Dover Express 7 December 1861.

About 7 o'clock on the evening of the 18th ult., two privates of the 2nd battalion, 21st Fusiliers, lying at Shorncliffe, and who were returning from the Fleetwood School of Musketry, went into the bar of the "Royal George Hotel" in this town, and called for rum. The barmaid, seeing they were already the worse for liquor, refused to supply spirits, but offered any sort of malt liquor. This offer they refused, and Private Cox then drew his bayonet, fixed it to his rifle, and told the girl he would give her that; or if she did not like that he had some ball cartridge he would give her. The other soldier took up his belt and attempted to strike the civilians present, but P.C. Swain, who had been sent for, after long persuasion at personal risk, persuaded them to go off to the Camp. They are now in custody for trial by district court martial.

Folkestone Express 28 March 1868.

Monday, March 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt.

James White, 28, was charged with being a deserter from the 17th Dragoon Guards.

P.C. 6F deposed: That morning about 25 minutes to one o'clock he was on duty in the lower part of town, near the Royal George, when he met the prisoner without jacket and cap, and he was very wet. I asked him where he was going to; he said he did not know. I then asked him whence he came from, and he said he did not know. I then charged him with being a deserter. He said he did not want to desert – he wanted to find his clothes. At the police station he said he belonged to the 17th Dragoon Guards. I asked him if he had a pass, when he said he had not. He was the worse for liquor, but not so drunk but what he knew what he was about. I found his jacket, stock, and cap at the Queen's Head beerhouse, where he had been allowed to sleep in the tap room.

The Clerk said that according to the Articles Of War the prisoner would be liable to be charged with being a deserter.

The prisoner said he hoped the Bench would look over this case as he was drunk.

Captain Kennicott said that to look over one would be to look over a hundred.

The prisoner was ordered to be returned to the Camp, to be dealt with as his Commanding Officer may think fit.

Folkestone Express 28 November 1868.

Assault on the police.

William Saccrey was charged with assaulting P.C. Ovenden on the 5th of November.

P.C. Ovenden deposed that he was on duty at the bottom of the town on the 5th, and was standing under the arches, opposite the Royal George Hotel when the defendant passed him and went towards the fish market. He shortly afterwards returned and, standing with his back to the Royal George, he threw a lump of fish offal, which struck witness on the left arm. He then walked into the crowd. Several people were in that neighbourhood at the time larking about and squibbing, and several others were throwing offal about. The defendant could see witness plainly. He had given him no provocation. The police are generally speaking pelted with stones and offal on these occasions.

The defendant stated he did not see the police constable on that evening, nor was he “firing” offal. He was not sober, or he should not have done it.

The Mayor said the Bench were of opinion that the defendant committed the offence, and they fined him 6d. and 10s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 24 February 1872.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

In the County Court of Kent, holden at Canterbury.

In the matter of proceedings for liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors instituted by Robert Nelson Stratton of the Royal George Hotel, Folkestone, Kent.

Notice is hereby given that a first General Meeting of Creidtors of the above named person has been summoned to be held at the Royal George Hotel, Folkestone, Kent, on the sixth day of March next, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon precisely.

Dated the 14th Day of February, 1872.

John Minter,

Folkestone,

Attorney for the said Debtor.

Folkestone Express 18 May 1872.

Temporary License.

Monday, May 13th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs.

The license of the Royal George Hotel was temporarily transferred to Thomas Groves.

Folkestone Express 1 June 1872.

Wednesday, May 29th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Clarke and S. Eastes Esqs.

Mr. Minter applied for temporary authority to sell at the Royal George, by Mr.Thomas Groves, stating that Mr. Stratton had petitioned to have his affairs wound up in liquidation, and under the Bankruptcy Act the property was vested in Trustees, who had given notice of their intention to apply for the license to be granted to Mr. Groves. He apprehended that the new Licensing Act vested the license in the Trustee, to be given by him to anyone to be approved of by the Bench.

The formal notices to the Overseers of the Poor and the constables were proven to have been served by Mr. Pilcher and certificates of character were put in.

A temporary license was granted to Mr. Groves.

Folkestone Express 13 July 1872.

Wednesday, July 10th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Tolputt Esqs.

The license of the Royal George Hotel was transferred from the Trustees of Mr. Stratton to Mr. Groves.

Folkestone Express 22 March 1873.

Thursday, March 20th: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Lambert, shoemaker, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, value 6s., the property of Richard Hawke, being bailee of the same, on the 18th instant.

Prosecutor said he was a porter at the Royal George Hotel. On Monday last he gave prisoner a pair of boots to repair, and prisoner brought them back on the following day about noon. On trying them on he found they hurt his feet, and followed prisoner, and giving him the boots back told him they crippled him and that he must alter them and let him have them back as soon as possible. Prisoner took the boots and told prosecutor he was to call for them at his house if he wanted them. From what he had been told he went to Mrs. Evans's second hand shop in Dover Street, and was there shown his boots, which Mrs. Evans said prisoner had sold to her. In the evening he went to the Superintendent of Police, who told him he had better have Lambert apprehended, which was done. The boots produced were his property.

Elizabeth Evans said prisoner went to her shop on Tuesday and asked her to buy a pair of boots, which she did for 2s. 6d., and a pair of boy's leggings. She did not inquire who they belonged to, as shoemakers were in the habit of selling her second hand boots and shoes.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and declined to make any statement at present or to call any witnesses. He also elected to have the case sent for trial.

The Bench said he would be committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, but they would accept bail, himself in £10 and one surety in £10, which prisoner said he had no doubt he could procure.

Folkestone Express 3 May 1873.

Quarter Sessions.

Tuesday, April 29th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

George Lambert, who was committed on a charge of stealing a pair of boots and a duck was stated by His Honour to have been sent to a lunatic asylum by order of the Secretary of State.

The Grand Jury returned No True Bill with reference to the boots, and a True Bill with reference to the duck.

His Honour said that under the circumstances the recognisances of the witnesses would be respited, and they would be liable to appear again when called upon.

Folkestone Express 16 August 1873.

Saturday, August 9th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs.

Amelia Spearpoint, Dover Street, was charged with using obscene language in the Royal George on the 4th August.

Mr. Till was for the prosecution in this case.

Emily and Mary Pope, the defendants in the last case, were the complainants in this affair, and deposed to defendant using bad language towards them at the Royal George on the night of the 7th August.

Defendant's statement was that Emily and Mary Pope said something unladylike about her husband, but denied using any bad words to them.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 11s. costs.

Mrs. Pope and her two daughters came to and went away from the court in a cab. The two girls were very fashionably attired, with a profusion of jewellery, including large stars in their head dress.

Folkestone Express 21 March 1874.

Monday, March 16th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. Hobson W. Le Butt applied for and obtained temporary authority to sell intoxicating liquors at the Royal George Hotel under the license obtained by Mr. Thomas Groves.

Wednesday, March 18th: Before The Mayor, J. Clark and J. Tolputt Esqs.

The license of the Royal George was transferred to Mr. H.W. Le Butt.

Folkestone Express 28 March 1874.

Wednesday, March 25th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, J. Clark, W. Bateman, and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Brooks, alias Poole, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly, and committing wilful damage by breaking a window, the property of the Executors of the late Charles Edward Jordan, South Foreland Inn.

Mr. H. Jordan said prisoner went to the South Foreland and asked for some beer, but as he was drunk he refused to serve him, and he became so abusive he was obliged to put him out, when he went to a private compartment and kicked at him through the window and broke it, doing damage to the amount of 5s.

Supt. Wilshere said the police were called to the Royal George, the Dew Drop, and the Victoria to turn prisoner out.

Mr. H.W. Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, said prisoner threatened him because he would not serve him with beer, and took up a pewter pot which he thought he was going to throw at him, and he sent for the police. Prisoner had been the terror of the neighbourhood for three days.

A previous conviction for assaulting the police in September, 1872, was proved.

Fined 1s. for the wilful damage, 5s. the cost of the window, 5s. for being drunk, and 7s. costs, or 21 days' in default.

Folkestone Express 2 May 1874.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, J. Hoad, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Elizabeth O'Leary was charged with wilfully damaging a window to the amount of £6, the property of Mr. Hobson Wright Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, on the 23rd April.

Mr. Le Butt said: Defendant came into the inner bar of my house last Thursday evening about half past nine o'clock and asked for a glass of whisky. I said to her “You had better not have any more tonight. If you come tomorrow you shall have one”. She was drunk. At this moment her husband came into the bar and took her by the shoulders and put her into the street. Within two minutes afterwards five stones in succession were thrown at the window of the bar which daces the Tram Road, and one large stone came through into the bar and two panes of glass were smashed; it was plate glass, a quarter of an inch thick. I did not see the stones thrown; one only came inside, the others dropped into the street. I went outside and saw defendant there; she was talking to a crowd of people who had collected. I said to her “What did you do this for?” She said “Well, I have done it, and I must suffer for it”. She said she could do six months for it, and would break every ---- pane of glass in the house. I asked her why she should do so, and she said because her husband came there. P.C. Keeler came up at the time.

Catherine Smith said: I am a widow, and live on The Narrows. I was with defendant last Thursday evening between nine and half past. We went into the Royal George and had a pint of porter, which I paid for. After we had drunk the porter we went into the front bar, and just as we were going out defendant's husband came in, and as soo as she saw him she went out into the street. I saw her husband strike her before she got out of the house. I went out of the house about five minutes after defendant, but before the windows were broken. She was in the road and I saw her throw stones twice and heard a smashing of glass after the stones were thrown. I saw the bar window of the Royal George broken after she had thrown the stones. I saw Mr. Le Butt come out of the house and heard him ask her what she had done it for. She said because her husband had knocked her about. She went home with me.

Defendant was remanded to Wednesday, the Magistrates offering to accept bail of £10, failing which she was sent to Dover.

Folkestone Express 9 May 1874.

Wednesday, May 6th: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Elizabeth O'Leary was brought up on remand from the previous Wednesday on a charge of wilfully and maliciously breaking two panes of glass, value £6 10s., at the Royal George Hotel.

The evidence of Mr. Le Butt and Mrs. Smith, as reported in our last, was read over, and the following additional evidence taken.

Mr. Tom Burtonshaw, foreman to Mrs. Baker, plumber, said he was called by Mr. Le Butt to examine a window on the 24th April, and found two squares of British polished plate glass broken in the bar window. The costs to replace them would be £6 10s., the dimensions being 71¼ in. x 26¾ in, each window containing 13 ft. superficial. It would not be possible to replace the glass for £5. He got estimates from two houses, and £6 10s., the one he had quoted, was the lowest.

P.C. Keeler deposed: I was on duty at the bottom of Dover Street about a quarter before ten on the night of the 23rd April, when I saw a mob of people in front of the Royal George Hotel. On going to see what was the disturbance I saw prisoner standing among a crowd of people. I went up to her, and before I said anything to her she said “I broke those windows”. I saw two panes broken in the bar window facing the Tram Road.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, the Bench offering to accept bail, two sureties in £5 each, or one in £10.

Prisoner said she did not know of anyone who would be surety for her, and was removed in custody.

Folkestone Express 30 May 1874.

Tuesday, May 26th: Before J. Kelcey and R. W. Boarer Esqs.

Catherine Harrington was placed in the dock, charged with being drunk and disorderly. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Hogben said he was called by Mr. Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, at half past one on Monday afternoon to remove prisoner from his bar, as she would not leave, because he refused to serve her with beer as she was drunk. Witness asked her to leave, and with an oath she said she would not. He put her out and told her to go home quietly, but she refused to do so. He followed her, and two or three ladies and gentlemen called his attention to her disorderly conduct. She was drunk and he took her into custody. Prisoner denied being drunk and said she only went with her mother to have a glass of beer, and the landlord refused to serve her mother. She had no maney herself to get any beer.

Supt. Wilshere said he was at the Police Station shortly after prisoner was locked up, and she was decidedly drunk and abusive.

By prisoner: I did not call you an Irish brute.

Prisoner said her mother could prove that she was not drunk, but on being called she did not answer.

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

Folkestone Express 20 June 1874.

Wednesday, June 17th: Before J. Tolputt Esq.

A dirty, unkempt fellow, who gave the convenient name of John Smith, and who appeared in the dock innocent of soap, shirt and vest, was charged with begging and also with being drunk.

P.C. Hogben gave an account of the fellow's proceedings, which were as follows: At half past eight on Tuesday night he saw prisoner coming down Dover Street, and accosted a Provost Corporal, telling him the “bobby” has been watching him all the evening, and that he was going to watch the “bobby”. He then went to the Royal George and laid a tract on the counter and asked someone to buy it, and refused to go away unless something was given to him, which was done. Thence he went to the True Briton and offered a coastguardsman a tract, and received a coin. Thence to the Alexandra Hotel, and then followed two gentlemen with a tract in his hand and rolled against them, and they told him they would punish him if he did not go away. He then followed some gentlemen coming from the Pavilion. Hogben, thinking the fellow had enjoyed his game long enough, asked him if he had a certificate for hawking, and he said a gentleman had given him the tracts to get a living with when he came out of a London hospital, and that he had a wife and two children. Prisoner was worse for drink, and he was run in.

Tenpence halfpenny and a bundle of religious tracts were found on prisoner, who begged hard to be let off, promising never to visit Folkestone again. He was sent to Dover for fourteen days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 27 June 1874.

Wednesday, June 24th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, and J. Hoad Esqs.

Hobson Wright Le Butt was summoned on a charge of assaulting Henry Paine, baker, High Street. Mr. Minter appeared for complainant.

Complainant said: I was in defendant's house, the Royal George, on Saturday evening about half past nine o'clock, when I called for a tankard of ale in the bar parlour; the ale was brought to me by the barmaid, who also brought me the change. Defendant would not allow me to take it, but took it himself. I attempted to take it from the barmaid. Defendant ordered me out of the house before I had drank my ale. He then walked about like a madman and put me across a chair and would not allow me to go out, and yet I said I should not stay. I had not a clear course, or I should have gone out. A German gentleman was there, but he had gone away. I hardly knew what defendant was doing to me. I neither had my ale nor my money. It was not the first time defendant has assaulted me.

By defendant: You ordered me out of the house. You begged my pardon and gave a cigar, and we were to be friends. You did not tell me not to come into the bar parlour again. You struck me first.

By The Mayor: Defendant struck me on my right temple with his fist and said “Out with you”.

By defendant: I adhere to the statement that you struck me and knocked me down.

Defendant said as complainant adhered to the statement that he struck him, he must ask for an adjournment as he had two witnesses who were willing to appear.

As Mr. Minter made no objection, the case was adjourned to this day.

Folkestone Express 4 July 1874.

Saturday, June 27th: Before J. Clark and J. Hoad Esqs.

The complaint of Mr. Henry Paine, baker, against Mr. Hobson Wright Le Butt, of having assaulted him on Saturday, June 20th, which was adjourned from the previous Wednesday for the production of two witnesses by defendant, was again before the Bench.

Mr. Minter appeared for complainant, and in addition to the evidence given on Wednesday called Joseph Timson, who said: I was in the Royal George on the evening in question and saw all that passed in the bar parlour, and heard complaiant order a pint of ale, which the barmaid brought, and also brought threepence change which defendant took and said “That will be a little outset of it”. I don't know what he referred to. Defendant took hold of complainant to put him out. I saw no blows struck on either side – only a scuffle – and I took complainant away from defendant.

By defendant: You were across a chair as well as complainant; complainant was on top of you.

Defendant said the two witnesses he expected to have produced had left the town, one having gone to Hastings, and the other to London. Complainant was in his private room, and he ordered him to leave, and he was very quarrelsome, and two gentlemen said they would leave the house if he were allowed to be in the bar. Complainant struck him a blow and he returned it.

In answer to Mr. Clark, Mr. Timson said Mr. Paine refused to go out when ordered to do so by defendant, who pushed him before he refused to go.

Mr. Clark said the Bench did not think it was a very serious assault. If defendant did not wish complainant to come into his house he should not have taken his change. Defendant must pay a fine of 5s. and 14s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 1 August 1874.

Quarter Sessions.

Tuesday, July 28th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Eliza O'Leary pleaded Guilty to maliciously damaging real property of a private nature (a window) to an amount exceeding £5, namely £6 10s., the property of Hobson Wright Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, Folkestone, on the 23rd April.

Mr. W. Mowll, of Dover, who appeared for the prosecution, said prosecutor wished to recommend prisoner to mercy, as she had been in gaol thirteen weeks.

The Learned Recorder: Perhaps that is an interested recommendation. I think, having read the depositions, that you (prisoner) did not quite know what you were doing. It seems the landlord advised you not to have any more liquor that night, but to come again in the morning.

Prisoner: It was through my husband knocking me about. I did not know what I was doing.

The Recorder: I have power to inflict upon you five years penal servitude, but I am not going to do anything like that. It appears that several stones were thrown at the window and some went through, and persons inside the house might have been injured. Believing that you were hardly yourself at the time, and I do not know whether you were drunk or not, which would be no excuse, and taking into consideration that you have been already so long in gaol, I shall only sentence you to one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 12 September 1874.

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

Mr. Hobson Wright Le Butt was summoned on a charge of assaulting Adam Forrester. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Complainant said: On Tuesday morning I went to the Royal George Hotel about a quarter before eight o'clock. I was ordered to get there at six o'clock. Defendant wanted me to make an apology. I was his porter. Defendant knocked me on to the ground with his fist and called me a lazy scamp. He stripped my waistcoat off my back and ripped it into ribbons. He also dragged my trousers off; they belonged to him. He put his hand in my pocket and took out what I had there, but left my keys. After he had taken my trousers off he pulled me through the kitchen, through the servants' hall to the main entrance, by the hair of my head, and threw me into the street nearly naked. I ran to the cottage nearby and waited there till Mr. Austen brought me a pair of trousers to go home in. There were about fifty people present. I did not strike defendant. He assaulted me simply because I was late.

Cross-examined: Defendant complained of my being late. I did not tell him he was a liar. He told me to take my clothes off and leave his service. I went into the kitchen, but he would not give me time to take my clothes off. He kicked me behind in the street.

Defendant was fined £2 and 18s. costs.

Folkestone Express 31 October 1874.

County Court.

Saturday, October 24th: Before G. Russell Esq.

A. Forrester v H.W. Le Butt: In this case the claim was for one week's wages, a week's notice, a week's board, and damages to clothing, and detention of a key.

Defendant did not appear, and plaintiff said he was a weekly servant to defendant at 10s. per week and his board, and was turned out without any trousers, and a key and corkscrew which were in his trousers pocket were kept by defendant, who had to pay £4 for the assault by order of the magistrates.

His Honour said he could only deal with the question of wages, and gave judgement for £2 forthwith.

Folkestone Express 7 November 1874.

On Wednesday morning a little boy named Henry Samuel Poole was playing on the groynes near the gridirons in the harbour, when he fell into the water and was drowned.

The inquest was held at the Royal George Hotel on Friday morning before Mr. J. Minter Esq., Coroner, and a jury.

H. Poole, father of the deceased, said the child was nine years of age, and was his son. Witness was at sea on Wednesday, and knew nothing of the accident.

Henry Beer, fisherman, Fenchurch Street, deposed: I last saw deceased about nine o'clock on Wednesday morning, playing with another little boy in a boat near the place where the body was found. The boat was afloat and moored to the gridiron. When I passed the place again about half past ten, the boat was gone, and the boys also. I did not see deceased again until the body was found. I heard the other little boy tell deceased to get into the boat or he would fall into the water. There were four or five feet of water. I saw deceased with one leg on the iron work and the other on the boat.

The little boy who was with deceased was too young to be sworn, but stated that he saw him fall into the water when he was sitting on the edge of the groyne.

James Baker said: I was going to the coal bulk about half past ten on Wednesday morning when I saw the body of deceased floating on it's face near the groyne. I called to Hall, the chief mate of the steam boat, and he got the body out of the water while I went for a policeman.

George Davis, deputy harbour master, said: I was coming along the tramway about a quarter before eleven on Wednesday morning, when my attention was called to the body of a boy floating in the harbour. With assistance I got it out and rolled it, and made the usual means for restoring animation, without effect, and the body was taken to the Rotay George.

Mr. Richard Mercer, M.R.C.S., said he found that every proper means had been used at the Royal George, deceased having been placed in a warm bath, and hot blankets, and attempts were made to produce artificial respiration. Death was caused by drowning, and deceased's mother told him the child had been subject to fits.

A verdict of “Accidentally Drowned” was returned.

Folkestone Express 21 November 1874.

An inquest was held last evening at the Royal George Hotel before F.J. Till Esq., Deputy Coroner, and a jury, on the body of William Walker, mate of the steam boat Princess Clementine, the particulars of which will be found in the evidence given below:

James Jones deposed: I am a shipwright on the South Eastern Railway Works. I knew the deceased, William Walker. I last saw him alive about half past nine this morning; saw him again about twenty minutes before ten. I lost sight of him for a few moments, and when I saw him again he was lying on the deck, dead. He was quite sober.

Adam Pope deposed: I am fourteen years of age, and call boy on board the Princess Clementine. I knew deceased, who was mate on board the same vessel. I saw him last at a quarter past four o'clock this afternoon, lying dead under the bridge on board the Princess Clementine. I saw him alive at eight o'clock this morning, going down the quay to go on board. I went on board at nine o'clock. About five minutes to ten, Charles Hammond, the boatman, told me to call the mate (deceased) directly. I went to his berth to find him. The door was open and I looked round, and I thought deceased was standing on the locker. I said “Mr. Mercer” and he did not answer. I spoke louder, and still he did not answer. I went to Mr. Hammond and said “He is in a deep sleep, or he must be dead”. Mr. Hammond said he would go and roust him out. Deceased and I had a conversation yesterday about twelve o'clock, when he said “Will you go and tell my wife I shall not be home to dinner, and tell her to get her own”. I thought he looked white and told him so. He put his hand to the back of his head and said “I have a pain here”. He was perfectly sober at eight o'clock. (This witness gave his evidence in such an intelligent manner as to call forth the commendation of the jury)

Thomas Golder deposed: I am a labourer in the employ of the S.E.R. Company. I knew deceased very well, and the last time I saw him was at a little before ten this morning, in his berth. I was called down by Mr. Hammond, who said “I think old Will's dead”. I went to his berth as quickly as I could, and looked round and saw him hanging up in a corner of his berth. I put my hand up and felt a cord round his neck, and attached to a hook. Mr. Hammond handed me a knife and I cut him down. I think the cord produced is the same which was round deceased's neck. I took the body on deck, and four or five of us tried to revive him. His hand was cold when I cut him down, but his body was limp. He was swinging clear, and was dead when I cut him down.

Mr. R. Mercer, M.R.C.S., deposed: I saw deceased for the first time this morning, when he was dead, between a quarter and half past ten, on the deck of the Princess Clementine. I made an examination of the body, and found his neck dislocated. I have examined him since, and found the mark of a cord round his neck. The body was cold. The cause of death was dislocation of the neck. I had heard that he had had a blow on the head, and examined him, but could find no traces of it after a second examination.

Captain James Goodburn deposed: Deceased was mate on board the Princess Clementine, of which I am Captain. Deceased complained of his head on the night of the collision of the Princess Clementine with another vessel, and said he was thrown from the wheel to the deck. He complained daily of the pain in his head. He was a very quiet, sober man. The collision happened six days ago.

Superintendent Wilshere deposed: Shortly before eleven today I heard of the death of the deceased, and visited the ship, searched the body, and found a purse, threepence, and some pencils. In the cabin I found some twine corresponding with that now produced.

A letter from Mr. J. Durden, Chief Officer of the Coastguard, was read, which corroborated the statements of the witnesses as to the state of mind of the deceased.

Police Sergeant Reynolds deposed: I knew deceased well. I saw him the last time yesterday. I spoke to him about the collision, and he told me he was at the wheel, and when the collision happened it threw him over the wheel, on to his head and cut it, and blood ran down his neck from the wound, and said it pained him down his neck and his shoulders, so that he could hardly move. He was a sober man.

Mr. W.E. Earnshaw deposed: The Company supply cord precisely the same as that produced.

Henry Woods expressed a wish to give evidence as to the habits of the deceased, and on being sworn said: I am chief engineer on board the Princess Clementine. I was on board when the collision took place, and next morning he complained of a blow on the head, likewise a strain in his neck, and that it was so bad he could hardly move his head. I have seen him on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. His cabin is opposite mine, and we can see into each other's cabins distinctly. Each day he has been overhauling his books and writing very much, which is contrary to his usual custom. On Wednesday morning he was writing in such a manner which made me notice it. I observed that he had been very strange the last day or two, and not inclined to talk, which is contrary to his usual habits.

Mr. Mercer, by a juror: The injuries deceased complained of would probably have the effect of causing a mental derangement.

The jury returned a verdict that deceased hung himself whilst in a state of temporary insanity caused by the injuries to his head.

Folkestone Express 5 December 1874.

Local News.

It will be recollected that a little boy named Henry Samuel Poole was accidentally drowned in the harbour on the 4th ultimo. Mr. H.W. Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, very kindly collected £10 5s. 6d. from 166 subscribers, ranging from 3d. to 2s. 6d. each. After the funeral and other expenses were paid there was a balance of £5 11s. 6d., which Mr. Le Butt has handed to the parents of the poor boy.

Folkestone Express 2 January 1875.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Royal George Inn last (Friday) evening, before J. Minter Esq., and a jury, on Thomas, infant son of John Fagg, fisherman, East Street, aged two years and nine months. The following evidence explains the fatal occurrence:

Mrs. Fagg said she was boiling some fishing lines the previous afternoon about half past three, in her parlour, with her little girls. There was a fire in the room, and a kettle on the hob. The deceased came in from the street and went to the fire. Witness's daughter, Annie, suddenly called out “Mother! Tommy is drinking boiling hot water out of the kettle”. Witness turned round and saw deceased screaming in front of the fire. Witness picked him up; he was foaming at the mouth and crying. Witness tried to force butter and milk between his lips, but could not get the deceased to open his mouth. Witness called in a neighbour, and was going to take deceased to the doctor's, but he cried to go to sleep, so witness stayed in. The child went to sleep for two hours, and after he woke up she took him to Mr. Mercer's. The child died a little after one a.m.

Annie Fagg, deceased's sister, aged ten, who said she could not either read or write, corroborated her mother's evidence.

Mr. Richard Mercer, surgeon, deposed that the child had been scalded in the throat. The upper part of the gullet and windpipe were blistered, and the mucous membrane was parched. The injuries were such as would be caused by drinking boiling water. He prescribed soothing remedies, but it died from the shock to the system and the injury to the throat. There was no hope of recovery from the first.

The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

Folkestone Express 20 March 1875.

Wednesday, March 17th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and W. Bateman Esqs.

Hobson Wright Le Butt, of the Royal George Hotel, was charged with wilfully and maliciously damaging a ladder, the property of Charles William Spurrier, of the Alexandra Hotel on the 18th inst. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Prosecutor deposed that at half past six p.m. on Saturday evening he was in his bedroom at the back of the house, and heard someone moving some casks. He saw it was Mr. Le Butt, and thinking that he was moving his own casks took no further notice of it. On Sunday morning he missed a ladder which lay partly on his own ground and partly on that belonging to the Royal George. He afterwards found a broken piece of the ladder by the back door of the Royal George; the other part he had seen in the back premises of the same hotel. The value of the ladder was 15s.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I believe defendant is landlord of the Royal George. Had not been unfortunate with his ladder; had often lent it to defendant. Had had no dispute with Mr. Groves, the late landlord. Had not asked defendant for the ladder on account of his state; he considered he would not have done it if he had been sober. He considered he was a dangerous man.

Mr. Minter: And therefore you want to get rid of him.

The Bench dismissed the case without calling on Mr. Minter for his defence.

Mr. Minter: You ought to be obliged to us for taking care of your ladder. You can have it on application.

Mr. Spurrier: Very well, my next action will be in the county court.

Mr. Minter applied for a certificate of dismissal to bar further proceedings, but as the charge was not one of felony, the Magistrates did not grant it.

The same defendant was next charged with stealing a cask and pair of trousers, value 21s., at the same time from the same prosecutor. Mr. Minter again defended.

Mr. Spurrier said on Saturday he had a 36 gallon cask, belonging to Messrs. Truman, Hanbury and Co., standing on ground at the back of his house. He saw it at 5 p.m. At 6.30 he saw defendant moving some casks, and at seven o'clock he found the cask in question was gone. He saw the cask on Sunday in Mr. Le Butt's back building. Prosecutor also lost a pair of trousers hanging on a line on defendant's land, and he also found these in this building. He could identify them.

By Mr. Minter: I laid the information and knew that I was swearing that defendant feloniously took these. I did not, as a neighbour and hotel keeper, think it well to ask him for it. The cask stood on the right of way, but on one side, so that defendant could have passed.

The trousers – a very small pair of knickerbockers – were produced by Mr. Le Butt, to the amusement of the Court.

Mr. Minter addressed the Court for the defence, saying he was sorry Mr. Spurrier had allowed his temper to get the better of him and bring forward this charge. He saw that he had not taken the usual course of apprehending the supposed thief under a warrant, but had summoned Mr. Le Butt to answer this trumpery charge. The fact was Mr. Le Butt had suffered depredations on a fowl house, and locked up all the loose property in the yard.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had unanimously decided to dismiss the case.

Applause was expressed in Court at the decision, but this was instantly suppressed.

The parties then left the Court. Miss Spurrier took up the offending pair of breeks left by Mr. Le Butt, and retired with her father.

Folkestone Express 24 April 1875.

County Court.

Saturday, April 17th: Before G. Russell Esq.

In the judgement summons plaint, Simon Joseph, outfitter, High and Tontine Streets v Hobson Wright Le Butt, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, for £10 for a suit of clothes (which had been adjourned from last Court) His Honour committed defendant for 14 days' forthwith.

Saturday, April 17th: Before J. Tolputt, J. Clark and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Mr. Hobson Wright Le Butt, of the Royal George Hotel, who did not appear, was summoned for non-payment of £8 16s. on a Gas account due on December 31st.

Superintendent Wilshere proved the service of the summons.

Stephen Page, the collector of the Folkestone Gas and Coke Company, proved the case, and an order was made for payment within seven days after demand; in default of payment, a distress warrant to issue; in default of distress, one month's imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 8 May 1875.

Advertisement.

To be Let, with immediate possession, that well known Family Hotel and Continental House, known as the Royal George, close to the Railway Station, the Harbour, and Pavilion Hotel, recently painted and decorated, and capable of doing at once a first class business. Incoming moderate.

No stock to take.

Apply for terms &c., to

JAMES PLEDGE,

Auctioneer and valuer,

Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 22 May 1875.

County Court.

Interpleader Case.

Saturday, May 15th: Before G. Russell Esq.

In an interpleader action which occupied the attention of the Court a considerable time George Wetherhahn was plaintiff, Hobson Wright Le Butt, late landlord of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, defendant; the City Of London Brewery Company appeared to claim certain sums of money owing to it by defendant from a sum recovered by distraints by plaintiff.

Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Mowll, of Dover, for the claimant; defendant was not represented by a solicitor.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, were these: Defendant owed Mr. Wetherhahn the sum of £14 7s., for which he obtained a judgement against him in this County Court, and issued an execution in due course. The deputy bailiff was put in possession of the hotel under this summons and goods were sold. The City Of London Brewery Company then made a claim to the property seized under the levy and the money was paid into Court to abide the event. It was stated that subsequent expenses had raised Mr. Wetherhahn's claim to £21 2s. 6d.

When the case came on for hearing, Mr. Smith, a collector for the City Of London Brewing Company, and Mr. Le Butt were called by Mr. Mowll in support of the claimant's case.

After some contention on legal points raised by Mr. Minter, His Honour gave judgement for the claimant.

Folkestone Express 5 June 1875.

Local News.

On Tuesday afternoon a large display board was blown from the parapet of the Royal George Hotel, breaking some tiles and boarding in it's descent. It fell but a short distance from two little girls who were passing the hotel at the time.

Folkestone Express 12 June 1875.

Advertisement.

The Royal George Hotel, Folkestone.

Now to be LET, with immediate possession.

Apply personally to James Pledge, Auctioneer and Valuer, Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 31 July 1875.

Wednesday, July 28th: Before The Mayor and J. Kelcey Esq.

Ann Owens, 63, old woman of dissipated appearance, but who described herself as “a poor widow trying to earn an honest crust”, pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of being drunk and disorderly in Queen Square on the previous day.

P.C. Hogben proved that on Tuesday afternoon about four o'clock he found the prisoner near the Royal George Hotel drunk and fighting with another woman. Witness had cautioned prisoner a few days before for begging.

Defendant declared with great volubility her innocence of the charge, and called a woman named Ann Besley, lodging at the Radnor Inn, who saw defendant struck by another woman. She seemed then quite sober. The striking went on for about twenty minutes before the police came.

Superintendent Wilshere said that at the time of the wedding of General Casson's daughter, defendant was drunk near the church and abusive towards the wedding party. She had not been charged with the offence as the witnesses would not come forward.

The Mayor said the Bench would dismiss the case, as oath was brought against oath, although they had strong suspicions that defendant was drunk at the time.

Folkestone Express 6 November 1875.

Friday, November 5th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Charles Frederick Evans, a driver in the 25th Brigade, Royal Artillery, was charged with stealing a “spinning jenny”, value 10s., the property of Mr.Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, on the previous evening.

Lieutenant Little, R.A., was present during the hearing of the case.

Eliza Amos, barmaid at the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, said that on Thursday evening at six o'clock prisoner came to the house. He came into the bar with another man, a civilian called “Dicky Buff”, and asked for two glasses of ale. Witness served the beer and the two stayed in the bar about a quarter of an hour. Prisoner went away first, and in about five minutes afterwards witness missed the “spinning jenny” produced. It stood behind the bar on a shelf and anyone would have to reach over to get it. Prisoner was brought to the hotel about seven o'clock by the provost, some soldiers, and a policeman. The latter asked witness if she had seen prisoner before, and she replied in the affirmative. Prisoner asked where the civilian was who gave it to him, but witness did not reply. Prisoner had a stripe on his arm when he first came in the house.

Frederick Wallis said he was landlord of the Crown And Anchor Inn, Dover Street. On Thursday evening at a quarter past seven prisoner came in alone and asked for a glass of ale. Prisoner produced the “spinning jenny” from under his arm and said he had bought it for the Artillery sports. He asked witness to buy it for 5s., and witness ultimately gave him 4s. for it. Witness afterwards heard that the “jenny” was missing and gave information to the police.

Superintendent Wilshere asked for a remand, and the Bench accordingly granted a remand until today (Saturday).

Folkestone Express 13 November 1875.

Saturday, November 6th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, T. Caister and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Frederick Charles Evans, a soldier in the 25th Brigade, Royal Artillery, was charged on remand from the previous day with stealing a “spinning jenny”. The particulars appeared in our issue of last week.

Corporal James Hall, of the Garrison Military Police, said he went in search of the prisoner, whom he found in a public house in Dover Street. Witness told him he would have to go to the Royal George. Prisoner asked what for, but witness made no reply. On arriving at the Royal George, the barmaid identified prisoner as having been there that evening.

P.C. Butcher said that about half past seven on Thursday evening he received the prisoner from the last witness and took him to the station. Prisoner was there identified by Mr. Wallis of the Crown And Anchor as the man who sold him the “spinning jenny”. Witness then locked the prisoner up, and afterwards two stripes, which had been on his arm, were found lying on the floor of the cell.

Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was committed for trial.

Folkestone Express 18 December 1875.

Wednesday, December 15th: before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq., and Captain Crowe.

Harris Hayward, a fisherman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous day.

P.C. Knowles said that about a quarter to eleven on Tuesday morning he heard a noise inside the Royal George public house. On looking in he saw the defendant in a fighting attitude. He went in and endeavoured to persuade him to go out, but he refused to do so, and began fighting another man. Witness and the landlord then ejected him, and on getting into the street he shouted and became so violent that witness was compelled to take him into custody.

The Bench fined defendant 5s., and costs 4s. 6d.

Folkestone Express 29 January 1876.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 24th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

John Frederick Evans, 22, a bombardier in the Royal Artillery, was charged with stealing a “spinning jenny”, value 10s., the property of Hobson Wright Le Butt, on the 4th November, 1875.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Kingsford prosecuted, and briefly stated the facts of the case to the jury. He then called Eliza Amos: I am a barmaid at the Royal George Hotel. On the day in question I saw the prisoner come in, and I also saw the “spinning jenny” quite safe. After the prisoner was gone out I missed the “spinning jenny”. Prisoner had two gold stripes on his arm. The same evening prisoner was brought to the house. I had given information to the police.

By the prisoner: There were two other men in the house. I do not know them.

Frederick Wallis: I am the landlord of the Crown And Anchor, Dover Street. On the 4th November prisoner came to my house and offered a “spinning jenny” for sale. He said he had bought it for the Camp Sports, but did not want it. I bought it from him for 4s.; he asked 5s. for it. I heard afterwards that a “spinning jenny” had been stolen from the Royal George, and I gave information to the police.

Corporal J. Hall, 41st Regiment: I went in search of the prisoner and found him in the Crown And Anchor. He was in the tap room. I called him out and handed him over to P.C. Butcher.

P.C. Butcher: I received the prisoner into custody and charged him, but he made no reply. I took him to the station and saw Mr. Wallis, who said “That's the man I bought the “spinning jenny” from”. Prisoner had two gold stripes. I afterwards saw him in the cell, but the stripes were taken off his jacket and were lying on the floor under the bed.

Mr. Wallis, re-called, said: Prisoner had two stripes on his arm.

Prisoner said that he went into the Royal George with two sailors, and soon after one of them came out with the article and asked him to sell it. He took it to one place, but could not sell it, and he then took it to Mr. Wallis who bought it. He bore a good character in the regiment, and if it had not been for drink he should never have had anything to do with the matter.

The learned Recorder, in summing up the case, reverted to the fact that there had been an attempt on the part of the prisoner to disguise himself by cutting off his stripes.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the Recorder said he did not think it was a case in which the prisoner wished to get out of the army, and he should therefore only sentence the prisoner to be imprisoned with hard labour for six calendar months.

Folkestone Express 15 April 1876.

Monday, April 10th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Ald, Caister, and W.J. Jeffreason esq.

John Philpott was charged with being drunk and begging in Queen's Square on Sunday evening.

Superintendent Wilshere said that at about nine o'clock on Sunday evening he saw prisoner go to several persons. Prisoner afterwards went into the Royal George, and witness followed him. Prisoner went round with his hat, saying that he was nearly blind, and had had nothing to eat all day. He was very drunk. Witness called the attention of the landlord, and prisoner was told to go out. He refused to go, became very violent, threw himself down, and had to be dragged to the police station.

The Mayor: Has the prisoner been here before?

The Superintendent: Not that I can trace, according to the name, though his face seems familiar to me.

Alderman Caister: I am sure I have seen him before.

The prisoner was ordered to pay a fine of 5s. for being drunk, or in default seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, and was committed for a further term of seven days for begging.

Folkestone Express 10 August 1878.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, General Armstrong, and J. Kelcey Esq.

The license of the Royal George was transferred to Mr. Crump.

Folkestone Express 13 December 1879.

Wednesday, December 10th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq., Aldermen Banks and Hoad, Captain Crowe and Captain Fletcher.

Benjamin Cloke was summoned for assaulting George Dorrell on the 3rd December. Mr Minter appeared for the defendant.

Complainant, a hawker, of Hythe, said on Wednesday he was in the Royal George shortly before five in the afternoon. As he was going in, defendant came up and wanted to fight. He declined to fight, and sat down on a form for a minute or two, and defendant then struck him with his fist and knocked him off the form.

Cross-examined: I did not strike defendant at all, and the landlord did not tell me to let defendant alone.

George Wire, a hawker, of Hythe, corroborated complainant's statement. He added that Cloke was annoyed because Dorrell had taken his trade away.

Robert Crump, the landlord of the Royal George, said the parties had been in and out of his house several times during the day. He served Cloke with shrub and cloves. He saw Cloke strike complainant, because he pulled his jacket off. Cloke was excited, and complainant was annoying him. The witness Wire had had too much to drink and he was requested to leave the house.

Henry Newman said complainant struck the first blow and defendant returned it.

The Bench dismissed the case.

Folkestone Express 17 April 1880.

County Court.

Saturday, April 10th:

Crump v L.S. Wallace: Plaintiff is the landlord of the Royal George Inn, and he obtained judgement against the defendant, who is a medical man, residing at Brockley, near New Cross, for £2 13s. 4d., a debt incurred while he was staying at plaintiff's house. His Honour ordered his committal for 30 days, but suspended the warrant for 14 days for payment.

Folkestone Express 30 July 1881.

Wednesday, July 27th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Alderman Caister and J. Fitness Esq.

William Davis was charged with stealing a concertina, value 7s. 6d., on the previous day.

George Heatcote, a boiler maker, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, said he was in the Royal George on the previous afternoon playing a concertina, and left about seven o'clock, leaving the concertina there. When he returned a few minutes afterwards the instrument was gone. He gave information to the police, and subsequently saw the prisoner at the Radnor lodging house, with the concertina in his possession.

P.C. Hogben said he received information from prosecutor that he had lost a concertina. He went to the common lodging house, and there found prisoner in the kitchen playing a concertina. He asked prisoner to let him look at it, and prisoner said it belonged to one of his mates. Witness took the concertina and showed it to prosecutor, who identified it as his property. Prosecutor went with witness to the kitchen and gave prisoner into custody. Prisoner was very violent and used beastly language all the way up the street.

Prosecutor, in reply to the clerk, said he had not known prisoner previous to Monday. They had been in company together on that day.

Prisoner said he took the concertina to his lodging, thinking prosecutor would go there for it. He had no intention of stealing it.

The Bench did not consider there was any felonious intention and dismissed the prisoner.

Folkestone Express 14 January 1882.

Editorial.

There is no getting away from the fact that publicans are a badly-used class of tradesmen, and this was very strongly exemplified at the borough bench on Saturday. If a landlord of an inn permits a disturbance to take place in his house, he is amenable to the law. This being so, the law should uphold him in any reasonable precautions he may take to secure order. The County Court Judge recently remarked that when he could not reconcile common law with common sense, he came to the conclusion that there was something wrong in the common law. And that is just the conclusion common sense must arrive at in regard to the case in point. We have not the slightest doubt that the Magistrates' Clerk rightly advised he justices as to the law, but an Act of Parliament which will not protect and support a publican who refuses to serve a man, whom though apparently sober, he believes will create a disturbance, but who actually says he was so drunk that he could not remember what had taken place, is manifestly an unjust one.

Saturday, January 7th: Before The Mayor, Captain Fletcher, Alderman Hoad, F. Boykett and M.J. Bell Esqs.

John Davidson jun. was charged with being abusive and quarrelsome and refusing to quite the Royal George Hotel on the 31st December.

Mr. J.H. Mountstephen, the proprietor, said the defendant was in the bar using very bad language about 2.30 in the afternoon. He was abusing the barmaid, and witness ordered him to leave, but he refused to do so. He went in search of a policeman. Defendant appeared to be sober. He had nothing to drink, and the barmaid had orders not to serve him, and that was the cause of his abuse.

Harriett Smith, the barmaid, said in consequence of instructions she refused to serve defendant. He called her foul names. Mr. Mountstephen ordered him to leave, and as he refused he went to fetch a policeman. While he was gone, defendant went away.

Defendant said he had been off to a ship where he had a lot to drink. If he had not been drunk, he should not have entered the house. He did not remember using abusive language in the house at all.

The Bench dismissed the summons.

Folkestone Express 17 November 1883.

Monday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness, J. Clark, and J. Holden Esqs.

James Higgins was charged with being a deserter from the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, stationed at Dover.

P.C. Knowles said he found the prisoner in the Royal George on the previous day, without either pass or furlough. He took him into custody, and had considerable trouble in getting the prisoner to the police station.

Corporal West, 2nd Battalion, Dublin Fusiliers, said he knew the prisoner as a private in the Regiment. He left the barracks on Saturday night without leave.

The prisoner was ordered to be handed over to a military escort and taken back to his Regiment.

Folkestone Express 19 January 1884.

Monday, January 14th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Holden, J. Clark and J. Fitness Esqs.

Charles Jones was charged with stealing a till, value 1s., and 4s. in money, the property of Matilda Crump, landlady of the Royal George.

William John Ford, a ship's carpenter, said on Saturday afternoon he was in the private bar of the Roay George, kept by his aunt, Mrs. Crump. His attention was attracted by hearing money jingle in the direction of the outer bar. Someone in the bar called out “Two sixpences for a shilling”. He ran into the bar, and saw a man with no hat on just going out of the door. He noticed the till was gone. He ran out of the wholesale entrance and met P.C. Keeler, whom he asked if he had seen a man go past with no hat on. Keeler said he had. They then went in opposite directions and witness overtook the prisoner in a court. He was counting some money. He said “I want you, old fellow, for taking a till out of the bar”. Prisoner replied that he knew nothing about it, and had never been in the house. He gave him into the custody of P.C. Keeler. He subsequently found a hat in the bar of the Royal George. A chair had been removed up to the front of the counter so that anyone standing on it could reach the till. When they got to the top of High Street prisoner refused to go any further unless he was carried. He could identify the prisoner as the man he saw in the bar. There was no-one else in the bar when he left.

Arthur Frank Ellis said he saw the prisoner in the bar of the Royal George about five o'clock, in company with two other men. He then had his hat in his hand. Witness afterwards went with Ford, and saw him stop the prisoner, who had his hat in his hand.

Mrs. Crump said on Saturday afternoon she saw the till safe. It then contained about 4s. Prisoner was in the bar at the time with two men.

P.C. Keeler said he took the prisoner into custody on Saturday afternoon. At the police station he searched him. When charged with stealing the till and contents he said “I deny the charge”. He had 1s. 7½d. concealed in a sock in the lining of his coat. He searched for the till and found it in a doorway in Queen's Square, near the Royal George. He had previously seen prisoner pass that way, and noticed that he had no hat on. He received the hat produced from Mrs. Crump. He offered it to prisoner, who said “That's mine, and the handkerchief too”.

Prisoner elected to be tried summarily, and pleaded Not Guilty. He said he left the bar intending to return, or he would not have left his hat there.

He was convicted, and sentenced to two months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 27 September 1884.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, Dr. Bateman, Captain Carter, J. Holden, J. Clark and J. Fitness Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Mrs. Crump, of the Royal George Hotel, was called upon to support the renewal of her licence, and she did not appear, but had sent her barmaid, who said that Mrs. Crump was unwell. The Bench at first refused to grant the licence, but eventually granted it and gave it to the person who represented Mrs. Crump, with instructions to tell her that she would have to appear in person for the future, and look well to the conduct of her house during the ensuing year.

Folkestone Express 28 March 1885.

Tuesday, March 24th: Before Aldermen Banks and Hoad.

Richard Gatehouse, no home, was brought up on a charge of stealing 1s. and a purse belonging to William Bull, of 16, Rossendale Street. It appeared that the men had been together in the George Hotel bar, and there, it was alleged, the purse was stolen.

The prosecutor was not in Court, and the prisoner was therefore discharged. Almost at the same instant, the prosecutor arrived, only to find that the prisoner had departed.

Folkestone Express 30 January 1886.

Saturday, January 23rd: Before The Mayor, F. Boykett, W.J. Jeffreason and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Mrs. Crump, landlady of the George Hotel (sic), was summoned for having her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours.

Sergeant Warman said on Wednesday morning, the 6th January, at ten minutes past twelve, he was on duty in Beach Street. In company with P.C. Wood he visited the Royal George Hotel. The front door was unfastened. He saw three men in front of the bar, named Tucker, Griffiths and Nelson, in company with a person named Miss Smith, who lived in the house, and a young person behind the bar. There were five tankards standing on the bar close to the men, and two glasses, which had contained stout or porter. He asked how it was they made it so late. Miss Smith said “All right, Sergeant Harman. I am talking to these men about my window being broken last night”. He said “Are you in charge of the house?” She said “Yes. Mrs. Crump is away, and I am very sorry for it”. He told her he was responsible, and should report the matter to the Superintendent. She said “I am very sorry. I hope you won't do that”.

By Mr. Minter: I believe Mrs. Crump was away. I asked the men in the presence of Miss Smith if they could give any explanation why they were there at that time of night. I got no reply from them. Tucker endeavoured to get out of the house, but was prevented by P.C. Wood.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, said Mrs. Crump was away ill in Devonshire. She left instructions that the house was to be closed at the proper time, and that had been done. There had been some damage done to the doors and windows the previous night, and Miss Smith was simply in conversation with the three men about the matter, and the lapse of time was not noticed.

Harriet Smith said she was managing the house for Mrs. Crump. She was particularly careful to close the house at eleven o'clock. On the night in question Tucker went in about half past ten, and another man about a quarter to eleven. She was telling them of what had occurred on the previous night. They had nothing drawn for them after eleven.

Elizabeth Macpherson, barmaid, said on the night in question she was sitting in the private bar waiting for Miss Smith to go to bed. Nothing was drawn for the men after eleven. The bar door was closed and locked, and only the hotel entrance door was open.

The Bench dismissed the summons, and summonses against the three men who were on the premises were withdrawn.

Folkestone Express 29 May 1886.

Tuesday, May 25th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

James Leon and Thomas Leon were charged with stealing one bowl, containing 15s., the property of William Hearnden, landlord of the Oddfellows in Radnor Street. The prisoners lodged there, and on the previous morning they both kept asking him to trust them with beer. They were in the taproom which was close to the bar. He watched the prisoners and saw them go to the closet and come out, and afterwards he noticed the bowl in the closet. The money was all in silver.

Susannah Hearnden, wife of the prosecutor, said she went to the bowl on the morning in question between 9 and 10, and there was between 9s. and 15s. in silver in it. She went out a few minutes and when she returned she went to the drawer again and missed the bowl and the money.

Elizabet Macpherson, barmaid at the Royal George Hotel, recognised both the prisoners, who went to their bar between 10 and 11 o'clock that morning. She served them with beer and rum, for which the prisoner Leon paid each time with a sixpence.

Sergeant Butcher proved apprehending the prisoners. He found them lying on the embankment near the Junction Station at 12.45. He awoke them and found they were both very drunk. With assistance he took them to the police station. He searched the prisoners and found 4d. on Leon and 1s. 2d. on the other prisoner.

The prisoners were sentenced each to six weeks' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 29 October 1887.

Wednesday, October 26th: Before H.W. Poole and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Thomas John Pope was granted an extension of temporary authority to carry on the Royal George Hotel.

Folkestone Express 17 December 1887.

Wednesday, December 14th: Before Capt. Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness and E.R. Ward Esqs.

The licence of the Royal George Inn, was transferred to Mr. Thomas J. Pope

Folkestone Express 21 April 1888.

Wednesday, April 18th: Before The Mayor, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Col. De Crespigny, J. Brooke and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Charles Stone was charged with obstructing P.C. Osborn in the execution of his duty.

P.C. Osborn said when he had Noble in custody, Stone came from the direction of the arches and tried to take him away. He dragged both of them from the Royal George to Austin's shop. Defendant was not sober.

Defendant said he was trying to get the man home quietly when P.C. Osborn came up. He then advised him not to resist the police.

John Minter, a labourer, said he saw defendant have hold of Noble's arm whilst the constable had him.

Supt. Taylor said there were several convictions against the defendant, from 1880 onward. On one occasion he was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for assaulting the police.

The Bench fined him £1 and 11s. costs, or 14 days' hard labour. Allowed a week to pay.

Folkestone Express 14 July 1888.

Saturday, July 7th: Before The Mayor and J. Fitness Esq.
Edward Sheward was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in Fenchurch Street.

Kennett, the Market Inspector, said on Friday he was called by the landlord of the Royal George to eject the defendant and a prostitute from his house. He did so; the woman went away, but the defendant wanted to fight and was very abusive. A man named Smith ultimately took him away.

The defendant said he formerly lodge with Kennett, and ever since that time he had sought to annoy him.

Defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs. He asked for time to pay, and the Mayor recommended him to go to the landlord of the public hose where he got drunk and get the money.

Folkestone Express 8 June 1889.

Saturday, June 1st: Before Alderman J. Banks, H.W. Poole, J.H. Brooke, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Mrs. Susan Caroline Elgar applied for the transfer of the Royal George Hotel, which was granted.

Folkestone Express 22 June 1889.

Thursday, June 20th: Before Captain Crowe and J. Brooke Esqs.

George White was charged with stealing a cheese, value 2s. 6d., the property of Joseph Baxendale.

Herbert Major, landlord of the Queen's Head Inn, said on Wednesday afternoon one of Pickford's vans was standing opposite the Royal George. Prisoner was standing by the van. Witness saw him take something out of the van, put it under his coat, and run in the direction of Radnor Street. He told the driver of the van what he had seen, and afterwards went with P.C. Bailey to the Radnor lodging house, where he pointed out the prisoner. There was a cheese on the table, cut into pieces.

William Rye, carman in the employ of Messrs. Baxendale (Pickford and Co.), said he was delivering beer at the Royal George Inn, and had 25 Dutch cheeses in his van. He was in the cellar, and when he came up Mr. Major told him what had occurred. He counted the cheeses and found one was missing.

P.C. Bailey proved apprehending the prisoner at the Radnor and finding the cheese on the table. When charged he said he knew nothing about it.

Prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 7 September 1889.

Wednesday, September 4th: Before J. Clarke and J. Fitness Esqs.

Edwin John Pope, a fisherman, was summoned for being drunk and refusing to quit the Royal George on August 28th, and also with assaulting the barman. The defendant pleaded Guilty.

Stephen Fowle, barman at the Royal George, said on Wednesday last the defendant went to the house in a drunken condition, and he refused to serve him. He then struck him between the eyes, and was afterwards ejected from the house.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. for refusing to leave, and 9s. costs, and 10s. for the assault, and 9s. costs, and in default seven days' hard labour for the first offence, and for the second, 14 days' without hard labour.

Folkestone Express 3 May 1890.

Wednesday, April 30th: Before F. Boykett, J. Brooke, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mary Ann Tritton was summoned for having her house open during prohibited hours on Sunday afternoon, the 20th April. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Lawrence said he was on duty on Sunday week in the neighbourhood of the Royal George, and at 4.30 saw two men enter the house. Witness went in after them, and saw five men standing in the passage opposite the bar. A man named Bates was drinking porter or stout. There were four glasses on the bar door containing beer. Miss Tritton and a young woman named Fanny Godden were in the bar. He asked what was the meaning of that, and they made no answer. He called in Stannage and took the names of the five men; two of them were soldiers stationed at Shorncliffe. Miss Tritton said she had served the two Folkestone men, but not the soldiers. She said her father and mother were gone out for a walk and left her in charge of the house.

Cross-examined: She did not say she served the gentlemen who came in with a South Eastern man, thinking they came by boat.

Mr. Minter said the defendant had held a licence for 16 years and had never before been before the Bench, but in that case there might have been a technical offence. Mr. and Mrs. Tritton were out, but they expected someone to come from Boulogne, and the little girl thought those people were from Boulogne.

Defendant was called, and said they expected a gentleman from Boulogne. She and her husband were out for a walk. Her daughter was told to serve no-one who came, except passengers from the boat. She refused to supply the soldiers.

The Bench dismissed the case, and advised the defendant to leave a more competent person in charge in the future.

Folkestone Express 10 May 1890.

Wednesday, May 7th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Alfred Engram, William Henry Stone, George Betts, Patrick Campbell and Walter De Burgh were summoned for being upon licensed premises during prohibited hours on Sunday afternoon, April 20th. Mr. F. Hall represented three of the defendants.

This charge arose out of the recent prosecution of the landlady of the Royal George Hotel for having her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday.

P.C. Lawrence repeated the evidence he gave on that occasion.

Walter De Burgh, a corporal in the Leinster Regiment, said that about 4.30 on the Sunday, having walked from Hythe and seeing the door of the Royal George open, he went in. He asked for refreshments, but was refused. He saw no drink served.

The Bench fined each defendant 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, in the case of the two who were soldiers, and 9s. in the other cases.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1890.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

The Royal George.

In the case of this house, Supt. Taylor asked for the application to be adjourned. He had had reason to complain of the way in which the Globe was conducted, of which Mr. Tritton was the landlord. When the Globe was given up the licence for the Royal George was granted to Mrs. Tritton. On the 20th of April last, on a Sunday afternoon, several persons were found drinking in the house, and their addresses were taken. Summonses were issued, and the case against the landlady was dismissed, but the people in the house were fined. On those grounds he asked that the application should stand over.

It was ordered accordingly.

Folkestone Express 20 September 1890.

Saturday, September 13th: Before The Mayor and Aldermen Pledge and Dunk.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George, was summoned for allowing reputed prostitutes to frequent her house and remain longer than was necessary to obtain refreshment.

Sergt. Harman said on Sunday, the 31st of August, he was on duty at the bottom of the town. About 10 minutes past nine he was outside the Royal George. He saw a woman named Mrs. Hall leave the house with a soldier belonging to the Artillery, and go in the direction of the Lower Sandgate Road. At a quarter past nine he looked in at the front door, and in a passage, which is used as a bar where they serve liquor, he saw about 20 soldiers and two prostitutes – Wright and Lillian. He did not see the women drinking. He watched the house, and at 9.30 he saw Lillian leave the house with three soldiers and several strange women. Lillian was having an altercation with a woman about being struck, and they then returned into the house. At five minutes to ten he went into the house with P.C. Osborne, and met a prostitute nemed Hawkins standing at the inner door, talking to soldiers. In the front bar on the right he saw Mrs. Hall and about ten soldiers drinking. He did not see her return; she could get in by another door. Among a dozen or 20 soldiers in the passage he saw Wright. The defendant was supplying the liquor. The smoking room was full of soldiers, and three or four strange women. He spoke to defendant's husband, and afterwards to defendant, who was in the bar serving. He said “You see that woman, Mrs. Hall standing in the bar. Lillian and Wright are present. You know those women, and they are prostitutes, and I shall report you for keeping a disorderly house and harbouring them”. She said “I know the women, but don't know they are prostitutes”. He left the house, and it was cleared shortly afterwards. He had frequently seen the three women, Wright, Lillian, and Hall in the house. He saw Lillian there on Friday night.

By Mr. Minter: I did not go upstairs; there were a great many soldiers there. I do not know the regiment was leaving, and that the party assembled to say goodbye to their friends. I do not know that it was a “farewell night”. Defendant told me she did not know the women were prostitutes.

P.C. Osborne gave similar evidence. He said he was on duty in Queen's Square from 6.30 till 10 o'clock. At 6.30 he saw Lillian and Wright in the passage with several soldiers. At various times during the evening he saw the same women there.

P.C. Lawrence said in the month of June he watched the Royal George. He saw Lillian, Philpott, and Wright, three prostitutes, frequently in the Royal George. They were there almost nightly, in and out with soldiers.

P.C. Reed said he watched the Royal George during August, and saw Lillian and Wight frequenting the house, in company with soldiers and civilians.

Mr. Minter said his answer would be more directed to the time mentioned in the summons, and he would ask the Bench to disregard the evidence of the last three witnesses altogether. On the Sunday referred to the regiment was leaving, and there were about 200 or 300 soldiers in the house – the house was full, the landlady had great difficulty in keeping order, it was an exceptional occurrence. The landlady always gave instructions to her servants not to permit women to remain in the house, and he felt sure the Bench would not strain the case to convict her. He asked if there was anything unreasonable in there being four or five women among 200 or 300 soldiers. Mrs. Tritton emphatically denied that she ever allowed prostitutes to remain longer than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining refreshment. He did not contend that they were not prostitutes, but there was no evidence that they resorted to the house for the purpose of prostitution. There was the testimony of the policemen that the women went in to obtain liquor, and they were entitled to do that. He had never heard that they might not go in as often as they liked, so long as they did not remain. No offence had been proved in June, July, or August. If the defendant had been infringing the law, he asked why the defendant was not summoned. It was hardly fair play at that distance of time to allege those three occasions to support the charge. The character the defendant and her husband had when they came to Folkestone was a good one of eight years duration from the Superintendent of Police at Hastings, and they had used every possible exertion to make the house more respectable, and he challenged the Superintendent to say that it had not improved. On this particular occasion the house was cleared and closed at a quarter to ten.

John Hawkins, barman, in the service of the defendant, said he had been there a little over four months. His orders were never to allow prostitutes to remain in the house more than a quarter of an hour, and he had carried out those instructions. On the Sunday night in question there were between 200 and 300 soldiers in the house, which was so full that many could not be served. The house was cleared at a quarter to ten. The provosts were standing outside. He served no prostitutes at all, and good order was kept in the house.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, witness said he did not see the three women on Sunday the 31st.

Frederick Tritton, husband of the landlady, said he assisted in conducting the house. Prostitutes were never allowed to remain in the house more than a quarter of an hour. They did not want them there and did not encourage them. They would rather they did not come. On the occasion in question there were over 200 soldiers in the house. Witness kept order and there was no row during the whole time. He closed the house about ten minutes to ten.

By Mr. Bradley: I don't know Wright by name – is she a dark girl? (Laughter)

After a consultation with the other Magistrates, the Mayor said they considered the women were there. They had the sworn evidence of the police constables as to that, and they were bound to receive it. The maximum fine was £10, but they mitigated it to £2 10s., and the costs were £5, levyable by distress, or one month's imprisonment. They did not endorse the licence, but they called attention to the fact that the licence was held over until the adjournment.

Folkestone Express 27 September 1890.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Adjourned Licenses.

This was the adjourned licensing session, and several certificates which had been postponed were applied for.

The Royal George.

Mrs. Tritton applied for a renewal of her certificate.

The Superintendent opposed on the ground that the house had been kept open at improper hours, and that the applicant had been convicted of allowing prostitutes to use the house, and that, on the first occasion the defendant was proceeded against, but escaped conviction.

Mr. Minter took exception to the term “escaped conviction”, and contended that his client did not escape conviction because it was a “righteous judgement”. The objection that the house had been used for harbouring prostitutes, he said, ought not to have been taken, because it had occurred after the General Licensing Meeting. He, however, reviewed the facts of that case, and said the Bench, while inflicting a mitigated fine, said they would not endorse the licence, which showed they intended to give the lady another chance. Acting on his advice, the landlady had refused to supply such woman and run the risk of consequences, and would continue to do so. A notice was in the window that no women were supplied on the premises, and it had had the effect of keeping them away.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had very grave doubts as to whether they ought to renew the licence to the applicant. Mr. Minter had taken advantage of the leniency of the Bench in not endorsing the licence. The Watch Committee, the Magistrates, and the whole public were clamouring for better conducted houses and for fewer houses. The Bench hoped there would have been some offer on the part of the owners as to the conduct of the house, but there was none, and they would take the word of the applicant as a lady, and renew the certificate.

Mr. Minter said any undertaking the City of London Brewery could give, they would give as to the future conduct of the house.

Folkestone Express 11 October 1890.

Monday, October 6th: Before Capt. W. Carter, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, J. Fitness, S. Penfold, and E.T. Wards Esqs.

Thomas Clayton, a young man of decent appearance, was charged with stealing 18s. in silver and bronze, the property of Joseph Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers' Arms.

Joseph Whiting said: I am landlord of the Bricklayers' Arms, in Fenchurch Street. Prisoner came to my house and slept there on Friday last. He was also there on Saturday about the house, sometimes in the kitchen and sometimes in the bar. He was there on Saturday evening. Just before, he said he was not going to stay as he had no money to pay for his bed. About seven o'clock he went out of the front door which leads to the bar. I left the bar about the same time as prisoner was leaving the bar and went to the back part of the house and left the bar unattended. When prisoner told me he had no money to pay for his bed he was in front of the bar. I was absent about a minute, and I went to the till to pay a girl for some fish, when I found I had been robbed. I had just before been to the till, and whatever had been taken was done between the time I was absent from the bar and my return. Prisoner could easily have got at the till by leaning over the counter. Prisoner came back and said he would pay for a bed, and for that of a friend. He went upstairs and I followed him, and saw him come back, and he paid me 1s. 6d. for his and another man's bed and for some beer. I missed from my till about 15s. in bronze and about four or five shillings in silver. I never mentioned my loss until I gave him in charge about nine o'clock. I told prisoner then that it looked very suspicious on his part, and gave him in custody. Prisoner said nothing. P.C. Swift said “You will have to come along with me” and he replied “All right”.

Cross-examined by the prisoner: You had money on Friday night and changed money on Saturday morning. The time you paid for the bed was about nine o'clock. On Saturday morning you might have spent about 6d. or 8d. You told me when you left to take charge of the parcel until you returned.

George Bean, landlord of the Perseverance, said prisoner went to his house on Saturday evening. He was alone. He called for a small soda. There were other people in the bar. He treated people in the bar to the amount of 2s., which he paid for in coppers. He saw he had 2s. 6d. in silver with the coppers.

Jane Tritton said prisoner came to the bar of the Royal George on Saturday evening. Two men went with him. He called for drinks for himself and companions, which he paid for in coppers, to the amount of one shilling. He asked her if she would mind coppers. She said she was short of them, and gave him 2s. 6d. in silver for that amount of coppers.

Stephen Hall deposed to prisoner treating him, and his having a large quantity of coppers in his possession.

P.C. Swift, who apprehended the prisoner, said he asked him “How long have you been in the bar?” He replied “Oh, I don't know. Anything wrong or anybody robbed?” He replied “Yes”. Prisoner said “What's the charge?” and he told him and prisoner answered “All right”. On searching him he found on him 5s. and a halfpenny in bronze, and 2s. 6d. and two sixpenny pieces in silver. He was charged before the Superintendent in his presence and he replied “All right. It is true”.

Prisoner said he did not remember saying that.

In reply to a question, the constable said he was sober.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Bench, and said that he had been hopping, and the money he had about him was what he had been paid. He denied that he told prosecutor that he had no money.

The Chairman told prisoner that the Bench considered him Guilty. Tradesmen must be protected in their business. It was a gross theft. He would be sent to gaol for six weeks' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 4 April 1891.

Monday, March 30th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, value 15s. 10d., the property of William Bull, of High Street.

Prosecutor said on Saturday night, about a quarter to nine, he missed a pair of boots from outside his shop. P.C. Swain called upon him and about five minutes after he was gone he missed a second pair.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn about a quarter to nine on Saturday evening, when the prisoner Murray went in with a pair of boots and offered them for sale. Murray asked him if he knew where he could sell them. He took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He returned to the George with the boots. Murray was still there. He thought one of the loops of the boots was broken.

Joseph A. Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers Arms, said Harford lodged in his house. Both prisoners went to his bar between seven and half past seven on Saturday evening. They called for beer but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting said she recognised Murray as having gone to her uncle's house about half past four on Saturday afternoon with a pair of new elastic side boots. He asked for Dan, meaning Harford, and she told him he was not at home. He waited until he came and they then went out into the back yard together.

P.C. Keeler said he went to No. 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Whiting as a lodging house, and found Harford there. He asked i he had a pair of new boots, and he showed him those produced, saying he bought them from a man he did not know, whom he met at the Bricklayers Arms, and gave 3s. 6d. for them. Witness took him into custody, and when charged by Sergt. Ovenden he made no reply. About half past eleven he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, in Radnor Street, and found Murray in the taproom asleep. He had been drinking. When charged at the police station with stealing two pairs of boots he made no reply.

Prisoners elected to be tried by the Magistrates. Harford pleaded Not Guilty, and Murray Not Guilty. Murray said he bought the boots of a man and sold them to Harford.

The Bench convicted both prisoners and sentenced them to a month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 18 June 1892.

Saturday, June 11th: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge and J. Sherwood Esqs.

Edward Mockridge was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises on the 3rd June.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George Hotel, said the defendant went in about 7.30, and called for a pint of beer. She refused to serve him. He said he would have three pennyworth of whisky, which he was refused. He then said he would have some cold water, and she told him he would not be served with anything in the house. He became very abusive, and used very obscene language, saying that if they refused to serve him they would have some more windows broken. She believed he was drunk. P.C. Reed was sent for and ejected him twice.

Defendant said he was drunk and excited, and did not know what he said.

P.C. Reed said he was called to the Royal George and heard the defendant using bad language to the landlady's daughter. He put him out of the house twice.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 10s. costs, and told that he would be much more heavily fined if he came up again.

Supt. Taylor said he had received repeated complaints from the landlady about the conduct of lads like the defendant. She did her best to keep the house respectably, and she had the support of the police.

Folkestone Express 2 July 1892.

Monday, 27th June: Before Alderman Banks and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

George Haynes and John Johnson were charged with stealing an Egyptian War medal, value 4s. 6d.

Frederick Tritton, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, said he was in the bar between one and two on Saturday, the 25th inst. The two prisoners were together in one compartment, and a Corporal of the Royal Engineers, named Shorey, in another. Witness was showing an Egyptian War medal to the Corporal, and they were discussing the weight of it. Prisoner Haynes joined in the conversation, and asked to look at the medal. Witness handed it to him and Haynes left the bar and went outside the house. He returned about a quarter o an hour after, and he asked him for the medal. He replied “I have given it to the Corporal, who said it belonged to him, and I gave it to him”. The Corporal left the bar after Haynes. He sent for the Corporal, who went back to the bar, and in Haynes's presence, he told him what he said. The Corporal said it was not true. He had not seen the prisoner, nor had he had the medal in his hand at all. Johnson was present when he gave the medal to Haynes, and sat in the bar till Haynes returned. Witness supposed he heard the conversation between them and the Corporal. About half past one witness gave Haynes into the custody of Sergeant Swift. About ten o'clock on Saturday evening, Johnson went to the bar again, and said he wished to return the medal; he refused to take it and sent for a policeman. Sergt. Harman came and Johnson was given into custody. The medal belonged to Mr. Crookshank, who had now left the army, and was in his keeping with another. The value, he believed, was about £2.

By Haynes: You asked me about the weight of it, and asked me to let you look at it. You said you would have it weighed. I don't know whether you went into the grocer's shop. You did not tell me that you had sent Johnson out to have it weighed. You told me you had given it to a corporal in the Engineers. I have not trusted you with anything.

Fredk. Shorey, corporal in the Royal Engineers, stationed at Shorncliffe, said he was in the Royal George on Saturday between one and two o'clock. The two prisoners were in the bar at the same time. He and the landlord were in conversation about an Egyptian War medal. Haynes joined in the conversation about the weight. The landlord said it went over an ounce. Haynes would not believe it and asked to look at it. Mr. Tritton showed it to him, and he took it and walked away with it. He did not say he was going to get it weighed. Witness did not see Haynes outside. He did not give him the medal. He was sent for again by the landlord and found Haynes in the bar. The landlord said “This man accuses you of having the medal”. He replied “It's false. I haven't had the medal in my hand”. Haynes went up to him in a fighting attitude. Haynes was not sober, but he knew what he was about.

Hatnes said he had been drinking in the house from six o'clock in the morning till three in the afternoon.

Sergeant Swift said Mr. Tritton sent for him and told him he charged Haynes with stealing an Egyptian Was medal. Prisoner replied “I haven't got it, and if I have, it belongs as much to me as it does to you. You have no business with it”. On the way to the police station he said “I gave it to a man that works on the Harbour, and I expect he has taken it back by now. I would have told him where he could have found it if he had not charged me”. At the police station he made the same statement.

By Haynes: You did not say you gave it to a man named Johnson to have it weighed.

Police Sergeant Harman said he went to the Royal George at a quarter past ten on Saturday night, and there saw Johnson. He said to him “Have you anything you wish to give to the landlord, Mr. Tritton?” He said “Yes”. Witness said “Hand it up to me then”. He gave up the medal produced. He told him there was a man already in custody for stealing the medal, and he should charge him for being concerned in stealing it. He replied “You have got one locked up or stealing; am I to be locked up for bringing it back?” Witness took prisoner to the police station, and the two prisoners were then charged together with stealing the medal. Haynes said “You have brought it back”. Johnson made no reply.

Prisoners elected to be tried summarily and pleaded Not Guilty. Haynes made a statement to the effect that he gave the medal to a friend to have it weighed. Tritton knew him to be straightforward and he wished “to unveil some of his secrets”. He was proceeding to do so when the Magistrates' Clerk told him it had nothing to do with the charge. Johnson said he knew nothing of the matter. It was only “A drunken silly affair”. He produced a militia discharge, and said he was working at the fruit boats.

Superintendent Taylor said Haynes had been charged with a woman with being an idle and disorderly person. That was in connection with a robbery from a drunken soldier. Johnson was a stranger.

Haynes said he was now working for the Corporation.

The Magistrates decided to convict Haynes and fined him 20s. or 14 days', with a caution. Johnson was discharged.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Tuesday, August 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Banks, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

John McHugh and William Fitzpatrick, Cameronian Highlanders, were charged with stealing 48 cigars, value 4s., the property of James Thomas Boorman.

Prosecutor is the landlord of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street. He said the prisoners went in on Monday evening about a quarter past seven and called for two glasses of beer. He served them and left them there, and on his return they had two more glasses He left the bar again, and on his return, missed the cigars from a case on the shelf. The prisoners left the bar as he returned. He followed them, and saw them talking to two girls and smoking cigars similar to those produced. He spoke to P.C. Smoker, and together they followed the prisoners to the Royal George, where McHugh handed him the packet of six cigars produced.

P.C. Smoker said on Monday night he was on duty at the bottom of High Street, when the prosecutor spoke to him and they went together to the Royal George, where they found the prisoners with three other soldiers. Prosecutor gave them into custody for stealing four packets of cigars. McHugh took a packet of cigars from his pouch and handed them to witness.

They both pleaded Not Guilty. McHugh said he bought the cigars from a sailor for 6d.

An officer from the regiment said the prisoners bore an exceedingly good character, and one of them had eighteen months service.

The Bench considered the case proved against McHugh, and fined him 10s. Fitzpatrick was dismissed with a caution.

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

The special sitting for the hearing of those applications for renewals to which the Superintendent of Police had give notice of opposition was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark, J. Hoad, W.H. Poole, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, J. Holden, C.J. Pursey and J. Pledge.

Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. Bodkin supported the applications on behalf of the owners, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, with whom were Mr. Minter, Mr. F. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury), and Mr. Montagu Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Good Templars.

Before the business commenced, Mr. Bradley handed to Mr. Holden a document, which he carefully perused, and then handed to Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman.

Mr. Glyn, who appeared for the applicants, speaking in a very low tone, made an application to the Bench, the effect of which was understood to be that the Justices should retire to consider the document. The Justices did retire, and on their return Mr. Holden was not among them.

Mr. Glyn then rose to address the Bench. He said he would first make formal application for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. It was known to all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house, and the licence had been held for a considerable number of years. The present tenant had held it since 1887; it's value was £1,500, and the present tenant had paid no less than £305 for valuation for going into the house. The licence was granted a great many years ago, and had been renewed from time to time. The Superintendent of Police now opposed on the ground that it was no longer required and was kept in a disorderly manner. First, with regard to the objections of the Superintendent, he thought he would admit when he came into the box that it was not he who was making the objections to all those licenses, but that they were made in consequence of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course in his view, and in their view, a very serious question might arise, whether the Licensing Committee had any locus standi. His general observations in that case would apply to all the cases. The Superintendent, in raising those objections, was acting under instructions from the Licensing Magistrates, so that they were really in this position, that they were sitting to adjudicate in a case they themselves directed. He felt certain the Bench would not refuse to renew one of those licenses, but he thought it right to put the facts before them, in order that when they retired they might consider what their position was. He also pointed out that there was not a single ratepayer objecting to any of the renewals. The first ground of objection was that the houses were not required. Before going further he referred to the very important action of the Watch Committee, who were the parties one would expect to put the law in action. But they declined to have anything to do with it, and declined to sanction any legal advice to the Superintendent for the purpose of depriving his clients of what undoubtedly was their property. He ventured to think that in all his large experience in these matters that there never was a case where a licence was taken away simply because it was not required, or simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought it ought to be done and instructed the Superintendent to raise objections. There were two or three of the houses existing before 1869, and therefore his clients were entitled to a renewal of their licenses, there having been no convictions against them during the year. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago, at a time when th population of this borough was about half what it is now, and the Magistrates then thought they were required. They had been renewed from time to time by that body, and were they willing to say now that they were not required, and deprive the owners and tenants of their property and of their licenses? There was not a single Bench in the county, which, up to the present time, had deprived any one tenant of his licence and his property, simply because a suggestion had been made that it was not required. There had been one case in the county two years ago, but the party appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that Court said the licence ought to be granted. It would be very unfair to his clients, several of whom had spent large sums of money on their property, to refuse a renewal of their licenses, especially having regard to the fact that they were granted a great many years ago, and against which there had not been a single conviction during the year. In order to save time, he put two questions before the Magistrates:- first, were they prepared to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, and secondly, the licenses having all been renewed since any conviction had taken place, were they prepared to deprive the owners of their property without their having an opportunity and investigating the charges brought against them. It would save a great deal of time if the Bench would consider those two points.

Mr Bodkin followed with a few supplementary remarks. He referred to the case of “Sharpe v Wakefield”, in which the decision had been given that a licence, whether by way of renewal or whether it was an annual matter to be considered year by year, and not renewed as of right. He quoted from the remarks of Lord Halsbury, who seemed to consider that in dealing with renewals they ought not to deal with them exactly in the same way as in new applications. He dwelt upon the fact that last year all the licenses were renewed, and that though no new licenses had been granted for many years, the borough had increased in population, and there had been an entire absence of legal proceedings against any of the houses in the past year.

Mr. Minter, who appeared, he said, for the tenants, emphasised what had fallen from the other two legal gentlemen, and said it would be unnecessary for him to make any lengthy remarks. Mr. Glyn had referred to the population having increased twofold since those licenses were granted. There was another very important matter for consideration, and it was this. That although the population had increased twofold since the whole of those licenses were granted, during the last twelve years no new licenses had been granted. Mr. Glyn had also referred to the hardship on the owners if they lost their property, having regard to the fact that there had been no conviction against the tenants during the year, but in addition to that he desired to call attention to what was the intention of the legislature. The legislature had provided that in all cases where owners of licensed houses were brought before the Bench and charged with any offence against the licensing laws, the Magistrates had the power, if they deemed the offence was of sufficient importance, to record that conviction on the licence. They could do that on a second conviction, and on the third occasion the legislature said that the licence should be gone altogether. He was happy to say there was no record on any one of the licenses of the applicants, notwithstanding that they might have been proceeded against and convicted before the last annual licensing meeting. That showed they were of such trivial account that the Magistrates considered, in the exercise of their judgement, that it was not necessary to record it on the licence. Was there any stronger argument to be used than that the Magistrates themselves, although they felt bound to convict in certain cases, did not record the conviction on the licence? He cordially agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Glyn that the Magistrates should retire and consider the suggestion he had made, and he thought they would come to the conclusion that all the licenses should be renewed. There were cases where the houses could claim renewals as a right, and in which he should be able to show the licenses existed before 1869. That course would save a great deal of time.

Mr. Montagu Bradley claimed to be heard on behalf of the Good Templars.

The Court held that Mr. Bradley had no locus standi, as he had not given notice to the applicants that he was going to oppose.

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

The Magistrates again retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided that where it was a question of disorderly conduct, it was to be limited to during the year just ended, and not to go into questions prior to the annual licensing day of last year. They thought it right that the cases should be gone into, in order that they might know what the objections were.

Mr. Glyn enumerated the houses, and they were then gone into separately in the following order:

The Royal George.

Superintendent Taylor: This is a case in which I am, under your decision, unable to proceed, and with your permission I will withdraw the opposition, except as to the house not being required.

Sergeant Swift said there were 12 licensed houses within 100 paces.

By Mr. Bodkin: I do not know there is an hotel business done there.

William Henry Wray, representative of the City of London Brewery Company, the owners, said he went to the Royal George once a month. It was let to Mrs. Tritton at £60. It was doing a good and increasing trade. The tenant was most respectable. £300 was paid for valuation by her. There were bedrooms let out night by night and there was a large room in which food was provided. It was a very old house, and the Mayor of Folkestone's dinner used to be held there.

By Mr. Herbert: The present tenant has been there three years and a half.

By the Bench: the beer drawn is an average of 10 barrels a week.

Mrs. Tritton, the tenant, said she and her husband held a licence at Hastings for 8½ years, and also kept the Globe at Folkestone. There were 14 rooms in the house without the basement. They let a lot of bedrooms. Eighteen members of D'Oyley Carte's Company stayed there, and a clergyman sent his choir there. The business was a good one.

By Superintendent Taylor: The hotel business does not last long. The greater part of the trade is done in the bar. All classes of customer come. They had gentlemen one side and common people the other. There had been no disturbances recently – not for two years.

Mr. Bodkin said he had testimonial after testimonial as to the excellence and quietness of the hotel.

Mr. Glyn then addressed the Bench on the whole of the cases, and urged that no Bench had ever refused a licence where there had been no complaint or conviction. He said the Superintendent had conducted the cases ably and fairly, but he had picked out several houses and asked the Bench to refuse licenses to them. How, he asked, could they do so? It would be very nice for the owners of other houses, no doubt. He emphasised his remarks that no Bench in the county had refused a licence on the ground that it was not wanted. Nothing had occurred in the neighbourhood to alter the position of things, yet Folkestone was asked, as it were, to set an example to other boroughs in the county, and to confiscate his clients' licenses, when there was no ground whatever for that confiscation. It was not a small matter. It was not a question of £15. The lowest value was put at £800. The ground of objection was merely that the licenses were not wanted, although they had been in existence many years, and the owners had spent large sums of money on the houses on the faith of the licenses which the justices' predecessors had granted, and which they themselves had renewed. The population had largely increased, and the Magistrates had refused to grant fresh licenses because they thought there were sufficient. He ventured to submit that they would not do what other Benches had refused to do, and deprive his clients of their property. They looked to the Magistrates to protect their property and their interests. If there had been any strong views in operation against the licenses among the public, it would be different. But they had not expressed any such views. There was the Watch Committee, the proper authority to raise those points, who had declined to support the objection, which came from a member of their body, who was not present, and who had not taken part in the proceedings. He asked them, without any fear of the result, to say that under all the circumstances they were not going to deprive his clients of their licenses.

There was some applause when Mr. Glyn finished his speech.

The Justices then adjourned for an hour to consider all the cases.

On their return Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman, said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licenses be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Applause)

Mr. Glyn said he need hardly say they were much obliged to the Chairman and his brother Magistrates for the care they had given the matter. With regard to the Tramway Tavern, he asked if they would allow him, in the event of the owners deciding to appeal, which it was probable they would do, to serve the notice on their Clerk.

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

Mr. Glyn said his friends felt they ought to acknowledge the very fair manner in which Superintendent Taylor had conducted those proceedings.

The business then terminated.

Folkestone Express 30 December 1893.

Wednesday, December 27th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, and J. Fitness Esq.

Agnes Jane Tritton was summoned for having in her possession a glass measure not stamped according to the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act.

The Magistrates who were members of the Corporation could not adjudicate in this case, and Mr. J.R. Davy was sent for. Subsequently Surgeon General Gilbourne arrived and took part in the hearing of the summons.

Mr. Haines appeared for the prosecution and Mr. F. Hall for the defendant.

William Brice, Boat Inspector, said from instructions received he visited the Royal George on the 12th inst. at about a quarter to eight. He went into the bar and asked for half a pint of stout. Mrs. Tritton's daughter served him with a glass of stout. Mr. Welch, the Inspector of Weights and Measures, then went in. There was no stamp on the glass, and when the Inspector went in he pointed out the glass to him.

By Mr. Hall: I don't know if it is called a private bar, or that the words “Private Bar” are written on the door. I saw Mrs. Tritton there after I was served. Miss Tritton did not say “We don't serve half pints in this bar”. I did not see the card produced. She did not say “We don't serve half pints in here, will a glass of best stout do?” She did not draw the stout in the bar. Two soldiers and a girl were in the bar. It is the custom to sell pints and half pints of beer in glasses. The Inspector instructed me to go into the house. I am a police constable and was on duty. I did not receive any instructions from the Superintendent of Police to go there.

By Mr. Haines: The Inspector said it was my duty to assist him.

James S. Welch, Inspector of Weights and Measures, said he instructed Brice to go into the Royal George, and subsequently went in himself. Brice pointed out the glass he was using, which was not stamped. Next day, in the afternoon, he went again to the Royal George and examined the various measures. In Mrs. Tritton's presence, Mr. Tritton produced to him a glass and said it was the glass P.C. Brice had used the day before. He saw the words “Half Pint” on the bottom. Four dozen pint glasses and some half pint glasses had since been sent up to be stamped.

Mr. Haines: Under the Licensing Act it should have the words....

Mr. Bradley: You are not proceeding under the Licensing Act, but under the Weights and Measures Act. Show me the section under which you are proceeding.

The section was pointed out, and the witness described the design and number of the Folkestone stamp.

By Mr. Hall: I did not see the words “Private Bar” written up. I have no assistant, and I was ignorant of the fact that it was against Brice's duty. I saw Mr. Tritton, and told him Brice had asked for a half pint of stout and he was served on the glass produced. There was a notice up “No half pints served in this bar”. Miss Tritton, recognising me, said it was a glass of best stout. She asked Brice if he would have a glass of stout, and he said “Yes, that will do nicely”. If people ask for half a pint they usually get a stamped glass.

Annie Thorpe said she was in the Private Bar at the Royal George and saw Brice go in. He asked for half a pint of stout. Miss Tritton went to speak to her mother.

Mr. Bradley advised that the evidence was irrelevant. Brice did not see the notice exhibited.

Mr. Hall said Welch did see it.

Witness said Miss Tritton returned and told the Inspector they did not serve half pints in that bar, and asked if he would have a glass of the best stout.

Herbert Tritton was called to prove that the notice was up in the bar, but it was held he was not entitled to give evidence.

James Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was called, and said it was the custom of the trade to sell stout by the lass – eighty percent of customers asked for glasses. If they asked for pints and half pints they were served in glasses which were not stamped.

Mr. Hall contended that the case was not made out. There was a saving clause in the Act under which publicans could sell beer or stout in glasses in less quantities than half a pint, and he urged that there was no sale in that case of half a pint, Brice having “made a mess of it”. Under Section 8 of the Licensing Act, Mrs. Tritton was entitled to sell as she had done in a glass. Publicans were subject to a good many burdens, but they were permitted this privilege.

Mr. Bradley: In point of fact you apply for exemption under Section 22?

Mr. Hall: Combined with Section 8 of the Licensing Act.

The Bench decided to reserve their decision for a week.

Folkestone Express 6 January 1894.

Local News.

The prosecution of Mrs. Tritton: Mr. Tunbridge asks us to say that in his evidence he stated that it is the custom of the trade to sell pints and half pints of ale and stout in glasses which are stamped – not unstamped.

Folkestone Express 10 January 1894.

Wednesday, January 7th: Before J. Fitness, J.R. Davy and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilborne.

The case of Agnes Jane Tritton, who was summoned for having in her possession a glass measure not stamped according to the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act, was resumed for the purpose of hearing the decision of the Magistrates, which had been reserved for a week.

The Chairman then read the decision, which was as follows: The defendant is charged on the information of the Inspector of Weights and Measures with having on the 12th December unlawfully had in her possession for use, for trade, a measure not stamped as required by Section 29 of the weights and Measures Act, 1878. The object of the Act is to force uniformity of weights and measures, and the Scotch case of Craig v McPhee, cited to us by Mr. Hall, decided that the Act does not apply to sales of articles which, though capable of being sold by weight or measure, are not in fact so sold. In other words, the Act prohibits only sales by weight or measure other than Imperial weight or measure, but it does not prevent sales otherwise than by weight or measure. The material portions of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, bearing upon the question which we have to decide are Sections 19, 22, 25, and 59, and the second schedule of the Act, which specifies the measure of capacity. Briefly stated, the effect of these sections appears to be (1) that if beer is sold by measure, i.e. pints, half pints, etc., it must be sold by Imperial measure; (2) the possession of an unjust measure for use for trade is forbidden under penalty, and if the trader is found in possession of an unjust measure, he is deemed to have it for use for trade until the contrary is proved; (3) sale of beer in any vessel is legal if such vessel is not represented as containing any amount of Imperial measure.

The result of what has been stated is this, that beer may be sold in glasses containing less than half a pint, if they are not represented as holding half a pint, a question of fact to be decided in each case. We have to decide upon the evidence given in this case (which is contradictory) whether there was a representation that the glass of stout sold to Brice contained any amount of Imperial measure; in other words whether there was a sale by measure. If there was, then the glasses would be a measure requiring to be stamped in conformity with the statute.

It has not been made out to our satisfaction that there was any such representation, and we therefore give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the summons.

Mr. Hall asked that the summons might be dismissed with costs.

Mr. Minter desired that the costs of the adjournment be allowed the prosecution.

The Chairman: We make no order as to costs.

Folkestone Express 17 February 1894.

Monday, February 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Dunk, and J. Holden Esq.

George Haynes, alias Whaley, was charged with breaking a window in the Royal George Hotel, and doing damage to the extent of £3, on the 10th inst.

Frederick Tritton said about ten o'clock on Saturday night he was called to the public bar. There was a disturbance and prisoner wanted to bite another man. Witness went and tried to persuade him to leave the house, but he refused to go and witness put him out. He tried to force his way back again. He threatened to blind witness, and then put his foot through the plate glass. The glass was about three feet from the ground. He put his face in the hole he had made with his foot and asked “How do you like that?” The glass was not insured. It would cost £3 to replace.

By prisoner: I have seen you kick six feet high. You were perfectly sober.

Private Fuller, of the Buffs, said he saw the prisoner put his foot through the window of the door. Previous to his doing this, witness saw him try to force his way into the house. Prisoner was sober.

Prisoner said he was drunk. He had been in the house drinking nearly all day. He was shoved through the window.

Superintendent Taylor said the prisoner had been drinking when taken into custody.

Prisoner was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, and the value of the glass £3, and in default of payment one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 24 August 1895.

Wednesday, August 21st: Before W. Wightwick and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

John Leary was charged with being drunk and disorderly and resisting the police.

P.C. Prebble said he was on duty at 7.30 in Beach Street. He saw prisoner, who was very drunk, and had been fighting. He asked him to go away, and prisoner replied “If you want anything, I can give it to you”. He was very rough on the way to the station – kicking and biting witness and P.C. Sharp.

Corporal Fuller, of the Military Police, said P.C. Prebble called on him to assist in taking prisoner to the station. Prisoner kicked, and had to be forced along. It took four to take him to the station.

P.C. Sharp gave evidence as to the conduct of the prisoner after he got to the top of High Street, where witness handcuffed him.

Mr. F. Tritton, of the Royal George Hotel, said he refused to serve the prisoner, as he was drunk. He was very violent, and they sent for a policeman to remove him. A great crowd assembled. Prisoner was very violent, but witness did not see him attempt to bite or kick anybody.

Superintendent Taylor said during the whole time he had been in the police force he had never seen such brutal conduct. They had to keep the prisoner handcuffed for some hours. Prisoner had been in the town two months.

Prisoner: Send somebody down to examine that cell and see the blood there is there. It would make you turn white.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to 14 days' hard labour, and, for resisting the police, fined him £2 and 6s. 6d. costs, or one month's hard labour, the sentences to run consecutively.

Folkestone Express 30 May 1896.

Saturday, May 23rd: Before J. Fitness, T.J. Vaughan, J. Holden and J. Pledge Esqs.

Annie Williams, a lady with a black eye, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street on Friday on the previous evening.

P.C. Prebble said the defendant was using obscene language. She went into the Royal George, but was not served there.

Defendant said she was very sorry, and was going to leave Folkestone that day. Her husband was in the militia.

Superintendent Taylor said the defendant was a stranger.

On promising to leave the town she was discharged.

William M'Kay was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises on the 18th of May.

Mrs. Agnes Tritton said the defendant went into her house on Tuesday night and called for a quart of beer. He appeared to be sober. He went into the “sing-song” room, and instead of drinking the beer, he poured out a glass and threw it on the piano. He was requested to leave, but refused, and was therefore put out. Defendant also struck her daughter in the mouth, but she did not think it was done intentionally.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days'.

Mrs. Tritton was called up, and Mr. Holden said “This case does not come out very square”.

Mr. Bradley: You come here today and conceal things. You complained of the defendant's conduct to your daughter when you applied for the summons, and now you come here today and gloss it over. I suppose he is too good a customer to lose – that is about it.

Mrs. Tritton: He is not a customer of mine at all, sir.

Mr. Bradley: Well, you must be more careful.

Folkestone Express 19 June 1897.

Saturday, June 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, S. Penfold, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, R.J. Fynmore, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Frederick Funnel and Harry Gatehouse were summoned for being drunk and disorderly on the 7th June in Beach Street.

P.C. Burniston said the defendants left the Royal George, and Gatehouse went and struck a navvy in the face, and a fight ensued.

They pleaded Guilty, and were fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 14 August 1897.

Monday, August 9th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge, Salter and Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan and J. Holden Esqs.

Joseph Fletcher was charged with burglary at the Royal George Hotel.

P.C. Burniston said: At twelve this morning I was on duty in Beach Street, and saw the prisoner standing outside the Royal George Hotel on the side facing the Harbour. I said to him “What are you doing here?” He replied “Waiting for the boat”. I then went away. At 12.55 I returned, and noticed that the top sash of the smoking room window was pulled down three feet. I examined the window sill and found footmarks on the sill. I got a man who was passing to watch while I aroused the inmates. I was admitted by Mr. Tritton. I went into the passage, and a man named Gibson, a lodger, called out “Here he is”. Prisoner was lying on the floor near the staircase. I said to him “What are you doing here?” He replied “I don't know”. I asked “How did you get in?” and he said “Fell in”. The window sill is 4ft. 3in. from the ground, and anyone getting in by the window would have to climb up. He was sober. On the way to the police station he said “Tell Skinner to tell my mate I'm pinched”. He was charged at the police station by Sergeant Lilley and made no reply.

William Gibson, a seaman, lodging at the Royal George, said he was awoke about one o'clock and went downstairs. On reaching the second landing, he returned to get a light, and then went down to the ground floor. The constable and Mr. Tritton went into the smoking room, while he looked along the passage, where he found the prisoner lying on the floor near the staircase. He asked prisoner what he was doing there, and he replied “How did I get here?” He was sober.

Mrs. Agnes Jane Tritton, wife of Frederick S. Tritton, said she was the licensee of the Royal George, and the property in the hotel was her separate property. She went to bed about a quarter past ten. She was disturbed about one o'clock by the barking of the dog, and afterwards heard the bell ring. She went downstairs and saw the prisoner and the constable. She saw the prisoner about a fortnight ago, when he was put out of her house for using bad language and breaking glass, but had not seen him since.

Sarah Peckham, a domestic servant at the Royal George, said after the house was closed, she examined all the windows on the ground floor, including the windows of the smoking room, and they were all closed, but she could not say whether they were fastened.

Mr. Bradley advised the Magistrates that under the Act of the last session they had power to commit persons charged with burglary to the Quarter Sessions, providing there were no special circumstances which rendered it desirable to send them to the Assizes.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 4 September 1897.

Saturday, August 28th: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert, and H.D. Stock Esqs.

Peter Carroll, a private in the Royal Irish Rifles, was charged with assaulting Agnes Jane Tritton on the 22nd August.

Complainant, landlady of the Royal George Hotel, said at three minutes to ten on Sunday evening she shook hands with a gentleman standing in the passage. The clock struck ten, and the lights went out, the meter being an automatic one. She called “Time”. There were five or six people in the bar, and two of them were soldiers. While she was putting the bolt on the door, the defendant put his hand up her clothes. There was no light then, but her daughter put a penny in the meter and lit the gas again. Defendant's hat was on the floor. He picked it up and then struck her in the eye and went out. Her daughter went out after him. She had seen the defendant in the house before. He was not in uniform that night. She had no doubt as to his identity.

Harriett Tritton, complainant's daughter, said she saw defendant strike her mother, and she ran after him as far as the Slope, and then lost sight of him. She identified the man at the Camp.

Defendant called Joseph McCrae, a private in the same regiment, who said defendant did not strike the complainant. The defendant and himself were in “mufti”, or civilian clothing.

The Mayor said there was a doubt in the case, and they dismissed it.

Folkestone Express 25 September 1897.

Wednesday, September 22nd: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, J. Pledge, and H.D. Stock Esqs.

Lily Warne Brown was charged with stealing a silver watch and chain, value £1, the property of Agnes Jane Tritton.

Prosecutrix said the prisoner went to lodge at her house, the Royal George, on the 4th September, and had a bedroom on the first floor. On the 7th she missed a silver watch and chain from a handbag in the bar and reported the loss to the police. That morning she was shown the watch and chain by Sergeant Harman. She had had them five years, and recognised them by certain figures and marks upon them.

Prisoner: Didn't you give me the watch to take charge of? – Certainly not. I told you I had lost it.

Prisoner: You were intoxicated and don't remember. I gave it to my coachman to take charge of.

Henry Steed, of 2, St. Peter Street, fly proprietor, said he knew the prisoner. He saw her on the 11th September, when he “picked her up” in Sandgate Road. She engaged him to drive her to Sandgate, and then to Dover. She did not give him anything. When she got to Dover she gave him the watch and chain to pledge, as she had no money to pay her fare. He pledged it for 8s. 6d. He then returned to the prisoner. His fare was 12s., and he told prisoner what he had pledged the watch and chain for. He took the watch out of pawn on Monday because he did not want to leave it there. He did not give it to the prisoner afterwards, but kept it up to that morning.

By prisoner: You sent for me, and asked me to come to the Royal George to see you. I could not say the day. I have not seen you since.

Witness added that Mrs. Tritton's daughter went to see him about the watch.

P.S. Harman said he went to 7,Harvey Street at a quarter past nine that (Wednesday) morning, and there found the prisoner, and charged her with stealing the watch on the 7th from Mrs. Tritton's. She replied “Oh, dear, what shall I do? I took the watch from a bag to take care of it. I have given it to a man named Steed. I should have returned it, only he won't give it to me”. They went together to see Steed at his stables, and he identified her as the woman who gave him the watch and chain. Steed had previously given him the watch, and handed him the chain in prisoner's presence.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. She said she was the widow of Dr. Warne Brown, of the American Dentist Institute. She gave the watch to the man and told him to take care of it as it belonged to “Ms”. She always called Mrs. Tritton “Ms”. She and her husband lived at the Royal George for some time. Mrs. Tritton knew all about her. Her husband died in St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

It appears that the accused has an independent income.

The Bench imposed a fine of 20s., which Steed paid. They cautioned Steed not to take articles and pawn them in that way again, or it might be a serious matter for him.

Folkestone Express 2 October 1897.

Wednesday, September 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen J. Pledge, W.W. Salter and G. Spurgen, J. Fitness, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Holden Esqs.

An application was made by Mrs. Tritton, of the Royal George, for an extension of time on the 1st of October. There was a club of German waiters held once a week at this hotel, and as the President was leaving, the members wished to make him a presentation, and as they could not get away from their work at the Metrpole and Wampach's until 10.30, and it was a 15 minutes' walk to the hotel, they would not be able to finish the proceedings until 11.30. He asked for half an hour's extension, but no drinks would be served after 11 o'clock.

Superintendent Taylor said he thought it appeared to be a bona fide club, and it would be no harm to grant the necessary permission.

On the payment of 5s., the application was granted.

Folkestone Express 16 October 1897.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 11th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The Grand Jury returned a true bill against Robert Fletcher, who was committed for burglary at the Royal George Hotel. The prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Bowles prosecuted, and briefly related the facts of the case, which were that P.C. Burniston saw the prisoner outside the hotel, and soon afterwards missed him, but noticed that one of the windows was open. He aroused the inmates, and prisoner was found in the passage.

The Recorder said there was no evidence of felonious intent. He supposed that must be presumed. He asked what was known about him.

Superintendent Taylor said nothing.

The Recorder's calendar was marked with a previous conviction.

The warder said the prisoner had been asked at Canterbury prison and admitted it.

The Recorder said he could not admit a record of prisoner's conviction to be proved in that way. “I certify that the above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” He asked who signed it.

The warder said he supposed it was one of the clerks, but it was subsequently found out to be “Eardley Wilmot”.

Superintendent Taylor said the prisoner had been working at night on the night boats.

Prisoner said he had been employed off and on in Folkestone for ten years, and it was the first time he had been in a police court in his life. He had been in the navy. He did not go into the house to commit a burglary.

The Recorder said there was a previous conviction against the prisoner, but it was not properly proved in Court, and therefore he must dismiss it. Prisoner would be sentenced to one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 20 November 1897.

Friday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Charles Butler and Robert Johnson, of the 3rd Hussars, were charged with stealing two umbrellas from the Royal George on the 13th inst.

P.C. Scott said he was on duty in High Street, Sandgate, at 11.55 on Saturday night, when he heard the sound of broken glass. He went in the direction of the sound, and saw prisoners walking down the road. Seeing that a window pane was broken, he said “You have broken the window”, and they answered “We did it accidentally, and will pay for the damage”. He then saw they were carrying two umbrellas, and asked them where they got them. One of them said “I got this from the Royal George”, and the other “I picked it up in the road”. He took the into custody with the aid of the military police, and when charged they made no reply.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George, said she saw one of the prisoners in the bar passage on Saturday night. The umbrellas were kept in the passage behind the bar. She last saw them there on Friday evening, and did not miss them until the constable called her up at half past two on Sunday morning. Both of the prisoners were customers. She identified the umbrellas as her property, and valued them at 25s. to 30s.

An officer of the 3rd Hussars said that Butler had been in the army six years. He had been his groom for a time, and had done his duty well. He bore a very good character in the regiment. Johnson bore only an indifferent character, and had served but four months.

Prisoners said the only took them for a “lark” and intended returning them the next evening.

The Bench fined them £1, and in default 14 days' hard labour. Butler's fine was paid.

Folkestone Express 21 January 1899.

Monday, January 16th: Before The Mayor, Captain Carter, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and J. Holden Esqs.

Arthur Victor Boxer and Clifford Thomas Ashley, two youths, were charged with stealing a quantity of lead, the property of Mr. F.S. Tritton.

Frederick Herbert Tritton, a lad, living at Garden Cottages, Chapel Street, Sandgate, identified the lead as the property of his father. He saw it on Friday in a shed in Beach Street, opposite the Royal George. He fastened the shed up on Fiday, but on going on Saturday morning he found that the lock lad been broken off. He missed six pewter pots and three teapots, and a lead washing basin. He knew the prisoners, and saw them on Friday in Warner's cookshop.

Albert Austin, who said he assisted his father, a marine store dealer, said that the prisoners went on Saturday morning to the store in Mill Bay to sell the lead produced. He asked them where they got it, and they said along the shore. He bought the lead for 1s. 1d. It weighed 16lbs. His father had told him not to buy anything from boys, but he thought that was all right.

Prisoners elected to be tried summarily, and pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Hill, police court missionary, said he would communicate with the Church Army to see if they would receive the lads in the labour home if the Bench would remand them.

Supt. Taylor said nothing was known about the boys, and they were remanded until Wednesday.

Wednesday, January 18th: Before Capt. Carter, James Pledge, John Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Royal George Hotel was transferred to Mr. George Kirby, who held temporary authority.

The two lads, Ashley and Boxer, were brought up on remand. Mr. Hill said the Church Army had consented to receive them into the home at Brighton. They were then bound over to come up for judgement if called on, then discharged.

Boxer's father, who was bound over to produce him when called on, objected to his son going to the home, but was told the Magistrates would not alter their decision.

Folkestone Express 11 February 1899.

Saturday, February 4th: Before The Mayor, J. Banks, W.G. Herbert, and J. Fitness Esqs.

A few days ago two boys, named Boxer and Ashley, who were charged with petty theft, were sent to a Church Home at Brighton, after entering into their own recognisances to come up for judgement if called upon.

Mr. Hill now presented to the Magistrates letters he had received. One, from Ashley, was full of gratitude for the kindness he received. The other, from the manager, was to the effect that Boxer had left the home at the instigation of his father.

It was decided to summon the father, who was bound in the sum of £5 to produce his son when called on.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

John Boxer was summoned to show cause why the recognisance of £5 he entered into a fortnight ago for the good behaviour of his son should not be estreated.

The boy, it will be remembered, was convicted with another lad named Ashley of stealing a quantity of old lead, and was sent to the Church Army Home at Brighton. He had since left at the instigation of his father.

Defendant commenced an explanation, but the Bench said the matter was fully explained to him at the time he entered into his recognisance, and there was no excuse. He was given distinctly to understand that the boy was to g into a home and remain there.

It transpired that defendant's wife was prosecuted some years ago for keeping a brothel, and he was now living in adultery with a married woman.

Mr. Bradley asked the defendant if that was a proper place for the boy to come to. He ought to be ashamed of himself. Te boy ought to return to the home immediately.

The Chairman asked the boy why he left the Home, and he replied that he did not care for it. He did not care to stop in a place where his back and head were always aching.

The Chairman: Boys are sometimes sent there in order that their backs should ache.

The lad said he would return to the Home and stay there, and Mr. Rowland Hill undertook to make the necessary arrangements.

The Chairman told the lad that the Bench could send him to prison for three months with hard labour, but if he would go back to the Home and remain there nothing more would come of it. Addressing defendant he said “Don't you interfere or you will get into trouble”.

The summons against defendant was adjourned sine die.

Folkestone Express 22 April 1899.

Saturday, April 15th: Before J. Holden, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Mr. Kirby applied for an occasional licence for a smoking concert at the Town Hall on Monday evening in connection with the Gardeners' Society.

Folkestone Express 21 July 1900.

Robert Duncan was charged on Thursday with stealing an Arabian cover, valued at 1s. 6d.

P.C. Thomas W. Allen deposed that about 10.20 p.m. on Wednesday he was standing near the Wonder Tavern in company with Sergt. Lawrence, when the prosecutor went up to him and said “I have had a cover stolen in the Royal George”. He pointed out to witness prisoner, who was leaving the Royal George, and when prisoner saw the constable he ran away, but witness followed, and near Beach Street he threw something away. He was caught and taken back, and witness saw the cushion cover produced. On the way to the police station prisoner told witness that “he only did it for a joke”. He was sober.

When prosecutor was asked if he wanted to press the charge, he answered “If you wish to give him a chance you can do as you like”.

The accused was discharged, and undertook to recompense the prosecutor.

Folkestone Express 4 May 1901.

Wednesday, May 1st: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Mr. George Kirby, of the Royal George Hotel, was granted an extension of time on the occasion of the annual club dinner on Thursday evening.

Folkestone Express 31 January 1903.

Saturday, January 24th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, G. Peden and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

Frederick Thomas Clark and John Keeling, aged 9 and 10 years respectively, were charged with stealing a contribution box from the Royal George Hotel.

George Kirby, proprietor of the Royal George Hotel, said he had a contribution box for the Waifs and Strays Fund standing on his saloon bar counter. The previous afternoon a boy named Mott gave him certain information, in consequence of which he looked for the box and found it was missing, and therefore accompanied him to 7, Norris Place, where he saw the boy Clark. When questioned by witness, Clark admitted stealing the box the previous evening and dividing the contents amongst several boys, and afterwards throwing the box among the shrubs at the Pavilion. He particularly named a boy Keeling as one of his accomplices.

Arthur George Mott, aged 11 years, said on Thursday afternoon he saw some boys near the Royal George. Clark said he was going to get some money. He then went in the bar while Keeling stood at the door, witness waiting outside. The boys then hid the box on a collier. On Friday afternoon he saw Keeling at the Dover Road Board School, and he then informed witness the box contained 3s. 9d.

Charles George Sheppard, steward at the Masonic Hall, said on Friday the 22nd inst. he missed a box containing chessmen from the club smoking room. In the evening he was shown some chessmen by Detective Burniston, which he identified as the missing set. They were valued at about 15s.

Detective Burniston said the previous evening, from information received, he went to the Pavilion Hotel, and among some bushes in the garden found the broken box produced. Witness then proceeded to Norris Place, where he saw the prisoner Clark and told him he would be charged with being concerned in stealing a contribution box. He said “I took the box and Keeling and Mott waited outside”. He then went to 52, The Bayle, and saw Keeling. He said Clark took the box and they broke it open and shared the money. When charged at the police station both boys said the box contained 3s. Clark then made a voluntary statement in the presence of Keeling to the following effect:- I and Keeling went into a house opposite the Wesleyan Chapel and took a box filled with chess. Clark said they were in his bedroom, where they were subsequently found. They were then identified by the witness Sheppard. When searched, Clark was found to have a pocket knife in his possession.

Clark's father stated that the boy went to school when he took him. He had continually to hunt the streets for him, and he had slept out three times since Christmas.

Keeling's father said only the previous Monday he had sent the lad to school, but saw nothing of him until a policeman brought him home at four o'clock on Wednesday morning. He was before the Bench two weeks previously for stealing a sledge.

The Superintendent said the knife found in Clark's possession had been identified that morning as stolen property.

The Bench sentenced Clark to 12 strokes of the birch (six for each offence), and Keeling to eight strokes.

Folkestone Express 27 February 1904.

Monday, February 22nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut Col. Westropp, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Arthur Thomas Priest, a private of the York and Lancashire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly outside the Royal George Hotel on Saturday evening. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Wood proved the case.

An officer of the regiment said the prisoner bore a very good character.

The Bench imposed a fine of 2s. 6d. with 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

The money was paid.

Folkestone Express 31 March 1906.

Wednesday, March 28th: Before The Mayor, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Victor Whitworth Uniacke was charged with being drunk and incapable the previous night.

P.C. Ashby said at 6.45 the previous evening he was on duty in Beach Street, when he saw the prisoner, very drunk, reel from Harbour Street into Beach Street. He went into the Royal George Hotel, and witness followed him, afterwards taking him into custody.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. He was certainly the worse for liquor, but had been in bad health of late, and very little liquor affected him.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 24 November 1906.

Wednesday, November 21st: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and T. Ames Esq.

Thomas E. Powell, landlord of the Black Bull Hotel, was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act. Mr. De Wet, instructed by the Licensed Victuallers' Association, appeared on behalf of the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

George Kirby, landlord of the Royal George, was also summoned for being found on licensed premises – the Black Bull Hotel – during prohibited hours.

The Chief Constable said he was willing to take both cases together, but he understood Mr. De Wet objected.

Mr. De Wet objected to the summons, but the Magistrates overruled the objection.

Inspector Swift said about a quarter past eleven on the night of the 12th inst., accompanied by P.C. Cox, he was in Canterbury Road, opposite the Black Bull Hotel. He saw outside the public house a fly, in charge of Mr. Challis. Challis looked towards them, and then went into the porch which leads into the bar. He returned immediately with a man named George Brien, a butcher, of Black Bull Road. A few minutes later, Mr. Kirby, of the Royal George, followed. They stood talking some few seconds. Then Mr. Kirby came to where witness was standing. He reeled round and made some remark about the weather. Witness saw he was drunk. He returned to the house and went in. Witness, accompanied by Cox, went to the house. As they were going Challis entered the porch. He came out immediately. On witness arriving at the door he saw a man named Richard Hart, of Black Bull Road, in the porch. Witness went into the bar, and there saw Mr. Kirby with the barman, who was under the influence of drink. Mr. Kirby was leaning on the counter, drinking from a glass containing ale. Witness said to the barman, William Anderson, “What's the meaning of this?” He replied “I have just come up from the music hall with a friend. You haven't seen any money passed, have you?” On witness turning to the clock in the bar, which was pointing to twenty minutes past eleven, Mr. Kirby said “It is now twenty past eleven”. Anderson said “Yes, twenty past”. Witness asked for the landlord, and Anderson said he was in bed, and witness could not see him that night. Witness said he should make a report against him in respect to that matter, and also against Mr, Kirby. Mr. Kirby said he was a licensed victualler, and knew as much of the law as witness. Witness asked the barman for his name and he said “William Sandy”. Witness had since found it to be Anderson. Witness then left the bar, and Anderson and Kirby followed him out. Kirby said he hoped he was satisfied with his explanation and there would be no report, and pressed him to go and look at the Blue Book. Witness said he should report them. Kirby became abusive and requested witness to take all their names. Kirby subsequently drove away.

Examined by the Chief Constable, witness said he was quite sure about the time. It was between half past eleven and five and twenty minutes to twelve when Kirby drove away.

Cross-examined: He did not see the fly drive up. It was 11.15 approximately. Mr. Kirby did not say he was a guest of the landlord. He did not know “Sandy” was the nickname of Anderson.

P.C. Cox said on the night in question he met Inspector Swift at the bottom of Marshall Street. It was exactly a quarter past eleven. It was about one hundred yards from the Black Bull. The remainedr of the constable's evidence was corroborative of Inspector Swift's evidence.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Thomas Edward Powell said he was the licence holder of the Black Bull Hotel. Sometimes he slept at the hotel and sometimes in London. Anderson was witness's son-in-law and manager of the hotel. He knew Mr. Kirby; he was a friend of his.

George Kirby said he was the licence holder of the Royal George. On the 12th November, about eleven o'clock, he was at the Royal George with Mr. Anderson. Anderson asked him to come to the Black Bull to have supper. They called a cab, and were driven up there by Mr. Challis. When they got there the door was shut. They saw Mrs. Anderson, who opened the door, and a barman. Mrs. Anderson asked him to stay to supper. Witness went out to the cabman to tell him to stay a few minutes. He then went over to the policemen to show them who was there. When he went back he did not have any drink. When the Inspector came in he asked the meaning of it and said he should have to report it. He asked witness what he was doing there, and he (witness) said he was the guest of the landlord. Witness went out and asked for the constable's number. The Inspector subsequently gave it to witness. The police then went away. Witness was a friend of Mr. Powell.

Cross-examined: He was perfectly sober. He agreed with the evidence of the police as to going in, and coming out of the house for the constable's number. He did not have a glass of anything while the constables were there. He had a drink when the police were gone. There were some glasses on the counter.

Mark Challis, a fly proprietor, said he drove Mr. Kirby and Mr. Anderson on the 12th November from the Royal George to the Black Bull Hotel. Mr. Kirby was in there about twenty minutes. Witness did not go inside the Black Bull.

Mr. Anderson said he was son-in-law of the Black Bull Hotel and manager of the house. On the night in question, at a few minutes before eleven, he was in the Royal George. He invited Kirby to supper. When they arrived at the Black Bull the door was closed, and they rang the bell. Mrs. Anderson opened the door. When they got inside there was no-one in there except Mrs. Anderson and the barman. He did not see any drink served. He did not see Kirby drink any beer that had been left by anyone else. There was no drink consumed or sold on the premises after eleven o'clock.

Cross-examined: He and Mr. Kirby had been to a licensed victuallers' meeting at Hythe. They drove from Hythe to the Royal George.

Mr. De Wet then addressed the Bench. He said, to convict, the Magistrates must be satisfied that the premises were kept open so that people could get inside for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquors.

The Chairman, after a consultation with the other Magistrates, said they fully believed the evidence of the police, but at the same time they were of opinion there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. Therefore they were bound to give defendant the benefit of the doubt.

The Chief Constable thereupon withdrew the summons against Mr. Kirby.

Mr. De Wet asked that the summons should be dismissed.

The Magistrates said the summons was withdrawn.

Folkestone Express 10 September 1910.

Local News.

News has just reached Folkestone of the sad death of Fred Tritton, a native of the town, and son of the late Mr. F. Tritton, who some years ago was the landlord of the Royal George Hotel, Seagate Street. Young Tritton, who was with the Royal Irish Regiment, Kailana Camp, Chakrata, India, was cruelly murdered by one of his comrades on August 7th. It appears that the previous night the two had had a few words, and when the ammunition was served out the following morning, Tritton's comrade loaded his rifle and deliberately shot him dead on the spot. The unfortunate young fellow, whose father has only been dead a few weeks, was well known in the town and respected by a large circle of friends. The greatest sympathy is felt with the members of his family, and especially so by reason of such a dastardly act being responsible for his death.

Folkestone Express 20 July 1912.

Monday, July 15th: Before G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

Michael O'Brien was charged with wilfully damaging a window to the extent of 50s. on Saturday.

William Milton, of 32, Peter Street, a fisherman, said on Saturday at 6.30 he was near the Royal George Hotel, and saw the prisoner carrying a handbarrow. When near the hotel, witness heard a blow and a smash of glass, and saw prisoner coming away. He said to someone “That's what I'll do for you”. He did not know who he was addressing. No-one else was near. The landlord came out and asked who broke the window, and he pointed prisoner out to Mr. Kirby. A policeman came up and prisoner was given into custody. Prisoner was not sober.

Mr. George Kirby, the landlord of the George Hotel, said he was in the public bar at 6.30 on Saturday evening and heard a crash. He did not realise for the moment that the window was broken. When he did so he went outside and saw the prisoner and Milton, and the latter said prisoner did it. He had previously ejected prisoner from the house. The barrow was lying in the bar. Prisoner said “That's what I'll do to you”. The value of the window was 50s.

P.C. Stevens, who took the prisoner into custody, asked why he broke the window, and he said something about having been ejected from the house. With assistance he took the prisoner into custody. He had been drinking, but was not drunk.

Prisoner said he did not at all blame the landlord for not serving him, but in putting him out he “handled” him like he would handle a sack of sawdust, and threw him out, regardless of consequences. He was sorry he broke the window, and had no intention of doing it.

The Clerk: The landlord says he ejected you because you were disorderly.

Prisoner: Yes, I know he did. I suppose it upset me a little.

The Bench sentenced prisoner to a month's hard labour, remarking that they were determined to protect licensed victuallers in carrying on their business in a proper manner.

Folkestone Express 12 September 1914.

Tuesday, September 8th: Before J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, W.J. Harrison, G. Boyd, A. Stace, E.T. Morrison, and C.E. Momford Esqs.

The licence of the Royal George Hotel, in Beach Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. G. Kirby to Mr. G.H. Balson (sic), of Deal.

Folkestone Express 5 June 1915.

Tuesday, June 1st: Before E.T. Ward Esq., and other Magistrates.

George Henry Dowson, of the Royal George Hotel, was summoned for failing to obscure a light so as to prevent it shedding rays of light outside, and pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson said at 8.55 p.m. on May 18th he saw a bright light burning from the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, and it was showing across the road. He saw the defendant and told him he had a bright light showing on the north east side of the house, and he said “---- the light. One called the other night”. When asked for his name he said “Find out”. The light was on the second floor.

Defendant denied that he swore when the constable saw him. He further said he was sure that he had no light burning when the constable called, so he asked him to show him where the light was. He went round the corner, and he then saw it was in a room occupied by a commercial.

A fine of 10/- was imposed.

Folkestone Express 9 October 1920.

Inquest.

Quite a sensation was caused in the town on Friday when it became known that Mr. Frederick William Hurley, the manager for the Swift Beef Company, Grace Hill, had been found dead with his throat cut at No. 34, Surrenden Road. He was well-known in the town, particularly amongst the butchers and other traders, and his death was received with great regret. He leaves a widow and four children, with whom every sympathy is felt.

Mr. G.W. Haines (Borough Coroner) conducted an enquiry into the tragic circumstances on Monday afternoon at the Town Hall, a jury of seven being sworn in. A good number of the public were present.

Mrs. Edith Rebecca Hurley, 3, Coolinge Road, the wife of the deceased, said her husband was 42 years of age. There were four children, the eldest being 12 years of age. Her husband worked for the Swift Beef Company, and had been in Folkestone eight years. She last saw her husband on Thursday at breakfast time, and he scarcely touched his breakfast. She said to him “Why don't you get on with it?”, and he replied that he did not feel up to it. He left for work about ten o'clock. He usually arrived home about 2.30 for dinner, and though she was usually there to meet him at that time, she was not there on Thursday, as she had arranged to go out. She told her husband of this, and left his dinner for him. He usually went in to tea at 5.30 or 6. She returned home on Thursday about 6.15. Deceased's dinner was untouched, but the children told her her husband had been home. She did not see him again that day. She was at home the whole of the evening, and deceased did not return that night. He had stayed out once or twice all night some months ago, but she had never asked for any reason. They had never had a quarrel, and they parted on the best of terms. The razor and case produced were in the breakfast room, and so far as she knew there were two razors in the case. Deceased had been rather worried last week about his business, as he could not sell so much meat as he wished. As a rule he was a man of cheerful habits, and he was a temperate man.

Mr. Thomas John Mabbitt said he was cashier to the Swift Beef Company, and resided at 87, Dover Road. Deceased was manager of the local branch, Grace Hill. Witness had been at the branch for nine years, and had known Hurley for some years. On Thursday deceased would probably arrive at 6.30, and he was there when witness arrived at eight o'clock. He last saw him between 10 and 11 a.m., when deceased left and said he was going round the town. He was in cheerful spirits and not depressed. They had some meat in the shop. Deceased was generally there at closing time, but was not there on Thursday, and did not return that day. Deceased's accounts were correct so far as they knew. The accounts were being audited at the present time, but the audit had not started on Thursday last.

Mr. George Dowson, landlord of the Royal George, Beach Street, said he had not known deceased previous to Thursday last. About 8.30 deceased went into the saloon bar, and there were four or five other people in the bar. He joined in the conversation with the people there, and appeared to be normal. He left about 9.45. Mrs. Baker went into the bar after deceased had gone in. Deceased was drinking bitter beer, and was far from being drunk.

Mrs. Mary Baker, 34, Surrenden Road, said she was a married woman, the wife of Harry Baker, but she had not lived with him for the past two years. On Thursday evening last she went to the Royal George Hotel about 8.30 or 8.45, and had a small Guinness before returning home. Hurley spoke to her first, entering into a general conversation with others as to some conjuring tricks, which had been performed by someone in the bar. After a little while she said she must be going to catch her car, and deceased asked her if she could put him up. She said “Do you want rooms?” and he said “Yes”. She said “I will give you my address” and she gave it to him. She thought deceased was going the next morning to see the rooms, and a little later he said “Can I see them tonight?” She replied “It is rather late; I would sooner you come in the morning”. He said he would like to see them that night, and she said “Very well”. She caught a bus near the Harbour, and deceased went with her. That would be about 9.40 or 9.45, and they both took the bus to Surrenden Road. She showed him the rooms, and about the same time there was a bad storm, and he said “Can I stay?” She consented owing to the storm. She offered to make deceased a cup of tea, and he said “No” She had no drink in the house. About a quarter to eleven she showed him his room, and he went to bed. She had two bedrooms in the house, and she let deceased have her bedroom, and she slept on the chair-bed, with blankets, in the other room. There was no key in the door of his bedroom. During the night she did not hear a sound, and she did not lock her door, as she was rather superstitious about locking it. Deceased said he would like to be called between 9 and 10. She got up about 9.30, and heard deceased coughing and reaching. She went to the door and said “Aren't you well? May I come in?” When she went into the bedroom his remark was “I was out all day yesterday”. Deceased was then in bed. She said “I will make you a cup of tea, perhaps you will feel better”. He agreed to this, and she went downstairs to make the tea, leaving the bedroom door open. She was downstairs ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and did not hear a sound. On going upstairs with the tea and a few biscuits, she asked him if he felt better, and got no reply. She put the tray down and looked into the room. As she could not see the deceased, she called out “Where are you?” She found deceased lying on his face on the floor in front of the fireplace. When she saw him there she touched him, and said “What's the matter?”, and then saw the blood and the razor. The razor was lying on the floor, and deceased was quite still. She put her hat on and ran for Mr. Harris, Morehall Avenue, and they went for Dr. Gore, but he was out. She went to Dr. Pridmore and said “A man has cut his throat and may bleed to death”. Dr. Pridmore was in Folkestone, and Mrs. Pridmore telephoned for other doctors and the police. She went back to the house, and Mr. Harris went back with her. There was no-one else sleeping in the house on the night in question.

Mr. R.L. Hurley, the deceased's father said he would like to ask if anything in the nature of immorality was spoken of on the journey. He would like his son to be cleared. This woman was either speaking the truth or not. If he did not go away for the purpose of immorality, what did he go away for?

The Coroner: It will be for the jury to deduce their own inferences. I don't feel inclined to ask the question.

Mr. Hurley: I ask the jury to take notice of it.

Mr. John James Harris, 53, Morehall Avenue, lodging house keeper, said he had known Mrs. Baker for 2½ years. During that time she had lived at Surrenden Road. On Friday morning last, about 10.10 or 10.15, Mrs. Baker called at his house, and she appeared to be very excited, and said “Mr. Baker, put your hat and coat on, and come with me to the doctor; there's a man at my house who has cut his throat”. Mrs. Baker was properly attired. They went to Drs. Gore and Pridmore, and on going to 34, Surrenden Road, he went into the bedroom, and saw the body of a man lying on his face. The deceased was not dressed. There was a lot of blood on the carpet, and an open razor with blood on it. His hands appeared to be underneath the body. He touched deceased's neck, and the body was warm. Subsequently the police arrived.

P.C. Cox said that on Friday morning last he went to 34, Surrenden Road, and was admitted by Mr. Harris. He saw the body of the deceased. There was a large pool of blood, and the razor was lying on the right hand side of the body. Over the mantelpiece there was a mirror, and there were several spots of blood on it, and there was a lot of blood in the fireplace. He found several business documents on deceased, and 8s. 6d. in money. The razor produced was the one he found on the floor. A cup of tea was standing outside the bedroom. In his opinion it was a single bed, and only one person had slept in the bed, and someone had slept in the other bedroom.

Dr. Pridmore said that on Friday morning last, about 11 o'clock, he went to 34, Surrenden Road, and saw the body of the deceased, and he had apparently been dead about an hour. There was a deep gash in the throat, starting from the left, and completely severing the windpipe and the jugular vein on the right. Some very considerable force must have been used.

Mr. E.J. Chadwick (Coroner's Officer) said that on Friday morning he went to 34, Surrenden Road, and subsequently saw the widow at 3, Coolinge Road. She produced a case containing one razor, which she said was her husband's. He had compared the two razors, and they bore the name of the same maker, Stuart Apps, Folkestone, and were identical in appearance. The body was identified by Mrs. Hurley as that of her husband.

Mrs. Baker was re-called, and in reply to the Coroner, said she had a private income, and it was not necessary for her to let a room for the night. She had let several times lately. Nothing was said about the charge for the room for the night.

Mr. Richard L. Hurley, 84, Oxford Avenue, Southampton, said deceased was his son. He heard from him on the 21st September, it being quite a normal letter between son and father, enclosing photographs of his family. He knew of nothing that had been troubling him, and had never heard a complaint. He never said he required any money, and had said “I will bring little Fred down for my holiday”. Deceased had never made a complaint about his home affairs, and would never have committed this act if he had been in his right senses.

The Coroner said that although a search had been made, it could not be found that deceased had taken any shaving soap. He had simply taken a razor with him. There was very little to show the state of deceased's mind. Even in his pocket book he carried about with him a photo of his wife and children. For a man to stand in front of a glass and, looking into it, cut his throat, he did not think the man's mind could be properly balanced.

The foreman said the jury found that deceased committed suicide, and that he was temporarily insane at the time.

Folkestone Express 7 April 1923.

Tuesday, April 3rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Pte. Sidney George Hibberd, of the King's Own Royal Regiment, was charged with stealing two 10s. Treasury notes on the previous day from the Royal George Hotel.

George Henry Dowson, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, said the previous day he closed his bar at half past two, and left the bar empty about a quarter to three. An iron lattice gate separated the bar from the passage of the house, and he closed and locked that. He then went upstairs. About half past four he heard one of the bells of the till, so he ran downstairs and saw the soldier in the private entrance to the hotel from South Street. From where he was standing he could touch the 10s. key of the cash register, and he noticed that the drawer was open. He asked prisoner how he had rung the till, and he replied he had not touched it. Witness told him he should send for the police, and the prisoner asked him not to send for the civil police. He sent for the police, and P.C. Allen arrived shortly afterwards. He unlockd the bar door, and on going in he found the two 10s. notes produced screwed up on the floor, as though they had been thrown through the lattice work. Previous to going upstairs, he saw there were two 10s. notes in the till, but they had gone when he came down. The main door of the hotel was left on the ordinary spring for the convenience of visitors staying in the hotel.

In reply to the prisoner, witness said he told him he would have let him go if he had owned up to the theft instead of denying it.

P.C. Allen said at 4.35 p.m. the previous day he was called to the hotel, where he saw Mr. Dowson and the prisoner. The former told him what had occurred, and the prisoner said “I have not touched the till. I thought this was a restaurant and came in to have a cup of tea”. He (witness) then noticed some crumpled paper near the till in the bar, and on the landlord picking it up found it consisted of two 10s. Treasury notes. Witness showed them to the prisoner, who said nothing. At the police station, when charged, prisoner said “I do not wish to say anything”.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. He went into the witness box and said he saw the door of the hotel open and went inside. When he got inside the passage he heard someone coming along the landing. He then saw Mr. Dowson hurrying down the stairs, and he asked him what he wanted. Before he could give him an answer he looked into the bar, and finding the till open he asked him if he had touched it, and he said he had not. He opened the iron gate, and after locking the till accused him of stealing straight away. He got in such a temper as he told him he had not touched it that he got hold of his throat. He then sent for the police. He went into the hotel as he was looking for a place to get a cup of tea. He never heard the till bell ring at all, and he did not take the two notes.

An officer from the Regiment said the man only joined the Regiment on Thursday, coming from the Depot. His conduct sheet was quite clean.

The Bench bound the prisoner over to be of good behaviour for six months.

Folkestone Express 29 November 1930.

Local News.

On Wednesday the licence of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, was transferred from Mr. S. Dowson to Mr. W. Oberman, who a short time ago was the licensee of the Clarendon Hotel.

Folkestone Express 18 July 1931.

Monday, July 13th: Before The Mayor, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. F. Seager.

John Jay, an elderly man, who was stated to be on the tramp, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street at 9.35 the previous evening. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Bates said at 9.35 on the previous evening he was on duty in Harbour Street, where he saw the prisoner drunk and making use of obscene language. He told him to go away, and he went a short distance, when he commenced to abuse passers-by. Prisoner then went into the George Hotel, and was promptly ejected. He brought him to the police station and charged him, and he made no reply. Prisoner had been shouting in a loud voice, and had a stick in his hand, which he waved in people's faces.

Prisoner said he came from Rye, had a drop of drink given him, and got drunk. He used to be a bricklayer's labourer, and did hay-making now. He did a day and a half last week.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said prisoner had given him no information about himself, and he believed him to tramp from place to place.

The Chairman said if prisoner undertook to leave the town the Magistrates would dismiss the case.

Prisoner agreed to leave the town.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You had better go and do some more hay-making.

Folkestone Express 7 January 1939.

Local News.

A Boxing Day night brawl in the Fish Market had a sequel at Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday when William John Cloke, a fisherman, of 4, Radnor Street, Folkestone, summoned Alfred Waller, of 16, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, for assault.

The magistrates were Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Miss G. Broome-Giles and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

The plaintiff, giving evidence, said at about 6.55 p.m. on December 26th he went to the Royal George public house in Beach Street, when the defendant came into the bar. Witness told him that he did not think it was much of a trick that afternoon to hit an old man. The defendant started to argue, and witness told him that it was not the place to argue, and suggested they should go outside. When they did so the defendant took off his coat, Witness said “If you are going to fight I will take my teeth out”. While he was taking out his teeth Waller hit him and he fell to the ground with his teeth half in and half out. While he was on the ground Waller kicked him in the mouth. Afterwards he closed with the defendant, who butted him with his head. “In fact it was not a fight,” continued plaintiff. “I thought he was out to kill me the way he was going on”.

Cloke said he fought back in self-defence. At dinner-time Waller had threatened him with what he was going to do that, night. He said “All right, Cloke, I will get you tonight”. As a result of the fight witness had been to the Hospital twice for X-ray examinations, once for his right ribs and once for his nose.

In reply to Waller, plaintiff denied inviting him to go outside and fight. He said he asked Waller to go outside and finish the argument.

William Bridgland, of 34, Wood Avenue, Folkestone, said he was in the Royal George at 6.45 p.m., when the defendant came in and called for half a beer, which Cloke paid for. Later Cloke and Waller walked out, and when witness went out he saw the two men fighting. Waller had Cloke against the wall of Mr. Milton’s whelk store and butting him with his head. He saw Waller kick Cloke on the leg.

Cross-examined, witness said he heard Waller say “Stand back” so that he could pull his trousers up.

P.C. Langford said at 11.30 p.m. he went to 4, Radnor Street, where he saw Cloke, who was suffering from wounds on his face and head. There were two severe bruises on the back of his head. Witness suspected that Cloke’s nose was fractured, so he took him in the police van to the Hospital.

Giving evidence, Waller said earlier in the day he had been knocked down, and when he went to the public house in the evening Cloke bought him a beer and said “After you have drunk that I will beat you up and down the road again”. They went out into the Fish Market and the fight started. Continuing, Waller said Cloke pulled his jersey off and he asked him to stand back while he pulled his trousers up. Cloke refused, so he kept him off with his foot while he pulled his trousers up as he did not want people to look at him without his trousers.

Questioned by the plaintiff, Waller denied that he kicked him in the face, and said Cloke struck him first, on the side of the face.

The Chairman (Mr. L.G.A. Collins) said both men would be bound over for twelve months, and they would each have to pay 4/- costs.

Folkestone Express 22 June 1940.

Lighting Order.

The Folkestone magistrates are still hearing, ad nauseum, cases where the Lighting Regulations are defied. During an air raid alarm the offence assumes serious proportions, and although the present penalty is £1, there is likelihood that in future a much heavier fine will be inflicted. The justices have great discretionary powers, but there is evidence that their patience is becoming exhausted. It is pointed out that the police in these times have far more serious work to do than to watch for lights; and, in any case, people might give a thought to their own safety, even if they don’t care about the safety of others. All the time of the Police Court on, Friday was occupied by these cases, the defendants appearing before Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mr. J.P. Fuller.

Charles Stubbington was summoned in respect of a light at the Royal George Hotel on June 9th.

A visitor at the Pavilion Hotel noticed a light at 11.40 and went out and saw a crowd of people. He went back to his hotel and sent for a police officer who, after making enquiries, located the light in a bedroom on the third floor of the Royal George Hotel. The bedroom was occupied by the defendant, who was an under-barman. He said he went to bed at 11.15 and put the light out. The next he knew was being aroused by the constable.