwards confessed to taking it from the bakehouse while prosecutor had gone to dinner. Prosecutor then gave prisoner into the custody of P.C. Swain. Valued the watch at 1. The last time he saw the watch safe was at half past twelve. No-one was left in the bakehouse when he went to dinner. The bakehouse was only locked up at night.

Mr. Moodie said he was landlord of the Royal Oak, Sandgate. Prisoner came to his house several times yesterday. The last time he came was about eight o'clock, when he asked if he could have a bed. He ordered a pot of beer, and paid for his beer and paid for his bed. About 11 o'clock prisoner was in the tap room and took a watch from his trousers pocket. He wanted witness to trust him with a pot of beer; witness told him he did not trust. With that the prisoner said that he had got more than the worth of a pot of beer in his hand. He then put the watch in his pocket and went to bed. Swain and the prosecutor came about 12 o'clock, as witness was just getting into bed. He let them in, and from what was said, let them upstairs and woke the prisoner up, and the watch was found under his pillow, in his trousers pocket. The prosecutor identified it as his property. The watch produced was that one he saw in prisoner's hand in the taproom. Prisoner said that he took it out of the bakehouse.

P.C. Swain said that last evening about half past ten he received information of the description of the prisoner, and that a man answering that description was at Sandgate. Prosecutor and he shortly after 12 went to the Royal Oak Inn, called the landlord up, and asked if he had any lodgers. He said “Yes, several”. In consequence of what witness told him, he took him to a bedroom where there were four men sleeping, two in each bed. Prosecutor identified one of the four men as the one that had been in the bakehouse that day. He ordered the prisoner to get up, and he found the watch in his pocket under the pillow; wanted him to let him have his trousers before they were searched. In the left hand pocket he found the watch he produced. It was identified by the prosecutor as his property. He then charged him with stealing the same from a bakehouse in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. Prisoner told him he took it for a lark; told him to be careful what he said as it would be taken in evidence. He said he had been on the drink two days; he was not drunk then. Witness took him into custody, and brought him to Folkestone, searched him there and found no money or property on him.

Prisoner now pleaded guilty, and the Magistrates, believing that prisoner was a very bad character, sentenced him to six months hard labour at Petworth gaol.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 April 1869.

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

George Waddell was charged on a warrant with embezzling 7s., the money of his employer, Mr. Hogben, of the Rendezvous, Broad Street.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Stephen Hogben, baker and publican, residing in Broad Street, said: The prisoner was in my employ as a barman. It was part of his duty to count the money in the till every morning, enter it into a book kept for the purpose, and give it to me. I have had suspicions for some time, and on Saturday night or Sunday morning, after going to bed, I came downstairs again, counted the money in the till, and marked a quantity of it. There was 10 3s. 4 1/2d. there at the time, made up of gold 4, small silver 3 6s., coppers 13s. 10 1/2d., halfcrowns 7s. 6d., florins 1 6s. I marked all the half crowns, florins and shillings. I do not know how many shillings there were. The halfcrowns I marked with a scratch under the head, the others at the back of the head. In the morning prisoner counted the money as usual, and booked it. I gave him the key of the bar about eight. He locked the money up himself, and put away the key of the till as usual. After counting the money I replaced the key of the till on the shelf. He booked 7 6s 6d. as the taking of Saturday. The entry 7 6s. 6d. in the book produced is in his handwriting. There was 2 in the till besides for change, so that the cash handed to me yesterday was 9 6s. 6d. I then misses 16s. 10 1/2d. I did not say anything at the time. I called my brother in, and then went upstairs with the prisoner. I said “George, you've been robbing me”, and he made no answer. I stamped on the floor saying “Now then, out with it”, and he pulled out his purse, and that contained my money. My brother looked at it, and found some marked money. I locked the door, and went for Superintendent Martin, who came down. I had previously shown the marked money to my brother, George, to Mr. Wakefield, and to Mr. Reason. When Superintendent Martin went into the room, prisoner said “Master, I wish you'd let me speak to you. I'll make it all up to you that I've robbed you of, if you won't lock me up”. I said “speak to Mr. Martin”. Mr. Martin said “You've been robbing your master”, and prisoner made no reply. Mr. Martin then searched him, and took from him the marked money, his rings, and watch. He then searched the prisoner's box. The money produced, one florin and nine shillings, were marked by me on Saturday night. I gave prisoner into custody.

Cross-examined: No-one could get access to the bar till I gave prisoner the key: that was about eight o'clock. He gave me the money on Saturday for Friday. I have found money short. I cannot tell what money is taken during the day. I pay prisoner 10s. a week, and board and lodging. When he gave me the money on Sunday I said “Haven't you made a mistake?”. The money was then on the table. I counted it myself, and found it to be 7 6s. 6d. There was 10s. in gold more than on Saturday, because prisoner had given change for a half sovereign. I don't know what it consisted of. I have for about a week previously marked money. I have counted it for about a month. I may have marked 2 worth of shillings. I have taken them out of the till again. Some of the shillings may have gone into circulation. The mark on the money was one scratch.

George Hogben, brother of the prosecutor, deposed: I am a plumber and glazier residing in Church Street. On Sunday morning between nine and ten o'clock I was standing in Broad Street, outside the Rendezvous, and my brother called me into the house. I went upstairs with him and the prisoner. My brother said to prisoner “You've been robbing me”, and he made no reply. My brother said “Out with your pockets, and let's see what money you've got”. He pulled out his purse and threw some money on the table. My brother said to me “That's mine. Look and see if there's any there that's marked like I've shown you”. I looked and found a 2s. piece and 2s. marked as described. I did not find any more then. My brother then went out and locked the door. Prisoner said “Where is the master gone? I wish I could see him to make it up. I should never do it again”. I said “Why did you do it at all? It could not be for want, but for temptation”. We were locked up till Mr. Martin came. He looked at the money and I told him what it was. He searched prisoner, and took three more shillings from his pocket, marked in the same way.

Cross-examined: There was about 19s. in prisoner's purse. I cannot say the exact amount.

Superintendent Martin deposed: Yesterday morning about half past ten prosecutor came to my house, and in consequence of what he told me I went to his house. I went upstairs with him into a room where I found the prisoner and the last witness. I cautioned the prisoner, and told him he was charged with stealing a quantity of silver, and he must be cautious what he said. My attention was called to his purse and money (produced) which was lying on the table. There was 19s 6d. in silver and 1 1/2d in coppers on one part of the table, and a florin and two shillings on another part of the table. I showed three of the coins to the prosecutor, and he identified them as being coins that he had marked. Prisoner made no reply. I asked if he had any more silver about him, and he said no. I searched him and found three shillings loose in his trousers pocket, marked. I asked if he had any, and how much, money in his box. He replied 5 10s. in gold in a purse, wages that his master had paid him. He was given into my custody by prosecutor, and on coming down the stairs he said “Can I speak to you, Master?”. Mr. Hogben said “No, I've nothing to do with the case, 'tis in Mr. Martin's hands”. Prisoner said “If you forgive me, I'll make up to you all I've ribbed you of”. I took possession of the money, and it has been in my possession ever since.

Prisoner was the formally charged with stealing the 7s., and pleaded guilty.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed by the friends of prisoner to appear for him. He could only plead in extenuation that it was a case of sudden temptation, he being in a situation of great trust and had given way. He could not defend prisoner's conduct, but looking at his extreme youth, and at his previous good character, he asked the Bench to inflict a small punishment so as to deter him from again committing himself, should he regain the character he had lost.

Prosecutor expressed his regret at having to prosecute, and said he had no desire to press the charge.

The Bench inflicted a punishment of three months' hard labour, remarking that but for the recommendation of the prosecutor they should have been inclined to punish him severely.

 

Folkestone Observer 17 April 1869.

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

George Waddell was charged with stealing 7s., the property of his employer.

James Hogben said: The prisoner was in my employ as barman. On Saturday night last after I had closed the house and the barman had gone, I went into the bar and counted the money in the till; I found there was 13 4s. 3 d., consisting of 4 in gold, 3 6s. in small silver, and 13s. 10 d. in coppers, seven half crowns, and thirteen florins. I then made a scratch on the half crowns, florins and some of the shillings with my knife. I left the money in the till and went to bed. Prisoner got up a little after seven, which was rather an unusual thing for him to do. He got the money ready for me at breakfast time as usual, and I entered it in a book. I asked him what he made of it and he said 6 6s. 6d., but this did not include the 2 given prisoner for change. It was prisoner's duty to book the money taken. He had done so ever since he had been with him. There was deficiency in the account of 16s. 6 d. I did not say anything to him then, but went to the door and called my brother in. We then went upstairs into a front room, and I said to prisoner “George, you have been robbing me”. The prisoner did not make any reply. I then said “Out with it”, upon which he put his hand in his pocket and pulled out his purse. I then asked my brother if there was any money in the purse marked like I showed him during the week. He said there was. I then locked them both in the room and went for Supt. Martin. When I returned with Mr. Martin prisoner said he wished he could speak to me. I told him to speak to Mr. Martin. The money produced is part of that marked.

Cross-examined: Prisoner gave me the money for Friday's takings on Saturday morning between nine and ten. I counted it and found it quite right. Had not always found it right, but had not previously made any complaint. Could not tell what money had been taken. On Sunday morning I asked him if he made the money right, and he said he made it 7 6s. 6d. There was 4 10s. in gold. Prisoner gave Weeks change for half a sovereign on Sunday morning, but I did not see him. I did not mark the sixpences because I knew he would not take them. Had marked money on previous occasions. Had not marked the money longer than a week past. On Saturday night the small silver consisted of 3 6s. Could not tell the number of coins, or the number of shillings. I might have marked 2's worth. I took the marked money out of the till in the morning and reserved it for another night. The marked money had partly gone into circulation; a shilling or two, perhaps, but nothing more. Would swear the shilling produced is one that I marked. I marked them as near alike as I could. My mark on them was one scratch.

George Hogben, brother of the prosecutor, said: I am a plumber and glazier, living in Church Street. I was standing outside the Rendezvous Inn on Sunday morning last when my brother called me in. I went upstairs in company with my brother and the prisoner. When in the front room prosecutor said to prisoner “You have been robbing me”. Prisoner made no reply. My brother then said “Out with your pockets and let me look at the money you have got”. He put his hand in his pocket and took out his purse and threw it on the table. My brother said to me “This money is mine. Look and see if any of it is marked”. I saw a two shilling piece and two shillings; they were marked. The shillings were marked on the back of the head; the two shilling piece was marked on the bust at the bottom. Did not see any others, as I did not look into them. Prosecutor showed me some coins during the week which he had marked. After my brother had seen the marked money he went out and locked the door, saying “Wait there until I get back” When he was gone prisoner said “Where is the master gone?”. I said I didn't know, unless he was gone to get the bar book. Prisoner then said “I wish I could see master to make it up with him; I would never do it again”. I said “Whatever did you do it at all for? It could not have been for want, but for mere temptation”. I waited some time when my brother returned in company with Supt. Martin. This was just upon 12. Mr. Martin asked for the money, and I told him it was on the table. He then searched him and found two shillings in his trousers pocket. Mr. Martin then charged him with robbing his master, and prisoner said to my brother “Master, I wish I could speak to you a minute”. My brother said he had left it entirely in Mr. Martin's hands. After prisoner's box had been searched, he was taken into custody.

Cross-examined: Could not remember any further conversation taking place. Prisoner said he would make it up; he could get the money from home. Did not know how much money there was in the purse. He believed there was 19s. and some odd coppers.

Supt. Martin said: On Sunday morning about half past 10 prosecutor came to my house, and in consequence of what he said I went to the Rendezvous Inn. I went upstairs, accompanied by the prosecutor, and in a room over the confectionery shop I saw the prisoner and the last witness. I cautioned the prisoner as to what he might say, and charged him with stealing a quantity of silver. My attention was then drawn to the silver he now produced. Prisoner said nothing in answer to the charge. There was a florin and two shillings on the table, which prosecutor identified as his property. Asked the prisoner if he had any more silver about him, and he said he had not. I then put my hand into his pocket and found three shillings, which the prosecutor identified as his property. Asked him if he had any money in his box, and he said he had 5 10s. in gold, which his master had paid him for wages. I then took him into custody. On going downstairs prisoner said “Can I speak to master?”. Mr. Hogben said “No, I have left it in Mr. Martin's hands”. Prisoner then said “If you forgive me I will make up all that I have robbed you of”. Mr. Hogben was behind me. I found other articles on the prisoner; a watch and chain, pins, rings, &c. I took possession of the whole of the articles.

Mr. Hogben said he did not wish to press the charge, and was very sorry to see the prisoner in the position that he was.

Capt. Kennicott, addressing the prisoner, said he was placed in a painful position in punishing so young a person. He had no doubt it was all owing to bad company, which was to be found right and left in this town. It was a very serious offence that he was charged with, and they had at first intended to punish him severely. The sentence of the court was that he be kept to hard labour for three months, and they hoped that when that term of imprisonment had expired he would seek to gain an honest livelihood.

 

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. 4d., of which 4 was in gold, small silver 3 6s., coppers 13s. 10d., 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. 10d. 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 1d. 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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 19 April 1869.

Local News.

At the Petty Sessions on Monday George Waddell was charged with robbing his employer, Mr. J. Hogben, of the “Rendezvous,” Broad Street, of 7s. Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of defendant.

The prosecutor deposed that the prisoner was in his employ as barman. On Saturday night last, witness went into the bar and counted the money in the till; he found there was 10 4s. 3d. He then marked the half-crowns, florins, and some of the shillings by a scratch made with his knife. The prisoner got up the next morning a little after seven o’clock, which was rather an unusual thing for him to do. He got the money to hand over as usual at breakfast time, and entered it in a book. Witness asked him what he made of it. He said 7 6s. 6d., but this did not include 2 worth of change he had given him the previous morning according to custom, and the total was 9 6s. 6d. There was a deficiency in the account of 16s. 10d. He took him upstairs and charged him with the robbery, when he produced his purse, which contained some of the marked money.

Prosecutor’s brother gave corroborative evidence, and Supt. Martin proved apprehending prisoner.

Prosecutor did not wish to press the charge.

Three months’ hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 May 1870.

Thursday May 5th: Before R. W. Boarer and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

William Fagg, charged with being drunk and riotous in the Rendezvous Inn, Broad Street, on Wednesday evening, was discharged, the magistrates having no jurisdiction.

 

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 Chronicle 24 December 1870.

Wednesday, December 21st: Before W. Bateman Esq., and Ald. Tolputt.

S. Hogben, publican, was summoned for opening his house and selling beer during the hours of divine service on Sunday morning last.

Supt. Martin said he went to the house on the morning in question, and found five men there drinking. He had received complaints about the house.

Defendant said he was at the back of the house at the time, and was not aware that his son was serving any liquor. It was his first offence.

The Bench said they were determined to put down this Sunday trading in drink during prohibited hours. It was a most annoying thing to meet drunken men when returning from divine service, and defendant would be fined 2, and the costs, 9s.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 27 December 1870.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Wednesday, Stephen Hogben, landlord of the Rendezvous, was charged with having his house open tor the sale of liquor before 12.30 on Sunday morning.

In consequence of complaint Inspector Martin visited the house a little before twelve, and found four or five men in a little room behind the bar, with four glasses on the table. There was also another man m the passage with a quart pot in his hand. The front door was not fastened.

Defendant said he was m the bakehouse, and his son was cleaning up the bar when the men came in, and his son supplied them with beer. The reason the door was open was that persons came in with bakings.

The chairman (W. Bateman, Esq.) alluded to the frequency of these offences, and the annoyance of drunken men reeling against persons coming from places of worship.

A fine of 2, and 9s. costs, was inflicted and paid.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 6 April 1874.

Local News.

Filmer Tyas and Thomas Fricker, surrendered to their bail to answer a charge of having committed a breach of the peace by engaging in a prize fight on the moors on the 19th March.

Edwin Pope was summoned as a witness, but he evidently did not mean to divulge more than he could possibly help, and what he did say had to be drawn from him word by word. It was to the effect that he saw defendants fighting in one of Mr. Gambrill’s meadows for about ten minutes.

Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern, stated that defendants were in his house on the 18th March, and Tyas put down two or three shillings on the counter, and asked him to hold the stakes. Witness told him to put them in his pocket. Defendants quarrelled, and he told them he would have no quarrelling in his house, and if they wanted to fight they must go somewhere else.

Defendants were bound over in their recognisances in 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 Chronicle 28 August 1875.

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

Edmund Hogben, 2, North Street, Sandgate, and James Drayton of Sandgate Broadway were charged with being drunk and riotous in Rendezvous Street on Monday night. Hogben was further charged with assaulting P.C. Keeler at the same time, and Drayton with assaulting Superintendent Wilshere and Private Isaac Brown, of the 41st Regiment. William Cook was also charged with resisting the police in the execution of their duty.

It appeared that P.C. Keeler went to the Rendezvous Tavern to quell a row, when defendant Hogben threw him down, and he received several kicks from persons that he could not identify.

Superintendent Wilshere deposed to being outside the public house when Hogben was taken into custody, and when a large crowd had assembled he went into the house to interfere, when several interfered, the most prominent being Drayton. He turned him out of the house, and when in the street Drayton gave him a back-handed blow, and then rushed at a private of the 41st Regiment and struck him in the face. Witness handcuffed prisoner, when Cook came up and tried to rescue him out of custody.

Isaac Brown, the private in question, corroborated the evidence.

The Bench fined Hogben 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs, or 14 days, and for his violence to P.C. Keeler, and because he was the cause of the other men attacking the constable, he would be fined 1 and 3s. 6d. costs, or 21 days. Drayton was fined 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs.

The charge against Cook was dismissed.

The fines were paid.

 

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 Chronicle 17 March 1877.

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

William Cook was charged with being drunk at the Rendezvous public house.

He pleaded guilty, and the Magistrates' Clerk said he had rendered himself liable to a fine of 5, but the Bench fined him in the mitigated penalty of 18s. and 8s. 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 Chronicle 25 August 1877.

Annual Licensing Day.

On Wednesday the annual licensing sessions were held at the Town Hall, the Magistrates on the Bench being J. Clark Esq. (Chairman), Col. De Crespigny, Ald. Caister, and Capt. Crowe. Complaints having been made against Mr. Hogben's house in Rendezvous Street, his attention was called to them, and he promised to conduct his house more orderly in future.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 November 1877.

Wednesday, November 21st: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, J. Clark and T. Caister Esqs.

Stephen Hogben was charged with permitting riotous conduct to take place on his licensed premises, The Rendezvous, on 5th November last.

Defendant, for whom Mr. Mowll appeared, pleaded Not Guilty.

Supt. Wilshere, sworn, said: On the night of the 5th November, soon after 10 o'clock, my attention was directed to defendant's house. I saw a glare of light and smoke coming from it. I found about a score of people outside and several made complaints to me. I stayed there the whole of the time, and there was a continual firing off of squibs and fireworks. The disturbance could be heard as far as the Town Hall. I saw one come outside the door of the house. The people – men and boys – were going in and out of the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowle: Did not consider it my duty to go in. From the outside I could see a flare inside.

Thomas Dorrell, sworn, said he was a Special Constable on duty on the 5th inst., and the evidence given by the Supt. Was true.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench.

Stephen Hogben, called in defence, said squibbing did take place, and he did his best to stop it.

Cross-examined by the Bench: I heard the Supt. Outside. I did not call him in. There were 30 or 40 people in the house.

The Bench dismissed the summons.

 

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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 24 November 1877.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Wednesday, Stephen Hogben was summoned for permitting riotous conduct on his premises, “The Rendezvous”, on the 5th of November. Mr. Mowll appeared for defendant.

Supt. Wilshire said his attention was directed to defendant’s house by the glare of light and smoke coming from it on the night in question, and he heard the continual firing off of squibs and crackers. A great number of persons congregated outside and created a disturbance. In defence it was admitted on the part of defendant that squibbing was going on in the house, but defendant did his best to put a stop to it, and he could not help what was going on outside.

The Bench dismissed the summons.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 May 1879.

Auction Advertisement.

Mr. Richard Smith is instructed by the Proprietor to sell by Auction, on the premises, on Thursday, June 12th, 1879, at five o'clock precisely, the very valuable property, known by the sign of the Rendezvous Wine and Spirit Vaults.

Situate at the top of the High Street, and directly facing Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. The property is held equal to Freehold, there being a lease of 500 years at a peppercorn rent.

The undeniable position secures for the house a trade of great importance. The premises are substantially built, in thorough good order and decorative repair, exceedingly well arranged both for domestic comfort and trade convenience, the bar being fitted in first class London style.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 June 1879.

A sale took place at the Rendezvous Inn on Thursday, when that house was offered for sale by Mr. Smith, Auctioneer. 3,000 were offered, but it was not bought for that sum.

 

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 News 22 November 1884.

Saturday, November 15th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Mr. J. Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

Richard Oliver was charged with stealing nine pairs of stockings, value 12s., from the shop of Stephen Petts, on the 14th inst.

Prosecutor said the stockings were hanging outside his shop on Friday morning. He identified the stockings produced as his property.

Charles Thew, a labourer, said he saw prisoner hawking some stockings for sale, at 3d. per pair, in the Fish Market, about half past eleven on Friday morning. Witness gave him 9d. for three pairs of them. Sergt. Ovenden subsequently came to his house and h gave them up.

Turner Court said he saw the prisoner selling stockings, and he went up to him, saying “What have you got?” Prisoner said “I will give you this pair”. As soon as witness heard they were stolen property he went to Mr. Petts's and gave them up. A few minutes afterwards Sergt. Ovenden came in.

Edward Paine, a seaman, said the prisoner was offering stockings for sale in the Railway Inn on Friday. Witness bought a pair for 6d.

Sergt. Ovenden said he found the prisoner in the bar of the Queen's Head public house about ten minutes after one. The man was apparently asleep, and the worse for drink. Witness took him to the police station. He made no reply on being charged with theft. Witness received the stockings produced from the above named witnesses.

Prisoner said he was Not Guilty. The stockings were handed to him by a person he had seen several times in the town, who asked him to dispose of them, as he might as well do that as stand about with his hands in his pockets. The person spoken of said he would be satisfied if prisoner brought back 1s. 9d., and appointed to meet him at the Queen's Head. Prisoner had no idea they were stolen property.

The Bench found prisoner Guilty and sentenced him to six weeks' hard labour.

Prisoner was then further charged with stealing three jugs, value 2s., from the shop of John Surrey on Thursday night.

Prosecutor identified the jugs produced.

Thomas Venner, a porter, said he saw prisoner at the Rendezvous. They left the house together, and went along as far as Mr. Surrey's, when witness saw prisoner take three jugs from the shop. Witness then turned back.

Mr. Bradley: Why didn't you go into Mr. Surrey's shop and tell him?

Witness: Well, I thought it was nothing at all to do with me, and I made no more to do but turned round and went back.

Mr. Bradley: Did you give information to the police?

Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Bradley: You thought he had a right to the things?

Witness: No, sir.

The Mayor: Do you mean to say you saw this man steal these jugs and didn't think it was your duty to go and inform the police?

Witness: I could not say he stole them.

The Mayor: But you saw him take them?

Witness: Yes, sir.

The Mayor: Then why did you not go and inform them?

Witness: I did not know whether he bought them or not.

The Mayor: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, said the defendant came in on Thursday night between half past nine and ten with three jugs. A fisherman named Hart bought them of him. Hart left them with the landlord to go to sea.

Prisoner (in reply to the usual question): To this charge I must plead Guilty.

The Bench gave him a month's hard labour, to follow the last sentence.

The Mayor: Venner, I wish just to speak to you. The Bench consider the way in which you have given your evidence is very unsatisfactory, and the fact is you have run a very good chance of being put in the same position as prisoner. You saw the man take the jugs and hadn't the honesty to inform Mr. Surrey of his loss. Such conduct is very reprehensible. You must be more careful.

Venner: Yes, sir. Thank you.

The Mayor: The Bench wish me to make a remark with regard to the exposing of goods for sale by tradesmen. Now and then it acts as an incentive to men out of employ to steal. We hope in future they will not expose more goods than it is necessary.

Supt. Taylor said goods were very much exposed outside of the shops in the town.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 June 1887.

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

Mr. Minter applied on behalf of Mr. G. Burgess for the transfer of the licence of the Richmond Tavern. He said that Mr. Burgess was joint owner with his brother of the furniture, fixtures, &c., and that his deceased brother, the late landlord, had died intestate, leaving no property, and that the furniture &c. had been lent to him. The application was made with the concurrence of his brother, who was living at Weston-Super-Mare. Mr. Burgess was sworn and detailed the circumstances as stated by Mr. Minter and the application was granted.

 

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.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 15 February 1888.

Monday, February 13th: Justices Present: Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Richard Thompson, a private in the Oxfordshire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the High Street on Sunday night. He was further charged with breaking two glasses, value one shilling; a bottle of brandy, value four shillings; and damaging postage stamps, value two shillings, the property of George Burgess. Disy Burgess said that she was the daughter of George Burgess, who was proprietor of the Rendezvous Tavern, High Street. The prisoner was in the house about 9.50 on the previous evening with a civilian. The civilian called for drinks and witness served him with gin hot, gin cold, and a glass of beer. Prisoner then called for three gins hot, but as he was drunk she refused to serve him. He then took up the glass from which he had been drinking and threw it at the mirror behind the bar, breaking a bottle of brandy, value four shillings. He threw it on purpose, and he also broke two glasses, the value of which is one shilling. Two shilling worth of stamps which were on the shelf were spoiled by being saturated with the spirit. Witness's mother was in the bar with her at the time. She sent a man who was in the bar for a policeman, but before Sergeant Butcher arrived the prisoner had left the house.

P.S. Butcher said that he was on duty in High Street about ten o'clock on Sunday night, and saw the prisoner in front of the Rendezvous, drunk and scuffling with a number of soldiers and civilians. He had his belt off and was shouting and swearing. Witness apprehended him, and afterwards learned that he had done some damage at the Rendezvous.

In answer to the Clerk, the prisoner said he had nothing to say, except that he hoped they would be lenient with him. He had been a teetotaller for seven months, but on the Sunday he had some spirits and was mad – must have been. He had been fifteen months in the service.

Col. De Crespigny said the prisoner would be fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs on the first charge, and on the second 2s. 6d. fine, 5s. damages (stamps not being included, as they could probably be used), and 5s. costs.

In reply to the Clerk's question “Can you pay the money?”, prisoner said “I'll pay nothing”, and he was accordingly removed to the “lower regions”.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 February 1888.

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

Richard Thompson, a private in the Oxfordshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in High Street the previous evening. There was a further charge against him for wilfully breaking two glasses, value 1s., a bottle of brandy, value 4s., and damaging 2s. worth of postage stamps, the property of Mr. Burgess, at the Rendezvous Hotel the same evening.

Daisy Burgess, daughter of the landlord, deposed that she was in the bar on the night in question about ten minutes to ten, when the prisoner came in with a civilian. There was another soldier in the bar and all three were served with drink and drank together. The prisoner was drunk and called for three glasses of gin, but she would not serve him in consequence of the prisoner being inebriated. The prisoner then took up a glass and threw it at the looking glass, and broke two glasses, which were worth 1s., a bottle of brandy worth 4s., and damaged 2s. worth of stamps through being saturated by the spirits. Witness sent for assistance and had him put out. She did not know who the civilian was but knew him by sight. Her mother was in the bar at the time.

Police constable Butcher said he was on duty at 10 o'clock last night in the High Street. He saw the prisoner in front of the Rendezvous, drunk. His belt was off and he was striking at several soldiers and civilians with him. Took him to the station and then found out that he had done some damage at the public house.

Prisoner: Don't put it on quite so stiff. (Laughter)

Colonel De Crespigny said the prisoner would be fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs in the first offence: in the other he would be fined 5s. and 2s. 6d. costs and the amount of damage done, excepting for the stamps. In default of payment he would be sent to prison for 14 days.

Prisoner: I shall not pay anything.

Removed below.

 

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 Chronicle 26 January 1889.

Bankruptcy.

A sitting of the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court was held at the Guildhall on Friday, before the Refistrar (Mr. Walter Furley). The Official Receiver (Mr. Worsfold Mowll) was in attendance.

Re. George Burgess, former license victualler, Folkestone: Mr. Lewis (Dover) appeared for Messrs. Binfield, wine and spirit merchants, Dover; and Mr. Ward (Folkestone) for the debtor.

The Official Receiver said there was a deficiency of 707 11s. 2d. Debtor was a guarantor to the Folkestone Exhibition for 100. He had been bankrupt on a previous occasion.

Under examination, the bankrupt stated that in 1867 he took the Richmond Tavern, which he had carried on ever since. In 1881 he took a market garden and laid out a large amount on the construction of forcing pits, greenhouses, piggeries, stables, a well, &c. He subsequently bought the Dover Castle coffee house; in 1884 he took the Rendezvous Hotel; and he also purchased a house in Richmond Street and a cottage at Capel. Messrs. Flint and Sons, brewers, in July, 1888, proceeded against him for 900 which he owed them, and he had to leave the Rendezvous Hotel. He was next compelled to pay off a load he had obtained from the National Provincial Bank. His market crops had failed; he found in July that his potato crop was a total failure. In November or the beginning of December he made over his possessions to Messrs. Flint, in satisfaction of their Rendezvous Hotel account. Mr. Flint knew that he owed other people money at the time. He was left with 200, out of which he subsequently paid 167 more to Messrs. Flint. When he signed the deed making over the property to Mr. Flint he received 70 odd. Subsequently he went to the White Hart with Mr. Flint. They stayed about an hour, and witness got intoxicated. He then gave Mr. Flint the 70, as he was not in a condition to take care of it, and told him he might deduct 50 owing on the Richmond Tavern account. 15 of the remaining money was paid to Mr. Ward (solicitor, Folkestone) for the filing of witness's petition. The money was forwarded by cheque, on witness's order, by Messrs. Flint. Lord Radnor was the owner of witness's garden. He owed His lordship 182 rental. He received nothing on account of the money he had laid out on the property.

The Official Receiver said the sum of 117 appeared to have been allowed for the improvements he had made.

The debtor said he considered that about 450 short. Mr. Banks (Lord Radnor's agent) called in Mr. Pilcher, sen., to value the work done in the garden. Mr. Pilcher's son had since taken possession of the garden on the payment of the valuation.

Witness only kept books in reference to the market garden business.

The examination was adjourned until the 8th February.

 

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 Chronicle 16 February 1889.

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court.

A sitting of this Court was held at the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Friday, before Mr. Registrar Furley.

Re. George William Burgess, Folkestone: Mr. Ward represented the debtor, and the examination was adjourned for a week as a private examination was going to be held.

 

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 Chronicle 12 December 1896.

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

Mr. Collins was granted an extension of temporary authority to sell at the Rendezvous Hotel.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 January 1897.

Local News.

On Wednesday Mr. Collins was granted the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 February 1898.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. John Proctor received temporary authority to sell at the Rendezvous Hotel.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1901.

Local News.

On Wednesday afternoon the mortal remains of Mr. John Procter, the late landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, who died on February 1st, were laid to rest in the cemetery, Cheriton Road.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 March 1901.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Messrs. Wightwick, Pledge, Pursey, Stainer, and Salter.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel from the late Mr. Proctor to Mrs. Proctor, his widow.

 

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 Chronicle 26 October 1901.

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

Mr. Kohlhammer was granted the transfer of the Rendezvous Hotel.

 

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 Herald 26 October 1901.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swofer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Kohlhammer was granted the transfer of the Rendezvous Hotel.

 

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 Herald 31 January 1903.

Wednesday, January 28th: Before Mr. Vaughan and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Jack Morley was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, and Peter Kelley was summoned under the new Act for attempting to procure drink for a drunken person. Neither of the defendants appeared.

William Everest, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said the defendants came into his bar on the previous evening. The sober one asked for two half pints of beer, and laid down 2d. Witness refused to serve him.

P.C. Sales stated that he went into the bar and heard the last witness refuse to serve defendants. He saw the two defendants, and Morley was drunk. The last witness told him to order the men out of the bar, and he did so.

Morley was fined 5s. and 9s. costs, and Kelley 10s. and 9s. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 May 1903.

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

Charles Kosh was summoned for being drunk and disorderly on Saturday afternoon, in High Street and Rendezvous Street.

P.C. Charles Johnston said that at 6.15 on Saturday he saw prisoner in High Street “rolling drunk”. He went into the Rendezvous Hotel, where the landlord refused to serve him. On coming outside he caused a disturbance, and witness was compelled to take him into custody.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said he had got some work to do. If the Bench would give him a chance, he could get back in time to commence at 1 p.m.

The Chief Constable casually mentioned that this was Kosh's twelfth appearance.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'. He elected to do the seven days'.

 

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 Chronicle 20 February 1904.

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

Mr. G.A. Godfrey, manager of the Northumberland Arms Hotel, Tottenham Court Road, London, applied for the transfer to him of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel, at present held by William Everist.

The Chief Constable said that he had made inquiries of the Metropolitan Police, and that there was no objection against the transfer of the licence to the applicant.

The transfer was accordingly granted.

 

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 Herald 20 February 1904.

Saturday, February 13th: Before Mr. W. Wighwick, Mr. C.J. Pursey, and Alderman W.G. Herbert.

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

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 March 1904.

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

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred from Mr. William Everest to Mr. George Albert 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 Herald 5 March 1904.

Wednesday, March 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was permanently transferred from William Everest to George Albert Godfrey, and that of the Globe Hotel from Mr. Faber to Mr. Hardy.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 March 1904.

County Court.

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

William Everist v Flint and Co.: In this case William Everist, licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, brought an action against Flint and Co., the proprietors, for damages in consequence of the refusal of the defendants to allow plaintiff to sell certain fixtures on disposing of the business to Mrs. Barnes.

Mr. de Wet appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendants were represented by counsel (Mr. Hayward), instructed by Messrs. Nicholson, Graham and Graham.

Counsel for the defendants stated at the commencement of the proceedings that the articles in dispute had originally numbered twelve, but of this his clients had withdrawn their claim to ten, leaving only a copper and a kitchen dresser in dispute.

Mr. William Everist, the plaintiff, said that he had entered into possession of the Rendezvous Hotel on April 2nd, 1902, and had left on February 11th, 1904. On entering he had paid his predecessor, Mr. John Coalhammer (sic), for the dresser and the copper, which were included in the inventory. On Jan. 12th, 1904, he disposed of the lease and fitting to Mrs. Barnes, who was then informed by Mr. Hayward, who acted for him upon this occasion, that some of the articles could not be sold. Mr. Hayward had advised him, however, to proceed with the transfer, and afterwards sue Messrs. Flint and Co. for damages.

Under cross-examination witness said that the copper was built into the wall. He did not claim the things, but their value.

Mr. Henry Hayward, estate agent, said that he had had 35 years' experience in the transfer of licensed premises. It was usual to take a tenant's inventory as his title deed. No new fixtures could come into the inventory without the brewers' knowledge. He himself knew that the dresser had been included in the valuation of the incoming tenant for 22 years. Witness remarked that the copper would be a landlord's fixture in any but a public house.

Mr. Benjamin Twyman, who took the oath in Jewish fashion, said that his position was that of outdoor manager to Messrs. Flint and Co., but he had also a private practice as a valuer. It was the custom in transferring a business to hand on the inventory of the previous tenant.

Mr. Alexander Ward, managing director of the defendant company, was then called for the defence. From 14 years' experience he stated that incoming tenants did not purchase landlord's fixtures from the outgoing tenant, as they were part and parcel of the freehold. Messrs. Flint and Co., when they purchased the business, had paid for the fixtures. The copper was an integral part of the building, and not a trade fixture, but for the use of the inmates of the house.

John William Truman, auctioneer and hotel valuer, spoke from 40 years' experience. When acting for Mrs. Barnes he had decided not to purchase the copper and dresser, as he had never known these things included in an inventory before.

Questioned by His Honour, witness confessed that he had omitted the fixtures after learning of the objection by the company.

Counsel then addressed His Honour at considerable length, and laid stress upon the importance of this case to his clients, who had purchased 114 licensed houses when taking over the business of Messrs. Flint and Sons.

His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiff, with costs, on 6 7s.

 

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 Herald 19 March 1904.

County Court.

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

William Everest v Flint and Co. Ltd: Claim for 6 7s., the value of property retained by defendant, and 5 5s. damages.

Mr. H. Douglas De Wet appeared for the plaintiff, while the defendant company was represented by Mr. A. Haydon, barrister.

Mr. Haydon, at the opening of the case, said it was one of very great importance to the defendant company, who were brewers, and he would ask His Honour to take a note.

The Judge consented.

Mr. William Everest, a retired sea captain, and late landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, said that he was now residing at the York Hotel, Dover Road. For some time he had been a licensed victualler in the town. On the 2nd April, 1902, he entered into possession of the Rendezvous Hotel, where he carried on business until the 11th February of this year. Before coming to Folkestone he was the tenant of the King's Head, at Whitstable, a house – as in the case of the Rendezvous – belonging to Messrs. Flint. He was persuaded to change houses by Mr. Flint, and the company's agent, Mr. Twyman. He thereupon succeeded Mr. J. Kohlhammer as tenant, and paid that gentleman 808 17s. 6d. for his interest in the business. As his predecessor had not been long in the house, witness agreed to take over the household furniture and effects for 570 5s., an inventory of which he produced. In that inventory were enumerated the whole of the articles comprising the furniture which witness had claimed. From his experience of the trade, one could always sell to the incoming tenant the same articles that were included in the inventory. On the 12th January, 1904, he entered into a contract to sell the household fixtures to Mrs. N.E. Barnes, who agreed to the purchase. Witness employed Mr. Hayward, of Worsfold and Hayward, to value for him, while Mr. Twyman, of Messrs. Flint, represented the brewery company, and Mr. Truman, of London, acted for Mrs. Barnes. The brewery company refused to allow 12 articles to be sold, including stoves, a copper, and a dresser. Eventually they abandoned their claim to all but the latter two, which were valued at 2 15s. These articles were in the inventory as having been the tenant's property.

Mr. Henry Hayward (of Worsfold and Hayward, Dover) said that for 35 years he had been a valuer of licensed property. Twenty two years ago a dresser was in the valuation of the then tenant, while the copper was in the inventory of Mrs. Proctor, who preceded Mr. Kohlhammer as tenant of the Rendezvous. This claim had never been disputed before.

Mr. Benjamin Twyman proved acting as valuer for Mr. Everest when that gentleman took possession. Witness did not then object to any items being entered in the inventory as tenant's fixtures.

Mr. Alexander Ward, managing director of the defendant company, said that his company bought the business from Messrs. Flint and Sons Ltd., in September, 1903. He was managing director of the Dartford Brewery as well as the Canterbury one, and he considered that the dresser and the copper referred to were purely and solely the property of the brewers, and not of the tenants.

Mr. John Truman, auctioneer and hotel valuer, gave it as his opinion that the fixtures referred to were the property of the brewers.

Eventually His Honour, after a long summing up, gave judgement for the plaintiff for 6 7s. in respect of the articles retained, but refused an amount for damages. Leave was given to appeal, but the defendant company's counsel intimated that no appeal would be made.

The costs of witnesses were remitted.

 

Folkestone Daily News 30 May 1906.

Wednesday, May 30th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Pursey, Stainer, Leggett, Hamilton, Swoffer, and Linton.

An application for the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel to Mrs. Culpeck was objected to by the Chief Constable on the grounds of the applicant being a married woman. Mr. Godfrey, the present licensee, was only manager.

The case was adjourned till the next licensing meeting, July 11th, for enquiries to be made and fresh notices to be served.

 

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 Herald 2 June 1906.

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

Mr. De Wet appeared for the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel from Albert Godfrey to Mrs. Colpeck.

The Chief Constable stated that he did not see why this house should be held by a lady when her husband was living.

Mr. De Wet said it was the lady's money that paid the brewers. Her husband lived on the premises, and was always in charge there. Her outgoing tenant had been acting as manager for her.

As Mrs. Colpeck had first been notified as Mrs. Baines, the matter was adjourned until the next licensing day, the Magistrates ordering fresh notices to be served.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 July 1906.

Licence Transfer.

Before Messrs. Hamilton, Fynmore, and Linton.

Rendezvous Hotel from R.F. Godfrey to Mrs. Colbeck. It was stated that her husband would always reside on the premises.

 

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 Herald 14 July 1906.

Wednesday, July 11th: Before Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. Linton.

Licence was transferred as follows: The Rendezvous Hotel (adjourned from June 12th), from Mr. 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 Herald 24 November 1906.

Inquest.

The Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) held an inquest at the Town Hall on Monday evening on the body of Edgar William Haizell Colbeck, who died on Saturday last from the effects of burns.

Mr. William Edgar Colbeck, licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, identified the body as that of his son, aged two years and four months. On Thursday morning (15th inst.), at half past seven, he was in bed, and heard a cry of “Fire” uttered by his step-daughter, who slept with the deceased in a bedroom immediately opposite to his own. His wife, who slept nearest to the door, was first to get out, and he (witness) immediately followed. He saw his son standing in the room, with his flannelette nightshirt alight. The flames were then only at the bottom of the nightshirt. With his wife's assistance he put out the flames. There was no fire in the room, extra precaution having been taken the previous night by removing the candle from the boy's room. There were no matches in the room that he (witness) was aware of. Witness had seen the boy pick burnt matches off the floor. He (witness) found a box of matches on the floor of the room after the occurrence. The box was closed, but was full of matches. He picked a burnt match up from the floor. Deceased could only speak a little. The last words he spoke to witness were on Friday morning, when he said “Dada”.

Mrs. Mary Adelaide Colbeck corroborated her husband's statement.

Maud Barnes said she had been in the habit of sleeping with her step-brother. She woke up on Thursday morning hearing the deceased screaming. He was just going to stand up in bed. His nightshirt was in flames. She pilled him onto the floor. She had never had any reason to light the candle of a night. The candle was always gone from the room when she awake in the morning. She thought deceased must have got out of bed and taken the matches from another room.

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

Dr. Barrett deposed that at 8 o'clock on Thursday morning he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel, where a child had been burnt. On arrival he found the mother with the child in her arms. There were very extensive burns on the lower part of the abdomen, all round the loins, and on the thighs. He fetched in a nurse, and gave directions. He went in again afterwards, and the child was much quieter than before, but the boy never really rallied, and seemed to lose colour. He also lost consciousness, and died on Saturday morning at three o'clock from the shock. The doctor added that if the step-sister had had the presence of mind to put the clothes over the child, the result might not have been so serious. Dr. Barrett concluded with a reference to the inflammable nature of flannelette.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death, caused through burns”.

 

Folkestone Daily News 4 April 1907.

Thursday, April 4th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Stainer and Hawksley.

Robert Walker, a respectably dressed young man, with a face badly bruised, appeared in the dock charged with being drunk and incapable.

Mr. De Wet appeared for the accused, having been instructed by Mrs. Colbeck, the licence holder of the Rendezvous Hotel.

When the accused was called upon to plead, Mr. De Wet asked permission to consult him, as he had only just been instructed.

His Worship courteously informed prisoner's advocate that they might retire into the Justices' room, and the Bench would wait.

He thanked His Worship, and said that was not necessary, as the accused, under his advice, would plead guilty, and he would content himself by cross-examining the witnesses with a view to showing that Mrs. Colbeck was not a party to their drinking on her premises at that hour of the night.

Mr. Bradley pointed out that that was not the charge before the Bench.

P.C. Ashby deposed that at about 12.45 just after midnight on Wednesday, he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel by the servant, who was very much frightened and distressed. She told him that if he did not come in murder would be done. He entered the house and found the accused, Walker, and the landlord, Mr. Colbeck, both very drunk and fighting. They were very violent and he tried to part them. He then came outside and Walker followed him into the street, attempted to mount his bicycle, and fell off. In his (the constable's) opinion he was incapable of taking care of himself.

Mr. De Wet: Were you called by Mrs. Colbeck? – No.

Did the servant tell you that she had sent for you? – No.

Mr. De Wet then addressed the Bench, saying that the prisoner's condition was caused by Mr. Colbeck, who, although the husband, had nothing to do with the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel. That was in Mrs. Colbeck's name, and he should have a further application to make after this case was settled.

The Bench fined Walker 5s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Mr. De Wet applied for a warrant on behalf of Mrs. Colbeck to arrest her husband, whom she alleged was drunk at the Rendezvous Hotel, and had driven her out of the house with a stick.

Mr. Bradley: Apply by summons.

Mr. De Wet: This case is so serious I ask for a warrant.

Mr. Bradley: Then lay your information in the usual way.

At this juncture Mr. Colbeck appeared in the police court in a state of intoxication.

The Chief Constable asked him to come into Court. He declined to do so. The Chief Constable then went out of Court and talked to him a bit, and he then went away.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 April 1907.

Thursday, April 4th: Before the Mayor, and Messrs. J. Stainer and G. Hawksley.

Arthur Walker, a very respectably dressed man, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Rendezvous Street that morning. His face was horribly scarred. Mr. De Wet appeared for prisoner, who leaded Guilty.

P.C. Ashby deposed that that morning at 12.15 he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel by a maid, who said “Do come quick, or there will be a murder here”. He went into the saloon bar, where he saw prisoner fighting with the landlord. They were both very drunk, and struggled together. He tried to part them, and was struck in the face. Shortly afterwards prisoner went into Rendezvous Street, and fell on the ground. He was drunk and incapable. With the assistance of Detective Sergeant Burniston he took the prisoner to the police station, where, on being charged, he became very violent.

Cross-examined: It was Mr. Colobeck with whom the prisoner was fighting. Mrs. Colbeck was the licensee, and she informed witness that the prisoner came in about half past ten, and she had refused to serve him.

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

Mrs. Colbeck, of 1, Rendezvous Street, applied through Mr. De Wet for a warrant against her husband, who, she said, was at home threatening to injure her. He had assaulted her on several occasions, including that morning.

The Court directed that information should be laid for a summons.

 

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 Daily News 10 April 1907.

Wednesday, April 10th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore and T.J. Vaughan.

The Magistrates had their time fully occupied in adjudicating upon summonses issued against the landlady of the Rendezvous Hotel, Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck, for permitting drunkenness, and her husband, William Edward Colbeck, for being drunk on licensed premises. From the evidence it will be seen that the cases form a sequel to a little fracas which preceded a police court charge on Thursday in last week. The first summons heard was that against Mary Emily Colbeck, who, the Chief Constable said, was charged with permitting drunkenness on her licensed premises, the Rendezvous Hotel. Mr. Douglas De Wet defended, and tendered a plea of Not Guilty.

P.C. Ashby said: On the night of April 3rd I was on duty in High Street shortly after midnight. About 12.15, on reaching the Rendezvous Hotel, I tried the front doors, and found them locked. As I left the last door, the third, I heard the door of the saloon open.

The Chief Constable: What happened?

Witness: A young girl came out and made a communication to me.

And what did you do? – In consequence of that communication I went inside the hotel, to the saloon bar, 15 ft. from the front entrance.

Tell the Magistrates exactly what you saw. – I saw the landlady's husband fighting with a man named Walker. In the struggle, Walker turned and deliberately struck me in the face. The man was very violent, but I managed to get him on the ground. Then Detective Burniston arrived.

The Chief Constable: What condition were these two men in? – They were both drunk.

What was the condition of the room? – Glass was strewn on the floor and chairs were overturned.

Did either of the two men bear any signs of ill-usage? – Both were marked; blood was coming from Walker's mouth.

Walker having got up, what occurred? – Sergeant Burniston had arrived, and said to Mrs. Colbeck “What is this man doing here?” Mrs. Colbeck said “He came in at 10.30 with Mr. Colbeck. He has no business here, and I won't have him here”. Walker refused his name and address.

What occurred then? – Detective Sergeant Burniston and I left the house. Shortly after Walker came out; he was wheeling a bicycle and was so drunk that he fell over it. He then assisted the man (Walker).

The Chief Constable: Have you any doubt as to the condition of Mr. Colbeck as well as the other man? – None whatever.

Did you tell Mrs. Colbeck you would report her? – Yes, and she made no reply.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Beyond the statement of Mrs. Colbeck I have no reason to know what time the man entered the bar.

Was Mrs. Colbeck very much worried? – She seemed so, sir, she was crying.

Was she doing her best to part the men? – I should think she was, sir.

Det. Sergt. Burniston corroborated the last witness by describing the condition of the room and the men after the fracas.

The Chief Constable: Did you say anything to defendant?

Witness: Yes. I said “Is this man a lodger or a visitor?” Mrs. Colbeck replied “The man has no business here; he came in at 10.30”.

The Chief Constable: What happened to Walker?

Witness: Subsequently Walker was locked up on a charge of being drunk and incapable.

What was the state of Mrs. Colbeck? – She seemed much upset.

Thoroughly agitated? – That is so.

You noticed great confusion in the bar? – Yes.

Was there any shortage of bottles on the counter? – There might have been.

Did the maid also appear to be agitated? – Yes, she did.

Did Mrs. Colbeck say “He has no right here, and I won't have him”? – I did not hear that.

Sergeant Lawrence said: I was present at the station when Walker was charged. Subsequently Colbeck came up to the office. Colbeck was drunk at the time.

Mary Emily Colbeck, sworn, said: I am the licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel. On the 3rd of April, about 7 o'clock, I, after taking some air, returned home and found my husband and Walker in the bar. Both men were then quite sober. They went out to have a game of billiards, came in again again about 8 o'clock. They were perfectly sober then and went out to get a fish supper. They came back about 10.30. Mr. Walker took his cycle from the saloon bar as if going home. Mr. Colbeck and he went out together. On that occasion neither of them had any drink. The next occasion I saw them was at five minutes to eleven. Both were then very “boozed”. Mr. Colbeck said to Mr. Walker “Are you not going to have a drink?” A whisky and soda was asked for, and I refused it, saying “You do not want any more; you have had enough”.

Mr. De Wet: What happened?

Witness: Mr. Colbeck took up his stick and cleared the counter. Mr. Walker said “Look here, old man, you are going a little bit too far”. Mr. Colbeck said “What has that got to do with you?; you know as much about my wife as I”.

That annoyed Mr. Walker? – Naturally.

What did you do? – I was frightened, and went upstairs to fetch the maid. That was about 11.15.

Mr. De Wet: Well! What then happened?

Witness: Mr. Colbeck asked for drink. I refused to serve him. He pushed me by the shoulders on to a small table, and then went round to the bar and served himself.

Mr. De Wet: Had you any occasion to go upstairs just then?

Witness: Yes, to shut my child's door, as I wished to prevent the child hearing the noise.

Mr. De Wet: What happened on your return?

Witness: My maid said Mr. Colbeck had drawn more drink. I took it and threw it down the sink.

What caused the blows? – Why, the insult of Mr. Colbeck to Mr. Walker.

What effect did this have on Walker? – Walker became very violent. He got Mr. Colbeck on the ground, and said something like “I'll kill you, you ----“. My strength was giving out, and I asked Mary to go and fetch someone.

From 8 o'clock, when you served Walker with a bitter, did you serve either Walker or Colbeck with any intoxicating liquor? – I did not.

And in consequence of the refusal did you suffer an assault? – I did.

What was the argument between the men? – Education.

The Chief Constable: How many minutes was it before the first blow was struck and the constable arrived? – A few minutes.

When your husband helped himself to drink in the bar, did he also give Walker any? – Yes, he did.

Did you take any steps at all to turn these men off the premises? – My husband had invited Walker to stay all night, so I advised them to go to bed.

Why? – I thought it might pacify Mr. Colbeck.

Why did you not send for assistance? – What could I do with two mad men?

You knew where the police station was? – Yes.

Mary Ramsley said: I am a maid at the Rendezvous Hotel. On ednesday, April 3rd, I was in the bar. Just before I went upstairs at 8 o'clock I saw Walker and Mr. Colbeck, both of whom were then sober. The next time I saw the two was about 11.15 when I came down and found both very quarrelsome, and some broken glass on the floor. Mr. Colbeck called for drink, and mistress refused to serve him. He then took hold of her shoulders and pushed her back, saying “Shut up”, and drew drink for himself and Walker. Mistress had occasion to go upstairs, and while she was gone Mr. Colbeck obtained more drink. Later I saw Mr. Colbeck strike Walker with a stick. The two closed, and we tried to separate them. Walker wanted to go home, and Mr. Colbeck wanted him to stay the night. I begged them to go to bed, but Mr. Colbeck would not do so.

Chief Constable: Walker and Colbeck have been very friendly of late? – Yes.

Very much together, eh? – Yes.

Has Walker stayed all night before? – No.

The man Walker was called by Mr. De Wet, and swore that after leaving the Rendezvous at 10.30 he returned at something to 11, and Mrs. Colbeck did not serve him with any drink.

Chief Constable: Do you really remember that? – I remember that. It was after the blow that I felt bad. It was on the temple.

Were you not drunk before the blow? – I was, but not very. I think it was the blow on the temple.

Mr. De Wet, addressing the Bench, said the case was a sad one, and also an important one, but he submitted there was no case to answer. There was no evidence of “permitting”.

The Chief Constable: What about the case of the licence holder found drunk in bed at three o'clock in the morning?

Mr. De Wet (continuing) held that the prosecution had not made out their case. The word “permitting” always assumed some power to prevent. In this case what power had the poor licence holder to prevent that which occurred? At very considerable length and with exceptional care Mr. De Wet dissected the evidence of the prosecution and the experience of the defendant which led up to a very regrettable fracas.

Mr. Bradley: Mrs. Colbeck did everything but the right thing – she omitted to send for the police to eject Walker.

When the time arrived for the Bench to consider the case there was only the Chairman (Mr. E.T. Ward) and Lieut. Col. Fynmore left to adjudicate. The Chairman, after a short consultation with the Clerk, made the following announcement: Well, Mrs. Colbeck, we have a good deal of sympathy with you. There is no doubt there was a breach of the law – you ought to have sent for the police and got rid of these men. In considering all the facts we intend to deal leniently with you; you are liable to a fine of 10. The fine will be 2 and 15s. costs.

The fine was immediately paid.

The next summons, that of drunkenness against the last defendant's husband was then proceeded with, William Edgar Colbeck first pleading that he was not very drunk, and then that he was drunk, without a qualification, at midday on the day following the midnight fracas.

P.C. Leonard Johnson, in proving the case, said on the day in question he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel by defendant's wife, who told him that defendant had been knocking her about. The man was then on the pavement, and drunk.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 7 days' hard labour.

 

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 Herald 13 April 1907.

Wednesday, April 10th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Messrs. R.J. Fynmore and C.J. Pursey.

Mary Emily Colbeck was summoned for permitting drunkenness on her licensed premises, the Rendezvous Hotel, on 4th April. Mr. De Wet appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Ashby deposed that shortly after midnight on the 3rd inst., he went to the Rendezvous Hotel at 12.15, as he came round on his beat. There were three doors opening direct from the street. He tried them to see if they were secure. As he was leaving the last one, that was the third, he heard the door of the saloon open. A woman came running out and said something to him, and in consequence he accompanied her and entered by the first door. There was a passage inside, which extended for 15 or 16 feet from the front door. He went into the saloon, where he saw a man named Walker fighting with the landlord, Mr. Colbeck, husband of the defendant. They were struggling together, and he (witness) tried to part them. The man Walker turned round and struck him (witness) in the face. Witness then got hold of Walker and held him apart from Mr. Colbeck. He became very violent, and witness had to get him on the ground and hold him there till Detective Sergt. Burniston came down. Both men were drunk. When witness went into the saloon there was only Mrs. Colbeck present. There were scenes of disorder. The glasses were strewn about the floor, and the chairs were knocked down. Both men were marked about the face, and blood was flowing from Mr. Colbeck's mouth. Some conversation took place afterwards when Detective Sergt. Burniston was present. Detective Sergt. Burniston said to Mrs. Colbeck “What is he doing here?”, referring to Walker. “Is he a friend?” Mrs. Colbeck replied in the negative, and said “Walker came in at about 10.30 with Mr. Colbeck and he has no business here, and I don't want him here”. Witness then asked Walker his name, but he refused to give it. Mr. Colbeck then asked Walker to get out of the house, to which Walker said “That's it; I will go”. Detective Segt. Burniston and himself left the house, followed by Walker. Walker had a bicycle with him, and brought it out, but he was too drunk to wheel it, and fell over it. He was arrested and charged with being drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. Before leaving the house witness told Mrs. Colbeck that he should report her for permitting drunkenness one her licensed premises. Defendant made no reply. Witness could see that Mrs. Colbeck tried to persuade them to be quiet, but she was excited and very agitated, and scarcely knew what to do. She seemed as though she had had a lot of trouble with them; there was no doubt that she had done her best.

Detective Sergt. Burniston stated that at 12.20 on the 4th April he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel. He entered by the hotel entrance, and saw P.C. Ashby struggling with Walker, of 23, Alexandra Gardens. Walker was very drunk, and standing opposite he saw Mr. Colbeck, who was very drunk. He saw the defendant, and went to her and asked the reason for the disorder, for there were scenes of disorder, chairs being knocked down and glasses broken. Both Walker and Colbeck were marked about the face, and seemed as though they had been fighting. Mrs. Colbeck made no reply as to the disorder. He asked her if Walker was a friend or a lodger, and she replied “Neither”, and said that Walker had been there since 10.30, and had no business there. Witness told her he would report her for allowing him to remain on the premises during prohibited hours, and for permitting drunkenness. Defendant made no reply. Witness then left the house, followed by Walker, and in Rendezvous Street he found that Walker was too drunk to take care of himself. He was then taken to the police station, but was released. Mrs. Colbeck made no explanation, but was excited and agitated.

Sergt. Lawrence deposed that he was on duty at the police station on the 4th April when the man Walker was brought in. There was no doubt that he was drunk.

Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck deposed that she was the licence holder of the Rendezvous Hotel. On the 3rd April she returned to her house at 7 o'clock, and saw her husband there with Walker in the bar. They were quite sober then. They had a drink and went out to have a game of billiards. They came in again at 8 o'clock, afterwards going out to have some supper. They were sober at that time. They returned again at 10.30, and Mr. Walker took his bicycle from the saloon as though he was going home. Mr. Colbeck came in, and they both went out together. They did not have a drink, nor did they ask for one. She saw them again at 10.55, and at that time they were “very boozed”. She was in the act of closing the house. Mr. Colbeck asked Walker to have a drink, and they asked for a whisky and soda. She was behind the bar. She walked into the four-ale bar, and shut the door behind her. When she came back she told them they did not want any more drink, for they had had enough. Colbeck thereupon knocked the bottles and glasses off the counter, and Mr. Walker said “You are going a bit too far”. Mr. Colbeck said “What is that to do with you? Do you know as much about my wife as I do?” Mr. Walker was very much annoyed, and this was the start of the quarrelling. She then went upstairs and called the maid at about 11.15, and when she came down they were both “jangling”. Mr. Colbeck asked to be served, but she would not serve him. He pushed her away, taking hold of her by the shoulder, and served himself to a whisky and soda. He went round the counter again and drank it. The men went on quarrelling about education. She again went upstairs to shut the door of her child's room, for she did not want her to hear the noise. She came down again, and the maid said that Mr. Colbeck had had some more drink. She (witness) got hold of a glass on the counter and threw the contents down the sink. A little later Mr. Colbeck “threw an insult” to Mr. Walker, and they came to blows. Mr. Colbeck struck Mr. Walker first, and Walker then became very violent and half mad. He “went for” Mr. Colbeck, and she (witness) “went for” Walker, and held him as long as possible. Mr. Walker got Mr. Colbeck on the floor eventually, and said he would kill him. She then sent for someone. The maid rushed out and brought in P.C. Ashby. That was nearly 1 o'clock. She closed the house at 11 o'clock, and sometimes she closed a few minutes before. She had given instructions that no-one should be served if they were drunk, and had often refused a customer. She had not served them with any drink, and she did her best to stop them going into the bar, and, as she said before, poured a whisky and soda down the sink. Her husband was a man of some strength, and until the police came she did not know what to do. Mr. Colbeck asked Mr. Walker to stay the night; she did not ask him to stop. Until they began fighting she took no steps to obtain help.

Mary Ransley, maid at the Rendezvous Hotel, corroborated the last witness's statements, and she said she entreated the men not to drink.

A witness deposed that he saw Walker at Belvedere, The Parade, between 10.55 and 11 p.m.

Mr. De Wet said that the case was a sad one. On the evidence before them there was no caser to answer. What power had the poor lady to prevent the two men in this case? There was no doubt it was a breach of the law.

The Chief Constable said the house was quite close to the police station.

Mr. De Wet: People often forget to do the right thing in a state of excitement, for it is admitted that Mrs. Colbeck was excited and agitated.

The Chairman said that defendant's house was close to the police station, and she could have sent there. She was liable to a penalty of 10, but taking the circumstances of the case into consideration, she would be fined 2 and 15s. costs.

Wm. Edward Colbeck was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Johnson said at 12.45 midday on the 4th April he went to the Rendezvous Hotel, and saw defendant, who was drunk. Mrs. Colbeck said that he had been knocking her about.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 7 days.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 July 1907.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 6th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

It will be within the recollection of some of our readers that some time since Mrs. Colbeck, of the Rendezvous Hotel, was convicted by the borough justices and fined 2 for the alleged offence of permitting drunkenness. The conviction at the time seemed to be somewhat doubtful. However, Mrs. Colbeck appealed, and the case was re-heard by the learned Recorder, who quashed the conviction and gave costs against the borough justices.

Although the case took a long time the facts were extremely simple. Mr. Colbeck met a friend, Mr. Walker, an engineer, and after dining the returned home to the Rendezvous Hotel just before closing time.

Both husband and friend were intoxicated, and the husband invited his friend to stay all night. Mrs. Colbeck wanted them to go to bed, but they quarrelled, eventually fought, and the police were called in. Walker left, and on going outside he fell down, was taken into custody, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and incapable, and was fined 5s. and costs on the following morning. Proceedings were then taken against Mrs. Colbeck, the justices convicted, and the Recorder quashed the conviction.

 

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 Herald 13 July 1907.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 6th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The only business was an appeal against the decision of the Justices given on the 10th April last, by Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck, the licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, who was convicted for having unlawfully permitted drunkenness on those licensed premises, contrary to Section 13 of the Licensing Act of 1872.

Mr. Matthew appeared in support of the appeal, and Mr. Dickens for the prosecution.

Mr. Dickens briefly outlined the case. He referred the Recorder to Section 4 of the Licensing Act of 1902, which said that where a licensed person was charged with permitting drunkenness of his premises, and it was proved that any person was drunk on the premises, it should lie with the licensed person that he, or the person employed, took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises. It would rest with the appellant to prove that she took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises.

The rateable value of the Rendezvous Hotel was stated to be 110.

P.C. Ashby deposed that on the 4th April, 1907, at a quarter past twelve, he was in High Street, and went to the Rendezvous Hotel to try the door. A maid attached to the hotel came out of the house, and said “Do come quick, or there will be a murder here”. He then went into the saloon bar, and saw the landlady's husband fighting with a man named Walker. They were both very drunk; they fell on the floor together. He tried to part them, and eventually he did so, but Walker struck him in the face violently. Detective Sergeant Burniston came in about five minutes afterwards, and said to the landlady “Is he (Walker) a friend?” She said “No, he has no business here, and I won't have him here. He came in at half past ten with Mr. Colbeck”. Sergt. Burniston said he should report her for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises, and she made no reply. Sergt. Burniston, Walker, and witness then left the house. Walker staggered from High Street to Rendezvous Street, and fell over a bicycle which he had with him. The same morning he was convicted for being drunk, and fined by the Magistrates.

Cross-examined: He had seen Mr. Colbeck more often drunk than sober. Mrs. Colbeck was standing by, very excited and crying. There were signs of disorder in the bar. A glass was broken, and tables were overturned, etc. Both the men's faces were bleeding.

The Recorder complimented P.C. Ashby on the way in which he had given his evidence, remarking that he had done so very well.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel, High Street, about twenty minutes past twelve on the night of the 4th April. He went into the saloon bar, and found P.C. Ashby struggling with a man named Walker, a local resident. Walker was very drunk, as also was Mr. Colbeck. He saw the landlady and her maid a few yards away. He said to Mrs. Colbeck “Is this man Walker a guest or a lodger?” She said “Neither. He has been here since half past ten; he has no business here. I want him to leave”. He told her he should report her for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises, to which she made no reply. Mrs. Colbeck was very excited and upset. Detective Burniston corroborated the evidence as to Walker falling over the bicycle.

Cross-examined: He thought Mrs. Colbeck was in a condition to form a reasonable judgement about anything. She could not very well get rid of her husband, and if she thought Walker was staying in the house she could not very well get rid of him. She let bedrooms to visitors, but this man resided in the borough.

P.S. Lawrence deposed to being on duty at the police station on the night in question, when Walker was brought in very drunk and incapapble.

Mr. Matthew thought there was a short answer to the case. Of course the position was very vague, because here was a woman holding a licence with her husband living on the premises. One saw what enormous difficulties might be created by the situation. It enabled him, he thought, to raise a very old point, that a woman who had committed an offence in the presence of her husband, and under the coercion of her husband, was not answerable at law for the consequences.

Mr. Dickens suggested that that was a maxim of law that applied only to indictable offences under the old common law. It was not conceivable that it could apply to a case of that kind, because coercion applied to making a woman do anything.

Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck said she was the licensee of the Rendezvous Inn. On the night of April 3rd she got back to the house at 7 o'clock, having been for a walk. Her husband and Mr. Walker were in the bar. They were quite sober. She saw them again at 8 o'clock, when they were still sober. She would have held the licence four years by next February. The house included four or five guests' bedrooms. They had visitors staying there nearly every week. Her husband and Mr. Walker came in again at half past ten, and went straight away again. They were both excited. They returned at five minutes to eleven. She said it was just on closing time, and Mr. Colbeck said he had asked Walker to stay the night. Very shortly afterwards they commenced to quarrel. She sent upstairs for the maid because she did not want to be left alone, as her husband was very violent when in drink. All that time she thought Walker was going to stay the night.

Cross-examined: Walker had never stayed the night before. She had not spoken to him about staying the night.

Mary Ransley, maid at the Rendezvous Hotel on the 4th April, stated that Mrs. Colbeck came to her room and woke her. She dressed quickly and went for the police.

Robert Walker said he was an engineer, and was lately employed in London. Mr. Colbeck asked him, in the presence of Mrs. Colbeck, to stay the night, and he said he would.

P.C. Prebble said he was outside the Rendezvous on the night in question shortly after one o'clock. Mrs. Colbeck, her daughter, and the maid were outside, and Mrs. Colbeck said her husband would not let her come in. Mr. Colbeck was outside.

The Recorder (to Mr. Matthew): Isn't it for you to satisfy me that this lady took all reasonable steps to prevent this?

Mr. Matthew: Yes, sir. Continuing, Mr. Matthew said it was abundantly clear from the evidence of the police constable that Mr. Colbeck asked Walker to stay the night in Mrs. Colbeck's presence, and that Mrs. Colbeck thought Walker was staying the night. Therefore she was not entitled to turn him out at all as a matter of law, because a man who was staying in a licensed house as an inmate or lodger, paying rent or invited, was entitled to be there drunk.

The Recorder: Supposing a friend of the husband was there drunk, would that be permitted by the law?

Mr. Matthew: I think so.

The Recorder: Is that taking all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness?

Mr. Matthew: No, it is not quite that. There are two obligations. You must not permit drunkenness, but at the same time you are the wife of your husband, and you have to act as such, and it is a difficult position for a woman to be in. But my submission is that, in these circumstances, she is not entitled to eject him, and it does not amount to drunkenness, because in the statute it is made clear that that man ought to be regarded as a drunken person within the meaning of the statute who has to be ejected. Again, she had reasonable grounds for thinking that the man Walker was going to stay the night. She had to take reasonable steps, having regard to what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. That it was reasonable to think that Walker was going to stay the night, he put it, was beyond question. The husband said so, and Walker was very drunk. If the husband said so, and Walker was clearly not in a condition to get home, it would be eminently reasonable for her to suppose that he was going to stay. He submitted that, apart from all that, under the circumstances, she did that which was reasonable.

Mr. Dickens contended that Mrs. Colbeck did not take a single step of any kind to prevent drunkenness. It was her business to decide whether the man was going to stay in the house, and if she consented to it she was permitting drunkenness. He submitted that Walker was not going to stay the night, and that Mrs. Colbeck could not have thought so, especially when his house was only just round the corner.

The Court then adjourned, the Recorder withholding his decision until after lunch.

Upon the Court reassembling, the Recorder said the proceedings were taken under Section 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872. Now, Section 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872 had to be read by Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902, because when a person was now charged with permitting drunkenness, or was, under the Act of 1872, on his premises, and it was proved that any person was drunk on the premises, it now lay on the licensee to prove that he or she, or the person employed by him or her, took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises. 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 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 on those premises. The evidence of Police Constable Ashby was the first evidence that was laid before him, and Ashby admitted that in the first instance Mrs. Colbeck might have said that Walker was going to stay for the night. He agreed with both Mr. Dickens and Mr. Matthew that much did turn on the question of aye or nay did Mrs. Colbeck believe, or have reasonable grounds for supposing that Walker was going to stay the night? Now, Burniston, when cross-examined by Mr. Matthew, specifically said that he put this to Mrs. Colbeck: “Is Walker a guest or a lodger?” She said “Neither. He has been here since 10.30; he has no business here; I want him to leave”. It seemed to him that that question put by Burniston was by no manner of means inconsistent with what she had sworn there that day. Walker was neither a guest nor a lodger in that sense, but he believed Mrs. Colbeck, in that instance, did believe that that man, when he came there at 11 o'clock, was going to stay the night. It seemed to him, therefore, that the onus was discharged by that woman under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902. He had given the most careful consideration to the whole of the facts of the case, and he had come to the conclusion that that conviction could not stand. It seemed to him that the licensee had reasonable grounds for supposing, in all the circumstances, that Walker was going to stay the night, not in the sense they understood staying the night themselves in an hotel, registering a bedroom, etc., but the man's condition was such that she believed he was going to stay the night. And if she believed that, then how could he say that he failure to communicate with the police was a failure which would show that she had not taken all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness? He had come to the conclusion that the conviction could not stand, and he quashed the conviction, with costs.

 

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 Herald 7 December 1907.

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

It was a special session for the transfer of licences. That of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred from Mrs. Colbeck to Mr. G. Hensing.

 

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 Herald 6 February 1909.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 3rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor C. Jenner, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, G. Boyd, R.J. Linton, and R.J. Fynmore. Messrs. Boyd, Stainer and Jenner did not adjudicate.

The Chief Constable read his report (see Folkestone Express for details).

The Bench agreed plans that were produced for extensive interior alterations to the Rendezvous Hotel, on the condition that they were carried out within six months.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 September 1909.

Wednesday, September 6th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, and J. Stainer.

An application was made by Mr. Ensink for an occasional licence to sell at the Drill Hall from 9 till 3 on Wednesday. Granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 December 1910.

Saturday, December 10th: Before Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Mr. G. Ensink, of the Rendezvous Hotel, applied for an occasional licence to sell at the Leas Pavilion on the occasion of the annual ball of the Geneva Association, from ten o'clock in the morning till three o'clock the following morning. Granted.

 

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 Caf,” 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 Daily News 19 September 1911.

Tuesday, September 19th: Before Messrs. Ward, Vaughan and Fynmore.

Elizabeth Ann Rogers was charged with being drunk and incapable in High Street.

Inspector Lawrence deposed to seeing prisoner in High Street at 5.30 on Monday afternoon being ejected from the Rendezvous Hotel. He found she was drunk and incapable, so he took her into custody.

Prisoner, a very respectably dressed woman, said she was not feeling very well and took a drop of brandy which overcame her.

The landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel said prisoner came into the house, and seeing she was the worse for drink he had her ejected.

Prisoner was fined 2s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 7 days'.

 

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 Herald 23 September 1911.

Tuesday, September 19th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Alderman T.J. Vaughan.

Eliza Agnes Rogers was charged with being drunk and incapable.

P.S. Lawrence deposed that at 5.30 the previous evening he was in Rendezvous Street, where he saw the accused being ejected from the Rendezvous Hotel by the landlord. When witness got up to her he found that she was helplessly drunk. With assistance he brought accused to the police station.

Defendant said that, not having been well, she took a little brandy.

Mr. Gerard Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, stated that he was called to the bar by his wife at 5 p.m. He ejected the accused, who was not served at the hotel.

The Chief Constable said he thought it was only fair that it should be stated that accused was not served at the hotel.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 7 days'.

 

Folkestone Daily News 18 November 1911.

Saturday, November 18th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Vaughan, Jenner, Fynmore, Wood and Boyd.

George Edward Trice was charged with stealing some hundreds of pounds worth of jewellery, the property of Lady D'Oyly, of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens. Mr. De Wet defended.

Detective Leonard Johnson deposed to hearing of the robbery on the 12th. He arrested the prisoner at Salford on the 16th. He cautioned him and charged him with stealing the articles specified between September and October. The articles consisted of 1 diamond bracelet, 1 diamond ring, 1 gold bracelet, 2 gold tie brooches, 1 gold Albert, 1 gent's gold ring, and 1 lady's ring, the property of Lady D'Oyly, valued at 700. Prisoner replied that he knew nothing about it. On the following morning witness was told that prisoner wished to see him in his cell. On going there he said he wanted to make a statement. Witness cautioned him that whatever he said would be used before the Justices. He replied “Sure”, and made the statement produced as follows: “I stole the diamond ring and bracelet, and got a man to pawn the ring for 35 in London. I showed the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, the bracelet. He asked where I got it from. I said “I never bought it”, and he said he was going to Holland and would dispose of it. I gave the bracelet to him and said I wanted 100 for it. A few days afterwards he sent me 90. I gave 11 to Cottrell, 6 to Gussie, and 6 to Taylor”. He was brought to Folkestone station and formally charged. He made no reply.

He was remanded for one week.

Gerard Ensink, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, was charged with receiving a diamond bracelet, value of 200, stolen by the previous prisoner, well-knowing it to have been stolen.

George Edward Trice, the previous prisoner, sworn, deposed that he was acquainted with a woman named Dalton, who was in charge of Lady D'Oyly's house in Westbourne Gardens. He also knew a girl named Laws who was employed there. During Lady D'Oyly's absence he occasionally stayed at the house with the knowledge of Mrs. Dalton. During his visit he became acquainted with the fact that there were two large cupboards in one of the rooms which contained valuable jewellery. They were both locked. He opened them with a key that he found upstairs. This happened about five or six weeks ago; at that time Mrs. Dalton was away from the house on her holidays. She had given permission for him to stay at the house with Laws. During her holidays he found certain articles of jewellery, amongst them being a diamond bracelet, which he took with a diamond ring. He took them away from the house. He had been in the habit of visiting the Rendezvous Hotel, where he had been formerly employed as potman. He had been on friendly terms with Ensink. He showed him the bracelet two weeks previously. He had taken the jewellery to London with the girl Laws, but at her instigation took them back and replaced them in the cupboard. He afterwards took the bracelet, and it was then that he went to the Rendezvous Hotel and showed it to the prisoner. He asked him where he got it from. He thought he said he never bought it. Prisoner replied that it was worth a lot of money. He then took the bracelet away. Three or four days later he saw the prisoner again, who asked him where the bracelet was. He said he was going to Holland and would dispose of it for him if he liked. He bracelet was at Greenbank. He took it from the cupboard. It was in a case. He took it to the prisoner at the Rendezvous and gave it to him. He asked him how much he wanted for it, and he replied 100. It was about a month since, either a Saturday or Monday evening, in the saloon bar. There was no-one in the bar at the time. On the Thursday evening following, at 11,30, the prisoner's wife handed him a registered letter from Amsterdam. Albert Cottrell was with him. He opened it 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 threw it on the fire. He himself burnt the envelope. The letter was addressed from some hotel in Amsterdam. It said that 90 was all that he could get for the bracelet, and that he had not deducted his expenses. The prisoner had been away from the hotel for four or five days to his knowledge. He saw him a day or two after at his hotel. He said he supposed he wanted some “ready”, and he said “No, that is all right”. He had said at one time that he had relatives in Holland who were diamond polishers. Witness continued to frequent his house. Prisoner made no reference to the bracelet until he was going away to Manchester. He had got rid of the 90. He had made up his mind to leave the country, and went to Manchester on the 4th November. He had about 30 with him. On the night before he went away he told the prisoner where he was going.

Asked where the two diamond rings are, he said he had pawned one in London; the other was put back in the cupboard.

He took the pawn ticket to Manchester, and wrote to prisoner on Tuesday last asking him to lend him five pounds on the ticket. He addressed the letter to the prisoner from the Swan Hotel, Manchester, signed Ted Davis. He received a telegram remitting 2.

In reply to Mr. De Wet, he said the only articles he stole and disposed of were the ring and bracelet; everything else he put back.

Thomas J. Golder, billiard marker at the Rendezvous Hotel, deposed that he remembered prisoner going for a holiday about two months since. During his absence two registered letters arrived. One was addressed to Mr. Trice and one to Mrs. Ensink. He put them on the till in the bar.

Albert Edward Cottrell, of 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton, tobacconist and confectioner, a friend of Trice and a customer of the Rendezvous, deposed to seeing a letter handed to Trice. He saw him take a bunch of notes and put them in his pocket. He read the letter and handed it to witness to read; its contents were “Find 90”. He did not notice any address or signature, and could not recognise the handwriting. He did not burn it, but he never saw it again. Trice owed him 5 or 6 for money lent. About an hour afterwards Trice paid him 2 10s. out of a note, the witness giving him the change. That took place at the Rendezvous Hotel. Prisoner was away at the time.

Chief Constable Reeve deposed that at 10.20 prisoner came to the Town Hall. He told prisoner he was trying to trace some jewellery that had been stolen from a house in Sandgate Road. He cautioned prisoner and told him Trice had made a statement, and asked him if he had a pawn ticket of a ring pledged in London for 35, and whether he knew anything about other jewellery that had been stolen, and prisoner replied “No”. The Chief Constable then arrested him and charged him. Prisoner denied the charge.

He was remanded for a week without bail.

Mr. De Wet made an application for Trice, which was refused. The Chairman, in refusing, said it was in the interest of the boy himself.

 

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 Herald 25 November 1911.

Local News.

A case of great interest concerning the disappearance of jewellery to the value of 700, the property of Lady Hastings D'Oyly, of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, was opened at the Folkestone Borough Police Court on Saturday. Edward George Trice, formerly a lift attendant, of 78, St. John's Street, was charged with stealing the jewels, and Gerard Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, was charged with receiving a diamond bracelet, valued at 200, well-knowing it to have been stolen.

The Magistrates present were The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Vaughan, Alderman Jenner, Mr. E.T. Ward, and Mr. G. Boyd. Mr. De Wet appeared on behalf of the prisoner Trice.

The opening stages of the case against Trice were taken first.

The Chief Constable stated that the prisoner was charged with stealing, some time during the month of October, a quantity of jewellery, to the value of some hundreds of pounds, from the dwelling house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Sandgate Road, Folkestone, the property of Lady Hastings D'Oyly. He was not in a position to complete the case, which was a very complicated one, that morning, and her ladyship was also in London. Therefore it would be necessary for him to ask for a remand. He proposed simply to take the evidence of the police officer who arrested the prisoner at Salford, and he would then ask for a remand in custody. Meanwhile he would prosecute enquiries. Trice was charged with stealing one diamond crescent bracelet, one gentleman's single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, two gold diamond tie brooches, one gentleman's 18ct. gold Albert, one gentleman's gold ring set with three diamonds, and one lady's gold twisted ring, set with diamonds and pearls, the property of Lady Hastings D'Oyly, together of the value of 700.

P.C. Leonard Johnson stated that he received information and a report of a loss from Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens. He made certain inquiries on the 15th November, and on the 16th he proceeded to Salford, Manchester, and received the prisoner in custody. He saw the prisoner at the Salford police station at about eight in the evening. He said to him “I am a police officer from Folkestone”, and cautioned him. Witness then said to him “You will be charged with stealing, in September or October, from a house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Folkestone, one crescent diamond bracelet, one gentleman's single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, two gold diamond tie brooches, one gentleman's 18ct. gold Albert, one gentleman's gold ring set with three diamonds, and one lady's gold twisted ring, set with diamonds and pearls, the property of Lady Hastings D'Oyly, together of the value of 700”. He replied “I do not know anything about them”. At about 9 o'clock on Friday, the 17th inst., he was at the police station at Salford, when he was informed that the prisoner wished to see him in his cell. Witness went to the accused in his cell, and he said “I want to make a statement”. Witness remarked “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 said “Sure”. Accused then proceeded to make a statement, and witness took it down in his presence in his pocket book, now produced. The statement was as follows:- “I stole the diamond ring and diamond bracelet. I got another man to pawn a ring for 35 in London. The man I know only by sight. I showed the bracelet to Ensink, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone. 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”. I gave it to him. He said “How much do you want for it?” I said “100”. 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 Gussy about 6, and 6 to Taylor”. Witness produced the pocket book containing the signed statement. The same day he brought the prisoner to Folkestone police station and formally charged him.

The Chief Constable said he would like as long a remand in custody as possible.

Mr. De Wet said he had an application to make, but he would reserve it until the hearing of the other case. He did not resist the application for a remand, but he had an application, which he reserved.

The Mayor said the accused would be remanded until eleven o'clock the following Saturday morning.

The charge against Gerard Ensink was then proceeded with.

The Chief Constable said that this prisoner was charged with receiving from Trice a diamond bracelet, which he (Mr. Reeve) understood from Lady D'Oyly was worth about 200, well-knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen. In this case, also, he could not complete the evidence. He would ask for three or four witnesses to be called, and he would then ask for the prisoner to be remanded.

Edward George Trice was the first witness. He stated that he was a lift attendant by trade, and he formerly lived at 78, St. John's Street, Folkestone. He knew the house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, occupied by Lady D'Oyly. He was acquainted with a woman named Mrs. 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 with Lady D'Oyly. In the month of September last he visited the house from time to time in company with the girl Laws, and in that month and the month following he occasionally stayed in the house with the girl, with the knowledge of Mrs. Dalton. During the period spoken of he occasionally slept in the house. He slept in the bedroom where there was a large wardrobe once. During his visits to the house he became acquainted with the fact that there was a large wardrobe in one of the bedrooms with two small central cupboards, and that both of these central cupboards contained valuable jewels.

The Magistrates Clerk drew the attention of the witness to the fact that the questions that would be put would tend to incriminate him if he answered them.

Mr. De Wet, interposing, said he was there on behalf of that poor boy, and everything, whether it incriminated him or not, he would answer, and he would speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Whether it incriminated him or not, he would do so.

Continuing. The witness Trice stated that the two central cupboards were locked, but he opened them with a key which he found upstairs. That would be about five or six weeks ago. At that time Mrs. Dalton was not in the house, but was away on a holiday. She gave him permission to stay in the house with the girl Laws. She wired to that effect. When he opened the cupboard with a key, he found certain articles of jewellery, and amongst them was a diamond crescent bracelet. He took this bracelet out of the cupboard with other articles; he also took 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 (Trice) was formerly employed there as barman and potman. He had remained on friendly terms with him, and was well acquainted with him. He took the bracelet to the Rendezvous Hotel, and showed it to the prisoner, and after having shown it to him he took it back again. He had it in his possession practically only a day at first. He replaced it. After that he took all the articles away to London.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Why did you take them?

Trice said he took them to London to frighten the girl more than anything else, but added that he took the whole of the articles in a handkerchief to London, where he intended to dispose of them. However, at the instigation of the girl Laws, he brought them back to Folkestone and replaced them in the cupboard. The girl Laws was in London with him, and knew he had them. Having replaced them, he retained two rings. He took the articles a second time about two or three weeks after. He did not take the whole of them. He was wearing two diamond rings, which he took from the cupboard, intending to put them back. A few days after he took the crescent diamond bracelet and the other diamond rings spoken of away from the cupboard. It was then that he took the bracelet to the Rendezvous Hotel, and showed it to the prisoner. When he showed it to the prisoner, he asked witness where he got it from. He (witness), as far as he could remember, said “I never bought it”. Prisoner said that was worth a lot of money. He did not think anything else was said then. He went to London that day withe the bracelet, but he did not intend to dispose of it. He saw the prisoner again three or four days after, when he again went to the Rendezvous Hotel. Prisoner on this occasion introduced the subject of the bracelet. Witness frequented the place at this time. Accused asked witness where the bracelet was. Witness said “I can get it”. He believed he (Trice) said “I will get it”. Prisoner then said he was going to Holland, and would dispose of it for him if he liked. There was no mistake about prisoner having said that. He had not got the bracelet with him then. It was at Greenbank, in the cupboard. He then went and took it from the cupboard. It was in the case now produced. He took the bracelet in the case to the Rendezvous Hotel, and gave the bracelet to the prisoner. He did not give it to him in the case. That took place, he believed, on the same day, but he could not quite remember; the matter was so complicated. He handed the bracelet to the prisoner, and the accused asked him how much he wanted for it. Witness said “100”. He was quite clear he said that at the time he gave the bracelet to the accused. That must have been about a month ago. It was either on a Monday or a Saturday that he gave the bracelet to the accused, but he could not be quite sure. It was in the evening, and it was at a late hour, in the saloon bar of the hotel. No-one else saw him give the bracelet to the accused; he believed he was alone with the prisoner at the time. It was on the Thursday morning following, so far as he remembered, that he went to the Rendezvous Hotel at about 11.30 in the morning. Prisoner's wife handed him something; it was a registered letter addressed to him at the Rendezvous Hotel; it had the Amsterdam postmark. Albert Cottrell, a friend of his, was with him at the time. He opened the letter in Cottrell's presence. It contained 90 in 5 Bank of England notes, and a letter. He read the letter and handed it to Cottrell, and he also read it. Cottrell destroyed the letter by throwing it in the fire in the saloon bar. The envelope he (witness) destroyed. It was in the prisoner's handwriting. The letter was addressed from some hotel in Amsterdam. Accused, in his letter, stated that 90 was all he could get for the bracelet, and that he had not deducted his expenses. The prisoner had been away for four or five days, to his knowledge. He did not see the prisoner off, and he did not think that Cottrell did. He next saw the prisoner a day or two later at the Rendezvous Hotel. Ensink asked him if he had received his letter. He made no reference then to the Bank of England notes. Witness answered “Yes”, and added “I suppose you want some ready for the costs?” By that he meant ready money. Accused said “No”, and added that it was all right. Witness believed that that was all that took place then. The accused never mentioned anyone's name in connection with the matter, but before he went away to Holland he believed he said he had some relatives there who were diamond polishers; that was before he took the bracelet away. He did not say where his relatives were in Holland. He did not say where he took the bracelet to, and he (witness) made no further reference to the matter. Accused made no reference to whom he sold it, or to whom he disposed of it, that he could remember. Witness continued to frequent the house afterwards, and accused said once that he (witness) was making a fool of himself with the money. Witness did not refer to the matter when he was going away to Manchester. He gave some of the money to his friends; he got rid of it. He then made up his mind to leave the country, and he left Folkestone two weeks ago that day – the 4th November – and went to Manchester. He remained there until he was arrested. He had about 30 with him then. Before leaving Folkestone he saw the prisoner and had some conversation with him the night previous. He told accused he was going to Manchester, but no reference was made to the bracelet as far as he could remember. With regard to the two diamond rings which he retained in the first instance, one he put back, and the other he pawned. They were both single stone rings. He kept the best one. He could not remember the name of the pawnbrokers in London. He retained the pawn ticket. He pawned it for 35. He took the ticket to Manchester with him, and on the previous Tuesday he wrote to the prisoner asking if he would lend him 5 on the ticket, which he enclosed. He addressed the letter to Ensink, at the Rendezvous Hotel. He did not write the letter in his own name, but in the name of Ted Davis, Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. He asked Ensink, in his letter, to wire the money. That was on Tuesday. Following that he received a telegram at the Swan Hotel the next day for 2.

Mr. De Wet (to witness): With regard to this ring which you pawned for 35, and the bracelet which was sold for 90, was there any other jewellery that you took away from Greenbank after putting it back?

Witness replied that they were the only two articles he disposed of. There was no other jewellery, and two of the articles mentioned on the list he had never seen. All the others were returned.

Thomas James Golder, billiard marker at the Rendezvous Hotel, stated that he had been employed there since January. He remembered Mr. Ensink going for a holiday. He did not know the exact time, but it must have been about two months ago. He was absent about a week. During his absence he remembered two registered letters arriving. He did not know if they were foreign or not. He signed for them. One was for Mr. G. Trice, and one was addressed to Mrs. Ensink. He left the letters on the table in the bar. That was all he knew about them.

Albert Edward Cottrell stated that he lived at 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton, and was a tobacconist and confectioner. He had been accustomed to visiting the Rendezvous Hotel. He was a friend of the witness Trice. He was in the saloon bar of the Rendezvous Hotel one morning when Trice was handed a letter. He did not know whether the letter was registered or not; this was between the hours of 11 and 11.30 a.m. Trice opened the letter in his presence, and he saw Trice take a bunch of something out; it looked like notes. At the time Trice had his letter handed to him, he (witness) was reading a letter himself. Trice stood aside and read his letter, and afterwards handed it to him to read. Witness read the letter; he remembered it said something about “enclosed find 90”. He did not remember any more of it. He saw no signature whatever. He could not swear to the writing. He did not see any address on the letter; he noticed no heading on the paper; he would not swear whether there was any name on the paper or not. When he had read the letter Trice said that he wanted it back, and witness gave it back to him. He did not know any more about the letter after he handed it back to him. He (witness) did not burn anything; he burnt nothing. Trice owed him some money for a debt which had run on for some two years. He owed him between 5 and 6 for some money he had lent him. It was an old-standing debt. When Trice received the letter he gave him nothing at the time; it might have been an hour afterwards that he did so. He might have gone down the High Street in the interval. About an hour afterwards Trice took a 5 banknote from his pocket; he thought it was one of the bunch he received. He did not pull it out of his pocket in witness's presence. He brought witness the 5, and said “I am going to pay some money out”. Trice then gave him the 5 note, and witness gave him 50s. change. The 50s. was on account of the old debt. At the time he received the 50s. the prisoner was away on holiday. He went across to the continent somewhere. Accused had said in witness's presence that he was going away to the continent.

The Chief Constable deposed that at about ten o'clock that morning the prisoner came to the Town Hall in consequence of a message he (Mr. Reeve) sent across. He said to him “I am making inquiries, and am 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 the 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. 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?” He replied “No, sir”. Witness then said “I shall arrest you, and you will be charged with receiving, or or about the 20th October, from Edward Trice, a diamond bracelet, well-knowing the same to have been stolen”. He replied “I know nothing about it”. He was then searched and locked up.

The Chairman (to prisoner): You will be remanded until this day week at 11 o'clock.

Prisoner asked for bail to be allowed.

The Chief Constable stated that he felt that, owing to the complications there were in this case, and the fact that none of the property had been recovered, he must object to bail being granted, particularly to this prisoner.

The Chairman: Bail is refused.

Mr. De Wet said he had an application to make on behalf of Trice for bail, although he based his application on somewhat slight grounds, he admitted. He asked the Bench to allow bail. They had seen the young man in the box, and he had given every information to the police to help them in the recovery of these things. Up to the time of this sudden temptation he had enjoyed appointments in Folkestone, and had always filled them creditably. He could call employers and people who would stand for him. One was his stepfather, a postman employed in Folkestone. He was a highly respectable young lad, but unfortunately he had erred, as some had erred in the past. He asked them to allow him out on bail. He would be able, if he was allowed to do so, to take them to the place where the ring was pawned, and that would be further information. He would give them every possible information he could, and make a clean breast of it. Whatever the consequences were he was prepared to stand by them. In granting bail they would not find this was a case when bail was granted and a man gone. For the sake of his mother and stepfather, he asked them to grant the application for bail.

The Chief Constable quite agreed that Trice had expressed his willingness to try and recover the property. He also admitted that the stepfather was a very respectable man, and he was sorry for him and the mother. But this was a very serious charge. Her ladyship only came down and reported this matter on Wednesday. They had had a tremendous amount of work in working the case up so far, and a great deal remained to be discovered. He did not think, having regard to all the circumstances of the case – because he believed there were others implicated in the matter – that it would be advisable, or in the interests of the boy himself, to liberate him at the present stage.

The Chairman: Bail is refused.

Mr. De Wet said he quite appreciated the position. He advised the stepfather not to ask for bail on that occasion, because he quite appreciated there were other witnesses, who, if he was out on bail, might get at him.

The Chief Constable: That is just what I feel. It is fairest to the boy himself that during this adjournment he should be remanded in custody.

The Chairman: It is in the interests of the boy himself.

 

Folkestone Daily News 25 November 1911.

Saturday, November 25th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Jenner, Fynmore, Swoffer, Spurgen, Vaughan, Wood and Boyd.

George Edward Trice and Gerard Ensink were brought up on remand this morning. The Court was crowded to excess. Mr. Douglas De Wet defended Trice, and Mr. H. Myers defended Ensink. The prosecution was conducted by Chief Constable Reeve.

Both of the accused displayed an anxious attitude, and did not seem to have improved by their week's incarceration at Canterbury.

Mr. F.G. Frayling, late of the Treasury, and director of Police Prosecutions Department, who this year retired from the Civil Service after a service of 45 years in the Criminal Courts, and who is now a resident in Folkestone, was present in Court as a spectator.

Mr. Myers asked that no sketching or snapshotting be allowed in Court. He understood a representative of the Daily Mirror was in Court, and he asked that he be restrained from taking any snapshots of his client, or anyone interested in the case.

The Chief Constable said he had an alteration to make in the charge against Trice. Since the charge was made against him Lady D'Oyly had found one article had not been taken, but he (the Chief Constable) had added another ring which had been overlooked in the first instance. He had since found that the articles stolen by Trice were valued at 650, and the bracelet at 350. The deposition of Johnson was read over, and Trice was re-called and his depositions read over.

Lady D'Oyly, the owner of the jewellery, was sworn, and deposed that she went away on the 18th Sept. for a fortnight's change. She left the cook, Mrs. Dalton, in charge. She had been with her for eight months. She left no-one else on the premises. She had sole charge when she left. She had two cupboards, in which the property subject to the charge was deposited. She returned on the 15th Nov., when she discovered some jewellery missing. Other jewellery was left in the cupboard. She found the bracelet case empty. The bracelet was of the market value of 250, and was missing, as were the other goods specified. She saw all the goods safe in the cupboard before leaving the house. She immediately gave notice to the police. On Monday last she went to Messrs. Hawes, pawnbrokers, of London, and identified the diamond ring (produced) as her property, and was one of the articles stolen.

Mr. Pearch, of the Folkestone Post Office, deposed that he had the receipts of the two registered letters from Amsterdam, which he produced, and also a telegraphic money order for 2, payable to Ted Davis, Swan Hotel, Manchester, on the 14th Nov., sent by Louis Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone. It was duly sent to Manchester, and signed by Edward Davis, Swan Hotel, Manchester. He also produced a telegram sent from Colchester by J. Dalton, and having the official Colchester mark of the 2nd October.

Arthur Woodthorpe, manager to Messrs. Hawes and Sons, Cranbourne Street, London, deposed to taking in pledge a diamond ring, produced, from Charles Hanson, on which they lent 35, on the 18th Oct. He produced the ring. He knew the man, as a customer, who pledged it.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: The value of the ring was about 60. It was not worth 200. It was a flawed stone, and would not fetch more than 60 at a public auction. He lent the money at once, without asking any questions. He did not see the man in Court who pawned the ring. The man was a foreigner. The firm were in the habit of taking such property in daily.

Lady D'Oyly identified the ring.

Lady D'Oyly was cross-examined by Mr. De Wet, and said she left some jewellery in a box besides what was in the cupboard. Four bracelets were left in a box, but she did not know whether it was locked or not. She did not think a mohair bracelet was in that box. She found the rings which Trice had been charged with stealing in another box in the cupboard.

Agnes Dalton, wife of G.T. Dalton, gunner in the R.F.A. stationed at Colchester, deposed she entered the service of Lady D'Oyly on the 17th of December last. She remained in her service till the 24th Nov. Laws was parlourmaid for one month from July to August. Lady D'Oyly went away on the 3rd Sept. with all other members of the family, leaving witness as sole charge. On the 2nd Oct. she went for a holiday to Colchester, and returned on the 24th. She became acquainted with Trice on the 20th of Sept. through Laws, who came down from London. Trice had been in the habit of staying at the house with Laws, who returned to the house unbeknown to Lady D'Oyly, who had discharged her. She was an intimate friend with witness and stayed with her till the 2nd of Sept. Trice frequently slept at the house as an intimate friend of Minnie Laws; another man also slept there. She sent a telegraph money order to 5, Camden Terrace for 8s. to Trice, to which were the words “Get key of Greenbank. Be careful of lights”. Trice was looking after Cottrell's shop. She returned on the 24th Oct. Trice and Laws came to Greenbank House and slept that night. Laws slept there all the time, Trice on two or three occasions. She saw Trice off from Shorncliffe Station on the 4th Nov. Laws was also there. He said he was going to Manchester, and afterwards to America. She never saw the jewellery till afterwards. She knew the Rendezvous Hotel and Ensink. She had been there with Laws on several occasions to see if Trice was there. Sometimes they met him there.

Examined by Mr. De Wet: Five other men besides Trice used to come to Greenbank. One night she asked Minnie Laws to pawn her ladyship's bracelet. She afterwards went up into the dining room. She did not see that they had used the dining room for their meals. She could not remember whether she told them there were some 100s worth of jewels in the wardrobe. Trice and others were there. She knew there was jewellery in the bathroom in a tin box.

(At this juncture the witness became excited. She said she was worried, and rushed out of the box, but was brought back by the inspector.)

There was a gold coin bracelet in the tin box. Trice did not sleep at Greenbank on the 3rd Nov. Alec Copeland and Albert Cottrell met them, and after he had left they all went to Greenbank. Some of them stopped the night, and also another man.

Minnie Laws deposed that she lived with her parents in Folkestone. She had known Mrs. Dalton four years, and Trice all her lifetime. She left Lady D'Oyly's service on the 20th of August, and returned the next day. She visited her frequently and slept there. A telegram was sent from Mrs. Dalton's at Colchester to Cottrell's shop at Cheriton. She and Trice were there. In consequence of the telegram they took charge of Greenbank and slept there every night, with one exception, when they went to London. The morning after Mrs. Dalton left she noticed the two cupboards open. Trice was in the room and had some jewellery in his handkerchief. She said “Teddy, what are you doing?” He said he was going to London to sell it. She said “Teddy, don't do it”. He would not listen to her, and she went out of the room. He wanted her to go to London, and said if she would not go he would send her 10 to say nothing about it. They subsequently went to London. She saw the two rings in his possession. She told him unless he went back to Greenbank and put the jewellery back she would give him in charge. They went back, and she saw him put the jewellery back. When Mrs. Dalton came back she continued to stay until Lady D'Oyly's return. She did not say anything to Mrs. Dalton about Trice and the jewellery. She saw Trice off at Shorncliffe on the 4th November, when he said he was going to Manchester and London.

Cross-examined: When she went up in the train there were Sam Cottrell and a soldier in the train. Cottrell said “Why don't you tell them?” She said she knew all about it. She first introduced Trice to Mrs. Dalton at the Rendezvous. There were two others there; one was Chilvers. Mrs Dalton invited them up to Greenbank. They stayed there 14 days. One day when they were in the scullery, Mrs. Dalton asked her to pawn one of her ladyship's bracelets. She said she had never been to a pawnshop and they would ask her whose it was. She would have to reply “Lady D'Oyly's”. She repeated this before the others. Alton said it could be pawned and redeemed.

Robert Dale Court, jeweller, of 72a, High Street, deposed to seeing Trice in the Harbour Hotel six weeks since; he was wearing two rings. He asked witness its value. He told him at least 20. He again met him and asked if he was open to do a deal and make a bit for himself by disposing of some bracelets worth 200, when he said “I may as well tell you it isn't on the square”. Witness said it wanted thinking about, and he replied “It would not be found out for three months”. Witness had seen him several times since, but had never mentioned it. Afterwards he was the worse for liquor, and he did not think he was serious.

The prisoner Trice was then sworn and deposed that he had known Ensink 6 or 7 years. He made his acquaintance when he was page boy and Ensink was lounge waiter. He left and did not continue the friendship. He became acquainted with him again 4 years since, when he took the Rendezvous Hotel, about Michaelmas, 1908. He went in his service as barman and remained about 18 months. They did not part on bad terms. He frequented there occasionally. He had been in other employment till June this year. From that time he used the house daily, and was on excellent terms with Ensink. He had used the billiard room largely, and was a billiard player, having been a marker, when he showed Ensink the bracelet. He knew he was out of work. He went to London twice before receiving the registered letter on the 18th. He produced the diamond ring in their presence before leaving at the Central Station. Ensink said he had previously seen the ring and would like it. When the three arrived in London they met Bittner, a German waiter, whom he had known in London. They all three arranged to get him to pawn the rings. Ensink took them to the Artists' Club in Little Newport Street. They did not find him there, but met him in the street. Ensink spoke to him and walked on in front. They ultimately stopped, and the German waiter asked him to show him the ring, saying “You are sure it's not a white sapphire?” Ensink stood by and heard. He replied that it was a diamond. He said “How much do you want?” Witness did not reply, and either Ensink or Chilvers said “40”. He went to Hawes, the pawnbrokers, and after twenty minutes came out and said he wouldn't do it again for a fiver. Ensink was not there. They then went to the bar of the Hippodrome, but Ensink was not there. Bittner gave witness 35, less expenses of pawning. He asked for 5, but witness gave him 2 10s. Ensink had come in, and was present when he paid the money. Bittner handed him the pawn ticket, made out in the name of Hanson. They then went to a hat shop, where witness bought the three men a hat each. Chilvers left, and witness and Ensink returned to Folkestone at 12 o'clock by the night excursion train.

Cross-examined by Mr. Myers: During the last seven months he had led the people to believe he had money. At Ascot he borrowed money of Ensink. Of late he had been betting freely, and led people to suppose he had won money at betting.

Examined by Mr. De Wet: Since these occurrences he had been drawn by people, who threatened him. He had been asked to send a list to Manchester to be disposed of. It was suggested that he should buy Chilvers' ticket for America, and go to London by the 1.55 train on the 18th, and it was suggested by Cottrell and Chilvers that he should go to Greenbank and get the jewellery.

William Lawrence Chilvers, an hotel employee, deposed to having known Trice for twelve months. On the 18th Oct. he accompanied Trice to London and was present when the German waiter disposed of the ring, but generally denied Trice's statement.

The Chief Constable and Clerk consulted with the Bench, and then warned Chilvers that he would be treated as a hostile witness, and when cross-examined was told that he might find himself in a very serious position.

Elizabeth Whittaker, wife of James Whittaker, living at Manchester, temporarily engaged at the wan Hotel, deposed to being introduced to Trice on the 5th Nov. On the 13th he asked if a wire came whether she would put it on one side. A wire came addressed to E. Davis. Trice eventually fetched it.

Edward Tattersall, a bookmaker's clerk at Salford, deposed to being in the Swan Hotel, Manchester. Ensink came up and asked Whittaker if anyone with the name of Teddy was staying there. She said it would be a friend of her brother's. She directed him to her house in Mahlam Street. Ensink engaged a taxicab and they proceeded to 27, King's Street. They saw Mrs. Whittaker. Ensink asked for Teddy. She replied “You are too late. They have got him”. She asked if he was a detective. He said he was a friend of Teddy. He gave witness 2s. for his trouble.

Emma Whittaker, wife of John Whittaker, of Manchester, deposed that she had a son named John living with her. Trice came to her house on the 4th of November with John, who had known him in Folkestone. Her son was going to America, and Trice told her he was also going there. He had his food at her house until he was arrested. Afterwards Ensink called and asked for Trice. She replied that they had taken him the previous night, and asked if he was a detective. He then had a conversation with her son. Ensink was excited.

Both prisoners were committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail was refused.

 

Southeastern Gazette 28 November 1911.

Local News.

At Folkestone Police Court on Saturday, Geo. Edward Trice, aged 22, was charged on remand with stealing jewellery belonging to Lady D'Oyly, of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Folkestone, and Gerard Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, was charged with receiving a diamond bracelet, valued 200, Lady D'Oyly left her .residence for a fortnight in change of a custodian, and it is alleged that Trice, who was courting the parlourmaid and slept at the house frequently, took the jewellery and disposed of it. At the previous hearing Trice gave evidence against Ensink, alleging that he pawned the diamond bracelet abroad. Prisoners were committed for trial at' the Quarter Sessions, bail being refused. It was stated that since the last hearing some of the missing jewellery had been found, and the loss now amounted to 650. In cross-examination the parlourmaid admitted that five other men slept at Greenbank while Lady D'Oyly was away.

 

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 Herald 2 December 1911.

Local News.

The Folkestone Police Court was absolutely packed on Saturday, when the jewel robbery case, which had been adjourned from the previous Saturday, again came up for hearing. By ten o'clock a considerable number had assembled outside the Town Hall, and before eleven o'clock there were several hundreds outside. Only a small percentage were able to gain access to the Court. There was a full Bench. The Mayor occupied the chair, and there were also present Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Aldermen T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen and C. Jenner, Councillor R.J. Wood, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

The prisoners, Edwin George Trice and Gerard John Anton Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, at this hearing appeared in the Court together. Trice was again represented by Mr. V.D. De Wet, and Ensink by Mr. H.J. Myers.

The Chief Constable remarked that the two prisoners were before the Court a week ago. Trice was charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery from a dwelling house, and the prisoner Ensink 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 shad had overlooked two or three articles which were included in the charge, and therefore he had struck them out. But he had added one other ring which was missing, so the charge now was that of stealing one crescent diamond bracelet, one gentleman's single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, one gentleman's gold ring set with three diamonds, and a lady's gold ring set with five diamonds, of the total value of 650, the property of Lady D'Oyly. The bracelet, which Ensink was charged with receiving was, at the previous hearing, said to be of the value of 200. He had now, however, ascertained that it was worth 350.

Mr. De Wet said he did not know how the report got into the Press that he was appearing for Mr. Myers. Mr. Myers represented Ensink, and their interests were entirely opposite to each other. His client pleaded Guilty to stealing certain articles, and Not Guilty to stealing others.

Mr. Myers said he would like to make an application that no sketching or snapshooting should be allowed in Court. In Court there was a representative of the Daily Mirror, and he had been annoying his client's wife. He called at the hotel.

Mr. Andrews (the Magistrates' Clerk) did not think that the Bench could go into that. Was the gentleman he referred to in Court?

Mr. Myers said that he was, and was prepared to snapshot his client.

Mr. Andrew (to the Magistrates): You can deal with it at your discretion.

The Mayor: We do not allow it.

Mr. Myers asked that all witnesses should be ordered out of Court, and this was done.

The evidence given at the previous hearing by Detective Johnson, Trice, T.J. Golder, A.E. Cottrell and the Chief Constable was now read over and confirmed.

Mr. De Wet said that the Magistrates would remember that on the last occasion he had told them that Trice wished to make a clean breast of everything so far as he himself was concerned. He had, since the remand, spent a whole day with Trice at Canterbury, and he had got a very long statement from him. He did not wish to conceal it from the police; he was perfectly prepared that they should have a copy of it, or if they preferred that he should examine Trice, and bring out everything, he was equally prepared to do so.

Lady D'Oyly now gave evidence. She said she was the wife of Sir Warren Hastings D'Oyly, and was the owner of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, being also rated occupier of the house. She left Greenbank on the 1st September for a fortnight's change from home. She left the cook (Mrs. Dalton) in charge of the house. Mrs. Dalton had been in her service for eight months. She left her alone, and in sole charge. At the time witness had in two cupboards in a wardbrobe in her bedroom certain valuable articles of jewellery. She left the wardrobe and the cupboards locked. There was one key to both cupboards. She returned to Greenbank on the 15th November. She at once went to the wardrobe, and unlocked the cupboard. She found some of the jewellery she left there still in the cupboard, but she missed certain of the articles. She found the case (produced) exactly where she left it, but empty. It had contained the diamond crescent bracelet. It was missing from the case. The value of the bracelet was 350. She also missed a large single stone diamond ring, of the value of 200, another ring set with three diamonds (value some 40 or 50), another set with five diamonds (value 40), a gold mohair bracelet (value 15 or 20). Those articles were safe in the cupboards when she left the house on the 1st September. They were her personal property, and she saw them when she left the house. Witness at once gave information to the police. She was taken on the following Monday to the shop of Messrs. Hawes and Son, pawnbrokers, of Cranbourne Street, London, and she was there shown the single stone diamond ring.

Mr. Thomas Charles Pearch, Superintendent at the General Post Office, Folkestone, said that he was present at the request of the Chief Constable to produce certain documents. With reference to the telegram, he was instructed to decline to produce the telegram unless expressly ordered to do so by the Bench, and he was to ask them to be good enough to refer to the Telegraph Act of 1868.

Having consulted with the Magistrates' Clerk, the Mayor said: In the interests of public justice we call upon you to produce it.

Mr. Pearch then produced two postal packets, bearing the Folkestone official stamp of the 26th October, 1911, and numbered consecutively 109 and 110. The office of posting was Amsterdam in both cases. The address on the one was Mrs. L. Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel, and on the other Mr. F. Trice, Rendezvous Hotel. Each bore the signature of the receiver, Mr. T. Golder.

T. Golder was called, and said that the signatures on the receipts were in his handwriting. That date was the 26th October. They referred to the two postal packets which he received from the postman at the Rendezvous Hotel, as stated in his previous evidence. Witness did not then know the date, but he was now able to say that it was the 26th October.

Mr. Pearch, continuing his statement, said that he produced an application received at the General Post Office, Folkestone, on the 14th November, for a telegraphic money oder. The application was numbered 2,384. It was for the despatch by telegram of 2, payable at Manchester, to Ned Edward Davies. It was sent by Louis Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel, and was payable to the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. After the application had been made, the proceedings would be to despatch a telegram to the hotel at Manchester, and a telegram was despatched to the Swan Hotel, Manchester, the original of which he produced. It read as follows: To Manchester, 2,384, Louis Ensink 2 (two pounds). Edward Davies, Swan Hotel, Fountain Street. Witness also produced the official receipt for this 2, signed Edward Davies. He further produced a telegram for an 8s. order from Colchester (produced), sent by J. Dalton, and bearing the official Colchester mark, and the date, 2nd October, 1911.

Arthur Woodthorpe said he was Manager to Messrs. Hawes and Sons, 7, Cranbourne Street, Leicester Square, London. He produced a single stone diamond ring, which he personally received in pledge on 18th October, 1911, from a man giving the name of Charles Hanson, of 30, Newport Street, and witness advanced the sum of 35 on the ring. He thought that he knew the man – that he had seen him as a customer.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Witness did not know whether the man had a dog when he came into the shop. Newport Street was quite close to his shop, and was a poor locality. It was one that was frequented by artists and theatricals. The value of the ring, in his opinion, was 60. It was not worth anything like 200. It would not fetch 100. If it was a perfect stone it would be a very different thing, but it was full of flaws, and it would not realise anything like 100 at a public auction. He should say that 60 would be about the limit. Witness lent the 35 on the ring at once. He dared to say that he asked the man who brought it in whether it was his, but he could not remember exactly. He could not say whether the man was in the shop 20 minutes. They had rings worth as much as that coming in every day. They always enquired before they lent their money, and asked some question or another. He could not see the man who brought in the ring in Court that day. He was a foreigner. The neighbourhood was principally inhabited by foreigners.

Lady D'Oyly (re-called) said that she identified the single stone diamond ring produced as her property. It was one to which she had referred in her evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Besides the jewellery in the wardrobe, witness left some more jewellery in a tin box in the bathroom. She thought that she locked the tin box, but she was not quite sure. In the box there were four bracelets, as far as she could remember. She would certainly say that it was not impossible for the gold mohair bracelet to be in the bathroom.

Agnes Dalton deposed that she was the wife of Geo. Thos. Dalton, who was a gunner in the Royal Field Artillery, stationed at Colchester. Witness entered the service of Lady D'Oyly on the 17th December of last year, and remained in her service till the previous day. A girl named Minnie Laws was also in service as house parlourmaid. She remained from the 20th July to the 20th August. Lady D'Oyly left home on either the 2nd or 3rd September, and the other members of the family. Witness was left in sole charge of the house. She went away on the 2nd October on a visit to Colchester, and returned to Greenbank on the 24th. Witness became acquainted with Trice on the 20th September. From the 2nd or 3rd September to the 2nd October Trice had very frequently been to Greenbank. Minnie Laws was in the house before her ladyship left, unknown to her ladyship. She was a personal friend of witness. One day after she left service she returned, and witness allowed her to sleep in the house. She had been staying and sleeping at the house the whole time till witness went for her holiday. Off and on other people slept at the house. Trice slept there frequently. Witness knew Trice to be an intimate friend of Minnie Laws. She thought at the latter part of the time he was courting her (Laughter). Produced was an application for a telegraphic money order for 8s. at Colchester, signed H. Dalton. At the foot was the following message to Trice “Get key, Kirby. Sleep at Grenbank. Careful of lights. Make no sounds”. Witness despatched it to Trice at Camden Terrace, Cheriton, on the 2nd October. He was looking after a shop for Cottrell. Witness knew that to be his address. She returned to Greenbank on the 24th October. Witness met Minnie Laws in the Sandgate Road. Laws and Trice slept at the house that night. Trice left the next morning, and did not return for a couple of days. Witness thought that after the 24th October Trice slept at the house twice, and Laws for another fortnight. Trice told her that he was going to Manchester. She never saw the jewellery until after her ladyship returned, and knew nothing about it. Witness knew Ensink. During the period between her ladyship's departure and Trice's going to Manchester witness went with Laws several times to see if Trice was at the Rendezvous, and she sometimes met him there.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: During the time that her ladyship was away she thought that there were five other men besides Trice who made Greenbank their place of call. She did not know who informed Trice that there was any jewellery in the house. Witness remembered that on one occasion, in the kitchen, she said to Minnie Laws “Take her ladyship's bracelet, and go and pawn it”, but she only said it in fun. Minnie Laws refused to do so, saying that questions were sure to be asked. Witness did not think she replied “No, they won't ask any questions”. Witness remembered that Laws went into another room, where others were present, but witness was not there. Witness did not remember saying in the presence of others that there were some hundreds of pounds worth of jewellery in the cupboard in the wardrobe. Witness knew that there was jewellery in the bathroom, because she packed the box.

Mr. De Wet closely examined the witness as to the contents of the box in the bathroom, and at this stage she rushed hysterically from the witness box, protesting that she would say no more.

Continuing with his cross-examination. Mr. De Wet elicited from Mrs. Dalton the statement that Trice went away on the 4th November, and did not sleep at Greenbank the night before he left. On that evening, in consequence of what she was told by a man named Alec Copeland, witness and Laws went up into the bathroom, and found that the jewellery was intact. From the moment after witness saw Trice at Shorncliffe Station, when he was on the way to Manchester, he had not been to the house again. Copeland, Gus Chilvers, and Bert Cottrell got out of the same carriage. They – not Trice – all had drinks, and then returned to the house. After lunch Copeland and the others left, and another man, whose name began with “G”, came in. Chilvers and Cottrell came back at 11.30, and the three men stopped the night. On November 11th Laws obtained another situation, and on the 14th witness went and told her that another bracelet was missing. Laws said “There was only Gus or Cottrell could take it”.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

On the hearing being resumed Minnie Laws gave evidence. She said that she lived with her parents at Folkestone, and was in service with Lady D'Oyly during the previous July. She had known Mrs. Dalton four years. She also had known Trice practically all her life. They went to school together. She left Lady D'Oyly's service on 20th August. The following day she returned to the house, knowing Mrs. Dalton, and with her consent continued to sleep there till she (Mrs. Dalton) went to Colchester. Trice used to visit her at the house during that period, and frequently slept at the house. On the same day that Mrs. Dalton went to Colchester she was at 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton, with Trice, when a telegram was handed to him in her presence. She read it, but did not remember the words. After they received the telegram witness and Trice took charge of Greenbank till Mrs. Dalton returned three weeks later. They slept there every night with one exception. One morning after Mrs. Dalton left on the 3rd October, witness was in Lady D'Oyly's bedroom. She noticed that the two cupboards in the wardrobe were open. Trice was in the room at the time, and he had some jewellery on the bed. Witness said “Teddy, what are you doing?”, and he said “I am taking this jewellery, and I am going to London to sell it”. Witness replied “Teddy, don't do it”. But he did not take her advice. Witness left the room. Trice said that if she would not go with him to London, he would send her 10 if she did not say anything about it. They went to London by the 5 o'clock train that day. They stayed together in London till the following evening, when they returned to Greenbank. Witness, while in London, saw him with the two diamond rings. She said that Trice must go back and put the rings back, or she would give him in charge. Trice returned, and the following morning witness asked him to put the jewellery back. She went to the cupboard with him, and saw him do so. She thought there were articles in addition to the rings. Up to Mrs. Dalton's return witness continued to remain at Greenbank, and after that up to the 13th November. She did not say anything to Mrs. Dalton about the jewellery. On the 4th November witness saw Trice off by train. He said he was going to Manchester, and then to America.

Cross-examined: Witness had told Trice in the room that unless he gave up the jewellery she would give him in charge. There were others in the carriage when they went to London, amongst them being Cottrell and Sam. Sam said to Trice “Why don't you tell me? I know about it”. Witness introduced Mrs. Dalton to Trice at the Rendezvous Hotel; two others were present. At Mrs. Dalton's invitation they all came to Greenbank. One named “Chummy” remained at Greenbank for 14 days. A few days after, Mrs. Dalton said “Minnie, will you go and pawn her ladyship's bracelet?”, but witness refused, saying that questions would be asked. Witness then went into the dining room, where there were Trice and others, and she told them what Mrs. Dalton had said. Mrs. Dalton then said that she did not think it would matter if it was got out and put back. On another occasion, while “Chummy” was there, Mrs. Dalton said that there were hundreds of pounds worth of jewellery in the cupboard. Five other men, besides Trice, had slept at the house on Mrs. Dalton's invitation. Trice never told her about his pawning the ring in London. When seeing Trice off on the 4th November, Albert Cottrell, Gus, and Alec Copeland got out of the carriage, and the three – not Trice – went back to Greenbank. Rice did not sleep at the house the night before he went away.

Robert Court, watchmaker and jeweller, of 72a, High Street, Folkestone, said that he knew Trice. About six weeks ago he saw him wearing two rings. He took one off, and asked witness to value it. He told Trice it was worth at least 20. A few days after witness again saw Trice, who asked him if he was open to do a deal, and make a bit for himself. Witness asked him to explain himself, and he asked if he could dispose of about 200 worth of diamond stuff. He said “I may as well tell you it isn't on the square”. Witness replied that it would take a bit of thinking about, and he said that it would not be found out for another three months. Witness said he would think it over. He had not mentioned the matter since, although witness had seen him. Witness did not think he was talking seriously. He was the worse for liquor at the time.

Trice was now called to give evidence against Ensink. He said he had known Ensink since he was page at the Royal Pavilion Hotel six or seven years ago. Ensink was employed there at the same time as lounge waiter. After witness left the hotel he did not keep up the acquaintance, but renewed it when Ensink took the Rendezvous Hotel. About Michaelmas, 1908, witness entered his service as barman. He remained there for about 18 months. They did not part on very friendly terms. Witness used the house afterwards. He came out of employment about midsummer of this year. He used the Rendezvous more frequently, and was on excellent terms with Ensink, using the billiard room frequently, to his knowledge. Previously to his showing him the bracelet, Ensink knew that he (Trice) was out of work. Ensink had seen witness with the girl Laws on several occasions before witness showed him the bracelet. He had also seen Dalton there. Witness did not remember making any reference to Greenbank on those occasions. Witness knew that it was on the 26th October that he received the registered letter containing the banknotes from Ensink. He remembered going to London twice before receiving the registered letter. On Wednesday, 18th October, he went to London with a man named Chilvers, and Ensink. Just before leaving, while at the station, in the presence of these two, witness produced the single stone diamond ring. Ensink said he had previously seen the ring, and would like it. While in London they met a German waiter called Bittner, whom he had known in Folkestone. They went to look for him, because he would pawn the ring. Witness though that he had said to Ensink that he wanted to pawn the ring, and he (Ensink) said that “Fat Charlie” - (laughter) – (meaning Bittner) would pawn it. Ensink took them to the Artists' Club, Little Newport Street. (Laughter) He was not there, but later they saw him in the street near the Club. Ensink stopped him, and walked on in front, talking to him. “Fat Charlie” turned round and said to witness “Let me look at it”. Witness produced the ring, and he said “Are you sure it is not a white sapphire?” Witness said “Yes, I'm sure it's not”. Ensink stood by and heard this. Witness said that it was a diamond. “Fat Charlie” said “How much do you want on it?”, and either Ensink or Chilvers said “40”. With that, Bittner walked away with the ring, witness following. He went to a pawn shop, kept, witness thought, by Hawes. He entered it, and witness remained outside. He stayed inside about twenty minutes, and then came out. “Fat Charlie” said he would not go through it again for a fiver. (Laughter) Ensink was not there, and a few minutes afterwards they (Trice and Bittner) went into the bar of the Hippodrome. They were having drinks, and Bittner offered him six 5 notes and other money, amounting altogether to 35, less 6s., expenses of pawning. He said “You'll give me one of them”, but witness gave him 2 10s. Ensink had come in, and was present when witness paid the money. Bittner handed him a duplicate form in respect of the ring, made out in the name of Charles Hanson. They left the Hippodrome together, and witness took them to a hat shop, and bought them each a new hat. Chilvers afterwards left them, and witness and Ensink returned to Folkestone by the night excursion. On the official receipt for 2 (produced) the name “Edward Davies” was in witness's handwriting. Ensink was known locally as Louis.

Cross-examined by Mr. Myers: Since he had had the 90 he had let his money go everywhere. He gave Ensink to understand at Ascot in the pasdt summer that he had money by borrowing it. (Laughter) He had never told Ensink that he was engaged to a lady with money. He had lately won money by betting. All the customers, more or less, at the Rendezvous were gamblers. He had not spent money freely at the Rendezvous. Sometimes he was broken, and could not get a drink. He never remembered telling anyone that he was engaged to a lady with money. When he was intoxicated he might have said that. (Laughter)

In reply to Mr. De Wet, Trice said he borrowed 3 5s. at Ascot from Ensink. He later repaid him 1, and later Ensink took 3 from the money received from the pawning of the ring. Out of the 90 and the 35, there was a little gang in the town who had drawn on him, and threatened to tell. He had even been asked to send a list of the jewellery to a man in Manchester for the purpose of disposing of it. On the evening before 18th October he had an interview with Ensink outside the Rendezvous at 11 p.m., and Ensink said that he knew a man in London who could buy the ring, and suggested to witness that they should go to London by the 1.55 a.m. train. It was arranged that they should do so. The witness Cottrell was present, and Gussy Chilvers. Chilvers had tickets for America, and he did not want to waste them, so he offered them to witness for 5. Witness could not say whether Ensink heard the suggestion that witness should go and get the rest of the jewellery from Greenbank. On the day they went to London, after they had pawned the ring, they were in an inn on the Strand (Ensink, Chilvers, Bittner and witness), and the witness gave 25 in notes to Chilvers, and Ensink told him to take it to the Rendezvous to Mrs. Ensink. The following morning witness received the notes from Mrs. Ensink at the Rendezvous. He remembered being at Mr. Brett's shop when Ensink told him he had better get away as the boys were kicking up a row, for they wanted more money.

William Laurence Chilvers said that he was an hotel employee, and lived at Cheriton. 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. Before meeting him they had not been to try and find some other man somewhere. Witness saw Trice with a single stone diamond ring on his finger. He went into two or three public houses, and 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. 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 Chilvers that he would be treated as a hostile witness, and warned him to be careful as to his answers.

Witness, however, adhered to his statement.

Elizabeth Whittaker said that she was the wife of James Whittaker, living at 35, Charles Street, Broughton, Salford, and 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 the previous Monday, had 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.

Albert Tattersall, living at 61, Darley Street, Salford, said that he was a bookmaker's clerk. He was in the bar of the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, on 16th November at 10.20 a.m. when prisoner Ensink came in and asked if anyone named “Teddy” was staying there. The landlady said “No”, but shortly afterwards said “Oh, yes; it would be a friend of my brother”. Ensink asked where he could find him, and the landlady directed him to her brother's house in Mahlam Street. Witness volunteered to put him on his way. They proceeded in a taxicab to 27, Tully Street. They saw Mrs. Whittaker, and asked if anyone named “Teddy” was there. She said “No, you are too late; they have got him”. She asked whether Ensink was a detective, and he replied “No, I am a friend of his”. Ensink then accompanied him into the kitchen.

Mrs. Emma Whittaker said that she lived at 27, Tully Street, Broughton. Prisoner Trice came to her house on the 4th November. He was brought by her son, John. Witness's son was about to leave for America, and Trice told her he was going too. He had his food at her house till the night of the 15th November, when he was arrested. On the 16th, between 10 and 11, Ensink called and asked for Trice. Witness said “No, you're too late; they took him last night. Are you a detective?” He said that he was a friend. Ensink seemed to be excited.

This closed the evidence, and the Chief Constable asked, if the Bench considered that a prima facie case had been made out against the prisoners, that they should be committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Mr. De Wet said that Trice had, of course, already made his statement, and he pleaded Guilty to the theft of the diamond bracelet and the ring which had been pawned. With reference to the other articles of jewellery, Mr. De Wet submitted that there was not one tittle of evidence to disclose a prima facie case on which Trice might be committed for trial on those charges. Trice was quite willing to do what he could to assist the police, and he hoped as much as the police did that before the Quarter Sessions came round “Fat Charlie” would be found. That, however, did not in any way justify his action. Mr. De Wet submitted that they should dismiss the other charges against him, and commit him for trial on the two charges which he had admitted.

When formally charged, Trice pleaded Guilty to stealing the bracelet and the ring which was pawned.

Ensink pleaded Not Guilty, and Mr. Myers said he reserved his defence.

Both prisoners were committed for trial, Trice on the charge of stealing the five articles specified, and Ensink with receiving the diamond bracelet.

Mr. De Wet asked for bail for Trice.

The Bench, however, refused, being of opinion that it was in the best interests of the prisoner himself that he should not have bail.

Mr. Myers asked for bail for Ensink.

The Chief Constable, however, said that he must strongly object in that case, and bail was refused.

The hearing lasted over five hours.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 December 1911.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Borough Police Court yesterday (Friday) morning, before Mr. J. Stainer, Major Leggett, and Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd, application was made for the temporary transfer of the Rendezvous Hotel from Gerard John Anton Ensink to James Algernon Hobson of Dover. Mr. Mowll appeared for Mr. Hobson and Mr. Ensink was represented by Mr. Myers.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared to support the application on behalf of his client, Mr. James Algernon Hobson, and to ask the Magistrates to grant him a protection order to enable him to sell at the Rendezvous Hotel until the next annual transfer session. The present licensee, Ensink, was not on the premises because, he understood, he was at present at Canterbury awaiting his trial, but he had given his assent to this application. He would like to say at once – and he thought the Bench would agree with him – that it would be unfair of him in any way to reflect upon the present licensee; he was awaiting his trial, and obviously he must say nothing to the Bench which might tend to prejudice him in having a fair hearing at the ensuing Quarter Sessions. But it must be very apparent that in his unfortunate position at Canterbury he was unable to exercice that control and supervision over the premises in Folkestone which really tended to the proper conduct of the licensed house. The brewers, 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 and good conduct and management of this house. He might just here explain who Mr. Hobson was, and he might say at once that he found, from the Superintendent of Police, that there could be no possible objection to the personal good character and suitability for the holding of the licence by Mr. Hobson. He kept for ten years the Belle Vue Hotel in this town, and afterwards he made the only mistake of his life by leaving Folkestone. He went for a short period to Dover, where he maintained his good character as licensee of the Cricketers' Hotel, just outside the cricket ground. He held that licence for four years and nine months, and only came out within the last few months. Mr. Hobson was a man of irreproachable character, and had had some experience in catering. He was versed in everything that tended to make the licensed victualler what he was really intended to be, a man for providing refreshments of all kinds, intoxicating or otherwise. He felt confident that there would be no possible objection to Mr. Hobson upon any personal grounds. Continuing, he pointed out to the Bench that, even if the present licensee was convicted, the law had provided for such a contingency, and gave the owners power to come forward and make an application for a protection order, but that was not his case here, because the man had not been convicted. He mentioned it just to show that the tendency of the legislature was not to prejudice the carrying on of the licensed business in consequence of any irregularity of the present licensee, but rather to give the owners the opportunity of obtaining the assistance of the Court to enable that business to be carried on. He though 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 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 thrashed out. This was only an interim hearing, and it was only another month before the licensing meeting would be brought on. It seemed to him in the good interests of the public that it 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 opposition 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 session would be a full one, whereas that day they were only sitting at the Petty Sessions. If there was anything further which the Bench would like to know with regard to the arrangements as 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 with the Clerk, and there was a further 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.

After a short deliberation, the Magistrates signified their desire to see the agreement referred to, and Mr. Mowll then read out the agreement, in which it was stated that the tenant would deposit with the owners a sum of 200 as a guarantee of good faith, and another 100 at the end of a year. There were other references with regard to furniture, and it was stated that the stock would be the property of the licensee. Continuing, Mr. Mowll drew attention to the fact that the licensee would be interested in the business very substantially, and laid emphasis on the fact that the stock would be his.

The Chief Constable said he had no objection to offer to Mr. Hobson as the tenant. His character was very satisfactory indeed, but he did object to the transfer being made that morning.

Mr. Evelyn Phillips, a valuer residing at Dover, said he served the notice in regard to the application on the Superintendent of Police and the Clerk to the Magistrates. On the 23rd December he saw the licensee, Ensink, at Canterbury Gaol, and handed him a copy of the written notice of the application today. He produced a copy of the notice, with the statements signed by him. He agreed to the suggested transfer to Mr. Hobson.

Mr. Hobson said he took over possession that morning. The premises were at that time closed.

The Chief Constable: What rent will you pay, Mr. Hobson? - 70.

When do you start? – Next year.

You will have twelve months rent free? – Yes.

You are quite prepared to take over this house this morning, supposing the Magistrates grant a protection order, whether it is opposed at the annual sessions or not? – Yes.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You understand that possibly the licence might be opposed then? – Oh, yes. That will not interfere with me in my business.

The Magistrates then retired to consider the matter.

On their return the Magistrates' Clerk asked Hobson how he proposed to pay the 200 to the brewers.

Mr. Hobson: It is in my pocket.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Where did you get it? – Out of the bank.

The Magistrates' Clerk: It is your own money. It was not lent to you or advanced for the purpose? – No.

The Chairman said they granted the temporary transfer without prejudice to anything which might transpire at the annual sessions or the general sessions.

Mr. Mowll said the licence was granted by endorsement, but, unfortunately, it was not there. It had been mislaid, but under Section 43 the Magistrates had power, on being satisfied, to grant another copy on payment of a small fee.

A clerk in the employ of Mr. Myers deposed that he had searched for the licence, but it could not be found; all the old ones were found.

The Magistrates sanctioned the issue of another copy.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

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 Herald 20 January 1912.

Wednesday, January 17th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared in the case of the Rendezvous Hotel to apply for a transfer of the licence, the temporary permission having already been granted. He proposed just formally to prove the notice, and then make his application.

Mr. Evelyn Phillips stated that he served a copy of the notice on the Superintendent of Police, the Justices' Clerk, and one of the Overseers on the 2nd January.

Mr. Mowll remarked in regard to this case he did not know how far it was necessary for him to argue the matter before them that morning. He had the pleasure of arguing at the Petty Sessions on the 29th December, and he explained how 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 the respectability of which could not possibly be questioned. That argument very much appealed to their brethren sitting in Petty Sessions, and they then granted the application for the temporary transfer in favour of Mr. Hobson, without prejudice as to the future. There was a point about it, which was this, that the then licensee, a man named Ensink, was compulsorily away from the premises, and it was felt that, being away, he could not exercise that supervision which it was desirable every licensed house should have from the licensee. At the same time, it was hardly fair to go into other matters which might possibly prejudice that man in his trial at the Quarter Sessions. It seemed better to deal with the matter in such a way that the licence should be transferred to the name of Mr. Hobson, a very experienced licensed victualler, about whom personally there was no possible question, and to leave any question as to other matters to be more suitably considered at the annual licensing meeting. Mr. Hobson came forward on that occasion, and the Chairman of the Bench then put it to him if he quite understood the risk there might be at the annual licensing meeting, and he (Mr. Hobson) said he did, and he was willing to take the licence on those conditions. That seemed to be the real position that day, and, subject to what the Chief Constable might say – and he thought he should have a right of replying – but, subject to what he might say, he would propose formally to ask them to ratify that agreement, so that the licence should be in the name of Mr. Hobson, without prejudice to the question of renewal.

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

The Chairman then called Mr. Hobson forward, and asked him if he clearly understood the question put to him at the last meeting, that the licence was transferred without any prejudice to what might take place at the annual licensing sessions.

Mr. Hobson replied in the affirmative.

The Chairman: Under those circumstances we grant it.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 February 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, February 5th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The Recorder, in his address to the Grand Jury, clearly pointed out the cases. He referred particularly to the Trice and Ensink case. He reviewed the evidence given before the Justices, and also Ensink's story to the Chief Constable. He suggested that they had no alternative but to return a true bill in the case.

The Grand Jury, after retiring for some time, returned true bills against Trice and Ensink.

The case, fresh in the memory of the ratepayers, occupied the attention of the Borough Bench in December last, and was fully reported in our columns.

The young man Trice, a native of the town, pleaded Guilty to robbing a Lady on the Leas of a large quantity of valuable jewellery, having taken advantage of invitations given by the cook-housekeeper to visit the house during the mistress's absence.

He had also become associated with a young girl named Minnie Laws, a former parlour maid in the employ of the prosecutrix, but who had taken up abode there during her former mistress's absence in London.

Gerard John Anton Ensink, the late proprietor of the Rendezvous Hotel, a native of Holland and a former hotel employee, had been acquainted with Trice for many years. They were formerly fellow servants in the employ of the Fredericks Company Ltd., proprietors of the Royal Pavilion Hotel. About four years since Ensink left his employment and took the Rendezvous Hotel, which he carried on until his arrest on this charge. Trice continued on friendly terms with him, and at one time was in his employ as potman, and had also had other situations at hotels in the town as billiard marker, lift attendant &c.

Among the articles stolen was a bracelet, valued from 100 to 200. Trice's story was that Ensink told him he had a brother, a diamond merchant, in Amsterdam, and could probably sell the bracelet for him, and Trice eventually took the same from the house on the Leas and handed it to him. Ensink went to Amsterdam, sold the bracelet, and remitted to Trice 90 of the proceeds. Other statements were also made by Trice incriminating Ensink in connection with the theft of a diamond ring, and the pawning of the same in London.

When Trice was arrested he gave all particulars to the police, and the Chief Constable sent for Ensink, whose hotel is but a few yards from the police station, to come over to the station and explain certain statements that had been made by Trice. He came over, was interviewed by Chief Constable Reeve, and disclaimed all knowledge of the affair. After being cautioned he was arrested and charged before the Justices, remanded to Canterbury gaol for a week without bail, brought up on remand at the end of the week, further charges were preferred against him, when he was committed for trial, bail being refused, and he has laid in Canterbury gaol until this morning. When before the Justices he was represented by Mr. H. Myers, solicitor, of Guildhall Street, who reserved his defence.

Trice was represented by Mr. De Wet when before the Justices, and pleaded Guilty to stealing some of the goods, but denied stealing others with which he was charged.

This morning at the Quarter Sessions Ensink was defended by Mr. Wetton, instructed by Mr. H. Myers. Mr. H.G. Roath represented Trice, instructed by Mr. De Wet. Mr. Wardley, of Tunbridge Wells, prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, instructed by Mr. A.F. Kidson.

Mr. Roath, on behalf of Trice, requested that he should be sentenced before he gave his evidence against Ensink. He submitted that such was the conduct of the Recorder at the Central Criminal Court in order that he should not be influenced in this evidence.

The Recorder refused the application and decided to withhold sentence until the case was completed against Ensink.

Mr. Wardley opened the case, and addressed the jury at great length. He reviewed the evidence given at the enquiry before the Justices. He also explained the law on the subject both as to stealing and receiving.

He then called Lady D'Oyly, who repeated her evidence given before the Justices, viz., that she left the jewellery at Greenbank while she went away on a holiday in Sept. On her return on the 15th Nov. she discovered it had been stolen. She saw the ring produced, and it was part of the stolen property.

Cross-examined: She had no reason to believe the ring was worth 200. She told Mr. Reeve the bracelet was worth 200. She was not a judge of diamonds and did not know to a hundred pounds its value.

Edwin George Trice's evidence was the same as given before the Justices, viz., that he worked for Ensink as billiard marker and waiter for eighteen months, and had been friendly with Ensink. He explained where he saw the jewellery at Greenbank, of which he was told by Mrs. Dalton. He took the jewellery, put it in a handkerchief, and took it to London. He brought it back and put it in the cupboard. Subsequently he took the bracelet and rings. He spoke to Ensink about the bracelet about a week after, in company with Chilvers, who showed him the ring. He was under the influence of drink at the time. On the next day they went to London. Chilvers and himself and Ensink went to dispose of the ring. Ensink said Bittner, a former waiter at the Metropole, would sell it for them. They went to the Artists' Club, but “Fat Charlie” was not there. They then went to the Devonshire Arms, Picadilly, and asked the proprietor 20 for it. They afterwards met “Fat Charlie” and gave him the ring. He went into the pawnshop and came out saying he would not go through it again for a fiver. They all went to the Hippodrome, where “Fat Charlie” gave him the money for the ring. Ensink took the money for safety. They bought four hats. He afterwards got the money at the Rendzvous from Ensink. Ensink asked him about the bracelet. He said it was at Greenbank. He afterwards brought it and gave it to him. A few days after he was in the Rendezvous when he got a registered letter containing 90. He handed the letter to Cottrell, who destroyed it. The letter had reference to the ring, and also that he was to pay Ensink the costs. He sent a letter to Ensink in Amsterdam, but could not recollect the address of the hotel. He afterwards saw Ensink in Brett's, who said the boys were complaining of not getting enough, which witness understood to mean they were not getting their share of the proceeds of the robbery. He meant Cottrell, Chilvers, etc. He went to the Rendezvous. They were there, but said nothing to him. Ensink said a man named Moser was chattering, so he gave him a sovereign and told him to hold his tongue. He then went to Manchester and was arrested.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wetton: He was a Folkestone boy, was 23 years of age, and had always had a good charcter. He had been employed by Ensink, who always trusted him. Mrs. Dalton invited him to stay at Greenbank. Minnie Laws asked him not to take the jewellery, but he took it to frighten her. He took the bracelet to London twice.

His attention was called to the difference of his statement at the Police Court and today. He replied that he had been in prison three months and had been thinking about it.

Ludovicus J. Luinica, a restaurant keeper and diamond polisher deposed to two men coming to his shop and showing him a diamond bracelet. He believed the prisoner Ensink was the man. He bought it from them for 2,200 guilders. He paid it the next day; it was the equivalent to about 183 in English money.

Goulden, a billiard marker in the employ of Ensink, deposed to his employer going to Amsterdam, and a registered letter arriving.

Albert Cottrell deposed to being at the Rendezvous when the registered letter was handed to Trice by Mrs. Ensink. Trice took some banknotes from it and showed him the letter, which he handed back.

Cross-examined: He did not burn the letter, and it did not contain statements to which Trice had sworn.

Gus Chilvers deposed to going to London with Trice when the ring was sold. Trice gave him a sealed envelope to take home to the Rendezvous for him. That was money for the hats which Ensink had paid.

Mr. Woodthorpe, a pawnbroker's manager, deposed to taking the ring from a waiter named Methuen.

Witnesses from Manchester were called, and repeated their evidence.

Chief Constable Reeve repeated his evidence.

Ensink, who was sworn and examined by Mr. Wetton, deposed he was 34 years of age and had lived in Folkestone for nine years. He was at the Pavilion Hotel four and a half years. He took the Rendezvous Hotel in 1907. The police had made every enquiry before the licence was granted. He had known Trice for eight years, and had always found him strictly honest. He had been sent to the bank with money which had always been right. In October last he saw Trice with rings, but had no suspicion they had been stolen. Trice showed him the bracelet, and he asked where he got it from, but did not take particular notice of his reply. He went to the Brewery Exhibition in October and met Trice and Chilvers. He told them he was going to meet Charlie, and Trice asked him to have a drink. They went to the Devonshire Arms in Picadilly, where Trice asked the landlord the value of the ring. The landlord said about 20. Trice went with “Fat Charlie” to the pawnshop, and witness went to have a shave. Afterwards they went to the Brewery Exhibition. He was going to Amsterdam in Oct. Trice heard this and asked him to buy the bracelet. He asked 90. He sold it in Amsterdam as described. He did not know they were stolen until the 15th of Nov., when he went to Manchester to see Trice to put things right. When he was arrested he did not understand the law and did not have a solicitor. He left his defence in the hands of a solicitor.

Mr. Wetton addressed the jury at great length.

The Recorder sentenced Ensink to 18 months' hard labour. Trice was bound over under the First Offenders' Act for 1 year.

Comment.

When the announcement was made by the Recorder that Trice was only to be bound over, which meant that he was practically acquitted, a sensation had apparently been caused in the Court, afterwards extended throughout the town.

No-one seemed to be vindictive or uncharitable towards Trice, but at the same time they felt that he had been treated with rather dangerous leniency. They also seemed to think that his offence was a very serious one, and that it deserved and needed a more wholesome punishment than that which had been meted out.

Many in court noted that he was not asked a single question as to what he had done with the money, how he had disposed of it, or whether he was willing to make restitution to the loser. 125, according to his own confession, had passed through his hands in about three weeks. 90 he had received for the bracelet, and 35 for the ring. Neither was he questioned very closely as to his visits to Greenbank.

The prosecution, which of course means the police, abandoned the charges of his having stolen any other property, excepting his own admission of the ring and bracelet. Probably they had good reasons for abandoning those charges, and good reasons for extraordinary suppression of evidence which was heard at the police court, and which of course appeared on the depositions.

We, of course, are not behind the scenes, neither do we want to be. We are not in the secrets of the mysteries of prosecutions and police courts, neither do we wish to be. We prefer to be unhampered by any such considerations.

We are a public newspaper, in fact we may say the only public newspaper in Folkestone that is free and unfettered, and able to re-echo the opinions of its readers and the general public.

We therefore join with our readers in expressing dissatisfaction at the way in which the case was presented and conducted on Monday last, and in commenting on it we shall only deal with what evidence has been made public. We shall not deal with any rumours or with what takes place outside, or any statements that would favour or condemn anyone.

The case was presented in November at the police court, which disclosed the fact of what is known as “downstairs hospitality and conviviality”. The mistress was away, and the woman in charge, with the other servant, had invited friends to spend the evenings at the house. Although such things are objectionable they are not necessarily criminal. It is a procedure that has been going on for years, and will go on for all time. It is not every gay Lotharian that is invited by his lady love to a kitchen supper who would rob the house or get her into trouble. Neither was there any evidence in the first instance that would lead anyone to suppose that the servants suspected this.

The evidence further disclosed that the cook, a married woman, took advantage of her mistress's absence to pay a visit to her husband, leaving Trice and the other servant, who were on friendly terms, to act as caretakers in her absence. Trice and the girl Laws both stated that they had known each other from childhood. The latter, in giving her evidence, described her surprise at seeing Trice with all the jewellery tied up in a handkerchief, admitting that he was going to steal it. “Oh, Teddy”, she said, “put it back”. Trice's evidence corroborated her statement by his saying that he only took it to frighten her. The girl described the visit to London, when she begged of him to take it back, and even threatened to charge him if he did not. The cook's evidence practically corroborated that of the witness Laws.

Chilvers' evidence practically corroborated Ensink's as to the ring transaction.

Trice's evidence given before the police court varied materially from his evidence given before the Quarter Sessions.

Now, what is agitating the lay mind – not the legal mind – is an explanation why these witnesses were not called. We venture to say that had the girl Laws given her evidence at the Quarter Sessions as she did in the police court a different view might have been taken.

It is well-known that Laws was under the impression that Trice was going to take her to America, instead of which he went off by himself without even telling her he was going. We are under the impression that it was Laws who furnished the clue as to his whereabouts. The whole evidence, as it presents itself to ourselves and the public, is that Trice, a good-looking young fellow of 23, partook of the “below stairs hospitality” of two women. As far as the evidence shows, no temptation was held out on their part to steal the jewellery, and no evidence was given that it was done at their instigation or that they took any part in it; in fact, the evidence was the other way. Trice stole the stuff on his own initiative, according to his own statement, and exercised great shrewdness and sagacity in disposing of the same.

He went away under an assumed name, and when caught made a clean breast of it, implicating many others with whom he had formerly been associated, and who probably would have been put on their trial had there been a little of corroboration of his statements against them.

Hence he is free, and we hope he will profit by the leniency shown him. We are not going to say a word against the Recorder's action. He is kindness itself. When the prosecution recommended him to mercy, and when the lady who had lost her valuable jewellery joined in that recommendation, with the characters that had been given, the Recorder only did what might have been expected of him.

We have not said a word as to Ensink, as in case there should be an appeal we do not, in accordance with our usual custom, discuss matter until sub judice.

 

Folkestone Daily News 7 February 1912.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, Herbert, Leggett, Stainer, Swoffer, Fynmore, Hamilton, Boyd, and Jenner.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chief Constable gave notice of opposition to the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous on the ground that it had been badly conducted.

The Chairman also announced that it was also to be opposed on the ground of redundancy. It will be dealt with at the adjourned sessions on March 8th.

 

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 Herald 10 February 1912.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

The Chief Constable presented his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said it seemed to be very satisfactory that there had been no proceedings against any licence holder during the past two years, and that the number of cases of drunkenness was, he thought, the smallest this century. One little disquieting fact was the number of females charged with drunkenness. Out of 85 persons so charged at the Folkestone Police Court, 31 were females. It seemed rather a pity. Mr. Ward added that before the Chief Constable had given his report it had been intended to instruct him to oppose the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel on the ground of redundancy. However, as the case stood, it would be deferred until the adjourned licensing sessions. The Chairman said that all the other licences would be renewed.

Local News.

The sensational jewel stealing case was heard at the Folkestone Borough Quarter Sessions on Monday, before the learned Recorder (Mr. J.C. Lewis Coward, K.C.). The result was that Ensink, formerly landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, was convicted of receiving the diamond bracelet and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour. Trice, who pleaded Guilty to stealing the diamond bracelet and a single stone diamond ring, and in whose behalf Lady D'Oyly asked for lenience, was merely bound over in his own recognisances to be of good behaviour for twelve months.

The Recorder, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said there were two cases which were a little out of the ordinary. There was a charge against Edwin George Trice, a young man, of stealing a large quantity of jewellery. But the most material matters which would come before them for their consideration would be in reference to the charge of stealing a crescent diamond bracelet of the value of some 350, and a gold diamond ring, of the value of some 200. There was also a bill of indictment charging Gerard John Anton Ensink, aged 34, with receiving the diamond bracelet, which was the property of Lady D'Oyly, who was one of the respected residents of this town, who, on the 1st September last, left her house in the sole charge of a servant of the name of Dalton. Into the betrayal of trust on the part of that servant, and the extraordinary conduct of the parties during the month of September in the house, it was not in his province to enter, nor did he think it necessary or possible at any stage to be necessary to enter. But Trice, when charged, admitted before the Magistrates that he did steal two of the articles he (the Recorder) had referred to more particularly, namely, the diamond bracelet and the gold diamond ring. Not Trice, apparently, had been a barman for about 18 months from Michaelmas, 1908, in the service of Ensink, and had left Ensink's employment. According to the evidence, Ensink was aware that he was out of employment, and Trice apparently frequented the house at which Ensink was a licensed victualler. It appeared that on the 18th October last, at the suggestion of Ensink, Trice went to London with Ensink with this valuable diamond ring, worth 200, and at Ensink's suggestion the ring was pledged to a pawnbroker in the neighbourhood of Leicester Square for the sum of 35. Ensink received as a present a new hat from Trice. A few days after that, this valuable diamond crescent bracelet, which had been previously to the 21st October taken by Trice and shown to Ensink at the public house, was taken again to the public house by Trice. After some conversation Ensink said he was going to Holland in a few days, and that he would dispose of it. He asked Trice how much he wanted for it, and Trice replied that he wanted 100. Trice gave Ensink the bracelet in the Rendezvous bar. Ensink appeared to have immediately gone off to Amsterdam with the bracelet, and there he sold it to a man of the name of Linnekamp for the sum of 2,200 florins. A florin being worth, he believed, about 1s. 8d., he received the sum of 180 for it. Linnekamp was a diamond polisher, a respectable man so far as it appeared from the depositions. Of that 180 Ensink sent over 90, half the proceeds, in 5 Bank of England notes, to Trice, and apparently retained the remainder for himself. All the Grand Jury had got to do was to see if a prima facie case existed against Ensink of receiving this property, and disposing of it, well-knowing it to have been stolen. He would read to them the evidence of what took place when Ensink was charged with receiving this valuable diamond bracelet. He was sent for by the Chief Constable, who asked him whether he had in his possession, or had recently had in his possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for 35, or did he know anything about any other jewellery that Trice had disposed of. Ensink said “No”. The Chief Constable then said that he would arrest him and that he would be charged with receiving, on or about the 20th October, from Edwin George Trice, a diamond bracelet, well-knowing the same to have been stolen. Ensink replied “I do not know anything about it”.

Edwin George Trice, aged 23, described as a lift attendant, was first put into the dock to answer an indictment charging him with feloniously stealing from the dwelling house of Lady 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, value 645, the property of Lady D'Oyly.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to stealing the bracelet and the single stone diamond ring, but not the other articles.

Gerard John Anton Ensink, 34, described as a licensed victualler, was then indicted for feloniously receiving of Edwin George Trice one crescent diamond bracelet, value 350, the property of Lady D'Oyly, well-knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen.

The accused pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Wardley appeared for the prosecution, Mr. H.G. Rooth (instructed by Mr. V.D. De Wet) for Trice, and Mr. Ernest Wetton (instructed by Mr. Myers) for Ensink.

Mr. Rooth drew attention to the fact that Trice had pleaded Guilty, and suggested that it would be desirable to sentence Trice before any other matter was dealt with. He said it was the practice of the Criminal Court to do so. It was said that there would then be nothing to fear and nothing to hope for in the way of favour.

The Recorder said he would not sentence Trice until he had had the facts before him in connection with the case of Ensink. They were very much mixed up in the case, and it seemed to him in all the circumstances desirable to postpone sentence. That was the view he had formed, and he had very carefully considered it.

Mr. Wardley left the matter entirely to the learned Recorder's discretion.

The Recorder: I will not sentence Trice until I have got all the facts.

Mr. Wardley, in his opening speech, said in the fashionable quarter of Folkestone there were some houses known as Westbourne Gardens, and in one, known as Greenbank, Sir Warren Hastings D'Oyly and Lady D'Oyly resided. In December, 1910, Mrs. Agnes Dalton was taken into their service, and in July, 1911, a Minnie Laws was employed, and remained for one month. The latter left on the 20th August, and on the following day Minnie Laws, who had made a friend of Mrs. Dalton, came back to the house, and remained as Mrs. Dalton's guest, unknown to Lady D'Oyly, for a considerable time. In these establishments, he pointed out, the ladies knew very little of what took place downstairs. On the 1st September Lady D'Oyly left Folkestone, for a change, and was away until the 15th November. During that time the establishment was left in the charge of Mrs. Dalton, and she had Minnie Laws there. On the 20th September Mrs. Dalton was introduced to a man named Trice. He was an attendant by occupation, but was out of work. He had also been a billiard marker, and a page boy at the Pavilion Hotel, and at the time the prisoner Ensink was a lounge waiter there. A man named Bittner, otherwise known as “Fat Charlie”, they would hear later, also took part in the story. During the time Lady D'Oyly was away Trice visited the house, and slept there a good many times, there being plenty of room. While he was there Mrs. Dalton foolishly disclosed at a table chat that upstairs in a wardrobe in one of Lady D'Oyly's rooms there was a quantity of valuable jewellery. In the case of a man being out of work, and knowing that the house was not protected, this was a dangerous piece of information, and a temptation, and to that temptation Trice fell. On the 22nd or 23rd October they found the part of real story began. On the 2nd October Mrs. Dalton herself left and went to Colchester. From Colchester she telegraphed a sum of 8s. to Trice, asking Trice to sleep at the house. Continuing, counsel referred to the occasion when Trice first took the jewellery from the wardrobe in a handkerchief and went to London with the girl Laws, and also to the occasion when Ensink became aware that Trice had a quantity of jewellery which he was wishing to dispose of. Amongst the things was a diamond bracelet with a number of diamonds, about 11 or 12. Ensink appeared to have inquired whether the diamonds were white sapphires, but he was assured that they were diamonds. Ensink told Trice he thought he could get rid of the bracelet, as he had friends in Holland who were diamond polishers. On the 18th October Trice, Chilvers and Cottrell went to London, and there Bittner and Ensink had a conversation. Bittner came to Trice, and asked him to let him have a look at it, meaning a valuable diamond ring which Trice had got. Bittner (Fat Charlie) went into a pawnbrokers and disposed of the ring for 35. This was one of the rings out of the wardrobe. Later Trice received a registered letter from Holland, in which was enclosed 90 in 5 Bank of England notes. This was sent to the Rendezvous Hotel, and was handed to Trice by Mrs. Ensink. He was going to call evidence to show that Ensink had sold the bracelet for 183. Another interesting item was that when Trice went to Manchester, Ensink telegraphed him 2, this being on the 14th November. On the 15th November Trice was arrested.

Lady Amy Agnes D'Oyly, wife of Sir Warren Hastings D'Oyly, Bart., stated that on the 1st September she left Greenbank in the charge of the cook and housekeeper, Mrs. Dalton. She had been with her for some eight or nine months. She had a girl named Minnie Laws during the months of July and August. Witness did not engage her herself. She knew nothing whatever about her coming back after she had been paid her wages. When witness left Folkestone she left a quantity of jewellery in the wardrobe in her bedroom. She had a diamond bracelet there when she left on the 1st September, and that bracelet was in the case produced. She also had in the same place a gold ring set with one diamond, one set with three diamonds, one set with five diamonds, and two gold mohair bracelets. When she returned on the 15th November she missed the diamond bracelet and the single stone diamond ring, the ring with three diamonds, and the ring set with five diamonds. The case was empty. The bracelet she valued at between 300 and 350, the single stone diamond ring within 200, and the other rings at about 30 and 50. She saw the single stone diamond ring at a pawnbroker's shop in Leicester Square, where she identified it.

Mr. Wetton inquired how Lady D'Oyly valued the ring at 200. – That is what I have reason to believe it is worth.

Mr. Wetton alluded to the fact that only 35 was lent on the ring, and a witness said it was not worth more than 60 at full value. About that you do not agree? – No.

Mr. Wetton next pointed out to Lady D'Oyly that she told Mr. Reeve she valued the crescent bracelet at 200.

Witness said she was always under the impression she said 300. She could not tell the value of jewellery. She had more of a sentimental value for it.

After another question had been put by Mr. Wetton the Recorder asked Lady D'Oyly whether the ring had a flaw in it.

Lady D'Oyly: I was given to understand so from the one who gave it to me.

Geo. Edwin Trice stated that he was bu occupation a lift attendant, but had not been in employment since last Michaelmas. Rior to that he was a billiard marker, a barman and a page boy at the Pavilion Hotel, where Ensink was a lounge waiter. It was there that his acquaintance ripened into friendship, and that lasted after he left the Pavilion. He met Ensink at the Rendezvous Hotel, and became intimate with him there, visiting the hotel pretty frequently. He knew Mrs. Dalton; he first made her acquaintance in the Rendezvous Hotel some time in September.

In answer to the Recorder, witness stated that after leaving the Pavilion Hotel he was employed at the Rendezvous Hotel as barman and billiard marker from about September, 1907, to June, 1909. He was also two years at the Harbour Hotel as barman. He saw Ensink, and kept up the friendly acquaintance.

In reply to Mr. Wardley, witness stated that Minnie Laws introduced him to Mrs. Dalton. He had known Minnie Laws ever since he had left school. When he was introduced to Mrs. Dalton he visited the house called Greenbank. That was in September. While there he learnt from conversation of the existence of a quantity of jewellery. It was in a wardrobe in her ladyship's bedroom. He saw something of the jewellery before Mrs. Dalton left for her holiday. She showed him one morning a quantity of jewellery in the bedroom. It was not in the wardrobe. He remembered Mrs. Dalton going away, and the next morning after she went he (witness) went to the bedroom, and found some jewellery there. Mrs. Dalton left on the 2nd October, and he went to the jewellery on the 3rd. He took all the jewellery out of both cupboards, put it in a handkerchief, and took it to London. Before that he had a conversation with Minnie Laws; she was in the room at the time he took it, and she saw the jewellery in his possession. Laws went with him to London. He remained in London that night, and returned with Laws the next day to Folkestone. He never thought what he was doing at the time. He intended in the first place to dispose of the things, but to whom he did not know, and he abandoned that intention. He replaced the jewellery in the wardrobe with the exception of the two rings he was wearing. He retained them all the time. They were two single stone rings. He had never seen the three stone diamond ring or the five stone diamond ring. He had a conversation with Ensink with reference to the jewellery after Mrs. Dalton went away. It might have been some two weeks after his return from London, in the Rendezvous Hotel. Chilvers referred to the single stone diamond ring in Ensink's presence. Chilvers had two tickets for America, but he wished to dispose of them for 5, as his parents did not wish him to go. Chilvers showed Ensink the ring, and Ensink said he knew a man in London who would buy it. It had previously been suggested that they should pawn the ring. Chilvers and Ensink both joined in the conversation, and talked about the possibility of disposing of the ring. Ensink said a man named Chapman, of the Devonshire Arms, Picadilly, might buy it. They did not go to London that night. The bracelet was not referred to on that occasion. He went to London the next day. Chilvers went with him, and at the station they met Ensink by accident. They all went to London together. When they got to London they went to find the man named “Fat Charlie”. On the station at Folkestone, prior to this, they had spoken about the ring. Chilvers suggested that they should get a taxi, and drive to a certain shop, but he did not think Ensink heard that. When they met Ensink, Chilvers said something to Ensink, and Ensink said he would like to have the ring. He tried it on, but it was too small for him. He then said that “Fat Charlie” would pawn it. Witness knew “Fat Charlie” before that. He met him at the Rendezvous. “Fat Charlie” was at one time a waiter at the Metropole Hotel. His name was Bittner. He did not know that Ensink knew they were going to London that day. They went to the Artists' Club, in Little Newport Street. Ensink went in, and witness remained outside. They afterwards went to the Devonshire Arms, Picadilly, and Ensink and Chilvers played billiards. Witness saw Mr. Chapman, the proprietor, and Ensink found “Fat Charlie” in Newport Street. Ensink and “Fat Charlie” walked a few paces in front of Chilvers and witness. Up to that time witness had said nothing about the ring. They walked a few yards, and “Fat Charlie” turned round, and said “Show me it”. Witness knew what he meant, and gave him the ring. “Fat Charlie” said “You are sure this is not a white sapphire?” Witness said “I am sure it is a diamond”. “Fat Charlie” said he would get into trouble if he tried to pawn it and it was a white sapphire. “Fat Charlie” then took the ring and went round the corner, and witness followed him. No-one went into the shop with “Fat Charlie”. Ensink was close by. “Fat Charlie” asked how much he wanted for the ring. Chilvers answered “40”. After he came out “Fat Charlie” said he would not go through it again for a “fiver”. They walked to the Hippodrome, and “Fat Charlie” gave him six five pound notes, 4 10s., and some silver. Witness gave “Fat Charlie” 2 10s. for pawning the ring. He seemed dissatisfied, and asked for 5. Witness then gave him another 10s. They then went to the White Star Line offices, and Chilvers went in there. Some hats were afterwards bought with the money. Four bowler hats were bought. Ensink had one, witness had one, Chilvers had one, and “Fat Charlie” had one. Ensink bought the hats. He had the money in the inside pocket of his waistcoat. Ensink was keeping the money for safety. Ensink gave him back 4 then, and handed some notes to Chilvers to take back to the Rendezvous Hotel. Chilvers suggested buying the hats. Witness afterwards got the bulk of the money on going back to the Rendezvous Hotel the next morning. He was handed the money by Ensink, who had taken care of it for him. The other diamond ring witness had taken Ensink wore the day they were in London. Witness asked for it back the next day. There was an engraving in it. Ensink was going to buy it for 5, but as witness knew there was an engraving in it, it was not sold. Witness replaced it in the wardrobe. With regard to the bracelet, that subject was raised in the Rendezvous Hotel. Ensink asked him where the bracelet was. Witness did not know how he knew about that. Ensink asked him where the diamond bracelet was. Witness told him it was at Greenbank. Ensink said “I am going to Holland tomorrow, and I will dispose of it for you if you like”. He told Ensink that “Fat Charlie” was going to dispose of the rest of the jewellery, and Ensink said “All right”. Witness afterwards told Ensink he could have it, and he fetched it and gave it to Ensink, who asked him how much he wanted for it. Witness said “100”. Ensink said “All right”. He had not seen the bracelet since. He identified the case produced as the one in which the bracelet was placed. He made no arrangement with Ensink then as to how he was to get the 100. That was on Monday. He received a registered letter with 90 in 5 Bank of England notes at the Rendezvous Hotel, and that was handed to him by Mrs. Ensink. Cottrell was also present. He signed no receipt for it. There was a letter accompanying it. He handed it to Cottrell to read, and he (witness) never saw it afterwards. The same evening he asked Cottrell where it was. He had just thrown a piece of paper on the fire, and he said “There it is”. In the letter Ensink said 90 was all he could get for the bracelet, and he could give any costs to Mrs. Ensink. Ensink told him to go to London, get the ring out of pawn, and send it to him there (meaning Holland). He referred to the ring that had been pawned by “Fat Charlie”. He said it must be there before Friday. The letter was dated from Amsterdam. He did not notice the date of the letter, but the signature was that of “Louis”, by which name he knew Ensink. Witness did not hand Mrs. Ensink any money. Cottrell then accompanied him to the Tontine Street Post Office, and he wrote acknowledging the letter, and told Ensink he would not trouble about the ring. Cottrell afterwards read the letter, and witness posted it.

In answer to the Recorder, Trice said he saw Ensink at the Rendezvous Hotel on the Thursday, Friday, or Saturday evening following his return from London.

In reply to Mr. Wardley, witness stated that Ensink asked him if he received it all right. He (Trice) said “Yes”. Ensink said he need not worry about changing the 5 notes, as he (Ensink) went all over the place to change Dutch money into English. Ensink did not say what he got for the bracelet, or about paying anything to Mrs. Ensink. That was all that took place on that occasion. Witness spoke to Ensink with regard to the jewellery at Greenbank, and told Ensink there was more up there, which Ensink knew, but he did not think anything came of that.

In answer to the Recorder, witness stated that on one occasion he saw Ensink outside Mr. Brett's, the hosiers. Ensink said the boys were kicking up a row because they had not had enough money, meaning Cottrell, Chilvers, John Wyllie, etc. Ensink said “I should get away if I were you”. Witness then went to the Rendezvous Hotel, and saw the others there, but they said nothing to him. Witness also saw another man named Moser. Ensink said he had heard about the jewellery. Witness saw Moser, called him on one side, and gave him 1 to keep his mouth shut. Witness intended to go to America with a friend of his who had come from America to get married. Ensink knew he was going. He told him he was going on the previous evening. He wrote to Ensink about ten days after he went to Manchester, from the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street. He wrore saying he had not enough money to go to America, and asked him to lend him 5 on the ticket (enclosed) for the ring. Ensink had previously said he would give him 5 for the ticket. He wrote to Ensink in the name of Ted Davis. Ensink wired him 2 the next day; that was the day before his arrest. Witness also stayed at 27, Tully Street, where Mrs. Whittaker lived. He heard nothing more before he was arrested the next day.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wetton, witness stated that he was 23 years of age. He was a Folkestone boy, and up to the time this charge was brought against him had always borne a good character in the town. He had known Ensink some six or seven years. He was employed at the Pavilion Hotel as page boy when Ensink was lounge waiter. Ensink always found him honest and straightforward in all his dealings. He left the Pavilion Hotel, and Ensink left also, taking the Rendezvous Hotel about four years ago. Witness was employed there as barman from 1907 to 1909. Ensink trusted him to go to the bank for change, and trusted him with the charge of the bar; he trusted him implicitly. He fell out of employment in the early part of last year. Mrs. Dalton invited him there as her guest, and he was quite prepared to go. He went in and out of all the rooms with the girl Laws; he made himself thoroughly at home. The jewellery he took to London he brought back of his own accord. Laws told him not to take the jewellery in the first place, but notwithstanding that he took it with her to London. He did it more than anything else to frighten her. He admitted that in the first instance he intended to dispose of it. He went with Chilvers and John Wyllie on the second occasion, some ten days later. He got over his fear. He only went to London twice with the jewellery. They saw Ensink at the Folkestone Railway Station on the 18th November. Ensink said he was going to the Brewers' Exhibition. Ensink said he would like the ring himself. He suggested going to Mr. Chapman, and that he would buy the ring. Witness did not suggest anything against Mr. Chapman, and did not think he was a man who would buy stolen property. He was a very respectable licensed victualler. Ensink went to the Agricultural Hall and saw the Exhibition. That was on a Wednesday. They went up by a half-day excursion. They returned to Folkestone by the 9 o'clock excursion back. On the occasions they went up by train they never made any reference to Greenbank. He did not ask Ensink for 90 for the bracelet. He asked for 100. Cottrell destroyed the letter received from Ensink. Cottrell had said that he had not done so, but Cottrell had also said he never received 11. Cottrell was not speaking the truth. He (witness) did not tell Ensink he would be satisfied with 90.

In reply to Mr. Wardley, witness stated that when he went to London with the girl Laws he did not see Ensink on the night of his return. It was on the occasion of the second journey to London, when he came back earlier, that he saw Ensink at the Rendezvous Hotel. He reported to Ensink the result of the day's efforts. Ensink asked him how he got on, and witness said “No business”. Ensink, in reply, said “You can't do anything without your father”. When he told Mr. Wetton that nothing was mentioned of Greenbank just previously, he referred to the occasions of the journeys to London, but reference was made on other occasions. Of that he was quite sure.

J.J. Liinekamp, through an interpreter, said he was a cafe keeper and diamond polisher at Amsterdam. On a Tuesday some weeks ago two men came into his shop. They looked very much like brothers. He thought that the prisoner in the dock was the one who sold the diamond bracelet to him. At first witness offered to buy the bracelet for 2,000 florins. After some discussion the men said they would sell the bracelet for 2,200 florins (180), and witness eventually bought it for that sum. He paid the money the next day in two thousand florin notes and two hundred florin notes. Witness later polished the diamonds up, and sold it for 3,000 florins, which would be equivalent to about 250.

Thomas James Golder said he was a billiard marker at the Rendezvous Hotel. He had been there for about eleven months. He remembered that Ensink went away for a holiday last year on about the 15th October. He was gone for about five days. Witness remembered that during his absence two registered letters arrived at the Rendezvous. One was addressed to Mrs. Ensink and the other was addressed to Trice. Witness signed for both of the letters.

Albert Edward Cottrell said that he was a tobacconist and confectioner, and lived in Camden terrace, Cheriton. He was a customer at the Rendezvous Hotel, and was acquainted with Trice. He was in the saloon bar one morning at about half past eleven. Mrs. Ensink was in the bar at the time. Witness saw her hand Trice a letter. He stood aside to open it, read it, took some bank notes out of the envelope, and put them in his pocket. Witness saw the letter, which was not signed. It said “Enclosed find bank notes to the value of 90”. Witness did not think that there was anything else in it. Trice said “Give me back the letter; I want that”, and witness did so. He saw no more of the letter. He saw no address on the letter. At that time Trice owed him some 5 or 6, and he gave witness a 5 Bank of England note, out of which he took fifty shillings, and gave him the change. Witness had heard casually that Ensink was away on the Continent at the time.

Cross-examined: Witness did not see the words “Go and fetch “R”. Anyone who said that those words were there would not be speaking the truth. He did not burn the letter, and if Trice said he did he would not be speaking the truth.

William Lawrence Chilvers, of Kent Road, Cheriton, said that he was a telephone clerk. He had known Trice for about twelve months. He knew that Ensink went on the Continent. Witness was with Trice, Ensink, and a valet from the Metropole Hotel named Wagner on the occasion of the trip to London. They met a man in London whom they knew at Folkestone by the name of “Charlie”. Witness saw that Trice had a single stone diamond ring on his finger in the morning. They went to various public houses together, but witness did not see “Charlie” leave at all, and heard no conversation regarding the jewellery. Trice gave him a sealed envelope, which he asked him to leave in the Rendezvous, in the bar. Before he came home they all went to Dunn's, in the Strand, and tossed as to who should pay for four new hats. Ensink lost, and paid for the four.

Arthur Woodthorpe, manager to Messrs. Hawes and Sons, pawnbrokers, of Cranbourne Street, said the diamond ring produced in Court was pawned on the premises on the 18th October by a man giving the name of Charles Hanson, for a sum of 35. Witness believed that he knew Hanson by name, but he was not aware of his occupation. Witness heard that he was a waiter, and knew that he was a German. He had done business with them before. Witness gave 35 on the ring. He showed it to Lady D'Oyly.

Cross-examined: The ring was not worth more than 60.

Questioned by the Recorder: The man Hanson gave the address of 30, Newport Street, Leicester Square. Witness could not tell whether the previous transactions had had had with this person were of the same address. He did not remember the nature of his transaction with this man immediately previous to this.

William James Rule, clerk at the General Post Office, produced two receipts for registered postal packets, dated 26th October, 1911. The office of posting was in both cases at Amsterdam, one being addressed to Mrs. Ensink, and one to E. Trice, and both to the Rendezvous Hotel. He also produced a document proving that a sum of 2 was wired to Manchester to “Ned Edward Davis”, being sent from “Louis Ensink, at the Rendezvous Hotel”. He also produced a copy of a telegram sent from Amsterdam, delivered at the Rendezvous Hotel, and also one addressed to “Ensink, Amsterdam” on the same day. The former telegram was addressed to Mrs. Ensink, and asked whether the letters had arrived, and the reply from Mrs. Ensink stated that the letters had arrived safely.

Elizabeth Whittaker, of Broughton, Salford, said that she was recently engaged as a waitress at the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchseter, kept by her sister-in-law. On about the 5th of November last she was introduced to Trice at the Swan Hotel. He told her that his name was Davies, and his Christian name was Ted. Whilst he was there he received a telegram addressed to “Edward Davies”.

Edward Tattersall said that he lived at Salford, and was a bookmaker's clerk. On the 16th November he was in the bar of the Swan Hotel, Manchester, when he saw the prisoner Ensink come into the hotel. He asked for “Teddy”. Mrs. Parker said she did not know him at first, but then said that he was at a house in Tully Street. Witness accompanied Ensink there in a taxi. They went inside and he again asked for Teddy, but Mrs. Whittaker replied “You are too late. They have got him”. Ensink then went into the kitchen, and witness remained in the shop.

Emma Whittaker, of Tully Street, Broughton, said that Trice came to her house with her son John on the 4th November. Her son was going to America soon after that. Witness remembered that Trice was arrested on the 15th November, and she remembered Ensink coming into the shop. She asked him whether he was a detective, and he replied “No, I am a friend of his”.

The Recorder remarked that all the witnesses from the North had given their evidence very well.

The Chief Constable of Folkestone (Mr. Harry Reeve) was the next witness. He said that at bout twenty minutes past ten on the morning of the 18th November he had a conversation with the prisoner Ensink. Witness said to him “I am making inquiries and trying to trace a quantity of jewellery stolen from a house in the Sandgate Road last month. A man named Trice is in custody charged with stealing it, and in consequence of a statement he has made, I must warn you that anything you say I shall use in evidence against you should a criminal charge be made 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 that Trice has disposed of?” He replied “No, sir”. Witness then said that he would arrest Ensink and charge him with receiving, on or about the 20th October, from Edwin Trice, well-knowing it to have been stolen, a diamond bracelet. He replied “I do not know anything about it”. He was then taken to the Police Office and detained.

In cross-examination it was elicited that witness sent a number of times for Ensink before he would come. He sent for him on the Thursday, and it was said that he was not up, and all the time he was away. At last, on the Saturday morning, witness sent one of his men with instructions to make him come. Ensink then came.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Ensink was the only witness for the defence. Having been sworn, he said that he was 31 years of age, and had been in England for about fifteen years. For the last nine years he had lived at Folkestone. He was employed in the Pavilion Hotel as lounge waiter for four or five years. He took the Rendezvous public house in October of 1907. From first to last he had always borne a good character in the town, and had never been charged with anything before. He had known Trice for about eight years. He had been employed as page boy at the Pavilion Hotel whilst witness was lounge waiter, and he took Trice into his employment in 1908. He had always found him to be honest and straightforward, and entrusted him nearly every month with considerable sums of money to take to the bank. Trice left his employment in 1909, and witness had since then been on friendly terms with him. He used to frequent witness's public house. In October of last year, for about a fortnight or three weeks, he saw Trice with two rings on his finger, but from first to last he had no idea that the rings were stolen property. He had never known of the goings-on at Greenbank. He stated emphatically that he had no idea from first to last that they were stolen property. He remembered Trice showing him a bracelet with about eleven stones in it. Witness looked at it, but did not take particular notice at the time. He did not think it was stolen property. With regard to the visit to London on Wednesday, October 18th, witness stated that he was going to the Brewers' Exhibition, as he had had four tickets sent to him. He went up by the Wednesday afternoon excursion. He met a man named Wagner, Mr. Straughan, the landlord of the Gun Tavern, Trice, and Chilvers on the station platform. He had not arranged previously to meet Trice and Chilvers on the platform on that day. He gave two tickets away to Mr. Straughan. When they arrived at Charing Cross Trice inquired where witness was going to, and he replied that he was going to meet “Charlie” and take him to the Brewers' Exhibition. They went to the Artists' Club, but found that “Fat Charlie” was not there, so they went and had a drink at the Devonshire Arms. Trice remained talking to the landlord, and witness went and had a game of billiards. After a little while Trice came up. He showed the landlord the ring, and the landlord said it would be worth about 30. They then left the Devonshire Arms and met “Fat Charlie” just outside the Artists' Club. Trice said he had a little business to do, and that he wanted to find a pawnshop. Witness said that “Charlie” would show him where a pawnshop was. Witness did not know that Trice was going to dispose of the ring, so he could have no idea that it was stolen property. Witness then left the others, and went and had a shave. They afterwards met again, and he went to the Brewers' Exhibition. Before going there they tossed up, and witness lost and had to pay for four new hats. He did not know about the envelope being given to Chilvers. Trice went with them to the Brewers' Exhibition, and they came back to Folkestone by the excursion train. With regard to the visit to Amsterdam during October, Ensink stated that he went there for his holidays. Before he went Trice came in and inquired whether he was going to Holland. Witness replied that he was, and Trice left. After a little while he came back once more, and took the bracelet from the envelope, asking witness if he would mind selling it for him. Witness asked “Is it yours to sell?”, and he replied in the affirmative. Witness asked him how much he wanted for it, and he replied that he wanted one hundred pounds. Witness said “It is a lot of money. What price will you take less?” He then said the lowest he would take was 90. Witness thought that anything he sold it for over 90 he would have for profit. Witness sold the bracelet in Amsterdam, and sent over 90 in eighteen 5 notes to Trice. He never said anything in that letter about getting “R” out of pawn. Ensink explained his visit to Manchester by saying that he had heard the property was stolen, and went straight to find Trice to ascertain whether the rumour was true. When he arrived there he found that Trice had been arrested. The reason why he told Mr. Reeve that he did not know anything about the bracelet was because he felt nervous. It was a lie, and he felt sorry now that he had said it.

Ensink was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr. Wardley. Prisoner said he first made up hs mind to tell this story to the Magistrates on the Monday after he first appeared at the Police Court. He had not seen anyone to advise him in the interval. On that day he told his solicitor what he had just told to the Recorder. His solicitor knew that he was going to say that Trice brought him the bracelet and asked him if he could sell it for him. Witness did not instruct his solicitor to see that that question was put in cross-examination on the occasion of the adjourned hearing before the Magistrates. He would not say that all Trice had said was untrue. Some of it was true and some not. Whilst he was in witness's employ Trice was paid from 25s. to 30s. per week and slept in. Witness was surprised to see him wearing the rings for the first few days, but he got over the surprise. He did not ask Trice where he got the rings, nor did ne ask him wher he got the bracelet.

The Recorder: Why not?

Ensink said something to the effect that he might have been insulted. He went on to say he was not in the habit of buying valuable things or taking valuable things from waiters and billiard markers. This was the first. He had no nervousness in doing it. He took the bracelet assuming it to belong to Trice. He did not think it strange that a young man in his position should have such a bracelet, but he had not seen a young man in his position with such an article before. Holland was a well known market for diamonds. Witness knew Hatton Garden, and was aware that it was largely frequented by merchants, diamond merchants, and even Dutch diamond merchants. He did not know any of them there. Witness went straight to this man in Amsterdam, and asked whether he would buy it. What Trice said after the visit to London, “You cannot get on without your father” was not true. Witness did not remember even seeing him, and Trice did not tell him what had taken place in London. He never told him what happened on the occasion of the second journey. With reference to the bracelet transaction, Trice asked for 90, and he got it. Business was business. Witness regarded it as an honest transaction at the time, and he did still. Witness did not tell Trice that he had had any difficulty in getting the banknotes.

Cross-examined as to Trice's truthfulness and honesty, Ensink said he must have gone wrong all at once. Witness did not think he had gone wrong when he saw that he had this valuable jewellery in his possession. He thought it was Cottrell who told him that it had been stolen. Witness never used the term “boys”, and that matter was apparently an invention on the part of Trice. Witness did not discuss the question of a visit to London with Trice the day before he went to London. He did not know that Trice wanted to pawn the ring. He asked wher a pawnshop was, and witness said that “Fat Charlie” would show him where there was one. He wished to take “Fat Charlie” to the Brewers' Exhibition. Witness was not aware of any conversation between “Charlie” and Trice regarding the ring. Before he went to get a shave, not a word had been said about this ring. He saw “Charlie” take Trice in the direction of the pawnshop without a word being said with regard to it. Here was nothing said about “white sapphire”. Trice had sent the pawn ticket to witness from Manchester, asking for a loan of 5 on it, and witness sent him 2. At that time he had not heard that this property was stolen. When he received the pawn ticket he knew that it was for the ring that Trice had pawned. When before the Magistrates he was called upon to produce that letter. He said that he had not got it, but this was a lie. Witness was told by Trice as they were coming home from London that he had pawned the ring. The hats were not bought because of the successful pawning of the ring.

Mr. Wardley, addressing the jury on behalf of the prosecution, described Ensink's story as being most incredible.

Mr. Wetton, for the defence, submitted that Ensink had been the dupe of Trice, and pointed out that because of this charge against him he had been substantially ruined in the town. He maintained that the case for the prosecution had not been made out, that there was a grave doubt in the case, and that the benefit of that doubt should be given to Ensink.

The Recorder, in summing up, said it was open to the jury to find Ensink guilty on the first count of stealing, or on the second count for receiving, or acquit him altogether of both charges. If Trice had been the only witness for the prosecution, he should have requested them to acquit the prisoner, but he warned them that they were not to act wholly and solely on the evidence given by Trice. But if they found – as he ventured to think they did find – that there was corroborative evidence in the most important particulars of Trice's evidence, they ought not to discard Trice's evidence, but consider it in the light of the corroborative evidence that they had had before them. If they were satisfied that these articles were stolen, and if they were satisfied that they were in the possession of this man, then, of course, the question of the evidence of guilty knowledge on his part became all-important. One of the most important matters in connection with guilty knowledge in all these cases was whether the man, when he was asked about it, denied their having been in his possession. Unquestionably they had got to ask themselves what was the conduct of Ensink when he was sent for by the Chief Constable in reference to this charge.

After a few minutes deliberation, the jury returned a decision of “Guilty of receiving”.

Mr. Wetton appealed for a mitigation of sentence, asking that Ensink should be treated as a first offender. He pointed out that accused had already had over two months in prison, and also that he had borne a good character up to the present.

The Recorder said he would take the fact that Ensink had been in prison for over two months into consideration.

Mr. Rooth now spoke on his client's behalf. He said Trice had pleaded Guilty, as they knew, to the charge of stealing a diamond ring and diamond bracelet, and nothing else. Lady Hastings D'Oyly had, unfortunately lost a number of other articles of jewellery. It was not suggested that any other articles had been seen in the possession of Trice, nor was it suggested that any other of these articles, with the exception of these two to which he had pleaded Guilty, had been traced to his possession. That was a statement that he made originally, and a statement that he made immediately upon his arrest. He had since then made a very full confession, which had been taken down in writing, and he had also given evidence before the Magistrates in the Court below, and again there that day. From first to last he had persisted in the story that he knew of only the two articles to the theft of which he had pleaded Guilty. Now that was probably true, because it was obvious, after having read the account of the hospitalities of Mrs. Dalton, that there were many other persons who could have taken these articles if they had wanted. He did not wish to lay the blame upon anyone, but he did wish to say that in the peculiar circumstances of this case there were many opportunities given to many other persons besides the man who was before them of taking away this jewellery. He apparently succumbed to this temptation. He had endeavoured to show his contrition, and had endeavoured, apparently, to render every assistance he could to the police. He had made a very complete confession – a confession that was not altogether in his own favour – and therefore would be probably accepted as a true one. He was glad to say that Lady Hastings D'Oyly had respectfully recommended Trice to the Recorder's merciful consideration, and she was now in the precincts of the Court to come into the box to say that. The prosecution desired that they should deal with this man leniently. He had been practically three months waiting his trial. He was the son of very respectable people. His stepfather was in the Court, and desired to give evidence as to his character. During the time he had been awaiting his trial efforts had been made to send him to another country, to take him away from any further temptations in the town. He was a young man on the threshold of his manhood, with the world before him. If he was sent to gaol, God only knew what effect it would have on him. If he was sent abroad, one knew at all events that he would have an opportunity, if he would avail himself of it, of starting afresh, and wiping out this hideous background.

Lady D'Oyly entered the box, and said that she quite agreed with what counsel had said regarding Trice. She thought that the temptation was put in his way.

The Chief Constable said that he had known Trice for some years. He bore out what the learned Counsel had said that up to a few months ago he bore an admirable character. He was satisfied that a few months ago he got led into gambling, but up to that time he bore a very good character.

Mr. George Peter McKernan, a postman, and the stepfather of Trice, said that during the nine years he had been in his charge of the boy he had never – until lately – found one better for honesty and straightforwardness. Lately he had got into bad company.

The Recorder asked the Chief Constable whether this gambling he had referred to went on at the Rendezvous.

The Chief Constable: Yes.

Mr. F. Hall, of Messrs. F.J. Parsons, Sandgate Road, said that Trice was in the employ of the firm from September, 1905, to May, 1906, and he found him to be a most respectable young fellow.

Mr. McKernan said it was their intention to send the lad to Canada, to Montreal. He guaranteed that the lad would be out of the country in a fortnight.

It appeared that an attempt was to be made to get Trice out of the country through the medium of the Church Army.

Mr. Easton said that he had interviewed the head of the Social Department of the Church Army in reference to Trice. He thought that there would be some difficulty in getting him out at the present time under the circumstances. The Canadian government were very loth to accept doubtful cases in which there had been a conviction. It had been suggested that he might go into a home for a little while to be tested, and then he might be got out. Of course, he could go out privately to friends, without going under the name of the Society.

Mr. McKernan said he could guarantee getting Trice out within a fortnight.

The Recorder, addressing Ensink, said that after a most patient trial, in which everything had been done for him that could possibly be done by his counsel, the jury had found him Guilty of receiving this jewellery well-knowing it to have been stolen, and in that verdict he entirely concurred. In addition to having committed a crime with which he had been charged, and of which the jury had found him Guilty, he thought fit to go and commit perjury in that witness box. An appeal had been made by his counsel that he should be treated as a first offender. But he was a man described in the calendar as being 34 years of age, although he swore that he was 31. Well, taking him at 31, he was nearly ten years older than Trice. It was perfectly clear that if he (Ensink) had not been present to enable him to dispose of these things they would not have been stolen. He took into consideration the fact that he had been awaiting his trial for 2 months. He had gravely considered whether he should send him to penal servitude, but the sentence of the Court was that he be detained for one year and six months with hard labour.

In his final statement, Trice said he was very sorry indeed for what he had done. He could not express his sorrow for what he had done. He felt the degradation he had brought his people to, and he felt that he was a disgrace to them and to the town. He only hoped that they would give him one more chance to make some recompense for the trouble he had been.

The Recorder said Trice had pleaded Guilty to felony. He had read over his statement, painful though it had been to him to read it. He felt that the Court could accede to the appeal that had been made to him. He thought it was a case where Trice had been led away by others, and he felt that, although the responsibility was great, having regard to the great value of these jewels that he had taken, he ought, considering the fact that Lady D'Oyly had appealed for mercy for him, and the efforts that had been made to enable him to lead an honest life again, to accede to the appeal his counsel had made. Accordingly he would yield to them, and he trusted that Trice would hold up his head again as an honest man. He would bind him over in the sum of 20 to be of good behaviour for one year, during which time he would be under the supervision of the Probation Officer. He trusted that the arrangements would be completed for sending him abroad. He felt that that would be the best in his own interests.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 February 1912.

Local News.

At Folkestone Quarter Sessions on Monday, Edwin George Trice pleaded guilty to stealing a gold bracelet valued at 350 and a diamond ring valued at 100, the property of Lady D’Oyly, wife of Sir Warren Hastings D’Oyly, of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Folkestone. Prisoner was put back for sentence.

Gerard John Anton Ensink, late proprietor of ihe Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, was then indicted for feloniously receiving the bracelet referred to. Prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Prosecuting counsel, in opening the case, said evidence would be called from Amsterdam to prove that prisoner received considerably more for the bracelet than the sum he stated, viz., 90.

Lady D’Oyly was called and repeated the evidence she gave before the Magistrates.

Edwin George Trice, the previous prisoner, said he first met Ensink at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, where he was a lounge waiter and witness a page boy. When Ensink took the Rendezvous Hotel witness was employed by him as barman and billiard marker. Witness repeated mainly the evidence given before the Magistrates, and detailed bow a man named Chilvers and himself went to London to pawn the ring.

A cafe keeper and diamond polisher of Amsterdam said that on a certain Tuesday two men came into his establishment, and one of them, whom he believed was the prisoner, showed him a diamond bracelet. He bought the bracelet for 2,200 Dutch florins, and paid over the money the following week. He polished up the bracelet and sold it for 3,000 florins.

Ensinkk was sentenced to 18 months’ hard labour.

With regard to Trice, Lady D’Oyly and others expressed a hope that the Recorder might see his way to treat him mercifully. Trice was bound over for one year in his own recognisances.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Justices Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Boyd, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Linton.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held at the police court this morning. All licences were confirmed excepting that of the Rendezvous Hotel.

Rendezvous Hotel.

The Chief Constable opposed the renewal of the licence as the house had been badly conducted, and it was also opposed on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Rutley Mowll applied for the renewal of the licence, and asked that the objection on the ground of misconduct be withdrawn and only the question of redundancy be proceeded with.

The Chief Constable agreed to that proposal, and recited the usual evidence as to the number licensed houses, &c., in given areas.

After hearing Mr. Rutley Mowll, the Bench decided to refer the matter to the Canterbury Quarter Sessions Compensation Committee.

 

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 Herald 9 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The Rendezvous.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, 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 two notices of opposition had been served. The first one was by direction of the Bench themselves, objecting to the renewal of the licence of the hotel on the grounds of redundancy. The other notice, which he was glad to say was not issued by the direction of the Bench, objected on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted. These two notices involved two entirely different methods of procedure. If they decided to hear the case on the ground of misconduct, then, presuming that the Bench considered the case proved, and there had been misconduct such as did not entitle the licensee to a renewal of the licence, their refusal would mean that the licence was discontinued without any compensation, and that would leave the applicants a legal remedy of applying to the Quarter Sessions. If they were disposed to proceed only with the other notice, the one with regard to redundancy, it would be merely a case of referring the licence to the compensation authority. He did not know whether it would be convenient for him to throw out a suggestion, but it did seem to him to be extremely difficult to consider the refusal of the licence on the ground of ill-conduct, because up to the present moment there had not been a summons against the late licensee in respect to his conduct of the premises as licensed premises. They all knew that he had been convicted on a very serious charge, which in itself had nothing whatever to do with the conduct of the premises, and could not be a ground for the refusal of the licence. He would suggest that it would be a case where the Superintendent of the Police might not press his objection on the ground of ill-conduct, but leave the matter to be dealt with on the other ground. There was no possible question of the present landlord's character. There were other persons interested in the case, namely, Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury. It would be very hard indeed upon them to contemplate the refusal of the licence without any compensation upon the suggestion of misconduct, which they had had no possible opportunity of even investigating.

The Chief Constable said he fully intended to ask the Bench that morning to allow him to abandon the first notice, that was that referring to misconduct, and allow him to proceed with the case on the second notice, which the Bench instructed him to serve on the licensee. He thought this would meet the objection of Mr. Mowll.

The Chairman said the Bench agreed to the first notice being withdrawn.

The Chief Constable put in a copy of the notice and a plan of the town, on which he had marked out the congested area, which embraced the older portion of the borough. Within this area there were 866 houses, with a population of 4,330 persons approximately, and there were 31 on licences (27 full licences and 4 beer licences), together with seven other licences, making a total of 38 premises within the area licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor. This gave a proportion of one licence to every 113 persons, or one on licence to every 139 persons. In the borough at large there were 120 premises licensed for the sale of drink, giving a proportion of one licence to every 279 persons. Out of these licences there were 81 on licences (74 full licences and 7 beerhouses), giving a proportion of one on licence to every 413 persons. This was according to the census of last year, when the population of the borough was given as 33, 495. There were also three registered clubs for the sale of drink, with a total membership of 1,826. During the year there had been 85 charges of drunkenness dealt with in the borough, and out of that number 33 were arrested in the area marked on the plan. The house in question was situated in High Street, at the top, next door to the Rose Hotel. The present licence was an old licence, within the meaning of the Act of 1910, and the present licensee Jas. Algernon Hobson, who obtained the register of the licence on 17th January last. The registered owners were Flint and Co., of Canterbury, and the rateable value of the house was 88. It had a frontage on High Street of 27ft. 7ins. There were three entrances, but no back door. The accommodation for the public consisted of a front bar, which was divided into two compartments by a partition nearly 7ft. high. One compartment was 13ft. 9ins. by 8ft. 11ins., and the other 10ft. by 6ft. 7ins., which compartment also had an entrance from the street. There was also a saloon bar about 25ft. 8ins. by 18ft. 5 ins., and a billiard room 26ft. by 17ft. This and the saloon bar was reached by an entrance from the front street and the lobby, which also led up to the first floor. On the first floor in the front there was a grill room, which was made about a year ago by throwing two rooms into one. At the back of the first floor there was a living room, kitchen, and scullery. There was also another floor on which there were bedrooms. Within the radius of 150 yards there were ten other licensed houses. Next door was the Rose Hotel, the rateable value of which was 118; there was the Guildhall Tavern, 75 yards away, with a rateable value of 120; also the Prince Albert, 81 yards away, with a rateable value of 64. The late tenant, Mr. Ensink, obtained possession on December 4th, 1907, and was the eighth tenant in less than 11 years.

The Chairman asked whether the Chief Constable was going to give the names of the other houses.

Mr. Mowll said that he would not require them.

The Chairman said the Bench would like to have them for the purpose of differentiation.

The Chief Constable said the other houses were the Earl Grey, a little way down High Street, 90 yards away, with a rateable value of only 32; the Isle of Cyprus, on The Bayle, 77 yards away, with a rateable value of 28 10s.; the Globe Hotel, also on The Bayle, 120 yards away, with a rateable value of 40; the George Inn, in George Lane, 71 yards away, rateable value 40; Queen's Hotel and Bodega, 137 yards away, rateable value 680; and the East Kent Arms, 149 yards away, rateable value 80. All these houses had bars for the use of the public, and some of them were very large ones. The trade at the Rendezvous prior to Ensink's tenancy had been, in witness's opinion, small, but the trade during the tenancy of Ensink had undoubtedly increased – witness would say considerably. Of course, it was very difficult for an outsider to tell the exact trade of a house, but there was certainly an increase during the tenancy of Ensink. This was in a great measure due to the fact that it was made the headquarters of the Geneva Association, a society formed by foreign waiters. “A friendly society or something of that kind” Mr. Reeve added. This house was then greatly frequented by foreign waiters. Ensink himself was a foreigner, and had been a waiter. And was undoubtedly well-known among his class in the town. But the Geneva Association had ceased to have their headquarters at the hotel, and the trade appeared to be very small. During the latter part of the late landlord's tenancy the conduct of the house had not been satisfactory, and on November 18th last witness arrested him on a charge of receiving stolen property, on which charge he was convicted at the Quarter Sessions on February 5th, and sentenced to 18 months' hard labour. For some months prior to his arrest the house was not, in witness's opinion, conducted in a satisfactory manner altogether, and it came to witness's knowledge that it became the resort of ----

Here Mr. Mowll interrupted, and objected to Mr. Reeve going further. He thought there was ample evidence to differentiate.

The Chairman said he thought the Bench must allow it.

Continuing, the Chief Constable said it had come to his knowledge that the house was the resort of gamblers. The licence, in his opinion, was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, and if the house were closed there would be ample accommodation in the adjoining houses for the legitimate needs of the neighbourhood.

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

The Chief Constable: No, sir.

Detective Officer Johnson deposed that in the course of his duties he had frequently visited the hotel. In consequence of instructions he received last summer P.C. Butcher and he visited the house. The class of customers consisted of gambling and betting men known to witness and foreign waiters. It was not a house used by many residents of the neighbourhood. If the licence were taken away, witness considered there would be sufficient accommodation.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, witness added that none of the class of customer he had mentioned used the house now.

P.C. Butcher corroborated Detective Officer Johnson's statements, and further added that one man, named John Taylor, known to witness as a professional gambler, frequented the house towards the end of last summer.

Mr. Mowll said he thought the Superintendent of the Police had done a great deal in withdrawing the charge of misconduct. He simply wished to leave the matter to the hands of the compensation authorities, hoping they would compensate Messrs. Flint and Co. as they deserved.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You do not contest the opposition of redundancy then?

Mr. Mowll: I have not said so.

The Bench referred the matter to the compensation authorities.

 

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 Herald 3 August 1912.

Local News.

With reference to the theft of Lady D'Oyly's jewels from Greenbank, Sandgate Road, last year, it is now stated that the valuable bracelet, which was sold to a diamond merchant in Amsterdam for 2,200 florins (about 180), is now in the possession of a man in Rangoon, by whom it has been purchased. Sir Hastings and Lady D'Oyly have instituted proceedings for the recovery of the property.

When the case came before the Recorder the jewel was not in England, and not subject to British law. It is stated that in Rangoon there is a law in existence under which the property can be restored to its rightful owner.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1912.

East Kent Licensing.

The principal meeting of the East Kent Compensation Authority was held at Canterbury, Lord Harris presiding. There were 19 houses scheduled, in respect of 12 of which no opposition was offered by the owners to the licences being referred for compensation. Amongst these was the Rendezvous, High Street, Folkestone.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 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 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 Herald 12 October 1912.

East Kent Licensing.

The supplemental meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at Canterbury on Wednesday, Lord Harris presiding. The only house scheduled for compensation from the borough of Folkestone was the Rendezvous, High Street, and the parties were in agreement with regard to the award of the valuer (Mr. H.M. Cobb) at 700 (600 to owners, Messrs. Flint and Co., Canterbury, and 100 to the tenant , Mr. J.A. Hobson).

 

Folkestone Daily News 14 October 1912.

Local News.

The Rendezvous Hotel is to be closed. The order was made by the East Kent Licensing Committee at Canterbury, and the compensation to be paid is 700. The premises will be transformed into shops. It is rumoured that either Plummer Roddis or Liptons will open there.

 

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.

Auction Advertisement.

The Rendezvous Hotel, 1, High Street, Folkestone.

Banks and Son will sell by auction on Tuesday, 11th February, 1913, all the useful furniture, fixtures and utensils-in-trade of a modern and up-to-date hotel.

Comprising a full size billiard table by Burroughs and Watts with all accessories, circular mahogany counter with revolving screens, two first class beer engines (6 pull and 2 pull), handsome bar cabinet, National cash register, glass urns with brackets, gun metal beer and spirit measures, expensive gas fittings, lounge seats upholstered in velvet, marble top drinking tables, eight baize covered card tables, quantity bentwwod chairs, pianoforte by Collard and Collard, walnut sideboard with mirror back, the nearly new steel grill, 6 ft. marble top serving table, suite of walnut furniture in green velvet, two mahogany knee hole secretaire writing desks, antique frame easy chair, walnut davenport, gilt frame and other over mantels, brass rail iron French bedsteads, good bedding, mahogany marble top washstands, chests of drawers, quantity linoleum, carpets, pictures, plated goods, cutlery, earthenware, glass, mangle, and the usual kitchen and culinary effects.

On view Monday, the day previous to sale, from 10 to 4 o'clock.

Sale to commence at 11 o'clock sharp.

Catalogues may be had of the Auctioneers, 85, Sandgate Road, Folkestone.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

HOGBEN Steven Buckle 1866-78 Post Office Directory 1874 (Baker by trade)

Last pub licensee had MELLOWS John 1879 1882 From Shakespeare Hotel

HOMEWOOD James 1878-84

Last pub licensee had BURGESS George 1884-88 Next pub licensee had

BRUTON Arthur 1888-90

COTTON Alfred 1890-96

Last pub licensee had COLLINS George 1896-98+ Next pub licensee had

PROCTER John 1898-1901+ Kelly's 1899

KOLHAMMER John 1901-02

EVEREST William 1902-04

GODFREY George 1904-06

COLBECK Mary 1906-07

ENSINK Gerard Dec/1907-11

Last pub licensee had HOBSON James Arnold Jan/1912-Dec/12

 

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room