Folkestone Express 11 July 1868.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt.

A special sessions for the transferring of licenses was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday.

The following business was conducted:

Mr. Sinden, of the Royal Oak for transfer of license from Mr. Prebble. In consequence of an informality in the notice, it not being dated, the Overseers refused to sign it. The transfer was refused, but the Magistrates granted the applicant temporary power to sell under the existing license until the next sessions.

Note: Date for this transfer differs from information given in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 21 February 1874.

Inquest.

A young man named Thomas Garland, who had been lodging some weeks at the Royal Oak Inn, North Street. Was taken suddenly ill on Monday evening and died before medical assistance could be procured. From what Mr. Mercer, assistant to Mr. Bateman, told the Coroner, that officer did not consider it necessary to hold an inquest, but having received an anonymous letter, which will be found below, he reconsidered the matter and determined to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the death, and instructed Mr. Mercer to make a post mortem examination, which was accordingly done on Wednesday, the result of which will be found in the evidence given at the inquest, which was held at the Town Hall on Thursday afternoon before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, and a jury.

The jury having been to the residence of the uncle of the deceased to view the body, on their return, Lydia, wife of Thomas Joseph Davis, Royal Oak Inn, North Street, deposed: I identify the body just shown to the jury as that of Thomas Garland, who has lodged at my house since a week or two before Christmas. On Monday last deceased was at home all day. Shortly after seven o'clock in the eveining he was in the bar parlour with my neice, who called me in, and I found deceased sitting on a chair, apparently very ill. He complained of great pain at his hear and head. I called in Mrs, Harris and Mrs. Winter, two neighbours, and then went to get a pair of blankets, as deceased complained of being cold, and on my return he was lying on the floor dead. He had complained before of his heart and used to say “Oh, my heart”, and placed his hands on his breast. I had tea with him at half past four o'clock the same afternoon, and he appeared to be well then. He would have been nineteen years of age next March. I do not know anything about the letter produced.

Mr. Richard Mercer, M.R.C.S., deposed: I am assistant to Mr. Bateman, surgeon. On Monday, 16th inst., I was called in to see deceased at the Royal Oak Inn, North Street, and found him dead. I made a post mortem examination of the body yesterday afternoon, in which I was assisted by Mr. Bateman. I found the heart enlarged and flabby; the valves on the left side of the heart had an inflammatory appearance. The other organs, including the brain, lungs, &c., were healthy. The stomach contained a small quantity of fluid and food, but there was no unhealthy signs in it or in the intestines. I could not detect any foreign or injurious substance in the stomach. The valve of the heart giving way was the cause of death, which was from natural causes. If I had given a certificate I should have given the cause of death as disease of the heart. I was aware there had been a suggestion that deceased had taken poison, and was, therefore, careful in examining the stomach, and am able to say positively that there was no poison. The symptoms preceding death, as described by the last witness, are such as would be consistent with heart disease. Mr. Bateman agreed with me as to the cause of death.

Mr. Bateman was not sworn, but said there was not the least symptom of irritation in the stomach, and there could not have been irritant poison in the stomach without leaving traces. If there had been volatile poison, it would have gone away before they could have examined the stomach. He was satisfied death was from a diseased heart, which was enlarged and weakened, and there was an inflammatory appearance of the organ.

In answer to Mr. T.J. Vaughan, Mr. Mercer said there would have been some traces of the effect of volatile poison if such had been taken.

Mrs. Mary Ann Harris deposed: I went to the Rotal Oak on Monday evening about a quarter before seven, when I saw deceased lying on the floor of the bar parlour. Mrs. Davis told me he was ill. I asked him if he would have water, and he said “No”. Mrs. Winter asked him where the pain was and he said “In my head”. I placed my hand on his heart and could feel it beating violently. I said to him “Let me lift you up” and he said “No”. He put his hand on his head and said “I am dead”. He had a very severe struggle and became unconscious and died.

Mrs. Winter gave confirmatory evidence.

The Coroner said: The evidence of Mr. Mercer makes the matter very clear the deceased died of heart complaint, and the post mortem examination clearly explained the cause of death. From inquiries made at the time the doctor was satisfied that deceased had died of heart disease, but Mr. Mercer not being present at the time he could not give a certificate. Having heard Mr. Mercer's report I confess I did not intend to hold an inquest, but in consequence of having received an anonymous letter which I, perhaps, might very well have afforded to take no notice of, but the letter intimating that I was neglecting my duty, and went on to suggest that the deceased had taken poison, and the doctor had not examined him, I certainly thought it right that an inquest should be held and the matter should be cleared up. I put the letter into the hands of the police, who made every inquiry, but could obtain no corroboration of the allegation contained in the letter. On asking deceased's father, he thought it would be satisfactory to have the matter cleared up. I cannot say what motive prompted the writer of the letter, whether it was an honest conviction that deceased had taken poison, or whether it was from a vindictive feeling towards the family. Your duty, gentlemen of the jury, is to say what was the cause of death. Looking at the evidence of the two medical gentlemen, that all the organs except the heart were in a healthy state, and the symptoms showed that action of the heart had stopped, confirms Mr, Mercer's opinion as to the cause of death.

A juror asked if the Coroner had any objection to read the letter.

The Coroner said he had not. The letter came by post, and was addressed “Mr. J. Minter, Lawyer, Guildhall Street, Folkestone”, and the contents were as follows: “Folkestone, 18th. Sir, Excuse me writing, but I feel almost sure that Thomas Garland must have taken something to cause his death, and it is the talk all over the town. There ought to be an inquest on the body. I know the doctor never examined him. I hope you will interfere, or there will be much more talk about it. From a friend, G.H.”

The Jury immediately returned a verdict of “Died from natural causes”.

Folkestone Express 12 October 1889.

Wednesday, October 9th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

Henry Mercer was granted temporary authority to carry on the Royal Oak, North Street.

Folkestone Express 13 December 1890.

Transfer.

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

The licence of the Royal Oak, North Street, was transferred from Henry Mercer to John Kirby.

Folkestone Express 23 April 1892.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Tuesday afternoon, before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, on the body of Mary Ann Philpott, wife of David Philpott, of 15, North Street. The deceased had been a noted character in the fishing quarter.

The Coroner, in opening the enquiry, said: So far as I can anticipate, there will be evidence to show you that the deceased had had a quarrel with a man named Henry Moore. He is summoned here as a witness, and I shall give him the opportunity of making a statement. The enquiry is as to the cause of the death of Mary Ann Philpott. I am told that it is alleged that there was a quarrel on Sunday morning, the 3rd. Instant, and that she was knocked down in North Street on a Sunday morning, and received very serious injuries to her head, the result of which was the rupture of certain blood vessels in the brain, from which the woman had died. I was told, but of course you will hear it presently in evidence, that there had been a previous quarrel between her and Henry Moore. He has been summoned here to give evidence. I don't propose to call him until the last to give evidence, so that he will have an opportunity of hearing the evidence that will be given. He will then elect whether or not to make a statement. Your duty is to enquire as to how she came by her death. If you are satisfied she received the injuries from a blow or from a fall caused by a blow, and that blow was improperly given by anyone, it will be your duty to say whether or not it was the prisoner, and whether he is guilty of manslaughter. I think it is only right for me to say that the deceased woman was a drunken and very quarrelsome woman, and it was well known to the police that she was always, when she got drunk, making complaints to the police that she had been assaulted. Therefore I think it is right that I should call the police to give evidence. But whether a person is drunken or not, another person has no right to knock her down and inflict such injuries as to result in death. If you, Moore, desire any questions to be put to the witnesses, who will be called before the jury, and will tell me what they are, I will put them.

William Henry Marshall, a fisherman, living at No. 5, Radnor Street, said: I identify the body as that of Mary Ann Philpott, wife of David Philpott, of 15, North Street, Folkestone, a fisherman. On Sunday, the 3rd inst., between twelve and one, I was standing at the bottom of North Street. I saw the deceased woman between her house and Mrs. Rose's, her next door neighbour. She was standing on the pavement. I could not say whether she had anything in her hand. There was an old lady – Mrs. Spearpoint – with her. I saw Moore and another man come along through the arch. The other man's name I do not know. (A man named Edwin Tappenden came into Court and was identified by the witness) The two men went up North Street, so as to go opposite Mrs. Philpott's. Mrs. Philpott walked towards Moore, who was walking in the street. I saw Moore strike Mrs. Philpott on the right eye with his fist. She went down on her back, and her head struck on the pavement. I was about twenty yards off when the blow was struck. Mrs. Spearpoint ran away from the deceased and then went back and helped her up. The deceased laid on the pavement two or three minutes before she was picked up. The deceased did not attempt to get up till Mrs. Spearpoint picked her up. I saw her take hold of her arms and help her up. I then went into my own house and did not see what became of her. I heard there was a row the night before and I was looking at Moore and Mrs. Philpott in consequence. Mrs. Philpott, when she got up at Tappenden, tried to strike him. She did not hit him. She struck at him with her fist. I did not see her throw any wood at him. Then he knocked her down. I could not say whether she was drunk or sober.

Moore asked: Did you see anyone else go up the street with us? – Yes, another young man. I don't know his name. I saw no-one else.

Mary Spearpoint, widow of the late Richard Spearpoint, living at No. 11, North Street, said: I knew Mary Ann Philpott. She lived two doors above me in North Street. On Sundat the 3rd, between 12 and 1, I came out of my sister's and saw Mrs. Philpott sitting on her doorstep. She called out to me “Aunt Mary”, and I went up to her. She had one arm (the left) in a sling, and a short white stick in the other hand. Whilst I was talking to her, three men came up the street. Henry Moore was one of them. They were walking in the street. As they came up, she said “Here comes the three b----s”. She got up and threw the stick at Moore. It did not hit him, I think. Then she went and squared up at him. I think he had a pipe in his mouth. He tried to get away from her, but she kept in front of him and would not let him pass her. I did not see Moore strike her, but he pushed her with his hand and she went down. His hand was open. I could not say whether his hand touched on the face or on the body. She fell on the back of her head. I do not know how she got the black eye. I did not notice that she had a black eye when I picked her up. Mrs. Rose, my next door neighbour, said “Pick her up, Aunt Mary”. I said “Why don't you – you are younger than I am”. She said “I can't”. I had a great job to get her up because she was so heavy, but I did get her up, and she walked indoors. I saw her on Monday morning with her black eye, and I was astonished to see it. I saw Chadwick, the Town sergeant, this morning, but I did not tell him that I saw Moore knock the woman down.

George Kirby, landlord of the Royal Oak, a house a door or two above the residence of the deceased, said: The deceased was in my house on the night of Saturday the 2nd of April. I should say she was the worse for drink. She came in between five and ten minutes to eleven. Henry Moore was standing against the door by which she came in. She passed him on coming in. I ws called to another room and I heard a noise. On going back I asked what was the matter, and Moore said Mrs. Philpott had hit him in the mouth. I know she was a very drunken and quarrelsome woman. She said “What did you want to shove me for?” Moore said “I'd a good mind to hit her, but I pushed her out”. He had pushed her out and the glass of the door was broken. She stood outside using bad language for a time, calling Moore bad names. I told her to go away and that Moore would not interfere with her if she did not with him, and hoped she wouldn't come into my house again. There was never any disturbance except when she came in. I saw nothing of the disturbance on Sunday morning. She had not been in my house. She went in after the disturbance. Moore had told me he had been insulted again that morning by the deceased. He said she struck at him with a piece of wood, and afterwards struck him in the mouth and broke his pipe. He put his arm up to avoid being hit again and she fell down. The deceased's husband afterwards came in and wanted to fight Moore. I saw the woman's eye was black. As they would not leave the bar I sent for a policemen.

P.C. Knowles said: On Sunday the 3rd April, between 12 and 1 o'clock, I was sent for to go to the Royal Oak. On arrival there I found the deceased, Mrs. Philpott, her husband, her sister, Mrs. Weatherhead, Henry Moore, and others. There was an altercation going on between the deceased and Moore. The landlord said he wanted the people out of his house. He ordered them out, and Mrs. Philpott declined to go. I asked Moore what all the bother was about. He said “She struck me in the mouth and broke my pipe and I hit her – what would you have done?” I saw the deceased afterwards inside her front door with her husband and sister. I noticed that her right eye was blackened and there was a bruise on her forehead. She said “Look what a face I've got”. I told her that she must summons the man that struck her.

P.C. Harry Lemar said: On Saturday the 2nd April I was on duty in North Street, and spoke to the landlord of the Royal Oak, and asked him how the window was broken. I heard a disturbance and saw the deceased and Henry Moore in the street having an altercation. Mrs. Philpott was squaring up to Moore, who was trying to get away from her. When I got to Mrs. Philpott, she said to me “There's a pretty b-----. He hit me in the face and knocked me through that window”. Her mouth was bleeding.

Dr. Percy Vernon Dodd said: I was called in to see the deceased on Tuesday, the 5th April. She had a large contusion over the right eye. The whole side of the face was black and bruised. She complained of pains at the back of the head, and on examining it I found there was a soft spot on the back of the centre of the head. In my opinion it was caused by a blow or a fall. The contusion on the right side of the forehead was also due to a blow or fall. If she had been struck by a man's fist on the eye and she had fallen back on the pavement the marks would have been caused by that. I should say the injuries were due to those causes. I attended her from the 5th until the following Monday when she attended the Court at the hearing of a summons against Moore. She complained of headache all the time. I advised her not to go to the Court, thinking she was not in a state to attend. On the Tuesday morning that I was called to attend her, I was told by an old woman who was nursing her that she had picked her up from the floor that morning about six o'clock, in an unconscious state. She was conscious when I saw her. I ordered her to be put to bed. The injuries to the eye and the back of the head appeared to be of some days' duration. The sore place on the back of the head could have been produced by the fall on the floor, but I should say it was of two or three days' duration. No-one was present when she fell. On Thursday she became unconscious, and remained so up to the time of her death on Sunday. I have made a post mortem examination of the head of the deceased, and found that death was due to compression of the brain caused by haemorrhage on the surface. The haemorrhage arose from the rupture of a blood vessel on the brain, which a blow or a fall might cause, and having heard the evidence as to the blow and fall I should say it was so caused, but cannot say whether by the blow or fall. I have heard that the deceased was of intemperate habits, and had been for years, and that would make the blood vessels more brittle and more likely to be ruptured. It is possible the deceased might have ruptured the blood vessel by the fall in her bedroom, but I should think the fit was probably more due to the rupture.

Henry Moore was then called. The Coroner told him he was not bound to give evidence, but anything he might say would be taken down, and should the verdict be one of manslaughter, the evidence might be given against him. “At the present moment” he added “in my judgement things look rather in your disfavour, because you see this woman died from the effects of a blow or a fall, and that blow was caused by you”. Whether there was provocation or not was another matter. He did not think, in justice to Moore, that the enquiry should be concluded that day, so that enquiries might be made as to the fit the deceased appeared to have had on the Tuesday morning. If, in that fit she had a fall, it was obvious that the rupture of the blood vessels of the brain might have taken place on that occasion, and not on the Sunday morning when she fell on the pavement – a matter that would weigh very seriously in the minds of the jury.

The enquiry was then adjourned until Thursday evening at six.

The inquest was resumed on Thursday evening. Mr. J. Ward represented Henry Moore.

The witnesses having signed their depositions, Mary Ann Sellars, wife of William Sellars, said: I live at 51, North Street. On Tuesday, the 5th April, I went in to Mrs, Philpott's to light her fire. I have done it for a long time when she was not well. I went in at half past seven in the morning and went straight into the bedroom which deceased usually slept in, and I found her lying flat on her back, with her head in a cupboard, the door of which was open. Her hands were clenched, and she was quite unconscious. I remained with her till half past eight. There was no-one else in the house but an old lady upstairs, who was very deaf, and I did not call her. At half past eight I sent a little girl to call the deceased's sister. I called “Murder!” several times before I got anyone to hear me. I had then been with the deceased for an hour. The little girl went to Mrs, Weatherhead, who came, and we got the deceased into bed. She was in her night dress. Then we sent for Dr. Eastes. He attended about nine o'clock and asked how long she had been unconscious. He examined her, and said he would send some medicine and Dr. Dodd. He said he was going away for five weeks. Dr. Dodd came some time after. I followed the doctor's directions in applying the remedies. I came to the Court and met the deceased on Saturday morning. When she was lying on the floor I saw she was foaming at the mouth.

Dr. Dodd was re-called, and said when he was called to see the deceased she was semi-conscious. He did not notice any paralysis. The foaming at the mouth indicated that she had had a fit, which, in his opinion, arose from the slight haemorrhage on the brain. There was no indication of an epileptic fit found in the post mortem examination. In his opinion the contusion at the back of the head had not been received that morning.

David Philpott, husband of the deceased, said: She was 51 years of age last March. Her name was Mary Jane, not Mary Ann. I went to bed on Saturday evening about half nine and got up between twelve and one in the night. I was fetched home about a quarter to one on Sunday, and found my wife lying on the bed in the back bedroom. I saw she had a blow on the eye, and her face was all swollen. In consequence of what she said, I went into the Royal Oak, and I found Moore. My wife followed me. I said to Moore “What did you hit her for this morning?” He said “It served her right”. I said “Why didn't you come and hit me, not her?” I asked him to come out if he wanted to fight. I then called Policeman Knowles and showed him my wife's eye. I can't say whether she was sober or drunk – she had nothing to drink in my presence. I left the harbour on Sunday evening at ten o'clock, and did not return till Tuesday afternoon. My wife was then having a cup of tea. I then went upstairs.

Elizabeth Rose, wife of Frederick Rose, of 18, North Street, said: I saw deceased sitting on her doorstep about half past 12 on Sunday morning. I saw her raise her hand to strike Moore; he put up his hand to defend himself and she fell down on her back. I can't say whether he struck her. I was in my kitchen and went up to my front door. She was then kneeling, and Mrs Spearpoint was helping her up and I then went indoors.

Dr. Dodd was again called and said the evidence of the woman Sellars raised a doubt in his mind whether the deceased might not have had an epileptic fit on the Tuesday. The foaming at the mouth and the clenched fingers might have been caused by an epileptic fit, and then, supposing that she had fallen suddenly, the vessel on the brain might have been ruptured. Frothing at the mouth was not an indication of compression – it indicated nothing but an epileptic fit.

Henry Moore was then called, and the Coroner cautioned him. He said: I am a painter, residing at 18, St. John's Road. On Sunday, the 3rd April, I was in North Street about twenty minutes to one. I saw the deceased sitting on her steps. She helloed out “Here comes the b----s”. She got up off the pavement, ran up to me, and threw a stick at me. Then she came up and hit me in the mouth, knocked my pipe out of my mouth and broke it, and injured one of my teeth. I had not spoken to her at all. I stooped to pick up my pipe, and while doing so she came at me again. I put up my arm to defend myself, and she, being very drunk, fell down. She had often abused me, but I had never spoken to her. I swear I did not strike her. She has frequently used abusive language to my wife.

By the Coroner: I saw Knowles in the Royal Oak after he had got Mrs. Philpott out. He did not come into the room, but into the passage. I did not hear what he said. I did not say “I hit her – what should you have done?” I saw the husband. He asked me “What did you hit her for this morning?” I told him it was not my fault. I think when I put my arm up, my elbow touched her. She appeared to fall on her side and roll over on her back.

Edwin Tappenden said he was with Moore in the Royal Oak on Saturday night and saw deceased strike Moore. Moore pushed her out. He was with Moore on Sunday morning going up North Street. Deceased threw a bit of wood at him, and then struck him in the mouth and broke his pipe. He stooped to pick up the pipe, and the woman came at him again and struck at him. He put up his arm in self defence, and the woman fell down backwards. They walked away.

Edward Tappenden and Charles Tappenden gave similar evidence.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and on their return the foreman said they found that death was accidental, caused by Moore, in self defence, raising his arm to protect himself, and they found that Moore did not strike the deceased, but that she fell down accidentally.

Folkestone Express 4 August 1894.

Transfer of Licence.

Wednesday, August 1st: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness and J. Pledge Esqs.

The licence of the Royal Oak was transferred to Mr. Thomas Hughes.

Folkestone Express 28 March 1896.

Saturday, March 21st: Before J. Sherwood, C.J. Pursey, J. Fitness, J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Spicer applied for a transfer of the licence of the Royal Oak, North Street. Granted.

Folkestone Express 23 May 1896.

Saturday, May 16th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. Spicer applied for a licence to sell at the Football Ground on Whit Monday from twelve noon until ten at night. The Bench granted the licence till nine.

Folkestone Express 13 June 1896.

Wednesday, June 10th: Before W.G. Herbert, and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Benjamin James Jacob Spicer was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor elsewhere than his own premises without a licence.

Superintendent Taylor said defendant was the landlord of the Royal Oak, North Street. On the afternoon of the 25th May a fete was held in the Folkestone Football Ground, Cheriton Road. Defendant had a booth there for the sale of liquor. He visited the booth about ten minutes to three in the afternoon, and there were from 40 to 50 people being served with drink. He saw defendant and asked him to show him his licence. He pointed to a paper fastened to one of the poles of the tent, and he told him he could not read it at that distance, and asked him to show it to him. He did so, and gave him the justices' consent to issue an excise licence, a duplicate of which he produced. He told defendant that was not the licence, and asked him if he had not done as he had told him – sent to the Excise.

The Magistrates' Clerk: When had you told him that?

Witness: I'll come to that. I reminded him of that when he obtained the justices' consent. I told him to send it to the Excise with the fee. I pointed out the paragraph on the form where the instructions are to send to the Excise with the fee. He said he had not noticed it. I then said “You must stop selling, as you have no licence”. He stopped selling then, and went and fetched Mr. Welch, the Secretary of the Football Club. I explained to him how matters stood, and that he had no licence to sell. Defendant spoke about going to Canterbury to get a licence, but I pointed out to him that as it was Bank Holiday all the Government offices were closed. Defendant said he would go and see the local officer, Mr. Powell, and went away, and the sale of drink was stopped in the meantime. About four o'clock I saw Mr. Spicer in Cheriton Road and spoke to him. He told me he had been to the Custom House, and could not find anyone. I again told him he must not go on with the sale of liquor. Previous to leaving, I placed Sergeant Lilley close to the tent, and gave him certain instructions. From what I subsequently heard, I applied for a summons on the following morning (Tuesday).

Mr. Wightwick: Do you mean to say 40 or 50 people were served while you were there? – There were 40 or 50 people in the booth, and they were being served by defendant and his assistants.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: How long has defendant been in business as a licence holder? – About two or three months.

You know, of your own knowledge, that he has lived in the town and that it is the first time he has held a licence? – That is so.

When he applied, on the 16th of May, for a justices' consent for an occasional licence you offered no objection? – Certainly not.

You saw no reason why a licence should not be granted to sell on an occasion of that sort? – No.

When you saw defendant on the football ground, you say you reminded him that you had told him to get the justices' permit sent on to Canterbury? – Yes.

That he denied? – He did not deny it.

He said he did not remember anything about it? – I have already said that in my evidence.

He did not deny it, but he said he did not remember it? – He replied “I don't remember you saying it. I was paying the fee to Mr. Andrews”.

On the 16th of May you were present in Court, and there was another case going on. Mr. Haines was applying for an early opening licence for a house in the lower part of the town? – I cannot say if it was the date.

You are quite positive you told Spicer to take it to Canterbury? – Quite positive.

It was a very hot day on the Whit Monday – a thirsty day, wasn't it? I am not asking your opinion as an expert. – You may assume that.

He had exhibited his permit, hadn't he – nailed his colours to the mast? – Yes.

It was impossible for him to get a licence on that day, it being a Bank Holiday? – It was. But consent was given on the 16th. I also drew his attention to the paragraph on that day.

Don't you this it was the Excise who should have taken this up? – It came under my cognisance first, and I took it up, having equal powers with the Excise.

Did you bring it before the Watch Committee? – No.

You applied for the summons on the Tuesday, and the summons was not issued till the 5th of June. Do you know the reason? – No.

Do you know it was on account of the Excise having refused to prosecute in the case? – I don't see how they could, as I had commenced.

You have made no communication to them? – No, except verbally through Mr. Powell.

What took place with Mr. Powell? Didn't they say they regarded it as a trumpery case, and were not going to proceed in it? – He did not say it was trumpery.

This permit only necessitates the payment of a small fee, does it? – That is all.

Did you ever know a case where the Commissioners had refused to endorse an occasional licence? – No.

It being merely a question of payment of 2s. 6d. – No. It is a question of the issue of a licence or authority to sell.

Do you allege that the defendant acted from any other motive than positive ignorance? – Certainly not. It was a breach of the law.

You had some of your men on the field, I believe? – Yes.

I suppose the consequences might have been serious if the booth had been closed up all afternoon? – It would have been serious for the committee. I can't say that it would have been for anybody else.

Mr. Wightwick: When you told him it was necessary to get the licence, did you call his attention to the memorandum? – Not when I handed it to him.

Mr. Bradley (to witness): It was no part of your duty to do what you did. It was the defendant's duty to read it? – Exactly.

Sergeant Lilley said: On Whit Monday, May 25th, I was on duty in the football ground, and saw defendant in charge of a booth there. I went to the booth about three o'clock and saw defendant. I asked him if he had got a licence. He said “Yes”, and pointed to the paper, which I took to be the Magistrates' Permit by the colour of it. Seeing he had got that, I took it he had got the other, and turned away. He was then serving beer. I afterwards saw Superintendent Taylor, and received certain instructions from him. About 4.15 I saw defendant in the booth again. He said he was going to commence serving beer again. He said he was acting on the advice of Mr. Powell, the Excise Officer. I pointed out to him that he was doing it at his own risk, and I should have to report it. He said he perfectly understood that, and he should take the risk, and then commenced selling. There were then quite 100 persons in the booth, and I left after three or four minutes.

Mr. Wightwick: I understood the Superintendent to say he ceased supplying?

Supt. Taylor: That is so. I have another witness to prove he continued to serve up till nine o'clock. He desisted for a time.

Mr. Hall was about to call the defendant to say what took place in the Court, and at the field, but Mr. Bradley said it was nothing to do with it.

Mr. Hall said he did not question the selling. He went on to argue that the man might have been in the wrong in not reading his permit. They had heard the Superintendent say he told Spicer to take the permit to Canterbury, but he said he did not understand that. He ought to have done so. He applied to the justices for permission, and paid 1s. 6d., and he thought nothing more was necessary.

Mr. Bradley: If it was the duty of the Superintendent to inform him, it would be important. But as it it, it is not.

Mr. Hall said he should tender the evidence to contradict what had been said by the Superintendent. If he did not tender it, he would be taking it as correct. There was a mutual misunderstanding.

Mr. Herbert: It makes not the slightest difference.

Mr. Wightwick: Ignorance is no excuse.

Mr. Hall: Well, I'll call him to say what took place on the Monday.

Defendant was then sworn, and said he was a licence holder at the Royal Oak, and had only been there three or four months. It was the firt time he had held a licence. The Sports Committee advertised for tenders to supply refreshments, but as they got no replies, they applied to him to sell. He got a magistrates' consent, and put it in his pocket, but he did not read it. He was never told it was only a permit, and he thought it was sufficient. He carried it in his pocket from that time till Whit Monday. On Whit Monday he nailed it up against the post in the booth, thinking it was the consent. He did not remember the Superintendent telling him to send it to Canterbury. There were 5,000 or 6,000 people on the football ground. When the Superintendent pointed out to him that it was wrong, he came to Folkestone and saw Mr. Powell, and then went back to the field and consulted the committee, with the result that he recommenced selling. They sent 2s. 6d. by post to Canterbury, and it would reach there the same day. He had previously been told by the Superintendent that it was no use sending to Canterbury as the office was closed on Bank Holiday. On Wednesday he went to Canterbury and saw the Inland Revenue Officers and explained the matter to them.

Mr. Bradley: We can't have that, you know. It is not evidence.

Mr. Hall: There was a statement made by the Inland Revenue Officer.

Mr. Bradley: Well, you must call him. It is not of the slightest use.

Mr. Hall: Have you had any communication from the authorities? – No.

Do you think there would have been a serious disturbance if the booth had been closed all the time? – I do, sir.

Mr. Bradley: The last witness warned you not to sell? – No. The Superintendent warned me.

You said you would take the risk? – Yes.

That was after being warned? – Yes. After we sent the half a crown away.

Superintendent Taylor: How was the money sent to Canterbury? – By post.

At what time? – I could not say. I never looked at my watch.

Superintendent Taylor said it could not arrive there until it was too late to give consent.

Mr. Hall said he had some other evidence, but after the intimation from the Bench that it would be to no avail, he would not call the witnesses. He addressed the Bench, pleading that his client was new to the business, and it was the first time he had made such an application, and he was therefore ignorant of the requirements. Next time, perhaps, he would employ a solicitor to be on the safe side. He urged that the Magistrates should, under all the circumstances, dismiss the summons. He never knew a case where there was less need for a prosecution than in that particular one. He defendant had erred in ignorance, and had not complied with the law in paying the half crown fee. He hoped the Bench had made up their minds that there was no necessity for a conviction, and that they were not going to fine the man or endorse his licence, for it was a serious thing for a licence holder to be fined. The owners of the house did not go into the pros and cons of the case. They simply said “This man has been fined”, and he would be requested to quit, so that his living was jeopardised by a trifling little matter of that description. There was no ill intention whatever. If the Bench held that he could not be excused, then he hoped they would take a merciful view of the case, and allow the summons to be withdrawn. Were they, he asked, going to convict the man, and put him into purgatory as to the ultimate effect for such a trivial offence? He did not think it was a case where the police ought to ask for a conviction, and therefore he pleaded with the Bench to allow the summons to be withdrawn.

Mr. Herbert, addressing the defendant, said there was no question that he had committed a breach of the licensing laws, and it was a breach that was considered very heinous, and he was liable to a fine of £50. His excuse that he did not read the licence was absolutely absurd. It was his duty as a licence holder, and the manager of a public house. He was warned by the police not to go on selling, but he did not take the Superintendent's warning, and said he would take the risk. The Bench would, however, only inflict the modified penalty of 20s.. and 11s. costs, or 14 days'.

Folkestone Express 1 August 1896.

Saturday, July 25th: Before Alderman Banks, General Gwyn, W. Wightwick, H.D. Stock, C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Spicer applied for an occasional licence for a fete on August Bank Holiday. Granted.

Folkestone Express 24 October 1896.

Local News.

Benjamin J. Spicer, of the Royal Oak Inn, North Street, was summoned for selling after hours. The defence was that a girl had bought some ale in a jug earlier in the evening, and fetched it after eleven. The case was dismissed.

Folkestone Express 21 January 1899.

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

Mr. Joseph Anson applied for transfer of the licence of the Royal Oak, North Street. Granted.

Folkestone Express 31 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 28th: before Alderman Banks, Colonel Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

The licence of the Royal Oak, North Street, was temporarily transferred to Mr. Collar.

Folkestone Express 14 September 1901.

Wednesday, September 11th: Before T.J. Vaughan, G. Peden, and J. Stainer Esqs., Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Henry Collar was granted a transfer of the licence of the Royal Oak, North Street.

Folkestone Express 15 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Justices present were E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, G. Boyd, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer Esqs. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Stainer did not take part in the licensing business, not being on the committee.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 119 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full Licences 73, Beer On 7, Beer Off 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers Off 15, Grocers, etc. Off 9, Confectioners' Wine On 3, Chemists Wine Off 5. This gives an average, according to the Census of 1911, of one licence to every 281 persons, or one on licence to every 418 persons. As compared with the return submitted last year this is a decrease of two licences. At the general annual licensing meeting last year a new licence was granted for the sale of beer off the premises at Morehall, and two other off licences were discontinued.

At the last adjourned general annual licensing meeting the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the meeting of that Committee on the 7th August, 1912, the licence was refused, and after payment of compensation the house was closed for the sale of drink on the 28th December last.

During the past year fifteen of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice.

Six occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 34 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions.

During the year ended 31st December last 85 persons (62 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

In the preceding year 54 males and 31 females were proceeded against, of whom 66 were convicted and 19 discharged.

The number convicted of drunkenness last year, viz., 46 males and 18 females, is, I find, the smallest number convicted in any year since 1896.

Of those proceeded against, 31 were residents of the Borough, 34 were persons of no fixed abode, 13 residents of other districts and seven were soldiers.

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

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

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, eight for music only, and two for public billiard playing.

I have no complaint to make as to the conduct of any of the licensed houses, and offer no opposition to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

The Chairman said it was a very satisfactory report indeed, but they felt that there were still too many licensed houses, particularly in certain portions of the Borough, and the Justices would direct that a certain number of the applications for renewal should be deferred till the Adjourned Sessions, so that they might have evidence as to the trade those houses were doing, and decide whether any of them ought to be referred to the Compensation Authority.

The houses to be dealt with were seven in number, namely; the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, the Royal Oak, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington.

With those exceptions the chronicle existing licences were granted.

Folkestone Express 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual licensing sessions seven licences were deferred to the adjourned sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Monday. The Magistrates on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, J.J. Giles, E.T. Morrison and A. Stace Esqs.

The Royal Oak.

Mr. Reeve put in a similar notice of objection against the Royal Oak. Mr. B.C. Drake appeared for the owners and the licensee.

The Chief Constable said the tenant was Mr. W.H. Collard, and the registered owners were Messrs. Leney and Co., of Dover. The rateable value of the house was £20. The house had a frontage of 16ft. 10in. to the street. There were two entrances. One was to a small bottle and jug department, which was divided from the public bar by a partition about 6ft. high. He other entrance opened into a passage which led into the front bar. The passage also led to a small taproom, which overlooked the back yard. There was a serving window in the passage from which customers could be supplied from the bar. The room at the back was approached by four steps in the passage, and about 11ft. 9in. further down the passage there was the urinal for the use of the customers. On the first floor, over the taproom, there was the club room. That was approached by eleven stairs from the passage. The stairs were winding, very awkward, rather dark, and required artificial lighting. The kitchen and scullery were in the basement at the back of the house, and the cellar was under the front door. There was no back entrance to the premises, but there was a small enclosed back yard. Fifty five yards from the house was the Lord Nelson, and sixty yards away there was the Lifeboat. There were sixteen other on-licensed premises within a radius of 150 yards. The Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street, had a rateable value of £36, the South Foreland, £72, and the Chequers, £28, being the next nearest houses. The house appeared to do a fair trade, especially on Saturday nights. He considered it was structurally inferior to other houses in the area, and if the licence was taken away he had no doubt there would be ample accommodation left at the other houses. He made no complaint as to the conduct or management of the house.

Cross-examined, Mr. Reeve said he was not objecting to the house on the ground that the house was structurally inferior to the others. The chief reason he considered for it being inferior was the steps. The house was very easy of police supervision.

Mr. W.H. Collard said he had been tenant since August 27th. 1901. He was tied for beer, but not for spirits. In 1910 he did 87 gallons of spirits. The average for the last three years was 85 gallons. The rent was £15.

Mr. A.C. Leney, the managing director of the owners, said there had been no convictions since it had been their property. The gross rateable value was £25, and the net was £25 16s. Taking the last three years the average trade was five barrels of beer a week. The trade was increasing. Last year the trade was 265 barrels. If there were any structural alterations required by the Magistrates he would be willing to give an undertaking that they would be carried out.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that the licences of the Lord Nelson and the Isle of Cyprus would be referred to the Quarter Sessions. For those there would be provisional licences. The five other licences would be renewed, but they thought that the owners of the Wellington and the Raglan should consider the question of the urinals.

Folkestone Express 20 February 1915.

Local News.

On Monday morning a sensational discovery was made by Arthur Arnall, of 68, Dudley Road, a railway employee, as he was going down the railway line between the Junction and the Harbour Stations. When almost opposite Messrs. Tolputt's timber yard he came across the headless and nude body of a small infant lying quite close to the outside rail of the down track. He at once gave information of his tragic and terrible discovery, which pointed to a foul crime having been committed. P.C. Cradduck was quickly on the spot and took charge of the body. He then commenced to search round about for the head, or any clue which might lead to the identity of the child. Close by the body was a broken medicine bottle, and that, as subsequent events turned out, proved to be of considerable importance. The constable conveyed the body to the police station, and later to the mortuary.

Later in the morning Inspector Lawrence assisted P.C. Cradduck in his search for anything which might help to the solution of the mystery, and opposite the spot where the body was found, on the other side of the wall which separates the line from a public footpath leading from North Street to East Cliff, were found several baby articles. The police did not flag in their efforts to find the head of the child, or any other matter which would assist them in unravelling what was apparently a terrible crime. So far the head has not been found, but from the inquiries made a Folkestone woman, giving the name of Hannah O'Neale, was arrested by Inspector Lawrence at a house in Palmerston Street, where she had previously been lodging, on a charge of murdering her eight months old child, Phyllis Annie.

The woman against whom the serious charge is preferred is a married woman, but separated from her husband. During the past few months she had been living in lodgings with a soldier named Williams, who is in the Royal Berkshire Regiment. She has during that time had with her her baby girl, which was described as a delicate child, and small. On Saturday she left her lodging in Palmerston Street, taking the child with her, but when she called at the house again on Monday and Tuesday she had not got her baby with her.

On the face of the evidence as at present given before the Magistrates and the Coroner's jury, the police, and particularly Inspector Lawrence, have done some very good work in trying to elucidate the mystery.

The accused, Margaret Hannah O'Neale, appeared on Wednesday before J. Stainer Esq., Alderman F. Hall, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, E.T. Morrison, and A. Stace Esqs.

She is a woman of about 38 years of age, tall, pale and thin. Provided with a seat in the dock, she sat apparently taking notice of the evidence of the witnesses. She did not appear in any way to be excited or to feel her position, but was, to all intents and purposes, quite cool and collected.

The Chief Inspector (Mr. Reeve), at the opening of the proceedings, said the accused was charged with the wilful murder of her eight months old child, Phyllis Annie. The facts briefly were that on Monday morning the nude and headless body of a child was found lying on the railway line on the Tram Road between the Junction and Harbour Stations. As a result of inquiries the prisoner had been arrested and charged with the murder of the child. He was not in a position to complete the case that day, and after calling two or three witnesses he should ask for the prisoner to be remanded in custody, in order that they might complete the case. An inquest on the body would be held that evening by the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines).

P.C. Cradduck said on Monday morning at 7.15 a.m. he was on duty at the Harbour Pier. From information received he went to the Harbour branch line between the Junction and Harbour railway stations, to a point some 80 yards below Radnor Bridge. At that point the railway ran to the foot of a meadow, from which it was divided by a brick wall six feet high. Running through the meadow at the foot of the wall there was a public footpath, which connected North Street and East Cliff. When he arrived at the spot indicated he saw the headless body of a female child. It was absolutely naked. It was lying on its right side with its shoulders near the outside rail of the down line. He did not notice any blood about the spot. When he arrived at the spot he saw several South Eastern Company's men there. Later Arthur Arnall, of 68, Dudley Road, made a communication to him with reference to the body. He removed the body to the police station, and later, on the instructions of the Coroner's Officer, he removed it to the mortuary. When he arrived at the spot he found the medicine bottle (produced) within four feet of the body, lying in the four foot way. The bottle was broken, and in the condition in which it was now. Near the bottle he found fragments of broken glass, and the quantity was sufficient to complete the broken bottle. The inscription on the bottle was “Half a teaspoonful to be taken three times a day”. The word “half” had been substituted in ink instead of the printed word “one”. When he first moved the body there were several blades of coarse grass adhering to it underneath the left arm. Later on he made a careful search in the neighbourhood of the spot, but could not find the missing head. He proceeded with Inspector Lawrence about ten o'clock the same morning to the meadow to which he had referred, and made a search. He found by the side of the footpath at the foot of the wall dividing it from the railway line, and about four feet in the direct line from the spot where he had found the body, the articles he now produced. They consisted of a baby's comforter, with the teat and the tape attached, the baby's sock, cut in two pieces, a piece of tape, two safety pins, and a piece of broken earthenware with red marks, which he took to be blood, upon it.

Elizabeth Margaret Kendall, the wife of John Kendall, a painter, of 17, Palmerston Street, said the prisoner came to her house and took a furnished bedroom in her house about the middle of October. She had with her then a little girl baby, which was about five months old. She said it was her own child. She had not known the prisoner previously, and she gave the name of Mrs. Williams, and said her husband was a soldier in the Royal Berks Regiment. Having engaged the room, she said she would return later with her husband. The same evening she returned with a man in soldier's uniform, the baby, and a kit bag with clothes. She said the man was her husband, Mr. Williams, and he paid the 6/-, the first week's rent of the room in advance. They took possession of the room, and they remained there until Saturday, the 13th inst., when they left in consequence of notice she (witness) had given to them. During the whole period the prisoner, with her baby, had slept in the house, and the soldier came home two or three times a week to sleep. Mr. Williams paid the rent. The prisoner never went out to work. The baby was very small and very delicate, and had an awfully old look. About Monday, the 8th, she advised the prisoner to take the baby to the Victoria Hospital and get advice. She said she would do so, and the same day, about a quarter past nine in the morning, she left the house, having the baby, saying she was going to the hospital. She returned about three quarters of an hour later with the baby and said she had been to the hospital, and the doctor had told her the baby was very delicate, and was inclined to be ruptured, and that the medicine had to be taken three times a day. She showed her (witness) the bottle, as small as the broken bottle produced, with white medicine in it. The bottle had a printed label on it, and she read it out to her (witness) to the effect that the medicine had to be taken three times a day. She (witness) had occasionally nursed the baby, and it had a dummy fastened round its waist with a piece of tape, similar to the dummy produced. The baby always wore a pair of brown socks, similar to the one produced, and she wore a pair of white woollen socks over them. She could not say whether they were tied on. Prisoner left the house about half past one on the 13th inst., taking the baby with her. She said she had to be at Cheriton by two o'clock to meet her “Harry”, meaning the soldier Williams, and that she would be down in the early part of the evening for the things which she was leaving behind her. She saw no more of the prisoner until Monday morning, when she came to the house about ten in the morning. She (witness) told her that she had thought she would come for her things on the Saturday as she had arranged to do. She said she had been in Cheriton, where she was staying with somebody. She asked her the name of the person, but she did not reply. She then asked her where Phyllis (meaning the baby) was, and she said her sister had got it, and was taking it out that (Monday) afternoon. When the prisoner mentioned her sister, she understood it to be a person in North Street, but whom she (witness) had never seen, although the prisoner had spoken about her previously. She wrapped up and took away her husband's clothes, saying she was going to St. Martin's Plain on the Camp with them. She next saw the prisoner the previous afternoon (Tuesday), when she came to her house about half past two. She said she had come to fetch her things, and she (witness) told her to take them away. She brought them downstairs, and left them on the kitchen table. She (witness) put them in a kit bag, and whilst she was doing that her (witness's) little nurse girl came to the house with her little baby in the pram, at a quarter to four. She asked the girl, in the prisoner's hearing, to keep the baby out until a quarter past four. Prisoner said “I am going down the town. I will take the baby if you like”. She left the house with the girl and the baby. Before that she had asked her where her baby was, and she replied “I have left it at Cheriton with the landlady's daughter”. Whilst the prisoner aws out, Inspector Lawrence came to the house. The prisoner returned about five o'clock with her (witness's) baby, and she said to her “A gentleman wants to see you, Mrs. Williams. He has been waiting for you in the front room”. She replied “Who is he; is he an officer?” She then said “No”. She then went into the room where the Inspector was, and shortly after the Inspector removed her from the house. When the prisoner asked her if it was an officer, she (witness) understood her to mean a military officer, not a police officer, as she (witness) had sent in a claim, with the prisoner's knowledge, to the military authorities for the damage done to the furniture. Williams last slept at her house on Friday night, the 12th, and she had not seen him since.

The Clerk: How did she seem to treat the child?

Witness said she seemed to treat the child all right, and she meant by that that she was kind to it. The baby was often crying. She did not think at those times the prisoner had much patience with it. The sock (produced) would, she thought, fit the baby.

Annie Dorothy Tuffe, a widow, of 22 North Street, said she had been employed for many years past as attendant at the Folkestone Bathing Establishment. The prisoner was her sister, about 36 years of age, and her name was Margaret Hannah Neale. She was the wife of Ernest John Neale, to whom she was married about 14 or 15 years ago. They had been separated for about nine years. They had three children. She (witness) knew her sister was confined of a daughter, named Phyllis Annie, at the Infirmary, Lyminge, on the 15th or 16th June last. She and her sister had not been on intimate terms since October twelve months. On Saturday night, the 13th, she was in North Street, about a quarter or ten minutes to eight. Her sister was standing outside the Royal Oak public house, with a baby in her arms. She could not say the age of the child, as she did not see it close. They did not speak. She (witness) went in the Royal Oak, and came out at eight o'clock, but she did not then see the prisoner.

Elizabeth Milton, of 3, Bates Alley, the wife of David Smith Milton, a fisherman, said she was in North Street between half past seven and eight on Saturday evening, when she saw the prisoner standing outside the Royal Oak. She had a young baby in her arms. She said to the prisoner, whom she knew, “Hello, Maggie”, and she replied something – she thought “Good evening”. She (witness) went into the Royal Oak, and when she came out at eight o'clock the prisoner had gone. Either that night or the following night, after eight o'clock the prisoner came to her house with a baby in her arms, and asked her if she could put her up, and she told her she could not. When the prisoner came to her house it was a very dirty night, as it was raining and blowing.

Prisoner asked her if it was not half past nine on Saturday night when she called at Mrs. Milton's house. Neither Mrs. Kilton nor her sister had, she said, seen her previously up North Street that night. It was the Saturday previous that she was up North Street with Williams.

Mrs. Milton said when she saw Mrs. Neale outside the Royal Oak, a soldier in khaki brought her out a glass of stout. It was certainly last Saturday that she saw the prisoner, not the previous Saturday.

The Clerk at this stage advised the prisoner not to make statements, in view of the serious charge against her.

The prisoner further said: All I say is that I was not up in North Street outside Collar's (the Royal Oak) last Saturday night at eight o'clock or a quarter to eight.

Bergari Rossi, a confectioner, of 64, Tontine Street, said he let beds. A woman came to his house on Sunday evening between half past eight and a quarter past nine, and asked him if he had a bed for the night. He could not swear that the prisoner was the person, who seemed to be rather taller, because they had only a very short conversation, and she was taken upstairs almost immediately. He did not see her again. He let the woman have a room for 2/-. The woman had no baby with her, but carried a small parcel under her arm. That morning he came to the police station and five or six women were paraded before him. He identified her and pointed out the prisoner as the woman who looked the most of the appearance of the person who had engaged the room at his house on Sunday night. He pointed her out to the police officer by placing his hand on her shoulder. When he did so the prisoner said nothing.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could take the case that morning. He, therefore, asked the Magistrates to grant a remand for a week, so that he could make further inquiries into the matter.

The prisoner was then formally remanded for a week, and she left the dock quite unaided.

Inquest.

On Wednesday Mr. G.W. Haines (the Borough Coroner) conducted an inquiry into the circumstances concerning the finding of the headless body of the child, who was described as unknown.

Mrs. O'Neale was present during the proceedings, and her demaenour was similar to that shown in the Police Court proceedings earlier in the day. She was quite unmoved, and calmly sat listening to the evidence.

The Coroner, at the commencement of the proceedings, addressing her, said: This is an inquest on the death of a female infant found on Monday without its head. I understand that you are charged with the murder of it. You will hear the evidence here. The jury will have to say whether you or someone else, if this child has been murdered, did it, and if so, to commit such individual to take their trial on a charge of murder. You are here so that you may, if you think necessary, have an opportunity of asking any questions.

Arthur Frank Arnall, of 68, Dudley Road, Folkestone, said he was an electrician. About 7.15 on Monday morning he was proceeding to the Harbour Station, where he was employed. Half way down the line there was a bridge crossing the railway, known as Radnor Bridge. He was alone. After passing the bridge, the line is skirted on the left hand side by a wooden fence with barbed wire ontop. That fence continued past some houses known as East Cliff Villas, where the fence terminated and a brick wall commenced. On the other side of the brick wall was a pathway, and on the other side of the pathway was a meadow. About a quarter of the way down the brick wall, commencing from the first house in North Street, he saw the body of a child with its head missing. It was perfectly nude, and was lying on the outside of the metals on the down side. It was quite at right angles to the metals, the feet pointing towards the wall, the neck being an inch or two from the railway metal. It was lying on its back. He did not notice the position of its arms. There was no blood near, but there were two or three marks of dried blood on its chest. There was a small medicine bottle, which was broken, lying between the metals of the four foot way on the down side, ywo feet lower down towards the Harbour. He felt the body, but did not move it. He pointed out the body to a guard on a passing engine, and proceeded to his work.

P.C. Cradduck gave similar evidence as that given by him before the Magistrates earlier in the day. Describing the position in which he found the body, he said its left arm was lying across its chest. He did not think the body could have been thrown over. The body was quite clean except underneath, where there were several blades of grass between the left arm and the body. There was no disturbance of the shingle where the body was lying. If it had been thrown over the six-foot wall he should have expected a disturbance of the shingle. On the railway side the wall was about two and a half feet less in height. On Monday morning the weather was fine and frosty, and the ground near the body was quite dry. He had made a search of the whole surrounding district, but had not been able to find the missing head.

Dr. F.J. Lidderdale said on Monday he made a post mortem examination of the headless body of a female child. The weight of the remains was eight lbs. The head had been removed at the level of the inset into the shoulder, at the division between the sixth and seventh cerebral vertebrae. The skin was covered with fine gritty black. Behind the soft parts there were some dents, probably from lying on stone. There was no wound or bruising, and there was only the faintest trace of post mortem state. Rigor mortis was fairly marked. The head had been removed by cutting, the skin edge being quite sharp behind. Above the left shoulder there were four sharp cuts quite close together in the space of a quarter of an inch. The commencement of the cuts pointed back. The cut in front was quite sharp until it had crossed the middle line, and more blunt and a little irregular as it got towards the right shoulder. The trachea and the clotis were clean cut, the upper edge of the former being from half to three quarters of an inch below the remaining vertebrae, the division between the two vertebrae being clean cut and quite smooth. On opening the chest the lungs were blanched to a pale putty colour, and showed no signs of disease. The heart was empty. The abdomen showed no signs of disease except the blanching of the organs. Those conditions all pointed to a death by heamorrhage.

The Coroner: Could you form any idea how the severance of the head was caused?

Dr. Lidderdale: It must have been done by some extremely sharp instrument.

The Coroner: Would any considerable force have to be used?

Dr. Lidderdale: Yes, unless the division was found by a lucky shot.

The witness further said that the only sign of hesitation about the matter was the four cuts on the back. He should say the head was severed by a person who was accustomed to use sharp instruments. He was of that opinion looking at the fact of the cut being so cleanly done. He could not say whether it could have been done by a person not having the knowledge of the use of sharp instruments. The head might not have been severed during life. The child's throat might have been cut first, and the head severed afterwards.

The Coroner inquired if the witness could give them any idea of the age of the child.

Dr. Lidderdale said, taking its present weight at eight lbs., they ought to allow two lbs. for the head. Tking the blood in the body as a third of the weight, then the total would come to about twelve lbs. The average weight of a child's body was seven lbs., and the increase was a quarter of a lb. a week. Therefore, if the weight of the child was twelve lbs., taking it on the average he had mentioned, it would give the age of the child as somewhere about twenty weeks old. If the child had started at seven lbs., it might have gained less than a quarter of a lb. a week, which would all depend on how it was fed. If it was well fed it might gain more.. The average weight of a child at twelve months old was 18 lbs., and working out that on an average, the weight of the deceased might lead him to suppose that the child was about eight months. He should describe the child as a fairly nourished baby. The deceased could not be less than two months old, and certainly was not twelve months. He could not say anything other than that, for owing to the head being missing it was impossible to judge its exact age.

At this stage the Coroner intimated to the jury that the proceedings would be of a lengthy nature, as there were many witnesses to be called, therefore it was necessary that there should be an adjournment.

Eventually the inquest was adjourned until the following afternoon at two o'clock.

The adjourned inquest commenced on Thursday at two o'clock.

Mrs. O'Neale was again provided with a seat behind the witness's stand, and was again apparently unconcerned.

Arnall, recalled, said he came up the line on Sunday morning about 11 o'clock from the Harbour to the East Cliff crossing. The line was then absolutely clear. Had the body been there then he was sure he would have noticed it.

Mrs. Elizabeth Margaret Kendall, of 19, Palmerston Street, was next called. She practically gave similar evidence as that before the Police Court. She said further, that on Monday morning, when Mrs. Williams called at her house she had a small brown paper parcel with her. She went upstairs to her room, and remained there about a quarter of an hour. She came downstairs with her husband's washing in her hand, and she (witness) saw her do it up in brown paper. When Mrs. Williams left the house on the Saturday the firegrate in her room was empty, but on the Monday after she had gone she saw the remains of a lot of burnt material. She pointed out that to Inspector Lawrence on Wednesday. She identified the charred and burnt material now produced as that which was in the grate and removed in her presence. The Inspector showed her the bloodstained piece of newspaper (produced) which he had taken from the grate. The woolen sock (produced) was similar to the socks worrn by Mrs. Williams's child. The brown charred piece of material (produced) she recognised as the same material colour as the jacket worn by the baby on Saturday.

At this stage a brown paper parcel was brought into the Court by Inspector Lawrence and placed on the table in front of the witness. Upon it being unwrapped, the head of a child was revealed. Mrs. O'Neale, upon seeing it, appeared likely to faint, and a glass of water had to be obtained for her.

Mrs. Kendall said she identified the head produced by Inspector Lawrence as that of the child Phyllis, of whom Mrs. Williams (O'Neale) was the mother, and whom she took away with her on Saturday. She also identified the dark blue scarf, in which the head was wrapped, as the one which was over the little child's coat on Saturday. The white woollen shawl (produced), which was also in the parcel, was round the child's feet on Saturday. During the time Mrs. Williams was with her, Mrs. Williams never offered to take her (witness's) child out.

Nurse Lillian Roussy Liebert said she was the nurse in the out-patients' department at the Royal Victoria Hospital. She recognised Mrs. O'Neale as a woman who called at the Hospital, she thought, on Monday, the 8th. She brought a baby girl with her. She (witness) asked her what was the matter with the baby, and she said she did not know. She asked her then what she wanted, and she sai she wanted the baby examined by the doctor. After the examination the doctor said there was nothing the matter with the child. The woman seemed very agitated and worried about the child, and she (witness) told her it was a bonny baby. She replied “I do not think so. It is very delicate”. Soon after the house surgeon returned and handed the mother a small bottle, containing petroleum emulsion, which would be a white, thick fluid. The bottle was not quite full, as in filling it the doctor broke the larger bottle from which he was filling it, and they had not enough to fill the small bottle. The broken bottle (produced) was exactly similar in size and shape and label as used at the Hospital. From an inspection of the bottle and the contents on the sides, she should say the contents were most decidedly petroleum emulson. She had seen the head produced by Inspector Lawrence, and as near as she could say she thought she thought it was the head of the child she saw at the Hospital on the Monday, she going by the size and the shape of the features. The baby was very bright, and laughed on the Monday.

Mrs. Tuffe, the sister of the accused woman, repeated the evidence given by her before the Magistrates. She further said she had never taken charge of the baby at any time, neither had her sister asked her to take it for her.

Mrs. Milton was again called, and her evidence was on similar lines as on the previous day at the Police Court hearing.

Miss Lilian May Foad, of 30, North Street, said she lived with her parents. She knew Mrs. O'Neale, whom she had known for several years. She saw her on Saturday evening about ten minutes to seven outside the Royal Oak. She had then a baby in her arms, and was with a soldier. She (witness) again saw her on Sunday morning between ten and half past going up North street. She then had a baby in her arms. The woman went up the road, and she (witness) had not seen her since.

Mrs. Adeline Bush, of 44, High Street, Cheriton, said she identified the woman (Mrs. O'Neale) in Court as the woman who came to her house between two and three o'clock on Monday afternoon. She (witness) had a card up in her window. The woman asked for a bedroom for herself and husband. She showed her a room and she arranged to let it to her at 5/- a week. On the Monday night the woman and the soldier in khaki, whom she (witness) recognised as the man in Court, arrived at the house about eight o'clock. They brought no luggage, except that the woman carried a small paper parcel. They remained indoors. The woman gave her 2/- as a deposit, and was going to pay the rest on Wednesday morning. On Tuesday morning the soldier (Williams) left the house between six and a quarter past, but the woman did not go out until the afternoon at three o'clock. The woman said she was coming back at six o'clock to meet her husband, but she did not return. The soldier called at six o'clock to see if his wife was back, and he told her to send her to the White Lion if she came. About midday today (Thursday) Inspector Lawrence called at her house. She took him up to the bedroom occupied by the man and woman. No-one had occupied it since they left. He searched the room, and between the mattress and the spring mattress he found the parcel (produced), which she saw opened by the Inspector. She also saw it contained the head of a child.

Inspector Frank Lawrence said on Monday at ten o'clock he visited, in company with P.C. Cradduck, the railway line between the Junction and the Harbour Stations, and about 60 yards below the Radnor Bridge the constable pointed out to him where he found the body and the broken bottle. He made a search, but could find no trace of blood. On looking over the brick wall on to the footpath leading from East Cliff to North Street, he saw the dummy teat with tape attached, the portions of the brown sock, and the two safety pins. He went round to the footpath and took possession of the articles. He examined the spot, and there were what he took to be bloodstains on the grass and the soil. He made inquiries on that day, and at 5 p.m. he went to 19, Palmerston Street, where he saw Mrs. Kendall. Eventually the accused woman came in. he said to her “Is your name Mrs. Williams?” She said “No, Sharpe”. He said to her “You have been living here with a man named Williams. You know me?” She replied “Yes”. He asked her to come outside, and he then cautioned her in the usual form, and said “Where is your baby?” She replied “96, Shaftesbury Avenue, Cheriton”. He said “Can I see it?” She hesitated some time, and he then said “Can you show me it? I will go with you”. He accompanied her to Cheriton. On arrival there she was proceeding up High Street, and he said “I thought you said Shaftesbury Avenue. This is quite the opposite direction”. She replied “No, Military Avenue”. He accompanied her there, where she hesitated. He then said “Who has your baby?”, and she replied “Mr. Forman. It is right at the top on the left”. She then went to the door of No. 8 and knocked. A soldier answered the door. She asked the soldier of Mrs. Forman was in, and he replied “No. Mrs. Clarke lives here”. The accused turned to go away, but he stopped her. The accused said “I thought you were Mrs. Forman. Where is my baby?” He said to Mrs. Clarke “Do you know this woman? Have you her baby?”, and Mrs. Clarke said she had not seen the woman before. Mrs. Clarke said a Mrs. Forman lived in Alma Road, and he accompanied the woman Williams, who on arrival there said she did not know the house. From inquiries they made they found a Mrs. Forman lived at No.13. On arrival there the prisoner knocked on the door and walked into the house. They eventually saw Mrs. Forman, whom he asked in the presence of Williams if she knew her (Williams) or anything of her baby. She replied “I do not know her. I have never seen her before, or her baby”. The accused made a reply, and said “Oh, yes, you have”. Mrs. Forman again replied that she had not. He then took her outside, and he again cautioned her. He told her a child had been found on the railway between the Junction and the Harbour Stations on the previous day, and that its head was missing, and from inquiries he had made he had every reason to believe it was her child. He then said he should take her to Folkestone police station and charged her with causing its death while he made a few more inquiries. “Oh, Christ, I have put it out while looking for work. My baby is all right”. He brought her to the police station, and later charged her with wilfully murdering her eight months old child, Phyllis Annie O'Neale, whose headless body was found on the railway on the 15th. She replied “I understand. I put the child out while I was looking for work”. She was detained. About two o'clock on Wednesday he again went to 19, Palmerston Street, and under the fire grate in the room pointed out to him by Mrs. Kendall he found the woollen sock (produced), and a piece of the Daily Sketch, dated February 13th. In the fire grate he found the charred material (produced). At a quarter past twelve that day he went to 44, High Street, Cheriton, and was shown a back bedroom on the first floor by Mrs. Bush. He searched the room, and between the mattress and the wire spring he found a brown paper parcel at the head of the bed on the wall side of the bed. He opened the parcel in the presence of Mrs. Bush. First there came the brown paper, then there was a white woollen shawl, and underneath that a blue knitted scarf with white stripes. Inside the scarf was a white cloth, in which the head of a child was tied up. In the room he also found a pair of soldiers' puttees and two handkerchiefs. The bed was in the corner of the room, and the side of the bed was up against the wall. The parcel was right up in the corner of the bed.

The Coroner called Pte. Williams forward, and pointed out if he was really the woman's husband he could not be compelled to give evidence.

Williams said he was not married to the woman.

The Coroner then asked him if he wished to give evidence, and receiving a reply in the affirmative, he warned him that should anything arise against him (Williams) the evidence might be used in evidence against him.

John Williams said he was a private in the 5th Berkshire Regiment, stationed at St. Martin's Plain, Shorncliffe. He knew the woman's name as Margaret Neale. He had known her since the end of August. He met her first in the Clarendon Hotel. He did not know then that she had a child. Subsequently he met her frequently for the night. Just over three months ago they commenced to pass as man and wife. She was previously working at the Langhorne Hotel in the kitchen. When she left he told her he would get a room for her, and support her. He then knew that she had the baby, which was about three or four months old. Its name was Phyllis. They took a room in Broadmead Road for one week, and subsequently they went to 19, Palmerston Street, where they paid 6/- a week, he giving her the money. She there passed as Mrs. Williams. He was a single man. The baby was not his, and it was born before he met her. They got notice to leave 19, Palmerston Street a week last Saturday. He left her on Saturday at six o'clock in the morning, and he told her to meet him at the Victoria, Cheriton, at two o'clock. She had told him previously that she knew of a room at Cheriton. He met her at two o'clock at the Victoria. She then had the child with her. They walked to the White Lion Hotel. She informed him that the room she had spoken about was let. He left her and promised to meet her at the White Lion again at six o'clock. He, however did not go, because it was raining – in fact it was a very rough night. He did not see her again that night. Before leaving her at two o'clock he gave her sixpence, and he believed she had some other coppers. It bothered him as to what she was going to do, but he got into the Star, at Newington, with some mates, and he stopped there playing darts until eight o'clock. He then went to the barracks. On the next day he thought she would come up to the Camp, as she had done before. She did not come. He did not, however, see her until the Monday dinner time at one o'clock, when she came up to the Camp with his washing. She had another parcel with her, but he did not inquire what it was. She had not the baby. On other occasions when she had been up she had had the baby with her. He asked her where it was, and she said they were minding it down in North Street. He asked her where she had stopped on the Saturday and Sunday night, and she said in Tontine Street. He told her he had to go to the Pavilion Hotel to interview an officer about a letter, and said that he would walk down to Folkestone with her. They got to the Gun Tavern just after two o'clock, and had a drink there. He went to the Pavilion Hotel, the woman leaving him on the way at the Clarendon. They had a drink there and walked back to Cheriton. He asked her if she had any money, and she said she had a shilling. He asked her where she was going that night, and she said she would try to get a room. Whilst in High Street, Cheriton, they saw a card in a widnow of a house, and it stated “Furnished room to let”. She went into the house, and when she came out she said she had arranged for the room, which was 5/- a week, and she had paid the 2/- down. They walked to the White Lion, where they remained until between six and seven o'clock. He then said he must get back to the Camp, and she said “Can't you stop with me tonight. You don't want to go back to Camp tonight”. He had not a pass, but they went to the room together. They went to bed just after eight o'clock. He knew that she had a parcel with her, and he asked her what was in it, and she replied “It is the baby's clothes”. The woman told him that the people in North Street were going to look after the baby for a couple of months until she could pull herself together. He thought that she referred to her sister. He got up on Tuesday morning just after a quarter past six, and told her he would be home just after six o'clock at night. He went there at night and inquired of the landlady if she had been there, and she said she had not. He went back to Camp with a mate, and slept in barracks. On Wednesday morning he was seen by a police officer and came over to Folkestone.

The Coroner: You say on the Saturday night you were at Newington?

Witness: Yes, and I have witnesses to prove it, and on Sunday. Proceeding, he said when he left the woman on Saturday she was sober enough, and again on Monday when he saw her she was also sober. She always seemed fond of the child, and was worried about it. The last week or so she was more worried, because he had told her they were going away. He told her to see some of the visiting ladies, and tell them that he had supported her, and so she would be able to get an allowance from the authorities while he was away. His visit to the Pavilion Hotel was in connection with that matter. On the Monday the woman seemed to be quite her usual self, and he saw no difference in her manner.

The inquest was adjourned until today (Friday) at four o'clock.

Folkestone Express 27 February 1915.

Inquest.

The adjourned inquest on the headless body of the infant found on the railway between the Junction and the Harbour station last week was conducted by Mr. G.W. Haines(the Borough Coroner) on Friday afternoon. There were several sensational incidents, the chief of which was when the mother of the child, Hannah Margaret Neale, practically admitted that she had killed her child, a painful scene following her disclosure. There was a fairly large attendance at the inquiry.

Mrs. Neale was again provided with a seat in Court, and to all outward appearances practically throughout she was calm and collected. It was only when she made her admission and at the close of the proceedings when she was committed for trial when she showed any emotion. She was so affected at the close that she had to be carried out of the Court.

Dr. Lidderdale, re-called, said on the previous day Inspector Lawrence handed to him the head of a child. He examined the head together with the trunk which he had previously examined, and he found that the cut of the lowest vertebra remaining on the head corresponded with the cut on the highest vertebra remaining on the body. The skin incisions also corresponded. There was one point he would like to correct in his previous evidence, and that was with regard to the divisions of the vertebra of the neck. Instead of the head being severed between the sixth and seventh, it would be between the second and third. In his opinion the head belonged to the trunk. The face of the child gave on a little clue to its age. It was a child quite six months old. There were no teeth through at all. There were no other marks of violence on the face. He had discovered three very faint vaccination marks on the left arm. The scars had completely lost their colour, which showed they were at least six months old.

The Coroner then summed up. He said the duty of the jury was to find out how, and by what means, the child came to her death, and whether by such means anyone was criminally liable. He retraced the evidence of the finding of the headless trunk on the railway, and that there were no bloodstains on the shingle; the finding of the broken bottle, the child's dummy teat and brown sock, which had been identified by Mrs. Kendall, with whom Mrs. Neale had lodged in the name of Williams with a soldier, and her baby, as belonging to the baby. The broken bottle, he said, had contained a liquid of a thickish white consistency, and the nurse at the Hospital stated that it was similar to what was supplied to the woman at the Hospital for her child. He did not know whether the particulars would be sufficient for them to identify the child, but since the inquiry commenced the head had been found, and the doctor had told them that it was the exact counterpart of the missing head by the skin and the vertebra. There was, he thought, no doubt now that the head had been found, that it and the trunk was that of the child of Hannah Margaret Neale. The woman was last seen with the baby on Sunday morning by Miss Foad, and from then there was no evidence as to the movements of the woman until after Monday morning, when the child's headless body was found on the railway. The woman was seen about on the same day without the child. There was no evidence before them, except that of the doctor, who stated that the head had been severed by a sharp instrument, as to where and how the head had been severed. It certainly was not run over by a train, or otherwise near the spot where the body was found there would have been a sufficient flow of blood to have left some trace on the ground. The spot had been carefully searched, and no blood had been found. Therefore, it was to be presumed, that the body was placed there. Subsequently the head of the infant was found under the mattress of the very bed that the accused woman and Pte. Williams had slept in on Monday night. She had been seen with a brown paper parcel even by Williams on Monday, and the parcel found under the mattress contained the child's scarf and shawl and the head of the baby. They had heard when she was asked who had the baby she replied that her sister had it. They also had the fact that she had made statements about people having the baby, which were lies. Circumstantial evidence was necessary very often to bring home crimes to people; they could not always see those things done. In addition to the finding of the body and other things they had heard that Mrs. Neal went back to her old lodgings, and later a quantity of the charred remains of the child's clothes was found in the fire grate of the room she had occupied. All the circumstances pointed to the fact that the child's death was due to its having its head severed from its body. It was for the jury to say whether that was done by anyone with malice, intending to take away the child's life. The man Williams, with whom the woman had been living, did not seem to have been paying her very much, but he seemed to have been paying something towards her support. He had, however, told her that the regiment was likely to be going away shortly, and she was worrying over it. What reason she could have for taking the life of her child it was difficult to understand, but if she did not take the life of the child, who did? Who was going to take the head of her baby and put it where it was found, under the mattress on which she had slept? It was open to the accused to offer any evidence, but they had none before them. It was for the jury to say upon the facts whether she should take her trial for murder.

The Coroner then asked Mrs. Neale to stand up, and addressing her, he said: You have heard all the evidence which has been given here, and what I have said.

Mrs. Neale (faintly): Yes, sir.

The Coroner: You see a very serious question arises as to the position in which you stand. You are not bound to say anything at all; in fact, I advise you not to. This Court is, however, open, and everyone concerned is entitled to give evidence if they desire to do so. If anything is said by you it has to be taken down by me, and it will be used in evidence against you. You have nothing to hope or fear from anything you might say. Under the circumstances I do not advise you to say anything. You are not being tried here; this is only to decide a prima facie case. You can say something if you want to, but if you take my advice you won't say anything.

Mrs. Neale, starting forward with her hands tightly clenched, tearfully said “Yes, I did it. I am sorry, I did do it”. This admission caused a great sensation in the Court. The accused would have tottered to the floor but for being caught by the female attendant. She appeared almost to be on the point of fainting. Mrs. Tuffe, her sister, cried out “Oh, Hannah!”, and had to be led from the Court weeping bitterly.

The Coroner once more addressed the jury. He said the woman was apparently very wrought and distressed, and he advised them to ignore what she had said and only consider the evidence before them.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and were absent for twenty minutes. On their return to the Court the foreman said the jury were of opinion that the child, Phyllis Neale, had been wilfully murdered, and, according to the evidence, Margaret Hannah Neale was responsible for the cause of her death. The jury wished to give great credit to the police for the way in which they had conducted the inquiry.

The Coroner: Yes, they have had a lot of work.

Mrs. Neale was then requested to stand up, and upon her doing so the Coroner addressed her as follows: Margaret Hannah Neale, you have heard the jury's verdict. You are now committed to take your trial for murder at the next assizes at Maidstone.

The accuse replied “Yes, sir”, and then proceeded to leave the Court. As she passed Pte. Williams she rushed towards him. She took hold of his hand, cried out “Goodbye”, and then bent down and passionately kissed him. She then commenced to cry bitterly, and eventually had to be carried out of the Court by P.C. Cradduck. Mrs. Tuffe also wept bitterly, and kept crying out “Oh, Hannah, why did you do it?” She also had to be led out of the Court.

On Wednesday the prisoner was again brought before the Court.

The Chief Constable said he wished to apply for a further remand. Since the last remand a Coroner's Inquest had been held, and the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against the prisoner. The matter had been taken in hand by the Public Prosecutor, and he therefore asked for a remand.

Prisoner was remanded for a week.

Folkestone Express 6 March 1915.

Local News.

On Wednesday Margaret Hannah Neale again appeared before the Magistrates on a charge of murdering her eight months old child, Phyllis, on February 14th. It will be remembered that the evidence was fully gone into at the inquest, when the whole story, from the finding of the headless and nude trunk on the Tram Road railway lines to the discovery of the head between the mattress and the spring mattress of the bed on which the woman slept at Cheriton with Pte. Williams, with whom she lived as his wife, the night before her arrest, was told. A sensational moment characterised the proceedings on Wednesday, when the accused, notwithstanding a warning from the Magistrates' Clerk, made a full confession of what occurred on the last day she was seen with the child. All through the hearing of the evidence she maintained a cool composure, and her statement was given in a clear manner. She was provided with a seat in the dock, and followed the evidence generally with downcast face. Her sister, Mrs. Tuffe, was overcome when she heard the accused woman's statement, and burst out crying.

The Magistrates were J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and J.J. Giles Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Hall, and Colonel Owen.

Mr. H. Harker appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Public Prosecutor. He said that since the last appearance of prisoner there was fresh evidence to hand, which would be given at that hearing. Mrs. Kendall, they would remember, said that prisoner had come to her house on the 15th in order to fetch some washing, and she remained in the room for fifteen or twenty minutes. When Mrs. Kendall went to the prisoner's room she found charred material in the fire grate, and which she identified as the clothing of the child. Mrs. Bush, 44, High Street, Cheriton, had let a room to prisoner and a soldier named Williams, and on the 18th Inspector Lawrence had made a search and found a parcel, which contained the head of the child, under the bed which prisoner had occupied. He was sure the Magistrates did not want to go into the old evidence, but they had a little fresh evidence to give. If the Magistrates were satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against prisoner after hearing the evidence, they would doubtless commit her to take her trial at the next Assizes for the County for the murder of her child.

Mrs. Kendall, with whom the prisoner lodged in Palmerston Street, Arthur Frank Arnall, who found the body on the railway, Mrs. Bush, of Cheriton, and Miss Foad gave similar evidence to that adduced at the inquest.

John Williams, of the 5th Royal Berkshire Regiment, also repeated his evidence. He further said when prisoner brought his washing to the Camp she was carrying another brown paper parcel. She had that when he left her at the Clarendon Hotel the same afternoon. When he asked her what it was, she said “Some of baby's clothes”. When he left her at the Clarendon Hotel he went to the Royal Pavilion Hotel to see an officer. When they walked to Cheriton he could not remember whether the prisoner still had the parcel then. The bed at 44, High Street was in the corner up against the wall, and was the only bed in the room. They slept there, and he slept on the outside of the bed, and prisoner against the wall. When the prisoner saw him on the Monday she seemed in her usual spirits. He had told her a week before that his regiment were under orders and she seemed worried about it. Prisoner had always been kind and affectionate towards the child.

Mr. Harker: Did you have a razor at 44, High Street?

Williams: No, sir, nor at 19, Palmerston Street. He added that he had taken some things to Palmerston Street, and when he left there on the Saturday morning he left them there. Amongst them he had left a table knife and a pen-knife, and he had not seen them since.

Inspector F. Lawrence repeated the evidence given at the inquest, and said when he found the head he went at 9 o'clock that night to the mortuary with Dr. Lidderdale. He there saw the trunk of the child, and handed the doctor the head.

Miss Lilian Lucy Liebart, a nurse in the out-patients' department at the Royal Victoria Hospital gave similar evidence as that given at the inquest.

Dr. Lidderdale, in the course of his evidence, which was on practically the same lines as given before the Coroner, said death could only have taken place within twenty four hours of when he saw the body on Monday. There was no doubt in his mind that the head found in the house at Cheriton belonged to the trunk found on the railway.

P.C. Cradduck said he was present at the inquest on Friday, February 19th. He heard the Coroner tell the prisoner she could give evidence if she wished, and she was cautioned. She was not sworn as a witness. He heard her make a statement. She then said “I did do it. I am sorry. I did do it”. She was then in a very agitated state of mind.

This completed the evidence for the prosecution.

The usual caution was read by the Chairman, and the Clerk said the accused could make a statement if she wished. He told her that whatever she said would be used in evidence against her, but he advised her not to say anything at all.

Prisoner said “All I wish to say is I'm Guilty. I was driven to do what I did do. On the Saturday I was out with that child in the wind, and I went over to Cheriton to see Williams. I partly had got a room at 37, Church Road, and I had to call later in the evening. I met Williams at 2.30 outside the Victoria. He asked me where I was going to stay, and I told him I didn't know. He went in the White Lion, and I had a glass of stout outside. He asked me if I had got any money, and I said “No”, so he gave me a sixpence. I took the motor and I came over to Folkestone, which would be about four o'clock. I went to Mrs. Boorn, at 9, North Street, and stopped with her two hours. I took the child's socks off, and she dried them for me. She filled the child's bottle with milk, as the child hadn't had any all day. I then took the motor and went back to Cheriton, and I waited about where Williams had promised to meet me at six o'clock, thinking I should see him. I went round to 37, Church Road, and the woman told me the room was let. She asked me in her front room. I tidied myself up. It was raining hard and blowing, and the baby was crying. I came back to the White Lion again, still thinking I should see Williams, and I walked back into Folkestone. That would be about twenty minutes to eight. I came along Tontine Street, and walked back again, still thinking I should see Williams in the town. My baby was wet through and so was I. About 9.30 I went up to Mrs. Milton's, and she said she couldn't take the likes of me or the kiddie in, and she turned round and swore at me. I told her it was for the baby's sake, if she could just take her in and dry her clothes. She told me to go somewhere else. I walked about till about a quarter to eleven, and going through Tontine Street again I met Mr. Harris, who lives in North Street. He asked me what I was doing at that time and in that weather, and I told him I hadn't got anywhere to go. He said he was sorry. I went up North Street to put the baby in the passage of my step-father's house, but it would be no use, as the baby was crying. I knocked at Mrs. Harris's door, and she opened it to me. She made me take all the baby's clothes off in the kitchen, and she dried them for me. I kept down in the kitchen all that night. On the Sunday morning, about half past ten, I left her house and went up North Street. It was raining then, and all that Sunday I was over in the Warren till evening passed. Twice I made attempts to throw myself over the cliff with the child, and I was stopped by two soldiers. I don't know who they were, and I have never seen them since. They gave me all the money they had, which amounted to two shillings, and a separate threepence to get the child some food. One held the baby while I wiped the mud off the boots on the grass. They came with me as far as St. Peter's Church, where I sat down on a seat.The baby was absolutely exhausted with the cold, and I didn't know what to do, and I did what I did do on that seat. I picked her up and I took her to the back of those houses. There was a train coming down. I waited till that passed and climbed on to the line, and I gathered what clothes there were and I put them in the shawl. I went up to the Junction Station, and I was going down into Dover, and I determined to do away with myself. The guard wouldn't let me through, and told me to go home. I went into Tontine Street, and there I got a bed at ross's. I didn't sleep, and I didn't take my clothes off, and I don't know any more.

The Chairman said the prisoner would be committed to take her trial at the next Assizes.

On hearing the Magistrates' decision, she left the dock and quietly walked out of the Court to the cells.

Folkestone Express 19 June 1915.

Local News.

The Kent Assizes opened on Wednesday at Maidstone, when included in the calendar was the case of Margaret Neale, a Folkestone woman, charged with the murder of her infant child at Folkestone on February 14th. A true bill was returned by the Grand Jury against her, and the trial has been fixed for today (Saturday). Mr. T. Matthew is appearing on behalf of the prosecution.

Folkestone Express 26 June 1915.

Kent Assizes.

On Saturday at the Kent Assizes, held at Maidstone, Margaret Hannah Neale, aged 37, was charged before Justice Darling with murdering her child, Phyllis Annie, aged eight months, at Folkestone, on February 14th, and was sentenced to death. The demeanour of the prisoner all through the hearing was similar to that shown by her at the Coroner's Inquest and the Magisterial hearings, and she betrayed no emotion or apparent grief at her foul deed. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Theo Matthew, who was assisted by Mr. Wakeley, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Thesiger.

In opening the case, Mr. Matthew said the headless body of the child was found on the railway line at Folkestone, while its head was discovered at a house where prisoner was lodging. The jury would have no doubt that the head was cut off before the body was deposited on the line. The prisoner's explanation was that at the time she was suffering from great stress of mind, the man (a soldier) with whom she was living being about to leave her, and, being desperate, she did that horrible thing. If she was insane when she committed that crime she would not be responsible in law; only insanity could be an excuse for such an act. Proceeding, Mr. Matthew said at the time of the affair prisoner was cohabiting with a soldier named Williams, who was stationed at Shorncliffe, and in October last she took a room at the house of a Mrs. Kendall at Folkestone. At that time she had the child, which was then about five months old. She told Mrs. Kendall that her name was Williams, and that her husband was a soldier. Williams used to stay two or three times a week. Sometime in February Mrs. Kendall gave prisoner notice to leave her house, and she left on February 13th. The same evening she was seen outside the Royal Oak public house with the baby, and asked someone to take her in for the night, saying she wanted shelter. The woman, however, could not accommodate her, and prisoner eventually stayed the night at another house. The next morning, February 14th, she was seen with the baby in North Street, and there was no doubt that she killed the child that evening. That night she spent at another house in Folkestone, and on the morning of the 15th she went to the house of Mrs. Kendall and told her that her sister had got the baby. Later in the day she went to Cheriton and hired a room at the house of a Mrs. Bush, and the same night the man Williams returned with prisoner to the house. A few days after the police discovered the head of the child in the room occupied by the accused; in fact, between the spring mattress and the bed on which the prisoner and Williams slept. The woman might have taken the head away to make it difficult to identify the child.

Elizabeth Margaret Kendall, the wife of John Kendall, a painter, of 17, Palmerston Street, gave evidence as to the prisoner engaging a furnished bedroom in her house in October last, and coming to the house with her baby (the murdered child) and Pte. Williams, of the Royal Berkshire Regiment. She further said that she thought the accused was the wife of Williams. They remained at her house until February 13th, when they left owing to them having been given notice. The baby was taken to the hospital on February 8th, and Mrs. Williams was given a bottle containing white medicine. The baby's dummy, piece of tale, and brown sock (produced) were similar to those the baby had. On the following Monday Mrs. Neale came to the house without the baby, which she said was being taken care of by her sister. After she had gone she found a lot of burnt material in the fire grate in the bedroom which had been occupied by Williams and the woman, and she pointed it out to Inspector Lawrence when he called on Thursday. The charred remains of material were similar to some of the material worn by the baby. On the Tuesday the accused came to the house again, and she was arrested there by Inspector Lawrnce.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thesiger, Mrs. Kendall said that prisoner seemed to be an affectionate mother while she was living with her. Williams used to pay her 6/- a week for the room. Accused was a little anxious about the child's health, and took it to the hospital. She did not hear prisoner say that Williams was about to go to the front. At that time she did not know that they were not married.

Evidence was given by Arthur Frank Arnall, an electrician, of 68, Dudley Road, as to the finding of the headless and naked body of the child on the railway on the Tram Road. He also spoke to finding a small medicine bottle, which was broken, lying between the metals on the down side.

Annie Dorothy Tuff, a widow, of 22, North Street, said she was the sister of the accused, who was the wife of Ernest John Neale, to whom she was married 14 or 15 years ago. They had been separated for about nine years. There were three children of the marriage. The child Phyllis was not one of them, and she was only born on June 15th or 16th at the Lyminge Infirmary. Williams was not the father of the child. On Saturday night, the 13th February, she saw her sister with the baby outside the Royal Oak. The prisoner was 37 years of age.

In cross-examination, witness said the prisoner's father died when she was quite young. Her sister in childhood suffered from St. Vitus Dance. She was married and had three children, but after a time her husband left her, and was subsequently convicted of bigamy. After her husband left her she lived with her stepfather, but her intemperate habits led to some unpleasantness with her stepfather, whom she subsequently left. She then went to Chatham with her children, to whom she was kind and good. Later, however, she was charged with stealing something from her employers, and witness was also involved in the charge because some of the goods were found at her house. Witness, however, was acquitted, and prisoner was bound over. That verdict caused her stepfather never to speak to her again, and it would have been quite hopeless for prisoner to ask him for lodgings. The result of that conviction was that her two boys were sent to homes, and witness looked after the girl. After that prisoner's life was not very satisfactory. She had an illegitimate child, and soon after she left the infirmary she made the acquaintance of the soldier Williams. Prisoner had suffered from headaches sufficiently severe to keep her in bed quite ill.

Mrs. Eilxabeth Milton, of 3, Bates Alley, gave evidence of seeing the prisoner in North Street on Saturday evening, February 13th, when she also came to her house.

Mr. Rossi, a confectioner, spoke to letting a bedroom to a woman, who had no baby with her, on Sunday evening, February 14th. She had a small brown paper parcel with her when she arrived.

Nurse L.R. Liebart, of the out-patient department of the Royal Victoria Hospital, recounted the details of a visit paid by the accused with the baby to the hospital, when a small bottle, similar in size and shape to the one produced, was given to the accused for the child. It contained petroleum emulsion.

Miss L.M. Foad, of 30, North Street, said she saw Mrs. Neal with a baby in her arms on Sunday morning, February 15th, in North Street.

Mrs. Bush, of 44, High Street, Cheriton, spoke to the prisoner hiring a room off her on February 15th, to her bringing a parcel with her, and to a soldier, whom she represented as her husband, staying with her for the night. On the morning of the 18th February, Inspector Lawrence came to the house, and witness showed him the room occupied by prisoner. The Inspector afterwards came downstairs with a parcel, which contained the head of a child.

Cross-examined: Prisoner did not seem to be agitated, but rather calm.

Dr. F.J. Lidderdale gave evidence as to his examination of the child's body. He said the head had been severed by something extremely sharp. It would have been difficult, but not impossible, to do it with one cut, but he should think there was more than one cut.

Questioned by His Lordship, Dr. Lidderdale said he thought it was probable that the first attempt to cut off the head was made at the front, where there were four small cuts, and then the stoke which severed the body had come from the back.

Cross-examined, he said the deed might have been done in extreme desperation. There were signs of desperation and considerable persistence. He did not think an ordinary woman would have been able to do it.

His Lordship: In a moment of insanity or anything of that kind do people possess more force than at normal times?

Witness: They seem to be able to exert it more.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Thesiger, witness said the child had a fairly well-nourished body, and had a happy face. When before the Magistrates or at the inquest he did not think the prisoner seemed to realise the seriousness of her position.

Mr. Thesiger: Could you form any opinion as to the state of her mind? – There was nothing to show that she was insane at the time she made the statement.

Re-examined: Does the deed appear to have been done with deliberation and force? – The four cuts do not suggest much deliberation.

Do the four cuts show some degree of deliberation? – I think if the prisoner had made up her mind she would have employed sufficient force in the first stroke to do what she wanted.

His Lordship: You cannot tell whether the first, or second, or third, or fourth cut caused death? – No.

Or whether it was the result of all four? – No.

P.C. Cradduck, in the course of his evidence, stated that at the inquest, when asked if she wished to say anything, prisoner replied “I did do it. I am sorry. I did do it”.

Inspector Lawrence gave evidence of going to the spot where the body was found and finding close by, over the wall which separated the line from a footpath, the dummy teat with tape attached, the portions of brown sock, and the two safety pins. He saw Mrs. Neale on the Tuesday at Mrs. Kendall's house, and proceeded to Cheriton with her to various addresses where she said the baby was being taken care of. When he charged her with killing the child she said she had put it out to nurse while she went looking for work. He described his visit to Mrs, Kendall's house when he found the charred remains of some of the child's clothing. Referring to his visit to the house of Mrs. Bush, of Cheriton, he said he went into the bedroom occupied by the accused and the soldier Williams. After searching the room he found between the mattress and the wire spring at the head of the bed, a brown paper parcel, which he opened in the presence of Mrs. Bush. In it he found the head of the child tied up in a white cloth, which was wrapped up in a white woollen shawl.

Mr. Matthew mentioned that the soldier Williams was not able to be present to give evidence as he had gone to the front.

The statement made by the prisoner before the Magistrates was then put in. It was to the effect that she was driven to do what she did. Twice on the Sunday she tried to throw herself over the cliff in the Warren, but two soldiers topped her. They gave her all the money they had, which amounted to 2/3, and brought her down as far as St. Peter's Church, where she sat on a seat. The baby was exhausted with the cold and wet. She then did what she did, as she did not know what to do. She picked the baby up and put it on to the line. She went to the Junction Station in order to go to Dover, as she was determined to do away with herself, but the guard would not let her go through, and advised her to go home. She spent that night at Ross's house, where she got a bed.

Mr. Thesiger, in an able address, which lasted for close upon an hour, for the defence, made an eloquent appeal to the jury. He touched upon the wretched life led by the prisoner, and her fear that when the soldier left her she would have no friend in the world. He urged that the unfortunate woman was insane at the time she committed the crime, and was therefore not responsible for her actions. He pointed out the significant facts of the prisoner carrying about with her the head, the undressing of the baby, and her extraordinary calmness throughout the whole of the inquest and Magisterial inquiry suggested that she was insane. Her insanity might, he said, be one of a temporary nature, which gradually diminished. And when she realised practically at the close of the inquiry before the Magistrates what had happened, she made the statement admitting the crime. In conclusion, he asked the jury if they could not return a verdict that the prisoner was not responsible for her actions at the time of the murder. They might, in returning their verdict, strongly recommend her to mercy.

His Lordship, in his summing up, explained that insanity meant such a disease of the mind that it would lack power to judge. If the jury came to the conclusion that the accused did the act, they had to be convinced, if they wished to say that she was insane, that she was by reason of a disease of the mind incapable of distinguishing the nature and quality of what she did, or, if she was capable of judging, then that she was incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong.

The jury, after ten minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty. The foreman added that they strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy.

His Lordship assumed the black cap, and, addressing the prisoner, said: The jury have found you Guilty upon the evidence which permitted no kind of doubt of the murder of your little child. In fact you confessed before the Magistrates what you had done, and gave details which must have satisfied anyone that you were speaking the truth. No-one can doubt that you knew perfectly well what you were doing, and there is no reason to suppose that you were not in your senses. Although you did a very wicked and cruel thing you were miserable, and you were in a manner desperate, and the jury have therefore strongly recommended you to mercy. I shall at once send that recommendation to those who have the power to remit the sentence which the law compels me to pass upon you.

The judge then pronounced the sentence of death in the usual way, concluding with the words “And may the Lord have mercy on your soul”. The Chaplain solemnly added “Amen”.

The Clerk then, addressing the prisoner, said: Have you anything to urge in stay of execution of this, your sentence?

Prisoner: No, sir.

Mrs. Neale portrayed no emotion whatever on hearing the decision of the jury and the sentence of death. She, however, walked wearily out of the dock to the cells below.

Folkestone Express 3 July 1915.

Local News.

The Home Secretary on Friday announced that Mrs. Neale, who was sentenced to death at the Kent Assizes for the murder of her child, has been granted a reprieve.

Folkestone Express 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, H. Kirke, and J.J. Giles Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

The licence of the Royal Oak was transferred to Mr. H.W. Baldock.

Folkestone Express 3 March 1917.

Local News.

The Magistrates on Wednesday transferred the Royal Oak, North Street, from Mr. Collar to Mr. Baldock.

Folkestone Express 18 November 1933.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Friday granted a protection order in connection with the transfer of the licence of the Royal Oak Inn, North Street, from Mr. H.W. Baldock to Mr. Wilson, who has for a considerable number of years been the steward at the Radnor Club, Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 25 November 1933.

Wednesday, November 22nd: Before Mr. J.H. Blamey, Alderman T.S. Franks, Councillor Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. F. Seager, Mr. W. Smith, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

The licence of the Royal Oak public house, North Street, was transferred to Mr. Harry Wilson, formerly steward at the Radnor Club. A protection order had been previously made in this application.

Folkestone Express 25 November 1939.

Local News.

The Folkestone licensing transfer sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday. The Mayor (Alderman G.A. Gurr) was in the chair and also sitting were Councillor R.G. Wood, Dr. F. Wolverson and Alderman Mrs. E. Gore.

Harry Powell applied for the transfer of the licence in respect of the Royal Oak, North Street. The previous licence holder was Mr. Alfred Thomas Chick.

The application was granted.