176 Dover Road
Folkestone
Above photo showing the remains of the pub after being destroyed on
the 6 October 1940. Photo from Alan Taylor. |
Above sign 1937. |
Maidstone Gazette 24 March 1840.
On Saturday an inquest was held at Folkestone by John James Bond
Esq., Coroner, on the body of John Hills, aged seventy, an oversea
pilot, who expired that morning at three o'clock, from the effects
of eighteen grains of opium taken by him on the previous Thursday
evening to allay a cough and cause sleep.
Mr. John Boorn, druggist, deposed that deceased bought at his shop
on Thursday afternoon two-pennyworth of opium, which weighed about
thirty six grains, and that while witness was weighing the article
deceased remarked that he was troubled with a bad cough, and he had
frequently found relief by taking an opium pill.
Deceased was at the "Swan" public house on Thursday evening playing
cribbage. He drank about a pint and a half of beer, and took the
opium in pills just before he left to go home to bed, washing the
pills down with the remainder of his beer. He was in good health,
with the exception of a cough.
It appeared probable, from other evidence, that deceased took about
half the quantity he purchased. One of his neighbours, finding that
he was not up at two o'clock on Friday, went into his bedroom and
found him lying in his bed, foaming at the mouth and speechless. Mr.
Major, surgeon, was sent for and promptly attended, and had recourse
to the usual remedies in such cases, but without any effect.
Deceased lingered until three o'clock the following morning, when he
expired.
Verdict: Accidental death from incautiously taking too large a dose
of opium as a remedy for a cough.
|
Kentish Gazette 23 September 1845.
Folkestone, Sept. 22: The traffic between this place and Boulogne
during the past week has been immense, and notwithstanding the
violent gales, only on one day interrupted. We hear that it is
contemplated to erect increased accommodation for the public by
extending considerably the "Pavilion Hotel," for although the
"Royal
George Hotel" is opened and in full business there is yet a want of
means to meet the tide of demand, which is daily increasing here.
|
Maidstone Gazette 5 May 1846
On Saturday last an accident of a serious nature befell John Rayner,
the engine driver of the 4.15 p.m. up train. From the statement of
his fireman, it appeared that the unfortunate man was stooping over
the side of the engine as it was entering the Shakespeare Tunnel and
his head came in contact with the wall with such force as to
precipitate him into the tender. On the arrival of the train at the
station the poor fellow was taken in a state of insensibility to the
Swan, where he was speedily attended by Mr. Eastes, surgeon, and was
found to have sustained frightful injuries of the head. But slight
hopes are given of his recovery.
|
Dover Chronicle 9 May 1846
On Saturday last an accident of a serious nature befell John Rayner,
the engine driver of the 4.15 p.m. up train. From the statement of
his fireman, it appeared that the unfortunate man was stooping over
the side of the engine as it was entering the Shakespeare Tunnel and
his head came in contact with the wall with such force as to
precipitate him into the tender. On the arrival of the train at the
station the poor fellow was taken in a state of insensibility to the
"Swan," where he was speedily attended by Mr. Eastes, surgeon, and was
found to have sustained frightful injuries of the head. But slight
hopes are given of his recovery.
|
Kentish Gazette 12 May 1846.
On Saturday last an accident of a serious nature befell John Rayner,
the engine driver of the 4.15 p.m. up train, from the statement of
his driver, it appeared that the unfortunate man was stooping over
the side of the engine as it was entering the Shakespeare Tunnel and
his head came in contact with the wall with such force as to
precipitate him into the tender. On the arrival of the train at the
station the poor fellow was taken in a state of insensibility to the
"Swan," where he was speedily attended by Mr. Eastes, surgeon, and was
found to have sustained frightful injuries of the head. But slight
hopes are given of his recovery.
|
Kentish Independent 16 May 1846
On Saturday an accident of a serious nature befell John Rayner, the
engine driver of the 4.15 p.m. up train. From the statement of his
fireman, it appeared that the unfortunate man was stooping over the
side of the engine as it was entering the Shakespeare Tunnel and his
head came in contact with the wall with such force as to precipitate
him into the tender. On the arrival of the train at the station the
poor fellow was taken in a state of insensibility to the Swan, where
he was speedily attended by Mr. Eastes, surgeon, and was found to
have sustained frightful injuries of the head. But slight hopes are
given of his recovery.
|
West Kent Guardian 16 May 1846
On Saturday an accident of a serious nature befell John Rayner, the
engine driver of the 4.15 p.m. up train. From the statement of his
fireman, it appeared that the unfortunate man was stooping over the
side of the engine as it was entering the Shakespeare Tunnel and his
head came in contact with the wall with such force as to precipitate
him into the tender. On the arrival of the train at the station the
poor fellow was taken in a state of insensibility to the Swan, where
he was speedily attended by Mr. Eastes, surgeon, and was found to
have sustained frightful injuries of the head. But slight hopes are
given of his recovery.
|
Dover Chronicle 3 July 1852.
On Sunday evening last, about half past 5 o'clock, as the son of Mr.
Neal, of the "Oddfellows Arms," Radnor Street, and another person,
were driving a horse and cart up the Tram Road, the horse, being a
kicker, commenced plunging violently, and continued unmanageable
until it released itself from the cart, carrying with it the two
shafts, which had broken off short. It started up the road in the
direction of Folly Lane, where it turned round by the Swan, Grove
Terrace, and proceeded down Dover Street, knocking down and very
much injuring a child of Mr. James Robinson, landlord of the Swan.
It was at first feared the injury would terminate seriously; but it
is now hoped that the child is going on favourably. The persons in
the cart fortunately remained uninjured. The horse subsequently
slipped off the kerb, and broke its foreleg just above the fetlock;
it ultimately reached the Oddfellows Arms, whence it was removed to
a field, and shot. It was a good horse of its kind, and worth about
£18.
|
Maidstone Journal 28 March 1854.
Assizes, Tuesday: George Stone, for uttering a counterfeit
sovereign, well knowing the same to be counterfeit, and having at
the same time other counterfeit coin in his possession, at Cheriton,
on 1st February. The prisoner is a soldier of the Foot Artillery. He
went to the "White Lion" at Cheriton, kept by Mr. Collins, on the day
named, and asked for a pint of porter. Mrs. Collins served him, and
he then tendered something she supposed to be a sovereign and she
returned him change. Prisoner said it was a good one, and he had
just taken it from his pay sergeant. She kept it in paper in her
purse till her husband came home, when he found it was spurious. He
gave information to the police at Folkestone, when Steers, the
police superintendent there, apprehended the prisoner about 11 a.m.
at the "Swan," Dover Road. He owned that he had changed a sovereign at
the "White Lion" or "Bird in Hand" that morning. He took from his pocket
five half crowns, two shillings and the piece now produced
resembling the coin tendered. He said he did not know it was bad. He
had received a £5 note from his pay sergeant about two days
previously, which he had changed at the foot of London Bridge.
Prisoner said this in defence and that he had received the coins in
change. He told Mrs. Collins he was going to the "Star," where the
inspector found him. He had no witnesses, but produced a good
character from his commanding officer. The coins were those
well-known medals, having a man on a horse and “To Hanover” on the
reverse. The learned Sergeant recommended the jury to confine their
attention to the first count, charging him with putting off the
piece knowing it to be false. Guilty on the first count. His
Lordship, in passing sentence, said that he had a document before
him which certainly gave the prisoner a good character, but it also
said that the only money he received from the regiment was 11s. 4d.,
all in silver. Five months' hard labour. The change of the
sovereign found on the prisoner was ordered to be handed over to Mr.
Collins.
Note: Where was he found? Report is conflicting.
|
Southeastern Gazette 28 March 1854.
Kent Assizes.
Tuesday, March 21st.
George Stone, a soldier in the Artillery, was charged with uttering a
counterfeit sovereign, at Cheriton, having at the same time other
counterfeit coin in his possession.
Prisoner went to Mr. Collins’s, the White Lion, at Cheriton, on the 1st
February, for a pint of porter, for which he tendered to Mrs. Collins
what she supposed to be a sovereign, and received the change. On her
husband’s return, she gave it to him, when it was found to be spurious.
Prisoner had told her that he had received it from his pay- sergeant.
Mr. Collins having given information to the Folkestone police,
Superintendent Steers apprehended the prisoner at about 11 o’clock in
the morning, at the Swan, in the Dover Road. He acknowledged that he had
changed a sovereign that morning, and took from his pocket five
half-crowns, two shillings, and the piece produced, resembling the
tendered coin. He said he had received a £5 note from his pay-sergeant
about two days previous, which he had changed at the foot of
London-bridge. The coins had a man on a horse on one side, and “To
Hanover” on the reverse.
Prisoner said he had received the coins in change for the note. He
produced a good character from his commanding officer.
He was found guilty of putting off the piece knowing it be counterfeit.
The learned Sergeant said that he had a document before him, which gave
prisoner a good character, but stated that all that he had received from
the regiment was 11s. 4d. He then sentenced him to five months’ hard
labour, and ordered the change of the sovereign found on him to be given
up to Mr. Collins.
Note: Date for Collins is at variance with More Bastions.
|
Kentish Mercury 14 July 1855.
An inquest was held a few days since at the Swan Inn, on the body of
William Wibourn, aged 27, stonemason.
Deceased was at work on the
12th June, at Cheriton churchyard doing the brickwork on a grave,
when he attempted to get a bird's nest in the buttress of the
church; he got on to a plank, and held on to a stone in the
buttress, which came out, and he stepped off the plank, falling onto
some iron railings around a tomb, one of the sprae-headed rails
entering into his arm and the elbow joint. He was taken to Mr.
William Bateman's, surgeon, who found a very extensive wound in the
right arm, and the muscles were torn. The skin was torn down over
the elbow about 4 inches. The wound did well for 12 days, when the
deceased was attacked with tetanus, or lockjaw; he lingered until
the 3rd July, when he died in great suffering. Verdict, “Accidental
Death.” The deceased was a very steady young man, and has left a
wife and one child.
|
Southeastern Gazette 10 July 1855.
Inquest.
An inquest was held last week before the S. Eastes Esq., coroner at the
Swan Inn, Folkestone, on the body of William Wibourn, aged 27,
stonemason.
Deceased was at work on the 12th June at Cheriton churchyard doing the
brick work of a grave, when he attempted to get a bird’s nest in the
buttress of the church; he got on to a plank, and held on to a stone in
the buttress, which came out, and he stepped off the plank, falling on
to some iron railings around a tomb, one of the spear-headed rails
entering into his arm and the elbow joint. He was taken to Mr. William
Bateman’s, surgeon, who found a very extensive wound in the right arm,
and the muscles were torn. The skin was torn down over the elbow about 4
inches. The wound did well for twelve days, when the deceased was
attacked with tetanus or lockjaw; he lingered until the 3d July, when he
died in great suffering.
Verdict ’‘Accidental death.” The deceased was a very steady young man,
and has left a wife and one child.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 13 October 1855.
Tuesday October 9th :- Present W. Major Esq., G. Kennicott Esq., and J.
Kelcey Esq.
The Adjourned General Licencing Meeting was held this day, when the
following licence was granted: William Franks, Swan
|
Folkestone Chronicle 6 June 1857.
Wednesday June 3rd: - Before R.W. Boarer esq., Mayor, and J. Kelcey, J.
Tolputt, W. Bateman esqs., and Capt. Kennicott.
The following licence was transferred: Swan, licence granted to William
Hall Robinson, in the place of Mr. Franks, who is rendered by sickness
incapable of keeping a public house.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 17 April 1858.
Death:
On April 9th, at the County Lunatic Asylum, Barming Heath, Mr. W. T.
Franks, formerly landlord of the Swan Inn, Grove Terrace, aged 34 years.
|
Canterbury Weekly Journal 24 April 1858
Death.
April 9, at the County Lunatic Asylum, Mr. W. T. Franks,
formerly of the Swan Inn, Folkestone, aged 34.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 31 March 1860.
Birth: Saturday, March 31st, at Grove Terrace, Folkestone, the wife
of Mr. William Hall Robinson, of the "Swan Inn," of a daughter.
|
South Eastern Gazette, 9 October, 1860.
FOLKESTONE. Quarter Sessions.
These sessions were held on Tuesday, before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.
Recorder. There were but three prisoners for trial.
Benjamin Clark, 18, labourer, was indicted for stealing a watch
from the person of William Terry, on the day of the regatta. It
appeared that prosecutor was taking some refreshment at the "Swan
Inn," when he felt a tug at his pocket, and caught the prisoner’s
hand on his chain. He then found that his watch was gone, and saw
the prisoner pass his hand behind him. The ring of the watch was
found at his feet, having been cut of by some instrument.
The Recorder summed up greatly in favour of the prisoner, and the
jury acquitted him, much to the astonishment of every one in court.
|
From the Folkestone Chronicle 15 February, 1862.
CAUTION TO DRIVERS OF PUBLIC CARRIAGES
Friday February 14th:- Before Gilbert Kennicott and James Tolputt,
Esqs.
William Philpot, a licensed driver, No. 6, was summoned for a like
offence.
Ingram Swain P.C. deposed on Saturday evening last about 10 o'clock
he saw two carriages standing at the door of the "Swan Inn," Dover Road,
about 6 or 8 feet from the door; defendant, the driver of one of them
stood by the door; the other carriage was not attended by anyone. About
11 o'clock witness returned to the "Swan" and found that one of the
carriages were gone; defendant still stood at the door; the other was
inside the tap room. Witness asked defendant if that was his carriage
outside and he said yes. The place where the carriage stood was
alongside the high road.
Edmund Kingsford proved the defendant as a licensed driver, No. 6,
the licence having been granted on the 1st June, 1857.
Defendant in answer to the charge attempted to prove the plea where
his carriage stood was private property, and called the landlord of the
"Swan," Mr. Robinson, to corroborate him.
The magistrates however considered the case proved and fined
defendant 1s. and costs 11s. 6d. The fine and costs were paid at once.
Walter Woolgar, licensed fly driver No. 8, was summoned for a similar
offence, at the same time and place. It appeared he was the driver of
the other carriage, referred to in the previous case, belonging to Mr.
Henry Laker.
Police Constable Swain deposed the horse and carriage was seen going
down Mill Lane, without any driver with it. Swain proceeded to the
"Swan," and found defendant sitting in the tap room. He told him the fly
had gone away, when defendant said “Oh, I dare say the old mare has gone
home all right”; he didn't think she'd run away. (A laugh)
Mr. Kingsford proved the defendant was a licensed driver.
Defendant, who had pleaded not guilty, justified himself on the plea
that Mr. Laker had discharged him on a minute's notice, and was not
therefore the driver of the carriage.
The magistrates, however, considered it a bad case, and fined him 5s.
and 10s. costs, if brought up again the full penalty to be inflicted.
Defendant said he had neither money nor goods, so they must take his
body.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 6 September 1862.
Breaking and Entering.
Wednesday September 3rd:- Before Captain Gilbert Kennicott R.N., W.F.
Browell, James Tolputt, A.M. Leith and W. Wightwick esqs.
Thomas Joy, 28, described as a baker, James Burns, 25, engine driver,
Sarah Walker, 23, and Jane Jemima Castle, 20, were then placed at the
bar, charged with feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house
of William Hall Robinson, and stealing £3 0s 6d in gold and silver, 7s
or 8s in coppers, two boxes of cigars, 1 silk handkerchief, 1
concertina, 2 coats, 1 monkey jacket, 4 clocks, 1 letter, 1 public house
licence, pair sugar tongs, 1 gold pin, 1 frock, 1 child's coat.
William Hall Robinson, sworn, deposed he was landlord of the Swan Inn,
Dover Road. On Tuesday morning last, witness was awoke by his servant,
about 20 minutes to 7, who told him the house had been broken into. On
going downstairs, witness found that a pane of glass had been removed in
the back parlour, and the fastenings undone – the window was a small
distance open. Witness had fastened the window the last thing on the
previous night, and was the last person to go to bed; the things in the
parlour were all in a state of confusion. A writing desk had been broken
open, and a small gold pin abstracted from it; the cupboard had been
opened and the things in it turned topsy turvy. Witness missed the clock
from the top of the cupboard, the right hand one as the room was
entered. Witness then went to the bar, and found the bar window over the
counter had been forced open, and two boxes of cigars taken, £3 0s 6d in
gold and silver from the till, 7 or 8 shillings worth of coppers from
the same till, a pint of pale brandy, a letter directed to witness, and
the magistrates certificate of the licence, all from the same bar.
Witness then went to the police station and informed the police. Witness
had securely closed the bar window on the previous night by a flush bolt
on the inside; the £3 0s 6d was club money, which had been collected the
night before, and was in a large cup; saw the two male prisoners between
the hours of 9 and 11 o'clock at his house, on Monday night; they had
refreshments there; had not seen them before, nor the women prisoners at
all. The gold pin now produced by Police constable Smith, witness
identified; it had a red stone in it; witness also missed three coats,
now produced by Police constable Smith.
Mary Jane Stace, being sworn, deposed she was servant at the Swan Inn;
came downstairs on Tuesday morning about a quarter to 7, and saw the
door of the back parlour was open, also saw two empty cigar boxes lying
in the passage; also saw a pint pot half full of beer, and a glass
standing on the floor in the front parlour; in the back parlour witness
saw that five little clocks were gone from a sideboard in the room.
Witness went out of the back door, and found a ladder standing against
the gate, and that the window of the back parlour was opened a little
way. Witness then called her master. Previous to this witness found the
bar window was open, and also the till drawer. Witness was the first one
down in the house that morning.
William Taylor, being sworn, deposed he was landlord of the General
Havelock public house, at Canterbury. Between 1 and 2 yesterday
afternoon James Burns and Sarah Walker came into witness's house and
called for some refreshment. They had not been more than 10 minutes in
the house when the bundle now produced by Sergeant Newman was given into
witness's charge. The prisoners left the house, the male prisoner saying
“Take charge of this. I shall be back directly”. Witness had not seen
them until now. Witness did not examine the bundle. Inspector Dodd, of
the Canterbury police, came to witness's house about 4 minutes
afterwards with the witness Robinson, and witness gave the bundle to the
Inspector.
By the prisoner Sarah walker:- You asked if you might have a bed, to
which I said yes.
Police sergeant Thomas Newman, sworn, deposed he was sergeant of police.
From information received, witness proceeded to Dover yesterday morning
in company with police constable Smith and Mr. Robinson. They traced the
prisoners from Dover to Canterbury by the London and Chatham Railway.
Witness followed, went into the Wellington public house, Broad Street,
Canterbury, and found the prisoner Thomas Joy and the female prisoner
Jane Jemima Castle. Police constable Smith took Joy, and witness
assisted him in securing Joy, as he was rather violent; prisoner was
taken to the Canterbury police station and witness told the prisoner he
should search him. The prisoner pulled from his coat pocket 53 cigars,
and 2 knives, one in a case, the other clasp, two boxes of matches, a
letter addressed to Mr. W Robinson, The Swan Inn, Folkestone, a
magistrates certificate of licence to W. Robinson, dated 22nd August,
1862. When the prisoner took out the paper he said “Those are not my
property”; also 4s 11 1/2d – 3s 6d in silver, and the rest in coppers;
prisoner gave his name as John Asson. The other prisoners Burns and
Walker were then brought in, and also Castle, and they were all brought
to Folkestone. Witness received the bundle produced, identified by
Taylor, from Inspector Dodd, in the presence of the witness Robinson,
which contained a quantity of wearing apparel, not identified, four
clocks, and a pair of scissors; the second bundle now produced, witness
obtained from Inspector Dodd, in the presence of witness Robinson, and
contained a quantity of children's wearing apparel and a quantity of
baby linen, A good deal of amusement was caused by the Clerk asking the
witness if he could describe the baby linen, in which the prisoners
joined heartily.
Questioned by James Burns – Did not see you come into the police station
at Canterbury.
Police constable Edwin Smith, sworn, deposed than on Tuesday morning, in
company with police sergeant Newman and the prosecutor, Robinson, he
went to Dover and from thence to Canterbury; Robinson went with witness
to the Wellington Inn, at Canterbury, and there saw the prisoner Joy and
Castle; the prisoner Joy had a concertina, tied up in a silk
handkerchief; witness enquired where he got it from, and he answered it
was his own property; the witness Robinson immediately identified the
concertina and handkerchief as his property; Joy said nothing. The three
coats now produced were lying on a table, which Robinson also
identified; previously witness asked prisoner where he got them from,
and he said they were his property, he had bought them. Witness, who was
in plain clothes, told him he was a police constable, and he should
apprehend him on a charge of burglary at Folkestone. Prisoner said “You
-----, you take me”, and put himself in a fighting attitude; with
assistance the prisoner was secured and taken to the Canterbury police
station, and also the prisoner Castle, who was also taken to the
station. The prisoners Castle and Joy were sitting close together; she
was the worse for liquor, and had a bundle of clothes with her, which
she claimed as her property. Whilst in the station at Canterbury,
witness saw the prisoners Burns and Walker brought into the station by
superintendent Davis, of the Canterbury police; as soon as the prisoners
were brought in, Robinson identified the prisoner Burns as the one who
was in company with at his house the night previous. Witness commenced
to search the prisoner Burns, who put his hand in his pocket and pulled
out two pence. Witness then found in Burns' left hand pocket of his coat
4 clock weights and an alarm weight, in his waistcoat pocket two ear
drops and a small gold earring, a gold pin with part of a red stone in
it, and five cigars. All these articles witness produced. Witness then
assisted in bringing the prisoners to Folkestone.
Examined and questioned by James Burns – You did not come into police
station voluntarily, you were brought in by the collar by Davies. You
did not say to me “The man who stole the weights is on the way”.
Mr. Robinson re-called – Identify the gold pin, the 4 clocks, 1 child's
frock, a child's jacket, a letter, a magistrate's certificate, three
coats, a silk handkerchief, sugar tongs, pair of scissors, 5 pieces of
baby linen, clock weights and an alarm, and concertina as being his
property, produced by police sergeant Newman and police constable Smith.
The property taken exceeds £5 in value. Witness also identified the
bundles produced as those which he saw delivered to the police at
Canterbury, and saw them hand the bundles to police sergeant Newman.
Capt. Kennicott said the magistrates had decided on discharging the
female prisoners, as they had not found any of the property on them, but
cautioned them as to their future conduct; they having had a very narrow
escape.
Both the male prisoners, having been cautioned made long, rambling
statements in defence.
The depositions were then formally completed, and the prisoners were
committed to take their trials at the next Quarter Sessions for the
borough, the witnesses being bound over to appear and give evidence at
the trial.
|
Folkestone Observer 6 September 1862.
Burglary.
Wednesday September 3rd:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt,
A.M. Leith and W.F. Browell Esqs
Thomas Joy, 28, baker, James Burns, 25, engine driver, Sarah Walker, 23,
prostitute, and Jane Jemima Castle, prostitute, were charged with
burglariously entering the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and stealing various
articles.
William Paul Robinson, landlord of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, said that
his servant came to him about 20 minutes to 7 on Tuesday morning and
told him that the house had been robbed. He got up and went downstairs,
when he found that a pane of glass in the back parlour had been broken,
and the window itself was raised about 2 inches. He had himself fastened
the window last thing on Monday night. All the things in the parlour
were in confusion. A writing desk had been forced open, and a small gold
pin with a real stone was abstracted from it. The cupboards had also
been opened, and things turned out. A clock had stood on the cupboard,
which he missed. At the time he did not notice the absence of anything
else, but afterwards he missed a child's frock coat, and some babies'
clothing. Going into the parlour, he missed two boxes of cigars, £3 0s
6d in gold and silver money from the till, 7s or 8s in copper money, a
bottle of pale brandy (a pint), a letter, a magistrates' certificate of
licence, and 3 coats. Witness then came to the police station to give
evidence. The bar window, which was fastened by a small inside bolt the
night before, had been forced open. There was no mark on the window, or
on the writing desk, to show how either of them was forced open. The
gold and silver was club money that he had incautiously left in a large
packet in the till the night before. The two male prisoners came into
his house between 9 and 10 on Monday evening, and went away between 10
and 11. The men came in for refreshment. The women were not with them.
Witness then identified the gold pin (which P.C. Smith produced) but the
red stone was missing.
Mary Jane Stace, servant at the Swan Inn, came downstairs on Tuesday
morning at a quarter to 7, and found the side door of the back parlour
open. An empty wine glass was on the floor on each side of the passage;
the cupboard doors were open. Five little clocks were gone from a box
that stood on the sideboard. Going to the back door, she saw a ladder
standing against the gate. The back parlour window was up a little way,
and the bar window and till drawer were open.
William Taylor, landlord of the General Havelock, Canterbury, said that
between 1 and 2 yesterday afternoon, the prisoners Burns and Sarah
Walker came into his house and ordered some refreshment. They had not
been there more than 10 minutes when the bundle on the table (produced
by Sergeant Newman), was given into his charge by the prisoner Burns,
and both prisoners then left the house. Burns said “Take charge of this.
I shall be back directly”. Witness had not seen the prisoners since
until this morning. Inspector Dodd, of the Canterbury police, came to
witness in company with Mr. Robinson four minutes after prisoners had
left, and claimed the parcel. Walker, when she came in, asked if he had
a bed to let.
P.S. Newman, having received information from Mr. Robinson, proceeded
with him and P.c. Smith to Dover, and then to Canterbury, to the
Wellington public house, where he fornd the prisoners Joy and Castle. He
apprehended Joy, and took him to the Canterbury police station, where he
told him he must search him. Joy then pulled from his pocket 53 cigars,
a case knife and clasp knife, two boxes of matches, a letter addressed
“Mr. W.h. Robinson, Swan Inn, Folkestone”, and a magistrates'
certificate of excise licence, dated 22nd August, 1862. When he pulled
out the letter and licence he said “These are not my property”. He also
produced 4s 11 1/2d. He then, at witness's request, wrote his name as
John Ason. The other prisoners, Castle, Burns, and Walker were brought
into the station while witness was there, and he assisted in bringing
all of them to Folkestone. The bundle identified by Taylor witness
received from Inspector Dodd in presence of Mr. Robinson. (The bundle
was then opened, and was found to contain a quantity of wearing apparel
not identified, 4 clocks, pair of German sugar tongs and a pair of
scissors. Witness also produced a second bundle, that he had received i
the same way, which contained several articles of childrens' clothes,
baby linen &c.)
P.C. Smith said he went to Dover with Mr. Robinson and Sergeant Newman,
and found the prisoners Joy and Castle at the Wellington public house.
The prisoner Joy had a concertina tied up in a handkerchief, and said it
was his own property, and also three coats that witness found on the
table on the room in which the prisoners were. Witness asked him where
he got the coats from, and he said he bought them. Witness then took Joy
and Castle to the Canterbury station. Castle was rather the worse for
drink. The bundle which she had she said was her own property, and she
knew of nothing else. On examining her bundle nothing was found in it
but her own wearing apparel. Prisoner and Castle were sitting near each
other, but other persons were in the same room. While in the Canterbury
station, the Superintendent brought in Burns and Walker, having found
them outside the station. Robinson immediately identified Burns as the
man who had been in company with Joy. Searching Burns, 2d in coppers, 5
clock weights, 2 ear drops, small gold earring, gold pin, with part of a
red stone in it, and 5 cigars were found upon him.
In cross-examination by the prisoner Burns, witness said he (Burns) did
not come voluntarily into the Canterbury station to enquire for a
person, but was brought in by the Superintendent by the collar. Burns
did not say that a man had sold him two of the things on the road. He
said that he had sold the clocks to a man on the road.
Mr. Robinson, being again called, identified the gold pin, four clocks,
child's jacket, letter, magistrates' certificate, three coats,
concertina, silk handkerchief, sugar tongs, scissors, five pieces of
baby linen and five clock weights as his property, and exceeding £5 in
value.
This being the case against the prisoners, Captain Kennicott stated that
the Bench had decided to dismiss the women, no property having been
found on them, but he cautioned them as to their choice of companions in
the future.
The prisoners then being called on for their defence, Joy said that on
Monday morning he met Burns in Dover, on the road to Folkestone, and in
reply to Burns he said he was going to Folkestone to look for work. He
said he was also going to Folkestone. They stayed in Folkestone until
about 9 o'clock, and then seeing that there was no work in the town they
returned to Dover. They got up early on Tuesday and were going to
Canterbury, and when they came to the station it was too early. There
was a man there with two large bundles in his hand. He asked if anyone
wanted to buy anything, as he was out of employment and without any
money. They told him they ould not do so, as they were short of money
themselves. He then said he would sell them things very cheap, as he was
in want of money. Burns asked him how much he wanted for the lot. At
firt he asked 35s. He (Joy) told him they could not give him so much, as
they had only £2 between them. He then wanted 30s., but he (Joy) told
him he would give him £1 8s., and he went and changed a sovereign and
came back and paid him the money. Then the man offered them a lot of
cigars for 2s., and so the man received 30s. for the whole, and left
them, and they started for Canterbury.
Burns said the man who offered the things said they need not be afraid
to buy the goods. He brought them from London. They were his own
property. He had carried them a long way, and he was hard up for money.
He said he would not carry them any further, for they were no use to him
as he intended to go to sea. When he was leaving them, “this gentleman
here” (the prisoner Joy), went to get two tickets, and the man put his
two fingers in his white waistcoat pocket, and asked him (Burns) if he
was married. He said he was not, but he intended to be; and the man then
gave him two large ear drops and a small pin, and said “I'll bid you
goodbye. Keep them in remembrance of me” (laughter). He then went away,
and they went to Canterbury, where he went to the General Havelock.
Sarah Walker went out to get something to eat, but she came running
back, and said the young man and woman who came with them from
Canterbury were locked up. Giving the two bundles to the landlord at the
bar, and asking them to keep them for a few minutes, he went to the
police station, where there was a great crowd. Pressing through the
crowd, he asked the Inspector if So-and-So (giving description of Joy
and Castle) were locked up. He said “Yes. Come along with me”, and he
(Burns) went. After he got inside the Inspector caught him by the collar
of his coat, and searched him.
Both prisoners were then committed for trial at the next Quarter
Sessions to be held in the borough.
One of the male prisoners (Joy) is believed to be an old convict who has
served a four year sentence; and the other (Burns) is a notorious
character in the neighbourhood of Chatham. He was formerly in the 17th
Lancers, and subsequently worked in the Chatham dockyard. The two female
prisoners, who are well known on the Camp, were arrested by Sergeant
Smith of the County Police immediately on their quitting the Court,
their bundles containing various articles stolen, with others, from the
premises of R. Oakenfold, of Ashford, on Tuesday se'ennight. They will
be brought before the magistrates at Ashford this morning.
|
Southeastern Gazette 9 September 1862.
Local News.
At the Police Court on Wednesday last, Thomas Joy, 28, baker, James
Burns, 25, engine driver, and two “unfortunates,” named Sarah Walker and
Jane Jemima Castle, were charged with burglariously entering the Swan
Inn, Dover Road, and stealing various articles.
William Paul Robinson, the landlord of the Swan Inn, stated that on
Friday morning he found tbat a pane of glass in the back parlour had
been broken, and the window itself was raised about two inches. He had
himself fastened the window the last thing on Monday night. All the
things in the parlour were in confusion. A writing desk had been broken
open, and a small gold pin with a red stone was abstracted from it. The
cupboards had also been opened, and the things turned out. A clock had
stood on the cupboard, which he missed. He afterwards missed a child’s
frock coat, and some babies’ clothing. From the parlour he missed two
boxes of cigars, £3 0s. 6d. in gold and silver money from the till, 7s.
or 8s. worth of copper money, a bottle of pale brandy (a pint) a letter,
a magistrate’s certificate of license, and three coats. The bar window,
which was fastened by a small inside bolt the night before, had been
forced open. There was no mark on the window, or the writing desk, to
show how either of them was forced open. The gold and silver was club
money that ho had incautiously left in a large packet in the till the
night before. The two male prisoners came into his house between nine
and ten on Monday evening, and went away between ten and eleven. The men
came in for refreshment. The women were not with them. Further evidence
was then given to show that most of the missing property had been found
in the possession of the male prisoners, against whom suspicion had
fallen, and they were committed for trial, but the women were
discharged.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 4 October 1862.
Quarter Sessions.
Tuesday September 30th: - Before J.J. Lonsdale, Recorder.
Thomas Joy, 28, baker, and James Burns, 25, engine driver, were charged
with stealing 1 gold pin, 4 clocks, £3 7s 6d in money, and other
articles, the property of William Hall Robinson, in his dwelling house,
at Folkestone, on the 2nd September, 1862.
After a short absence the grand jury brought in a true bill against both
the prisoners, who pleaded not guilty.
The petty jury were then sworn, and a long enquiry into the facts of the
case was gone into, the result being that they were both found guilty.
Former convictions were proved against the prisoner Thomas Joy, who had
a ticket of leave unexpired, and the learned Recorder said he felt bound
to inflict a severe sentence on him: the sentence would be one of penal
servitude for 15 years; the other prisoner not having any previous
convictions, he would not punish so much; he should therefore sentence
him to 5 years' penal servitude.
|
Folkestone Observer 4 October 1862.
QUARTER SESSIONS
Tuesday 30th September:- Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder.
The Grand Jury retired and in a short time returned with true bills
against Thomas Joy and James Burns for housebreaking.
Anson Polaski, otherwise Thomas Joy, 28, baker, was charged for that
at the general sessions for the county of Kent, held at Maidstone, on
9th of March, 1857, he was convicted of felony; at the quarter sessions
held at Sandwich, on the 7th April, 1859, he was convicted of felony; an
that having been so convicted of felony, he, on the 2nd September of the
present year, broke and entered the dwelling house of William Hall
Robinson, situate in Dover Road (the "Swan Inn"), and feloniously stole
and carried away £3 0s 6d in gold and silver money, a gold pin, four
clocks, a child's frock, a child's cloak, five pieces of baby linen, two
boxes of cigars, a bottle of pale brandy, a letter, a magistrates'
victuallers' licence, three coats, a concertina, a silk handkerchief, a
pair of sugar tongs, a pair of scissors, two ear drops and a gold
earring, altogether to the value of £5 and upwards. There was also a
count for stealing from a dwelling house to the value of £5, and a count
for larceny.
The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Minter, who appeared for the prosecution, briefly stated the case
to the jury, and then called William Hall Robinson.
Examined by Mr. Minter, he deposed that he was the landlord of the
"Swan Inn," and that he closed his house at half past twelve on the
night of 1st of September, and went to bed about 1 o'clock. In
consequence of what had been told him he came downstairs about a quarter
to seven the next morning, and found the pane of glass close to the sash
fastening of the back parlour window broken, and the window a little way
up. The writing desk had been broken open and a pin with a red stone,
four clocks, and some children's wearing apparel were missing. The
clocks were in a box. He then unlocked the door leading into the bar and
went into it, and observed that the window looking into the passage was
open. It fastened on the inside by a thumb bolt, but by shaking the sash
the bolt would loosen. It was witness's habit to fasten the bar window
every night. He missed three pounds and sixpence from the till, and
about seven or eight shillings in copper. He also missed three coats, a
concertina, a letter, and a magistrates' certificate from the bar. He
saw the prisoner on the previous evening in his house. He came in for
refreshment. On Tuesday morning he gave information to the police, and
went with them to Dover and Canterbury. He got to the "Wellington Inn"
at Canterbury, with P.C. Smith, about half past 12. The prisoner Joy was
there, and they found a concertina and three coats there in his
possession. Joy said the concertina and the coats were his property, and
he had bought them. He was then taken to the station and searched, and a
letter, a magistrates' certificate and five cigars were found on him.
The concertina and coats produced were his property. He saw police
sergeant Newman searching Joy at the station house, and find the letter
and magistrates' certificate produced, which were safe in his house on
the Monday night.
By the Recorder – The desk had not been opened for 12 months before.
All the money was taken from the till.
Mary Jane Stace, a servant of Mr. Robinson, came downstairs at a
quarter to seven on Tuesday morning, 2nd September, and saw that the
five little clocks that the night before were in a box on the sideboard
were gone. The back parlour window was open a little way. The bar window
and the till were also open. Going into the back yard she saw her
master's ladder leaning against the gate. The was was rather high.
Police sergeant Newman said that he went to Canterbury on Tuesday,
2nd September, with Mr. Robinson and P.C. Smith. At the "Wellington Inn"
they saw the prisoner Joy, and took him to the Canterbury police
station. When witness said he should search him, prisoner said he would
produce all he had, which was his own property. He then produced from
his pocket 53 cigars, clasp knife, a magistrates' certificate, and a
letter addressed to Mr. Robinson. When he took the latter articles out
he said they were not his property. When asked his name, he said he
would write it. He wrote “James Asan”.
P.C. Smith gave evidence in confirmation of Sergeant Newman.
The statement made by Joy before the magistrates was then read.
The prisoner being called on for defence said he could not make any
further statement than he had already made.
The learned Recorder then summed up the case to the jury, remarking
that when a person is found in possession recently stolen and failed
properly to account for it, the law allowed the jury to presume his
guilty possession.
The jury immediately found the prisoner Guilty on the first
indictment – housebreaking.
Inspector Spratt of the Canterbury police was then called to prove a
former conviction, and not presenting himself, the learned Recorder then
said a most serious complaint should be made.
The prisoner was, however, called on to plead to the indictment for
former convictions already given, and he pleaded guilty to both.
A further indictment was then proceeded with for feloniously stealing
five shillings, a watch, and a walking stick, from the premises of the "Duke
of York," Sandgate, on the 31st August, to which the prisoner
pleaded Not Guilty, saying that he was not in England at that time. He
came from Calais on the 1st of September.
This case had not been previously before the magistrates, and as no
legal gentleman represented the prosecution, the examination of
witnesses was conducted by the Recorder.
William Wood said he was a builder, but had control over the till at
the "Duke of York." On the 31st
of August he missed all the money out of his till, a walking stick, and
a bundle of cigars. He had seen the watch on the 30th of August hanging
over the mantel piece. Had not seen the watch since until today. Could
not say that the prisoner was at his house on the Saturday or Sunday,
but he had seen him at his house several times. (This witness gave his
evidence in a manner that called from the Recorder several reproofs. At
last the Recorder said it was disgraceful to see a man behaving himself
in the Court as he was doing that day. It was shameful. He had a great
mind to commit him for contempt of Court. It was shameful the state in
which he was.)
---- Wood, the son of the preceding witness said he got up on the
31st of August and came downstairs and found the front bar sash thrown
open. Going down the passage, he saw the back door was open.
James Long, shopman to Thomas Long, pawnbroker, Dover, had a notion
that he had seen the prisoner before, but he could not identify him as
having pledged the watch, which he had taken in.
The Recorder here stopped the case, no person being able to identify
the person who pledged, and then he proceeded to sentence the prisoner
on the indictments on which he had been found or pleaded guilty,
remarking that he had very little moral doubt himself that in the last
case he stole the watch and stick, although, as the case had been got up
under rather peculiar circumstances, the evidence was not satisfactory.
It was quite clear that he was a professional housebreaker. He was such
a person that the law must protect persons against when they went to bed
at night to take their rest. He was one of those persons, evidently, who
if interfered with in the carrying out of their purposes would not
hesitate to use violence. He meant therefore to do what would perhaps
send him out of the country for a time – though it did not necessarily
follow that a sentence of penal servitude removed a criminal from this
country. The sentence he meant to pass on him was that he be kept in
penal servitude for fifteen years (sensation).
James Burns, 25, engine driver, was then indicted for breaking into
the "Swan Inn," and stealing articles as enumerated in the indictment
against Joy. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Minter, for the prosecution, recapitulated the evidence, and
called various witnesses, whose evidence was the same, with unimportant
variations as to possession of goods &c., as in the last case, and the
prisoner's statement before the magistrates as to his being accosted by
a person on Tuesday morning at the Dover railway station, from whom he
bought the articles found upon him, was read. To this statement the
prisoner would now add nothing.
The Recorder then summed up the case to the jury, who immediately
returned a verdict of Guilty, and he was thereupon sentenced to five
years penal servitude.
This closed the business of the sessions.
|
Southeastern Gazette 7 October 1862.
Quarter Sessions.
The quarter session for the borough was held on Tuesday last, at the
Town-hall, before the Recorder (J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.)
Anson Polaski, alias Thomas Joy, 28, and James Burns, 25, engine driver,
were charged with stealing a gold pin, four clocks, £3 7s. 6d. in money,
and other articles, the property of William Hall Robinson, in his
dwelling-house, at Folkestone, on the 2nd September, 1862, Mr. Minter
appeared for the prosecution.
The prosecutor deposed that he was the landlord of the Swan Inn, and
that on the night of the 1st of September, he went to bed about 1
o’clock. In consequence of what had been told him he came down stairs
about a quarter to seven the next morning and found the pane of glass
close to the sash fastening of the back parlour window broken, and the
window a little way up. The writing desk had been broken open, and a
pin, four clocks, and some children’s wearing apparel, were missing. The
clocks were in a box. From the bar he missed £3 0s. 6d. in silver, and
about seven or eight shillings in copper. He also missed three coats, a
concertina, a letter, and a magistrates’ certificate from the bar. He
saw the prisoner on the previous evening in his house. He came in for
some refreshment. On Tuesday morning he gave information to the police,
and went with them to Dover and Canterbury. He got to the Wellington
Inn, at Canterbury, with P.C. Smith, about half-past 12. The prisoner
Joy was there, and they found a concertina and three coats there in his
possession. Joy said the concertina and the coats were his property, and
he had bought them. He was then taken to the station, and searched, and
a letter, a magistrates’ certificate, and five cigars were found on him.
The concertina and coats produced were his property. He saw
Police-sergeant Newman searching Joy at the station-house, and find the
letter and magistrates’ certificate produced, which were safe in his
house on the Monday night.
Evidence corroborative of the above was given, and also tracing some of
the stolen articles to the possession of Burns.
There was a further indictment against Joy, for stealing five shillings,
a watch, and a walking stick, from the premises of the Duke of York,
Sandgate, but this broke down from the want of identity.
A previous conviction having been proved against Joy, the Recorder, on
the first charge, sentenced him to fifteen years’ penal servitude,
remarking that he was evidently one of those persons who, if interfered
with in carrying out his nefarious purposes, would not hesitate to use
violence; Burns, five years’ penal servitude.
|
Folkestone Express 3 May 1873.
Local News.
Mr. Robinson of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, died very suddenly on
Wednesday night.
|
Southeastern Gazette 3 May 1873.
Local News.
On Wednesday evening Mr. William Robinson fell down in a fit and
expired. The deceased, who was the landlord of the Swan Inn, had
apparently enjoyed good health up to within a recent period.
|
Southeastern Gazette 31 January 1876.
Local News.
On Wednesday morning early two retriever dogs belonging to Mr. Robinson,
of the Swan Inn, found their way to the Copt fields, in which were ten
sheep, which they commenced to worry. When the shepherd arrived one
sheep was dead, four were so badly injured that it was found necessary
to slaughter them at once, and the remaining five had escaped from the
field, and were discovered some distance off.
|
Kentish Gazette, 1 February 1876.
FOLKESTONE SHEEP WORRYING.
On Wednesday morning early two retriever dogs belonging to Mr.
Robinson, of the "Swan Inn," found their was to the Copt fields, in
which were ten sheep, which they commenced to worry. When the
shepherd arrived one sheep was dead, four others so much injured
that immediate slaughter was necessary, and the other five were
found some distance from the field, from which they had escaped.
The sheep belong to Mr. Timothy Harrison.
|
Folkestone Express 12 August 1876.
Wednesday, August 9th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Alderman
Caister, J. Tolputt, J. Clark, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.
Joseph Holden and Harriett Holden, his wife, were charged with being
drunk and disorderly in the Dover Road, and the woman was further
charged with using obscene language.
The case was proved by Mr. William Robinson of the Swan Inn, where the
defendants had called for some matches.
The man, who said he was a boiler maker, and had come from Ashford to
work, expressed great regret and said he had done his best to get his
wife quietly away.
The Bench discharged the male defendant, but committed his wife for 21
days.
|
Folkestone Express 4 May 1878.
Wednesday, May 1st: Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs., and Captain
Crowe.
Charles Peters was charged with assaulting John Griffiths, a collector
of fossils, on the 27th of April. Mr. Gardner appeared for the
complainant.
John Griffiths said that on Saturday evening he went to the Swan Inn
about 8.30, and remained there until eleven o'clock. On leaving the
house he heard a noise, and the defendant went up to him and said that
he was “no man”. He wanted to know why and the defendant said it was
because he was trying to kick up a row with someone. He dragged him
towards the field, and wanted him to fight. He declined, and defendant
separated from him. The pulling lasted about five or ten minutes.
Henry Care, for the defendant, said he was at the Swan Inn on Saturday
night about eleven o'clock. Witness was larking about with defendant's
son, who knocked witness' pipe out of his mouth. Mr. Griffiths said “If
I was you I would give him a good hiding. He never was a man”. He did
not see Peters strike Griffiths.
Henry Goodchild and his wife both corroborated, and the Bench dismissed
the case, each to pay his own costs.
|
Folkestone Express 5 April 1879.
Wednesday, April 2nd: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., General Armstrong, J.
Fitness and M. Bell Esqs.
Thomas Williams, a tramp, pleaded Guilty to begging in the Swan Inn, and
to assaulting Charles Croucher and P.C. Loveday on the previous day.
Charles Croucher proved seeing the prisoner begging in the Swan, and
when he left he met him down the road, when he assaulted him. He threw
the prisoner, and P.C. Loveday then took him in charge.
P.C. Loveday stated that the prisoner was very violent, and tore his
clothes nearly off.
The Bench sentenced the prisoner to 21 days' hard labour for begging,
and to one month's hard labour for the assault.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 1 November 1879.
Saturday, October 25th: Before The Mayor, Alds. Caister, Hoad, and
Sherwood, Col. De Crespigny, Gen. Cannon, Capt. W. Carter, W.J.
Jeffreason, and J. Fitness Esqs.
John Spicer was charged with stealing a fowl, of the value of 2s. 6d.,
the property of William Robinson, landlord of the Swan Inn.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to one month's
imprisonment with hard labour.
|
Folkestone Express 1 November 1879.
Saturday, 25th October: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister, Hoad, and
Sherwood, Col. De Crespigny, General Cannon, Captain Carter, W.J.
Jeffreason, J. Clark, and J. Fitness Esqs.
John Spicer was charged with stealing a fowl, value 2s. 6d., the
property of Wm. Robinson, landlord of the Swan Inn.
James Fleet, a labourer, living at 1, Nelson Place, said about half past
eight on the previous evening he went into the yard of the Swan public
house. He saw the prisoner leave a water closet, look around to see if
anybody was about, then return immediately, and took a live fowl from
the closet and put it under his coat. He followed the prisoner, and told
him he ought to be ashamed of himself. In the meantime prisoner had
killed the fowl. He said he did not mean to take it away, but was going
to give it to Mr. Robinson. He took prisoner to the bar, and the fowl
was given up to Miss Robinson.
Prosecutor identified the bird produced as his property. It's value was
2s. 6d.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty, saying he was the worse for liquor, and did not
know what he was about at the time.
Prosecutor gave him a good character, and did not wish to press the
charge.
Prisoner was committed for one calendar month with hard labour.
|
Folkestone Express 18 December 1880.
Thursday, December 16th: Before W.J. Jeffreason and Aldermen Caister and
Sherwood.
Patrick Eiray was charged with stealing a spade of the value of 4s. 3d.,
the property of Messrs. Francis, ironmongers, High Street.
P.C. Knowles said from information he received he went in search of the
prisoner, and found him at the Swan Inn, with a spade standing close to
him. In reply to witness, prisoner said it was his property, and he took
him into custody on a charge of stealing it. He said a captain bought it
and gave it to him. When charged at the station he made no reply.
Mr. Charles Francis said he missed the spade in the evening of
Wednesday. He remembered seeing it just inside the doorway of the shop
in the morning. He identified it by the private mark on the handle. The
selling price of the spade was 4s. 3d. He had no knowledge of prisoner,
and from inquiries he had made he had ascertained there was not a spade
sold from their shop on Wednesday.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment
with hard labour.
|
Folkestone Express 15 July 1882.
Saturday, July 8th: Before The Mayor, J. Holden Esq., and Colonel de
Crespigny.
Richard Mercer appeared to a summons charging him with assaulting James
Unwin on the 6th inst. Complainant appeared in court with his left eye
much discoloured, and the defendant informed the court that the black
eye was the result of a fight with another man.
Complainant said he was a bricklayer, living at 70, Dover Road. On
Thursday afternoon he went into the Swan Inn about half past three
o'clock to get a pint of beer. Mercer was there, using abusive language
to the landlady. Witness said “If I was the woman's husband I would come
and throw you out of the house”. Mercer wanted him to fight, but he said
he was no fighter, and put his hands in his pockets. Mercer struck him
two blows on the nose, and he then put up his hands to defend himself.
In reply to the Bench, complainant said he had “a part of a black eye”
before, but the blows from Mercer increased it.
Henry Williams and John Boxer corroborated complainant's evidence.
Defendant did not deny striking complainant, but said he did not strike
the first blow. Complainant was annoyed with him because he had not
taken his part in a fight he had had with another man. The witnesses
called were not present. He and Unwin were alone in the bar.
The bench fined defendant 10s. and 11s. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.
Allowed a week for payment.
|
Folkestone Express 26 August 1882.
Licensing Day.
Application For New Licence.
Wednesday, August 23rd: Before J. Clark, F. Boykett and J. Holden Esqs.,
and Alderman Caister.
James Boxer, residing at 28, Rossendale Road, applied for an off
license. Both Mr. Minter and Mr. Mowll opposed the application.
Mr. Clark said there were two members of the Blue Ribbon Army present on
the Bench, and two who were not. He should propose that those two
gentlemen decided the application.
Mr. Minter said he opposed on behalf of the landlord of the Swan Inn,
which was close to the house where it was proposed to sell beer. Until
within the last week, he remarked, the magistrates had no discretion in
those licenses, but happily the legislature had decided that the
magistrates ought to have power to put a stop to what was found to be a
great nuisance, and they could now refuse to grant any license. He
ventured to say there could be no possible reason for granting the
application then made. He mentioned several public houses in the
vicinity – in fact, within an area of about a hundred yards there were
six or seven licensed houses. What possible reason there could be for
that application, or what good or convenience could rise, he was utterly
at a loss to conceive. He therefore asked the Bench to refuse the
application.
Applicant, a dairyman, said he had no special reason to urge why the
license should be granted, except that he wished to make a profit by
selling beer.
The license was refused.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 2 June 1883.
Inquest.
An inquest was held before the Borough Coroner on Monday evening on the
body of George Pearce, a labourer, aged 29, who was found in the harbour
on Sunday morning.
Stephen Hogben, labourer, living at Uphill, Folkestone, identified the
body as that of George Pearce, a labourer, who lived at White Gate,
Acrise, and worked for Mr. Clayson. He came to Folkestone with deceased
on Saturday, arriving here about eight o'clock. They went into the Swan,
where they remained about a quarter of an hour, and then went to a
public house named The Cutter and stayed there nearly an hour. They went
to another public house, where they also stayed nearly an hour, and then
they went round to the harbour. Witness left deceased near the clock
house about half past ten or a quarter to eleven, and got lodgings at
the Radnor. Deceased was ”a little beery” but there was nothing the
matter with witness. Deceased was sober when he came into Folkestone.
When witness left him he knew what he was about and could walk alright.
It rained hard, and that was the reason he (witness) got lodgings. He
heard on Sunday morning there was a man found dead in the harbour. His
appearance was described, and he went to the police station to identify
the body. There was no-one else round the harbour when witness left.
Henry Bailey, night-watchman on the harbour, said he was called on
Sunday morning at a quarter past five by some young men, who said there
was a dead body in the harbour. He went towards the Stade quay, and saw
deceased lying on his belly. His feet were about five or six feet from
the quay. He sent for the police, having felt his hand and found that he
was quite dead. The body was placed on a stretcher and conveyed to the
old police station. Witness saw the body searched, and saw his watch
taken out of his watch fob. It had stopped at one o'clock. It was high
water at one minute past two. There were three half pence, a tobacco
box, a dinner bag, and a small book in his pockets. His dress was not
disarranged in any way.
Dr. Perry said there were no marks about the body, and in his opinion
death was caused by drowning.
A verdict of “Found Drowned” was returned.
|
Folkestone Express 2 June 1883.
Inquest.
An inquest was held before the Borough Coroner on Monday evening on the
body og George Pearce, a labourer, aged 29, who was found in the harbour
on Sunday morning.
Syephen Hogben, labourer, living at Uphill, Folkestone, identified the
body as that of George Pearce, a labourer, who lived at White Gate,
Acrise, and worked for Mr. Clayson. He came to Folkestone with deceased
on Saturday, arriving here about eight o'clock. They went into the Swan,
where they remained about a quarter of an hour, and then went to the
Cutter and stayed there nearly an hour. They went to another public
house, where they stayed nearly an hour, and then went round to the
harbour. Witness left deceased near the clock house about half past ten
or a quarter to eleven, and got lodgings at the Radnor. Deceased was a
“little beery”, but there was nothing the matter with witness. Deceased
was sober when he came into Folkestone. When witness left him he knew
what he was about and could walk all right. It rained hard and that was
the reason witness got lodgings. He heard on Sunday morning there was a
man found dead in the harbour. His appearance was described, and he went
to the police station and identified the body. There was no-one else
round the harbour when witness left.
Henry Bailey, night watchman on the harbour, said he was called on
Sunday morning at a quarter past five by two young men, who said there
was a dead body in the harbour. He went towards the Stade quay, and saw
the deceased lying on his belly. His feet were about five or six feet
from the quay. He sent for the police, after having felt his hand and
found that he was quite dead. The body was placed on a stretcher and
conveyed to the old police station. Witness saw the body searched, and
saw deceased's watch taken out of his watch fob. It had stopped at one
o'clock. It was high water at one minute past two. There were three
halfpence, a tobacco box, a dinner bag, and a small book in his pockets.
His dress was not disarranged in any way.
Dr. Perru said he had examined the body of deceased at the police
station. There were no marks about the body, and in his opinion death
was caused by drowning.
A verdict of Found Drowned was returned.
|
Folkestone Express 16 June 1883.
Auction Advertisement Extract.
T.J. Harrison has been favoured with instructions from the Trustees of
the late William Hall Robinson, deceased, to sell by Auction, at the
Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, on Thursday, July 19th, 1883, at Six
o'clock in the evening, in Five Lots, the following Valuable Freehold
and Leasehold Properties.
Lot 5 – All that Valuable Leasehold Fully Licensed House, known as the
Swan Inn, Dover Road, Folkestone. Close to the S.E.R. Junction Station,
containing Double Fronted Bar, Tap Room, Bar Parlour and Living Room.
First Floor – Three Bedrooms and Sitting Room, Two Attics. Together with
Kitchen, Store House, and Yard in Rear, with commodious cellarage in
Basement. Let to Mr. W.H. Robinson (the son) as a yearly tenant, which
expires on the 1st December next, at the nominal rental of £38 a year.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 14 July 1883.
Auction Notice Extract.
By Order of The Trustee.
Notice of Auction Sale of Valuable Leasehold and Fully Licensed Inn, and
other Valuable Freehold and Leasehold Properties.
T.J. Harrison has been favoured with instructions from the Trustees of
the estate of the late Mr. William Hall Robinson, deceased, to sell by
Auction, at the Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, on Thursday, July 19th,
1883, at Six o'clock in the evening in Five Lots, the following Valuable
Freehold and Leasehold Properties.
Lot 5 – All that valuable and substantially built leasehold fully
licensed house known as The Swan Inn, 160, Dover Road, Folkestone,
containing on the:
Ground Floor: Double fronted bar, tap room, bar parlour and living room
First Floor: Three bedrooms, sitting room, and two attics, together with
kitchen,
Store House and Yard in rear, and commodious cellarage in basement.
Let to Mr. W.H. Robinson (the son), as a yearly tenant, which will
expire by notice on the 1st December next, at the low annual rental of
£38.
And also all those two leasehold cottages in the rear, known as No. 1
and 2, Nelson Place, Dover Road, Folkestone, let to weekly tenants, Mr.
Suckling and Mr. Fleet, and producing the annual rental of £23 8s.
The whole of this lot is held under a lease from the Earl of Radnor and
Viscount Folkestone, for the term of 99 years from the 25th day of
March, 1844, at the low annual ground rent of £4 4s.
The Swan Inn is a well known Inn for business, and is situated close to
the Junction Station of the South Eastern Railway Company. It is in one
of the principal thoroughfares of the town, and there are every
available means for carrying on a large and profitable trade. It has
been conducted with public credit and profit by the late Mr. W.
Robinson, and since his death by his Trustee and Tenant, during the last
30 years, and the present affords an excellent opportunity either for a
man of business, or for investment.
The bar fixtures and all fittings, and the licenses will have to be
taken by the purchaser at a valuation in the usual way, an inventory of
which will be produced at the sale.
Particulars and Conditions of Sale may be obtained at the offices of the
Auctioneer, 14, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, and of W.G.S. Harrison,
Vendor's Solicitor, 4, Cheriton Place, Folkestone.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 21 July 1883.
Sale of Property.
On Thursday evening Mr. T.J. Harrison conducted a sale by auction at the
Clarendon Hotel of property belonging to the executors of the late Mr.
W.H. Robinson.
For the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and two cottages adjoining, there was a
keen competition, and it was ultimately knocked down to Mr. Flint for
the good sum of £1,900.
|
Folkestone Express 23 June 1894.
Monday, June 18th: Before J. Brooke and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Frederick Archer and Margaret Noble were charged with being drunk and
disorderly in Dover Road on the 16th June, and the male prisoner was
further charged with damaging a square of glass, value 35s., the
property of Mr. Robinson, landlord of the Swan Inn.
Mrs. Elizabeth Robinson said the prisoner was ejected from the house
just before eleven on Saturday morning. The man and woman appeared to be
sober when they went in. They were very quiet for a time, and then they
began to get quarrelsome and used obscene language. They had a quart of
beer when they went in. The female had a small soda. There were three in
the party. The third, a man, was not present. They were ordered out
several times before they would go, and then they were put out. Archer
smashed the window with his fist.
P.C. Nash said Mr. Robinson gave Archer into custody. He was very
violent, and he had to get assistance to put the handcuffs on. The
damage was put at £1 15s. The female struck him when he was on the
ground.
The female had previously been charged with breaking a square of glass
at Sandgate, and there were several other convictions against her.
Superintendent Taylor said she was a very violent woman.
Archer was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs for drunkenness, or seven days';
and for the damage 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and 35s. the value of the
glass, or one month. Noble was sent to prison for 14 days.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 22 March 1895.
Local News.
Samuel Baker and William Kemp had their little experience of the
Magistrates' Court on Saturday, and if they are not satisfied they ought
to be.
They met at the Swan Inn, Dover Road, on Thursday morning, and got to
words. From words they got to spitting in one another's faces, and then
to blows. Hence their appearance in the Police Court, each being
summoned by the other for assault.
The Bench listened in patience to the story of this public house
squabble, and the dismissed both summonses, leaving each of the
litigants to pay his own costs, 3s. in each case.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 6 March 1897.
Saturday, February 28th: Before Messrs. J. Fitness and T.J. Vaughan.
Charles Stone, otherwise Bailey, was charged with refusing to quit
licensed premises when requested on February 23rd. He pleaded Guilty.
William Brett, the manager of the Swan Inn, said the defendant came in
about 9 p.m. He was drunk, and witness refused to serve him. He was
requested to leave, but refused and used filthy language. He was
ejected, but returned and upset a large number of people in the bar.
Defendant had nothing to say to the charge.
Fined 20s., or 14 days'.
|
Folkestone Herald 6 March 1897.
Folkestone Police Court.
On Saturday – Mr. Fitness presiding – Charles Stone, otherwise Bailey,
was charged with refusing to quit licensed premises on 23rd February. He
pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Wm. Brett, the landlord of the Swan Inn, gave evidence that the
defendant came in the bar drunk between nine and ten in the evening of
the day in question, and when requested to leave used disgusting and
threatening language. He was then ejected, but returned and struck at
the landlord over the bar, which was full of customers.
Fined 20s., 9s. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.
Note: Brett is not listed in More Bastions.
|
Folkestone Express 7 August 1897.
Wednesday, August 4th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Pledge, J.
Holden, J. Fitness, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.
William Vye and Thomas Waddell were charged with assaulting Leon Laine
on July 24th.
Prisoners pleaded Not Guilty and said they only acted in self-defence.
Complainant, who gave his evidence through an interpreter, said he was
an engineer at the Canning Factory, and lived at 43, Warren Road. On
Saturday night, July 24th, he had a glass of beer at the Swan Inn, and
left there at eleven accompanied by another Frenchman, a cook by trade.
They went down Dover Road, and on coming back met four men, one of whom
called him “a b---- Frenchman”. He protested, and was then assaulted by
two of the men, who knocked him down three times. When on the ground he
was kicked in the stomach. He got up and tried to walk, but owing to the
loss of blood he could not do so, and he was assisted home by the
landlord of the public house opposite. He was still under a doctor.
Elie Gauchot, another Frenchman, gave corroborative evidence, and said
he was also struck in the side. He subsequently gave information of the
occurrence to a policeman.
In answer to Waddell, witness said he was quite sober.
P.C. Willes said on the night in question he saw about twenty people
lounging about, and he told them to move on. Prosecutor came forward
with his nose bleeding, and said he had been struck. The Frenchmen had
been drinking, but were not drunk. He told them that as they knew the
men who struck them they must take out a summons against them.
P.S. Dawson said on Friday last he went to the Cyprus, where he saw
Waddell, whom complainant pointed out as the man who “boxed with him”.
At the bottom of High Street, complainant identified Vye, and on being
taxed with the offence, said “I did it”.
Vye said Leon threw his stick down and called him an English pig. He
kept making a noise so he knocked him down. He only struck him twice.
Waddell said he did not strike Leon. He simply told him to go away.
Vye, who had been previously convicted, was fined £2 and 12s. 6d. costs,
or in default one month's hard labour, and Waddell was fined £1 and 12s.
6d. costs, or in default 21 days' with hard labour.
|
Folkestone Herald 7 August 1897.
Police Court Record.
Two young men named William Vye and Thomas Waddell were charged with
assaulting Leon Laine on the 24th July. The former said it was in
self-defence and the latter pleaded Not Guilty.
The complainant gave evidence through an interpreter to the effect that
he lived at 43, Warren Road, and was engineer to the Canning Company. On
the night of the 24th he had a glass of beer at the Swan Inn, and
remained there five minutes. It was 11 o'clock. There was another
Frenchman with him, a cook. They went down Dover Road when leaving the
Swan and remained there five minutes talking, and then they came back
about 11.20. As they were coming up the street again they met two men,
who used a foul expression towards him, and both struck him. He had
three successive blows, and three times was knocked down. While he was
on the ground they kicked him on the stomach and below the belt. He got
up and tried to walk, but he was losing blood fast through the mouth.
Four men struck him, but he only knew two, the defendants, whom he knew
very well. The two prisoners struck him. He never spoke to them. He had
been under a doctor, and was still under one. The two defendants knocked
him down.
In answer to Vye, witness added that he saw Vye strike him.
Elie Gaucho, who was with defendant at the time, gave corroborative
evidence. There were seven or eight men sitting down, and it was very
dark. When complainant was on the ground they struck him with their fist
and kicked him. One of them struck witness a blow on the side. He told a
policeman what had happened.
In answer to Vye, witness said he was not drunk.
P.C. Wiles gave evidence that on Saturday night, 24th, he was on duty in
Dover Road about a quarter to twelve just opposite the Swan. He saw
about twenty persons, and heard loud talking going on. He went up there
and told them to clear away. The complainant came and said someone had
struck him in the nose. His nose was bleeding. Witness asked if he knew
who it was who struck him, and he said “Yes, he knew the men”. Witness
told him he could summons them. Complainant did not point out the men to
him. The Frenchmen were not drunk, but they had been drinking. He saw
them come out of the Swan at eleven o'clock on that same evening.
In answer to defendants, witness said that they went away when he spoke
to them. He could not make them properly understand about the summoning.
Complainant only spoke of the slap in the nose.
P.S. Dawson stated that on Friday last he went round with the
complainant, and in the Cyprus public house he saw Waddell. The
complainant pointed him out and said that was the one that boxed him. He
left and went down High Street, and about 12 yards from the bottom he
pointed out Vye, saying that was the other one that boxed him. Witness
went to Vye, who, in answer to witness, told his name and address, 13
Young's Road. He said “What is the matter, Mr. Dawson?” Witness told him
the Frenchman had identified him as one of two men who assaulted him on
Saturday night. He said “I did it”.
In answer to Vye, witness added that Vye was about to make a statement,
and he told him to keep it to himself.
Mr. H.B. Bradley, the Clerk to the Magistrates, said that was very good
advice.
Vye said that he and Waddell were sitting on the wall up the Dover Road
on Saturday night, and the two Frenchmen were standing by the side of
the Swan, talking to a young lady, who went away with someone, and they
walked over the road before them. One threw a stick down and said “You
English pigs” and struck him. He took no notice for two or three
minutes, but he would not go away, and made a noise. Witness struck him
twice, and then he got up and went away.
Vye, who had been brought up previously for assault, was fined £2, 12s.
6d. costs, or a month's hard labour, and Waddell was fined £1, 12s. 6d.
costs, or 21 days' hard labour.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 30 April 1898.
Saturday, April 23rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, and T.J.
Vaughan.
John Bryant was charged with being drunk in charge of a horse and cart
in Dover Road on April 22nd.
P.C. Burniston said he ejected the prisoner from the Swan Inn. He got up
into a cart and drove off, but stopped at the New Inn. Prisoner was
further charged with refusing to quit the Swan Inn.
Mr. Brett, manager, said the prisoner was drunk in his house and refused
to leave. He did not get drunk in his house.
P.C. Burniston said he ejected the prisoner as he refused to leave. He
used very bad language. He had seen him previously at the Red Cow, when
he was sober.
He was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs for the first offence, and the second
charge was dismissed, the Bench believing he got drunk in the house.
|
Folkestone Herald 30 April 1898.
Police Court Report.
On Saturday last – Alderman Pledge presiding – John Bryan pleaded Guilty
to being drunk in charge of a horse and cart.
P.C. Burneston deposed that on the previous night he ejected the
defendant from the Swan public house. He drove twice on to the pavement.
He was drunk, and unfit to be in charge of a horse and cart.
There was another charge against defendant of refusing to quit licensed
premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Brett, manager of the Swan Inn, deposed that defendant came into the
Swan. Witness saw him about 4 o'clock. He refused to leave. The
constable put him out. Defendant was in a drunken state.
Defendant said he only went in there.
P.C. Burneston deposed that he was called at ten past six to eject
prisoner.
Defendant said he had several twos of whisky.
The Bench fined him 5s., 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days' hard labour. They
dismissed the second charge of refusing to quit, it being the firm
impression of the Chairman that defendant got drunk at this house.
|
Folkestone Up To Date 30 April 1898.
Saturday, April 23rd: Before Ald. Pledge, T.S. Spurgeon, and T.J.
Vaughan Esqs.
John Brien, horse dealer, Folkestone, was charged with having been drunk
on licensed premises, and refusing to quit, and also in being unfit to
take charge of his horse and cart on the 22nd inst.
P.C. Burniston said that about 6.10 on the previous evening he was
called into the Swan to eject the prisoner and another man. The prisoner
had a horse and cart standing outside, and drove several times on the
pavement while proceeding to the New Inn, where he was taken into
custody by Burniston.
Mr. Brett, of the Swan, said: The prisoner and his friend came into the
Swan Inn last evening, and called for drink. I was not in at the time. I
asked the prisoner to leave the house, but he would not do so.
For the first offence the prisoner was fined 5s., and 4s. 6d. costs, and
for the second dismissed.
The Chairman said the Magistrates had dealt so lightly with the second
offence because they believed that the prisoner got the principal part
of his drink at the Swan.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 6 August 1898.
Wednesday, August 3rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, W.
Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.
Mrs. Robinson was granted the transfer of the licence of the Swan Inn.
Mr. Mowll appeared for the applicant.
|
Folkestone Herald 6 August 1898.
Police Court Report.
On Wednesday licence was granted to Mrs. Robinson, of the Swan Inn.
|
Folkestone Up To Date 6 August 1898.
Wednesday, August 3rd: Before J. Pledge, W.C. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and
C.J. Pursey esqs.
On the application of Mr. Mowll, Mrs. Robinson, of the Swan Inn, was
granted a renewed licence in her own name.
|
Hythe Reporter 13 August 1898.
Folkestone Police Court.
At the sitting of the Bench of Magistrates last Wednesday, the following
licence was transferred:
Mr. E. Rutley Mowll applied on behalf of Mrs. Robinson, widow of the
late landlord of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, for a new licence; granted.
|
Folkestone Herald 15 October 1898.
Police Court Report.
On Saturday last John Bryant was summoned for leaving a horse and cart
unattended.
P.C. Simpson deposed that on the 23rd he saw a horse and trap outside
the Swan public house, Dover Road, 20 minutes. Defendant was called out,
and he said it belonged to him. Witness told defendant he had seen it
there 20 minutes, and he would report him. The defendant replied “You
can report your grandmother if you like”.
Defendant denied some of the evidence. He asked a lad to mind the horse
a few minutes.
Fined 5s. and 9s. costs.
|
Folkestone Up To Date 15 October 1898.
Saturday, October 8th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, J. Holden, and T.J.
Vaughan Esqs.
John Bryan, a driver, was summoned for leaving a horse and conveyance
outside the Swan, Dover Road, on Friday, 23rd September.
The constable who had charge of the case said the horse and conveyance
were standing unattended from 12.25 p.m. to 12.45 p.m., twenty minutes.
He asked the defendant how long he had been there, and the answer was
“Don't know”. He then said he should report the case, and the defendant
said “You can report your old grandmother if you like”.
The defendant told their Worships that when he went into the Swan he
asked a boy if he would mind the horse a little, and the boy replied
“Yes”. He thought the lad was outside with the horse. The statement as
to the language about the old grandmother was false.
He was fined 5s. and 9s. costs.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 20 May 1899.
County Court.
Before His Honour Sir W.L. Selfe.
Thomas Payne, traveller for Ash and Co., the well known brewers, sued
Mrs. Brett, landlady of the Swan Inn, for value of 1,141 bottles and
stoppers and 13 cases, empties not returned. The articles, when filled,
were delivered to the Swan when Mrs. Brett's former husband, Mr.
Robinson, was the landlord. Mrs. Brett disputed an item of £4 8s.,
saying the goods represented by the amount were never delivered.
Stephen Rye, S.E. Railway carman, produced his delivery note, dated
August 20th, 1898, and signed “C. Obinson” in blue pencil.
Mr. Brett was called, and declared the signature a forgery. A similar
case, he said, arose in 1894, when he was employed at the house, and the
firm proved the forgery by finding out that the goods in that case had
not been delivered at that house. He knew there was not a farthing due
from Mrs. Brett to the complainants.
Mr. Haines suggested that the bottles had been sold to navvies over the
bar, and thus the loss had occurred.
His Honour expressed the belief that navvies preferred deeper draughts
than bottled beer, and he complained of the absence of the brewers'
ledger. The evidence was not so clear as he could have wished, but from
what he had heard he decided to give judgement for Ash and Co. for £9
10s. and costs, to be paid by instalments of £2 a month.
|
Folkestone Express 20 May 1899.
County Court.
Tuesday, May 16th: Before Sir. Wm. L. Selfe.
Ash and Co. v Brett: Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the plaintiffs. It wa
a claim for beer sold and delivered to Mrs. Brett, and for bottles,
stoppers and cases not returned.
Thomas Payne, traveller for plaintiffs, proved receiving orders from
Mrs. Brett, then Mrs. Robinson, the landlady of the Swan Inn. Mr.
Robinson, he said, died last summer, and she subsequently married Brett,
who was the manager. He said he took orders for bottles of ale and stout
and they were supplied to the house. A quarterly statement of accounts
was always rendered. When bottles came back they were credited to the
parties who sent them. Defendant had not advised them when bottles were
returned. The last statement showed 1,141 bottles and 13 cases missing.
Since the action 180 bottles and five cases had been returned. Defendant
denied that the ale (X.P.A.) and stout had been delivered.
Mr. Brett said the account gave no date when the bottles were returned.
Stephen Rye, carman in the employ of the S.E.R., proved delivery of the
goods, and put in a delivery note.
Mr. Brett declared that the signature was a forgery.
Witness said he could not say who signed it. The daughter sometimes
signed.
Mary Ann Elizabeth Brett said Mr. Robinson died on the 2nd June, 1898.
He left his property solely to her, and she had since married. She knew
nothing at all about the stout or the bottles. Her husband always gave
all the orders. She had no account of bottles sent back. She knew 17 and
13 and five cases had been sent back at different times by the S.E.R.,
but she had no receipts for them.
Mr. Payne said the firm signed for them when they were returned. He
could not bring the ledger, but the statement was a copy of the account
in the ledger.
Rye said he got signatures for goods delivered, but not for bottles and
cases returned.
Mrs. Brett said she dealt with several firms. She did not often have 24
dozens of bottles of beer in.
Mr. Payne said the trade of the house was not an even one. The account
for returns extended over four or five years, and there were 1,141
bottles missing – two thirds of those supplied.
His Honour remarked that the claim was for a hundred dozen of bottles.
Mrs. Brett said when they sold the bottled beer out they charged 1d. for
bottles.
Mr. Haines said defendant did a large trade with navvies, who had
bottled beer.
His Honour: They don't drink bottled beer – they want a longer drink
than that, don't they – gallon jars?
Mrs. Brett: No, mostly pints.
His Honour: Only pints! I am disappointed.
Mr. Brett said there was a similar error in 1894. He did not owe the
plaintiffs a penny either for beer or bottles. He had never put a
receipt on one of the invoices.
His Honour examined a number of receipts, and said in one case the
receipt was dated three days before the goods were delivered.
Witness said he paid for them in advance. He never had a quarterly
statement, nor was it usual to put a memo as to bottles on the accounts.
His Honour said the evidence was by no means clear as to the bottles,
but there was no doubt as to the beer being delivered. There would be
judgement for the plaintiffs for £9 10s. and costs at £2 a month.
|
Folkestone Herald 20 May 1899.
County Court.
Tuesday, May 16th: Before Sir W. Lucius Selfe.
Ash and Co. v Brett: This was a claim for goods supplied, and bottles
not returned. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Thomas Payne, a traveller for the plaintiffs, deposed that he had
been representing the firm in Folkestone, and had called on the
defendant, Mrs. Brett, then Mrs. Robinson, whose late husband had left
the Swan. Mr. Brett, the defendant's husband, was then manager, and gave
him orders. In August, 1898, he took an order for stout, and other
liquor, which was forwarded by the firm. They had supplied the house
with bottled beer for nearly five years. A number of bottles and cases
had been returned, but others had not.
Stephen Rye, carman in the employ of the South Eastern railway, produced
a note delivered on the 29th August, and said he delivered the goods.
Mrs. Brett deposed that hr late husband died on the 2nd June, 1898,
leaving the property solely to her. She knew nothing about the bottles,
except that they had always been sent back when they were emptied. She
had no receipts from the railway for returned empties.
Mr. Brett said the signature for the 29th October was entirely false.
They had the same trouble in 1894. He did not owe a single farthing.
His Honour ultimately gave judgement for the plaintiff for £9 10s, at £2
a month.
|
Folkestone Up To Date 20 May 1899.
County Court.
Tuesday, May 16th: Before Sir William Selfe.
Ash and Co. v Mrs. Brett: This was an action for the recovery of £15
17s. 2d. for goods delivered. Amongst other items were £9 10s. for 1,141
bottles and stoppers, and £1 19s. for cases not returned. Mr. Haines
appeared for the plaintiff.
Thomas Payne said: I am a traveller to Messrs. Ash and Co., and have
called on Mrs. Brett, who was lately Mrs. Robinson. She recently married
again. Her late husband died last summer. I think Brett, the husband of
the present defendant, was manager, and generally gave the orders for
beer and stout. I have also kept the bottle and stopper account. There
has been a statement presented to the defendant as to the amount
outstanding. The defendant never advised me. There were over 1,141
bottles and stoppers, and some dozen cases not returned.
Mr. Brett, as representing the defendant, complained that the bill
presented to him did not contain proper date entries.
A carman in the employ of the S.E. Railway Company deposed that a note
showing the delivery of certain goods to the defendant was duly signed.
Mr. Brett said the signature was a forgery. The note was never signed
either by himself or by Mrs. Brett.
Mary Ann Elizabeth Brett said: My husband died on the 2nd June, 1898. He
left a will, leaving his property solely to me. I have since married
again. As to the goods in question, I don't know anything about them.
There are no receipts for returned entries. The empties are sent back
free. I could not say what the year's consumption of bottled stout and
ale is at the Swan.
Mr. Payne, further examined by His Honour, alleged that two thirds of
the bottles supplied to the defendant had not come back.
Mrs. Brett: We charge a penny on bottles that are not returned to us.
Mr. Brett, as manager of the defendant's business, emphatically stated
that not a single farthing was due to the plaintiffs for goods of any
description.
His Honour considered that the evidence in the case was by no means
clear, but gave a verdict for £9 10s. and costs with respect to the
bottles and stoppers, payment to be made at the rate of £2 a month.
|
Folkestone Herald 1 July 1899.
Folkestone Police Court.
On Tuesday last, Mr. Pope, architect, submitted plans showing proposed
alterations to the Swan Inn, Dover Road, which he explained to the
Bench. The case was adjourned so that the Superintendent may inspect the
premises.
|
Folkestone Express 29 July 1899.
Saturday, July 22nd: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and
Col. Hamilton.
Mr. Reginald Pope presented a plan of alterations to be made at the Swan
Inn, Dover Road.
Supt. Reeve said it would increase the public drinking facilities, and
also provide another public entrance.
The plan was approved.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 26 August 1899.
Brewster Sessions.
The Session for renewing old licences and granting new ones for the sale
of intoxicating liquors in Folkestone was held on Wednesday last at the
Town Hall. Captain Willoughby Carter presided, and the other members of
the Bench were Messrs. Pursey, Fitness, and Herbert.
The whole of the existing licences were renewed, with the exception of
the licence of the Swan Tavern, Dover Road. In that case the renewal was
held over for an adjourned sitting, the house being in course of
re-construction, and the Chief Constable not being prepared to make a
report upon it until the work had been proceeded with further.
|
Folkestone Express 26 August 1899.
Folkestone Licensing Sessions.
Wednesday, August 23rd: Before Captain Carter, J. Hoad, W.G. Herbert, J.
Fitness, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.
In the case of the Swan Inn, Supt. Reeve said he had received certain
complaints against the manner in which it was conducted, and considered
it necessary to ask that the application for renewal should be postponed
until the adjourned licensing session in order that he might investigate
the matter. The applicant, Mr. Brett, was accordingly told to renew his
application at the adjournment.
|
Folkestone Herald 26 August 1899.
Annual Licensing Sessions.
On Wednesday last the Annual Licensing Meeting was held at the Court
Room, Town Hall, the sitting justices being Capt. Carter, Mr. Fitness,
Mr. Pursey, Mr. Hoad, Mr. Alderman Pledge, and Mr. Alderman Herbert.
Chief Constable Reeve applied that the renewal of the licence of the
Swan Inn, near the Junction Station, be allowed to stand over to the
adjourned meeting. His application, he said, had no reference to the
extensive alterations now in progress.
The application was granted, and the renewal adjourned accordingly.
|
Folkestone Up To Date 26 August 1899.
Licensing Day.
The Swan.
Wednesday, August 23rd: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Hoad, J.
Fitness, W.G. Herbert, J. Pledge, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
The consideration of the application of Mr. Brett for a renewal of his
licence was postponed until the adjourned licensing sessions, Chief
Constable Reeve wishing time to investigate certain complaints against
the place.
|
Southeastern Gazette 26 August 1899.
Local News.
Captain Willoughby-Carter presided at the Folkestone Licensing Sessions
on Wednesday. The Chief Constable, Mr. H. Reeve, reported that there
were at present within the borough 138 persons licensed for the sale by
retail of intoxicating drink, viz.: 58 full licence holders, 14
beerhouse keepers for consumption on the premises, four chemists for
wine off the premises, six beer-sellers for consumption off the
premises, three confectioners for wine on the premises, and 26 others
holding various licences to sell beer, spirits, &c„ off the premises.
There were 12 places licensed for public music and dancing, 10 of which
were premises also licensed for the sale of intoxicating drink. There
was also one place licensed for public billiard playing. During the past
year, five of the licence holders had been proceeded against for
offences against the Licensing Acts, but only four of them were
convicted. 89 persons were proceeded against for drunkenness, 84 were
convicted, and five discharged. Six persons were convicted for being on
licensed premises during prohibited hours, and one for refusing to quit
licensed premises when requested.
The consideration of the renewal of the licence of the Swan Tavern,
Dover Road, was adjourned, in consequence of the house being in course
of reconstruction, but all the remaining existing licences were renewed.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 23 September 1899.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
At these Sessions, on Wednesday, Mr. Brett applied for a renewal licence
for the Swan Inn, Dover Road.
The Chief Constable said he had asked the Bench to defer consideration
of this application until this session in order to give him an
opportunity of enquiring into certain complaints made as to the conduct
of the house. He had thoroughly enquired into the matter and found that,
though there was some improvement necessary in the manner of the
business, there was nothing so serious as to justify his opposing the
renewal.
Mr. Brett stated that the licence had been held for many years by his
wife's late husband, Mr. Robinson, and there had been no complaint or
prosecution throughout the time.
The Bench granted the renewal and cautioned Brett to see that the house
was conducted in a manner which would prevent any complaint arising, or
he would risk the revocation of his licence.
|
Folkestone Express 23 September 1899.
Adjourned Licensing Session.
Wednesday, September 20th: Before Capt. Carter, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.
Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, J. Pledge, and J. Hoad Esqs.
In the case of the Swan Inn, the renewal of the licence to which was
adjourned till this session in order that Supt. Reeve might investigate
certain complaints, the Superintendent said he had made enquiries, and
did not feel justified in opposing the renewal. The licence was
therefore renewed to Elizabeth Brett.
|
Folkestone Herald 23 September 1899.
Folkestone Police Court.
On Wednesday, with regard to the renewal of the licence of the Swan Inn
to the wife of Mr. Brett, Chief Constable Reeve said that this
application was before the Bench at the Annual Licensing, but he
suggested that it stay over until the adjourned meeting to enable him to
make inquiries into certain complaints received as to the conduct of the
house in the meantime. He had a thorough inquiry made with reference to
the management, and although he was satisfied that there were some
grounds for complaint, he did not feel justified in opposing the renewal
any further. He trusted that in future the house would be better managed
than it had been in the past. There had, however, been no convictions.
The Chairman, addressing Mr. Brett, said that he had heard what the
Chief Constable said. He must be very careful for the future conduct of
the house, otherwise no doubt his licence would be revoked. On the
understanding that the house would be well conducted for the future, the
licence would be renewed.
|
Folkestone Up To Date 23 September 1899.
Adjourned Licensing Day.
The Swan.
Wednesday, September 20th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Hoad, J.
Pledge, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
With reference to the adjourned application by Elizabeth Brett for the
renewal of the licence of the Swan Inn, the Chief Constable remarked
that after making inquiries he did not feel justified in opposing.
The licence was renewed.
|
Folkestone Express 10 February 1900.
Saturday, February 3rd: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, and W. Medhurst
Esqs., and Col. Westropp.
Elizabeth Brett was summoned for permitting gaming on licensed premises,
the Swan Inn. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant.
Inspector Swift said at a quarter past nine on the evening of the 27th
of January, in company with detective Officer Burniston, he was near the
Swan public house and heard voices from the taproom, which abuts on the
Folly Road. He listened, and heard a voice say “I'll try one”, another
“Pass me”, another “I'll try two”, and another “You get 'em”. He heard
cards being placed heavily on the table, and in some instances the name
of the card was given – such as “Ten”, “Jack”. Another voice said “Got 'em.
Pay up”. He then heard the chinking of money. Shortly after, another
voice said “Deal 'em out”. Then came other remarks, similar to those
mentioned, indicating gaming. At the end of each hand he heard the
chinking of money. After about five minutes they entered the room by the
door in Folly Road. The defendant was in the bar, and the door was open
which led from the bar into the smoking room, where the men were. They
entered the room and saw five men seated at a table close to the window
where they had listened. They each had three cards in their hands, and
two cards were lying on the table in front of each. On seeing witness,
they dropped their hands under the table. One of them, named Clark,
remarked “Oh, you did not see any money on the table”. He called
defendant's attention to it, and said to her “I shall report you for
permitting gaming on licensed premises”. She replied “I did not know
they were gambling”. Anyone in the bar could hear all that was passing
in the smoking room if the door was open.
In answer to Mr. Haines, he said he did not see any cards stating that
gambling was not permitted, nor did defendant show him four of them.
There were other men in the room, who were not playing. He, of course,
could not say whether money was put on the table to pay for drink when
he heard the chinking. He was certain the words he heard used were “Pay
up” and not “Play up”. He believed they called the game “Nap” they were
playing. There was only one pack of cards – an incomplete pack – ten
were missing. He did not suggest that it was usual to play “Nap” with a
pack of cards with 10 missing.
Detective Officer Burniston gave similar evidence, and with the pack of
cards in Court he demonstrated the noise of shuffling and cutting,
manipulating them quite expertly.
In answer to Mr. Haines, Burniston said if other men in the room said
there was no playing for money, it would not be true. He saw no cards
about gambling in the house. He could not tell the difference in the
chink of money paid for cards and that paid for drink. He thought it was
a suspicious act for men to put cards between their legs under the
table.
Mr. Haines: But you don't suppose they were going to show you what sort
of hands they had, do you? (Laughter)
Mr. Haines said it was not suggested that it was an unlawful game,
unless it was played for money, and he contended there was no evidence
that money was played for, except the statement of the constables that
they heard money put down on the table. He submitted that there was no
knowledge on the part of the defendant or her husband that there was any
playing for money. If the Bench thought differently, he should show them
that every step had been taken to prevent it.
Mrs. Brett, the defendant, was sworn, and said there were four cards in
the room stating that no gambling was permitted. On the evening in
question, she and her husband and her daughter were all busy in the bar.
Her daughter attended on the smoking room when anything was knocked for,
and the door was usually kept open. Nothing occurred to lead her to
suppose money was being played for. From the bar, in the ordinary way,
they could not see what was going on at the further table. Had she known
that playing for money was going on she would have stopped it.
In answer to Supt. Reeve, witness said the cards were hers – they were
on the shelf in the smoking room.
Percy William Brett said the table was not in view of the bar. He did
not allow gaming and had the cards printed to warn people. He allowed
customers to play whist or cribbage, but not for money.
The Bench retired to consider the points raised, and on their return
said they considered there was a doubt in the evidence, and they gave
the defendant the benefit of it. The summons was dismissed.
|
Folkestone Herald 10 February 1900.
Folkestone Police Court.
On Saturday morning last a case of considerable interest to licensed
holders was heard before the Borough Justices; Mr. Hoad, Col. Westropp,
and Mr. Medhurst being on the Bench.
Mrs. Elizabeth Brett, the landlady of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was
summoned for permitting gaming on licensed premises. Chief Constable
Reeve conducted the prosecution, and Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor,
appeared for the defence. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty to the
charge.
Inspector Swift deposed: At a quarter past nine on the evening of the
27th ult., accompanied by Detective Burniston, I was near the Swan
public house, Dover Road, and heard voices from inside the tap-room, the
window of which abuts on the Folly Road. I listened and heard a voice
say “I will try one”. Another voice said “Pass me”, another “I will try
two”, and another “You get them”. Then the cards could be heard being
played on the table with the knuckle. In some instances the name of the
card was given; “Ten” and “Jack”. Then a voice said “Got them. Pay up”,
after which I heard the chinking of money. Shortly after another voice
said “Deal them out”, and there were similar voices making like remarks,
indicating gaming. At the end of each hand I heard the chinking of
money. After about five minutes we entered the room by the door on the
Folly Road side of the house. The door was open which leads to the bar
on the smoking room I am speaking of, where the men were. I then went
into the smoking room and saw five men seated at a table close to the
window where we had listened. They had each three cards in their hand,
and two cards lying on the table in front of each. On seeing me they
dropped their hands under the table. One man named Clark remarked “Ah,
you did not see any money on the table”. I then called the attention of
the defendant to it, and said “I shall report you for permitting gaming
on your licensed premises”. She replied “I did not know they were
gambling”. The door opened from the bar to the smoke-room when the door
was opened.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said that when standing at the
head of the room he could see the defendant, her daughter, and Mr.
Brett. The bar was in the form of a crescent. He did not see any cards.
The windows were not open. He might have been outside ten minutes. Had
the men called for a drink, he thought that he might have heard it.
There were several other men present, but these players were very close
to the window, a cottage one. The words used were “Pay up”, not “Play
up”. When he got in there was no money on the table. He believed they
called the game “nap” which the remarks indicated.
Mr. Haines: A sort of blind chess-man business. He believed that ten
cards were missing from the pack.
By the Chief Constable: He was quite clear about “Pay up”, and he heard
the chinking of money immediately afterwards. No-one was seated at the
table except the men playing cards. He did not hear drinks ordered
whilst listening at the window.
Detective Burniston corroborated the evidence of the last witness. In
his cross-examination as to the men's reaction on the police entering,
Mr. Haines suggested it was natural for the players to put their cards
under the table when they did not want to show what hands they had.
Mr. G.W. Haines, for the defendant, said that he need hardly say that
the section under which the proceedings were taken was that of suffering
gaming. It was not suggested that the game of “nap” was an unlawful one,
but it was unlawful if played for money. It was for the police to
satisfy the Bench that the game being played was played for money, and
he contended that the words used might have been “Play up”. The men
might have been wanting to go on. It was simply trusting to their ears,
and he suggested that the money might have been for drinks ordered
before, or put down for when the waitress might come in. The Magistrates
must be satisfied that the police could actually swear it. The licensed
holder could not be everywhere, and there were three bars to serve. They
could not fix him with the knowledge of it.
The Clerk to the Justices (Mr. H.B. Bradley) said that in this section
the word “knowingly”, which occurred in most sections, was omitted.
Mr. Haines thought that Mr. Justice Day had said that the absence of the
word did not prevent knowledge being necessary.
Mr. Bradley said of course not.
Mr. Haines said that it was for the defence to show that they had no
knowledge. The cases were somewhat conflicting. It was hard on the
licensed holder if he did not know that he should come within the
section. He quoted a case in which the licensed person was engaged in
another part of the house, and the justices dismissed the information.
In this case he submitted that it was not within his connivance, and he
had no knowledge that money was played for. He asked the Bench to
dismiss the case, or, on the other hand, it would be a serious question
for the licensed holder.
Mrs. Brett, the defendant, deposed: I caused cards to be printed with
the object of preventing any gambling, and four were fixed round the
smoke room, where the cards were being played. Their attention was drawn
to it. On the evening in question my daughter, husband, and myself were
busy in the bar. My daughter went to wait in the smoke room when
anything was knocked for. The door of the smoke room was usually kept
open. Nothing attracted my notice to lead me to believe that money was
being played for. I cannot see the table from the bar when serving. I
must come to the bottom of the bar to see what they really did want.
There were many people in that evening, several being in the room. When
the police came in, Mr. Brett called their attention to the cards. Had I
known the gambling was going on I should have stopped it. It is not my
wish that it should take place. I did not know they were playing.
Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve: The playing cards were for
private use. They were not provided for her customers, although they
were allowed to use them. The men seated at the table were drinking
beer. She could not tell how long before. If the men knocked they could
not hear, as business was brisk. They had only had one drink, and did
not empty their glasses. Her daughter served them. They called for their
beer and paid for it as they came in. They did not pay on the table. If
the police heard money chinking, it might be for the other gentlemen's
beer.
By Mr. Bradley: She fancied they had taken the cards from the shelf in
the smoke room. They could not hear all that went on in the smoke room;
it was a very long way to hear.
Re-examined by Mr. Haines: She did not take particular notice of these
five men. She had not served them. They came in from the room.
Mr. Bradley thought that the witness had just said that they came and
took it in the bar.
Witness said that she did not notice them when they first came in.
Mr. W. Brett, the defendant's husband, deposed that on the night in
question he was busily engaged at the other end of the bar with his
wife. He did not know that there was any gaming, and had never allowed
it. He allowed them to play whist and cribbage, but not for money. They
sat down and played a game quietly.
Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve: He did not see the five men
enter the house. The men took the cards off the shelf. He had always
thought that whist or cribbage was permitted, but not for money.
Sometimes these men had played. He had been in the room when they were
playing cards. He did not know that the men were there, and he had not
served them with any drink in that room. He could not say whether his
daughter served.
After retiring, the Chairman announce the decision of the Bench in these
terms:- Mrs. Brett, the Magistrates have considered this matter. They
think there is a doubt in the evidence, and therefore give you the
benefit.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 17 February 1900.
Before Messrs. J. Hoad, W. Medhurst, and Vaughan, and Col. Westropp.
Elizabeth Brett, landlady of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was charged with
permitting gambling on licensed premises. Mr. Haines defended.
Inspector Lilley stated that at 9.45 p.m. on Saturday, January 27th, in
company with Detective Burniston, he was near the Swan Inn, on the Folly
Road side. Listening near the window, he heard a voice say “I'll go
one”, another voice “I'll go two”, then “Pass me”, “You get 'em”, “Pay
up”, etc. A chinking of money followed, and shortly afterwards another
voice said “Deal them out”, and some cards were played. After about five
minutes witness and the detective entered the room by the door on the
Folly side of the house. The defendant was in the bar. The door opened
which led from the bar into the room near which witness had been
listening, and there he saw five men seated at a table close to the
window. Each man had three cards in his hand, and two in front of him on
the table. A man named Clark remarked “Ah! You did not see any money on
the table”. Witness called the attention of the defendant to the
circumstances and said “I shall have to report you for allowing gambling
to take place on licensed premises”. She replied “I did not know they
were gambling”.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He did not see a card in the bar “No
Gambling Allowed”, but he would not swear there was not such a card in
the room. From the outside he could not see the men through the window.
There were no drinks called for while he stood outside. He was certain
the words he heard used were “Pay up”, and not “Play up”. There was no
money on the table when he went in. He believed the game was Nap.
Detective Burniston corroborated.
Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said that the fact of playing cards in
a public house was not unlawful; the illegality came in when cards were
played for money. He suggested that in this case the police had had to
rely entirely upon their ears, and listening on the outside of a window
they could not properly distinguish between the words “Play up” and “Pay
up”. Their ears had deceived them. He should produce evidence that four
cards hung round the room notifying that gambling was prohibited, and
that his client had done all that was possible for the proper conduct of
the house. Unfortunately there were several conflicting decisions as to
whether a tenant was responsible if he or she were unaware of what was
taking place.
Mr. Bradley (the Magistrates' Clerk): The summons is for permitting,
etc. The words “knowingly permitted” are not used.
Mr. Haines, continuing, said that even if gambling had taken place,
which was not admitted, it would be hard on his client to be convicted,
seeing that she had done everything that she could to prevent this kind
of thing. In giving their decision he hoped the Magistrates would take
this into consideration.
Elizabet Brett, the licensee, then stated that she had six of the cards
produced printed – stating that anything in the way of gambling was not
permitted – and four of them hung in the smoking room where the men were
playing. She could see the men, but had no idea that money was being
played for. Had she known, she would certainly have stopped it.
Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve: The cards are my property; my
customers are allowed to use them.
Would it not have been more effectual to do away with the playing cards?
– (No reply).
The men at the table, the defendant continued, were drinking beer; they
had not been in the room ten minutes.
Dain William Brett, the husband of defendant, corroborated her evidence,
but did not do very well under the cross-examination of the Chief
Constable.
Mr. Haines said he would not address the Bench further, unless their
decision were against him.
The Bench (except Mr. Vaughan, who did not adjudicate), retired. On
returning to Court, the Chairman said there seemed to be a slight doubt
in the evidence, and they gave the defendant the benefit of it. The case
was, therefore, dismissed.
(By a printer's oversight the above case, though in type, was omitted
from our last issue.)
|
Folkestone Chronicle 23 June 1900.
County Court.
Tuesday, June 19th: Before Sir W.L. Selfe.
Alfred Finn, farmer, Hawkinge v Perrin Brett, husband of the landlady of
the Swan Inn, Dover Road: The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Haines,
and the defendant by Mr. Stainer. This action was mixed, and terminated
with the mystery of the vanishing note being unsolved.
The plaintiff said: I cashed a cheque on May 9th for £20 14s. 9d.,
receiving four £5 notes, and the balance in small change. I went to
dinner at Mr. Sharp's eating house, and settled an account for 6s. with
Mr. Kirby at the Royal George. I then went to the Swan in Dover Road.
Defendant made a remark about a sum of money I had promised to
contribute for a “free and easy” to celebrate the alterations at his
house. I said I would pay it, and removed the four £5 notes from my
pocket. While I was undoing them, Brett snatched them from my hand and
put them in his pocket. There were several people in the bar. I waited
some minutes, thinking he was joking, and then asked him to give me the
notes back. Defendant then said he had not got them, but afterwards he
gave me one back over the counter. A man named Bryan snatched another
out of his hand and gave it back to me. Brett then laid three sovereigns
on the counter, and said he would raffle me £10 or nothing. I refused,
and said I wanted the other notes back. Brett said he had not got them,
called me a liar, and said I could search him. Next morning I obtained
the number of the notes, and went to the Magistrates' Clerk to take out
a warrant. He advised me to consult a solicitor before taking steps.
Mr. Sharp and Mr. William Warne, landlord of the Black Bull Hotel gave
evidence to the effect that plaintiff was perfectly sober on the day in
question. Mr. Sharp added that earlier in the day a question arose about
the purchase of a cart. Plaintiff then pulled out a bundle of notes from
his pocket, but did not buy the cart.
John Bryan, a dealer, corroborated the evidence of Finn. He added that
previously he had driven Mr. Finn up from the Fish Market, that Brett
had been having a little too much to drink, and that when he got home
his wife “jawed” him.
Perrin Brett said: on the 9th of May I was in the Fish Market with Mr.
Spearpoint. My legs and back were “queer”, so I asked Bryan to give me a
ride. When we got to the Swan we saw Finn's horse outside. Bryan went
into the bar, and saw a man named Lee. Lee went out and down Dover
Street, and returned with the plaintiff. Finn said “Don't think I have
not got any money”, and waved four notes before me. I took them out of
his hand, looked at them, and put them in my pocket for a joke. After
keeping them there a minute or two, I handed them back to plaintiff.
Plaintiff said “I will put £2 to your £2 for a free and easy in the big
room”, and gave me back a note which he held in his hand. I then gave
him three sovereigns from my pocket. Bryan then snatched the note out of
my hand, and gave it to the plaintiff, who then asked me to give him
back the other notes. I said I had not got them, and told him he could
search me. He came behind the bar and did search me, and found nothing.
Next day Finn came down and demanded the notes. I am three sovereigns
out of pocket over the matter.
In cross-examination by Mr. Haines, witness said things a little to the
detriment of Bryan. Then came the sharp query “How was it that you came
to be riding with him on the day in question?” Witness replied that his
legs were painful, and he was glad to ride home.
Mrs. Brett, wife of defendant, entered the box, and corroborated her
husband's evidence in detail.
His Honour, who looked rather puzzled, said he did not pretend to know
what had become of the notes, and gave judgement for the defendant with
costs.
|
Folkestone Express 23 June 1900.
County Court.
Tuesday, June 19th: Before Sir William L. Selfe.
Alfred Finn, Hawkinge v Perrin Brett: Claim of £7 for money alleged to
have been withheld by defendant and £3 damages. Mr. Haines appeared for
plaintiff and Mr. Stainer for defendant.
The plaintiff said on May 9th he cashed a cheque at the London and
Counties Bank for £20 14s. 9d., receiving four £5 notes and the balance
in small change. After dining at Sharpe's eating house and settling a
little account for 6s. at the Royal George, he went up to the Swan in
Dover Road. Defendant made some remark about his not having paid £2
which he had promised to contribute towards a free and easy to celebrate
some addition to defendant's premises. He said he would pay it, and took
out the four £5 notes from his inside pocket, and while he was undoing
them defendant snatched the lot out of his hand and put them in his
pocket. There were several people in the bar when defendant took these
notes. He waited for some minutes, thinking he was joking, and then
asked him to give them to him back. Defendant said he had not got them.
He then gave him one back over the counter. A man named Bryan snatched
another out of defendant's hand and gave it to him. Brett laid three
sovereigns down on the counter and then said he would raffle him for £10
or nothing. He refused, saying he wanted his money back. He asked him
for the other notes, and defendant said he had not got them, called him
a liar, and told him he could search him. Next morning he went to the
police station, and also obtained the numbers of the notes. When he went
to get a warrant, the Magistrates' Clerk advised him to consult a
solicitor before taking any steps. He had advertised for the notes, but
up to the present without any result.
Mr. Sharpe gave evidence to the effect that plaintiff dined at his
eating house in Harbour Street on the day in question, and afterwards,
in company with Lee and himself, went across to the Alexandra Hotel and
had a small Bass each. A conversation arose regarding a cart which
witness had for sale and plaintiff said if he bought it he would pay for
it. He then pulled out a bundle of notes to show that he could pay for
it. Plaintiff was perfectly sober.
William Warne, the landlord of the Black Bull Hotel, said that plaintiff
came to him on the day in question and complained that he had lost some
money. He was perfectly sober.
John Bryan said he was in the Swan on the 9th May. Plaintiff came in and
called for a drink and said “Don't think I haven't got any money to pay
for it”, and pulled the notes out of his pocket. Brett snatched them
away and put them in his pocket and kept them there about ten minutes or
a quarter of an hour. When they were talking, Finn said he would do £2
to defendant's £2 for a free and easy in the big room. Brett gave him
one £5 note back and £3 in gold. Finn said “I want two more £5 notes.
You took four out of my hand”. Brett said “I never – I only took two”.
Brett had one note in his hand, and witness took this out of his hand
and gave it to plaintiff with the remark “Here's one of them”. Brett had
been having a little too much to drink. He drove him up from the
Fishmarket, and when he got to the Swan his wife jawed him.
The defendant said on the 9th May he was in the Fishmarket with Mr.
Spearpoint. His legs were queer, and his back also, and he asked Bryan
to give him a ride. They saw Finn's horse outside the Swan. Bryan went
into the bar and saw Lee, who went out, and afterwards returned with
plaintiff. Plaintiff said “Don't think I haven't got any money”, and
waved four notes before him. He took thm out of his hand, and after
looking at them, put them in his pocket for a joke. After keeping them
there a minute or two he handed them back to plaintiff. Plaintiff said
he would do £2 to his £2 for a free and easy in the big room, and gave
him back a note, which he held in his hand, and at the same time gave
plaintiff three sovereigns. Bryan then snatched the note out of his hand
and gave it to plaintiff. Plaintiff asked witness to give him back the
other notes, but he said he had not got them, and told him to search
him. He came round and searched him and found nothing on him. Next day
Finn came down again and demanded the notes from him. He was three
sovereigns out of pocket over the matter.
By His Honour: When Finn took the notes out of his pocket they were in a
bundle. He kept them in his pocket for about three minutes and then
handed them back without untying them.
Mrs. Brett, the defendant's wife, said on the afternoon in question
Bryan and Lee came in first and said “Has Mr. Finn been here?” She said
“I have not seen him”. Lee said “I know where he is. I'll go and fetch
him”. He drove away in Bryan's cart, and Finn and Lee came back
together. Finn said “I have got some money”, and took out of his pocket
some notes, which he put in Mr. Brett's face. Mr. Brett snatched them
out of his hand and put them in his pocket. Finn asked for his notes
back, and Mr. Brett passed them back to him. Plaintiff then said “I'll
be as good as my word. I'll put £2 to your £2 for a free and easy in the
big room”. Mr. Brett said “Alright”. Finn took a £5 note from his bundle
of notes and Mr. Brett took out his purse and put three sovereigns on
the counter. Finn took them and put them into his pocket. Mr. Brett was
holding the note which Mr. Finn had given him, when Bryan snatched it
away and gave it back to plaintiff. She afterwards saw Lee put his hand
in Finn's pocket and show him some papers. Finn said Mr. Brett had got
two of his notes. Mr. Brett said “I have not. In your own interest come
round and search me”. Finn said “I'd rather not”. He, however, came
round and searched him, and then said “I am satisfied you have not got
them”.
His Honour said he did not pretend to know what had become of the notes,
but there would be judgement for the defendant with costs.
|
Folkestone Herald 23 June 1900.
County Court.
Tuesday, June 19th: Before Sir W.L. Selfe.
The plaintiff in this case was Alfred Finn, farmer, Hawkinge; the
defendant was Perrin Brett, of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, Folkestone,
husband of the landlady of that house. The action was brought to recover
the sum of £7, under the peculiar circumstances explained in the
evidence. Mr. Haines appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Stainer for the
defendant.
Plaintiff, examined by Mr. Haines, deposed: My father lives at Hawkinge.
I know the defendant. At one time I promised to pay or give £2 towards
the opening ceremony of his house, as we supply him with milk. On the
9th May I cashed a cheque for £20 14s. 9d. at the Capital and Counties
Bank, and got four £5 Bank of England notes, half a sovereign, two 2s.
pieces, and ninepence. That was about 2.20p.m. After that I went down to
Mr. Sharpes, in Harbour Street, and had my dinner and paid for it. I
then went round to Mr. Kirby, at the Royal George. I owed him 6s. on a
little deal we had, and I paid him and had a glass of ale. Then I went
to the Swan, Dover Road, and got there about 3.15. Defendant made a
remark about my not having paid this £2. He said I was a pretty fellow.
I said “I will pay it”, and I took out the four £5 notes from my side
pocket. While I was doing so, the defendant snatched the lot out of my
hand and put it in his pocket. There were several persons in the bar at
the time, but I don't know who they were. When he took the notes I
waited some few minutes because I thought he was joking, and I then
asked him to give them back. He said “I have not got them”. I said “You
took them”. He then gave me one note back over the counter; he took it
out of his pocket. He said “Here you are; here is one”. A man named Mr.
Bryan, who was standing by, snatched another note out of defendant's
hand and gave it to me. I then had two of the notes. As regards the next
note, defendant gave me three sovereigns and said “I will raffle you £10
or nothing”. I said “No”. I asked him to return the other two notes, and
I would give him the £3 back. He said “I have not got them”, and called
me a ---- liar. He said “You can search me if you like”. The other men
in the bar said they wanted to go, and asked me to search them. I said
“No; I know that Mr. Brett took them out of my hand”. I paid nothing
else in the town that dat, except this 6s. In fact, I wanted to change
one of the notes, and asked Mr. Sharpe to change it, but he could not.
After I left the Swan I went to see my brother, and on my way home I
called at the Black Bull and had a glass of ale. I gave information to
the police. I went to the bank with the Inspector, and obtained the
numbers of the notes. The police issued an advertisement. As a fact I
went to get a warrant issued, but the Magistrates' Clerk thought it was
a matter in which I should be advised by a solicitor.
Cross-examined by Mr. Stainer: A man named Ben Lee was in the bar. The
cheque I cashed was for goods, and I paid a counter account.
Have you not a good many judgements against you in this Court? – I might
have.
Do you think it is proper to spend £2 on a free and easy when you owe
several judgements in the Court? – Never mind that; it was my own money.
Did Bryan go into the bar with you? – No, sir; he was there. Lee came in
after him.
Where was your horse when you were there? – Outside. I gave a man an
allowance to look after it, a man named Richards, who I felt was capable
of taking charge of it.
You have advertised the numbers of these notes, have you? – I don't know
whether the Super has. I have been to him twice. He said it was not
likely that he could hear anything about them yet.
John H. Sharpe, examined, deposed: I keep an eating house in Harbour
Street. As a rule the plaintiff, when in Folkestone, comes for his
dinner. He came on this day on horseback, and asked me to get a steak
ready in ten minutes. When he came back, after having his dinner, he
asked me if I could change a £5 note. He paid the girl 2s., and she gave
him change. He asked me if I would go across to the Alexandra and have a
drink. I and Lee and Finn went across and had a drink; we had a small
Bass each, and Lee had a gin. They wre talking about horses and carts. I
said “I have a good sort of cart which I could sell you”. He said “If I
buy I will pay for it”. He put his hand in his pocket and pulled out
some notes. We stayed in the bar, drinking. Finn said “I shall not be a
minute”, and went out. He was perfectly sober. You don't often see a
drunken man ride a horse.
Wm. Warne deposed: I keep the Black Bull. On the 9th May the plaintiff
came to my house and made a complaint to me that he had lost money. He
was perfectly sober when he came and asked me for refreshment.
John Bryan, called on subpoena, deposed: I was in the Swan on the 9th
May and saw Finn come in. I saw him take some notes out of his pocket.
They were folded up, and I could not say what notes they were. I was
having a conversation with defendant. Plaintiff called for a small
bottle of ale, put his hand in his pocket, and said “Don't you think I
have the money to pay for it?” Mr. Brett snatched them out of his hand
and put them in his pocket and kept them there for ten minutes or a
quarter of an hour. They went on talking, and Finn said “I will put £2
to your £2”, and Brett then gave him one £5 note back and £3 in gold,
and then Finn said “I want two more £5 notes. You took four £5 notes out
of my hand”. Brett had a £5 note in his hand, and I took it and said
“Here is one of them, Mr. Finn”. Lee, myself, and ever so many more were
in the bar. I drove the defendant from the fishmarket up home, because
he asked me to give him a ride. He appeared to have had a little too
much to drink, and I thought I would drive him home. (Defendant: Speak
the truth, and don't tell lies.) When he came home his wife jawed. Mrs.
Brett said “My husband has not got them (meaning the notes); some of the
people in the bar have got them”. We all asked to be searched, and Mr.
Finn refused to do it.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Defendant, on being sworn, deposed: On the 9th of May I was in the
fishmarket with Mr. Spearpoint. Mr. Bryan was down there with his horse
and trap. As I was going up the road he said “Jump up here”. I did so,
and rode up with him as far as the Swan. He got out and saw Finn's horse
with a man. Lee was in the bar, and Bryan turned round to him and said
“Go down and fetch Finn; he is down below” When they came back, all
three came into the bar. Finn said “How are you, old Brett? I have got
plenty of money”. I said “Let's have a look”. I don't know what he took
out of his pocket, whether it was one, two, three, or a dozen, but I
took them and put them in my pocket. I then took them out of my pocket
and gave them back. He then undid his notes and said “I'll be £2 to your
£2 and give a free and easy in the big room”. He took one of the notes
out and I put down three sovereigns. Bryan snatched the note out of my
hands, and Finn snatched up the three sovereigns. I asked Finn to come
round and search me, and I stood quite still. He did search me, and
could find nothing else on me. There were plenty in the bar, and my wife
was close to me and saw all that happened. The next day Finn came down
and demanded the notes of me. I said “I have not got them”. He said “I
will make it hot for you; I will ruin you”. The next day, Lee, Bryan,
and Finn came in together, and I refused to serve them. I did not have
those notes, and I am three sovereigns out of pocket.
Mrs. Brett gave corroborative evidence, adding that she saw Lee put his
hand in Finn's pocket, but could not say whether he took anything out or
put anything in.
His Honour gave judgement for the defendant, with costs.
|
Folkestone Herald 7 March 1903.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held
in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police
to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced
in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o'clock in
the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being
numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance
Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent
amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile.
Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a
private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to
the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present
were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert,
Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J.
Pursey.
Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced that at the
Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23 full
licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to
give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following
nine houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R.
Heritage); Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner);
Tramway (Frederick Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest
Tearall); Bricklayers Arms (Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter
Whiting). Since the former sessions the Justices had inspected all the
houses objected to, and considered the course which they ought to pursue
with respect to the same, with the result that they had directed the
Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served by him with
respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to persist in the
opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne, Granville,
Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15 full
licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and
deal with them next year according to the circumstances.
In renewing the licence to the owner of the Swan Inn, they warned Mrs.
Brett not to permit her husband to manage the house when in a state of
intoxication, as they were informed was frequently the case.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 13 February 1904.
Gossip.
The Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday. Only one licence was
refused – to the Swan Inn, Dover Road. No new licences were granted. Mr.
Wightwick, the Chairman of the Sessions, holds very strong views upon
the subject. He regards the possession of a licence as a piece of
property, which it is not just to take away without proof of misconduct.
The Temperance advocates will not be able to make much headway in
reducing the number of public houses in Folkestone under these
circumstances.
|
Folkestone Express 13 February 1904.
Annual Licensing Meeting.
Wednesday, February 10th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Col.
Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and W.G.
Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
The following was the report of Supt. Reeve: Chief Constable's Office,
Folkestone, 10th February, 1904. To the Chairman and Members of the
Licensing Committee of the Borough of Folkestone. Gentlemen, I have the
honour to report for your information that there are at present within
your jurisdiction 139 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating
liquors, namely: Full licences 87; Beer on 11; Beer off 6; Beer and
Spirits (dealers) 16; Grocers 12; Confectioners 3; Chemists 4; Total 139
– an average of one licence to every 220 persons, or one “on” licence to
every 313. This is a decrease of one full licence as compared with last
year's return, the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne having been refused
at the adjourned meeting in March. Twenty of the licences have been
transferred during the year, namely, 14 full licences, two beer on, two
beer off, and two grocers. One beer off licence was transferred twice
during the year. One licence holder has been convicted since the last
annual meeting of committing drunkenness on his licensed premises. He
has since transferred his licence and left the house. The alterations
which the Justices at the adjourned meeting last year directed to be
made to the Packet Boat, Castle, Tramway, Bricklayers' Arms, Granville,
and Star Inns have all been carried out in a satisfactory manner, and
none of the licensed houses are now used as common lodging houses. Ten
occasional licences, and extensions of hours on 21 occasions, have been
granted to licence holders during the year. There are 14 places licensed
for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. Eleven clubs
where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with
the Licensing Act of 1902. For the year ending 31st December last year,
154 persons (131 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for
drunkenness. 131 were convicted and 23 discharged. This is an increase
of 65 persons proceeded against, and 51 convicted, as compared with
1902. The increase is chiefly due to the additional powers given to the
police under the Licensing Act, 1902. Up to the present time no person
within the Borough has been convicted the necessary number of times
within the 12 months to be placed on the “black list” as provided by
Section 6 of the Act of 1902. With very few exceptions the whole of the
licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner. The only
objection I have to make to the renewal of any of the present licences
is that of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and I would ask that the renewal of
this licence be deferred until the adjourned meeting. I have the honour
to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve (Chief Constable).
The Chairman: I think, gentlemen, you will agree that the report of the
Superintendent is a satisfactory one – in fact, I may say very
satisfactory – for the whole year. With your permission I well read the
report we now make to you. At the adjournment of the last general
licensing meeting we stated that in our opinion the number of licences
for the sale of intoxicating liquor then existing in the borough of
Folkestone, especially in the part of the immediate neighbourhood of the
Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and that we
proposed between then and the general annual licensing meeting of this
year to obtain information on various matters, to enable us to determine
what reduction would be made in the number of licences. We invited the
owners of licensed houses in the meantime to meet and agree among
themselves for the voluntary surrender at this general meeting of a
substantial number of licences in the borough, and to submit the result
of their united action to the Licensing Justices for acceptance. Failing
any satisfactory proposal for reduction by the owners, the Licensing
Justices last year intimated that in the exercise of their discretionary
powers they would at this year's meeting decide in a fair and equitable
spirit what reduction should be made. But at the opening of Parliament
last week it was announced in the King's speech that the Government
intended to introduce in the House of Commons during the present session
a Bill to amend the Licensing Laws. In view of this legislation we are
of opinion we ought not, pending the passage of this Bill through
Parliament, exercise the discretionary powers vested in us, and take
measures for effecting a further reduction in the number of licences
within the borough on the ground that certain licensed premises are not
required for the public accommodation. We have recently inspected
certain houses known as the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, East Cliff
Tavern, Victoria, Lifeboat, Duke Of Edinburgh, Railway Tavern, and
Channel Inn.
With regard to the Swan Inn, the police will serve notice upon the
owner.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 12 March 1904.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
Wednesday, March 9th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonels Westropp
and Hamilton, Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey.
Mr. Minter applied for a renewal of the licence of the Swan Inn, Dover
Road. The only objection on the part of the police had been to the
tenant, and now a new tenant – Mr. Alfred Robert Clarke – was about to
occupy the premises.
The Chief Constable had no objection to urge against the incoming
tenant.
The Bench allowed the renewal of the licence on condition that the
transfer to Mr. Clarke should be effected.
|
Folkestone Express 12 March 1904.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
Wednesday, March 9th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and
Westropp, W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
The Swan Inn.
Mr. W.G. Haines, on behalf of the tenant (Mrs. Brett), applied for the
renewal of the licence, adjourned at the last licensing meeting. The
police had served notice of objection to the renewal, on grounds simply
applicable to the tenant and not to the house. It was felt that a change
should be made, and he was pleased to say that he had a new tenant in
the person of Mr. Alfred Robert Clark, on whose behalf he would also
apply for a temporary authority to sell until the actual expiration of
the licence held by Mrs. Brett.
The Superintendent stated that Clark had held a licence before, and he
bore a high character for the manner in which he conducted his house.
Under the circumstances he would withdraw his objection.
The Chairman: We grant this licence.
|
Folkestone Herald 12 March 1904.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
Swan Inn.
Wednesday, March 9th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, C.J.
Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Westropp.
Mr. G.W. Haines applied, on behalf of the brewers, for the renewal of
the licence for the Swan Inn. Notice had been served by the police,
objecting to the renewal on grounds simply applicable to the tenant and
not the house. The brewers had thought that a change should be made, and
with that view, before asking for the renewal, he would produce a new
tenant, to whom it was desired permission to draw until transfer day
should be given.
The licence was then temporarily transferred from Mrs. Brett to Mr.
Alfred Robert Clarke.
|
Folkestone Chronicle 16 April 1904.
Wednesday, April 13th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Westropp
and Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. J. Stainer.
The Bench granted transfer of the licence of the following premises: The
Swan Inn, from Elizabeth Brett to Alfred Robert Clarke.
|
Folkestone Express 16 April 1904.
Wednesday, April 13th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore,
Lieut. Col. Westropp, G.I. Swoffer and J. Stainer Esqs.
Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the Swan Inn from Elizabeth
Brett to Alfred Robert Clark. Granted.
|
Folkestone Herald 16 April 1904.
Wednesday, April 13th: Before Ald. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore,
Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.
Licence was transferred as follows:- The Swan, from Elizabeth Brett to
Alfred Robert Clark.
|
Folkestone Daily News 27 April 1907.
Saturday, April 27th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Leggett,
Hawksley, Ames, and Boyd.
Alfred Robert Clark, landlord of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was summoned
for allowing drunkenness on his premises. Mr. Mercer appeared for the
defence.
P.C. Allen deposed that on Wednesday, the 17th of April, he was on duty
in Dover Road. About 10.25 he was near the Swan Inn. He was on the
opposite side of the road, and had been there about three minutes when
he saw a man named Suckling come out of the public bar of the Swan Inn.
He was very drunk, and was holding himself up by both sides of the
doorway. After staggering about for a few minutes, he fell down into the
road. He got up again, commenced to stagger, and then fell down. He got
up again, went a few yards, and then fell down again. He was going in
the direction of the Skew Arches. Seeing he was unable to take care of
himself, he (witness) took him into custody. Suckling could not have
gone into the public house without witness seeing him.
P.C. Eason said he was on duty in Dover Road about 10.25 on the evening
in question. He saw a man named Suckling come out of the Swan Inn, and
after staggering about for a few second he fell into the horse road. He
got up, went a little further, and again fell down. He got as far as the
Skew Bridge, and then propped himself up against the wall. Witness
passed the Swan Inn a few minutes earlier, but saw nothing of Suckling,
who could not have entered the house without witness seeing him.
Florence Hambrook said she was employed by Mr. Morrison of Dover Road.
She remembered the evening of the 17th April, and saw a man named
Suckling, about 10.20, come out of the Swan Inn door. He was very drunk,
and she saw him fall down into the road. He got up, and again fell down
on the pavement in front of Mr. Morrison's shop. The next she saw of him
was that he was in charge of two constables.
Horatio Albert Suckling, of 74, Bridge Street, said: I am a fish hawker.
On Wednesday, April 17th, I was down at the fish market, and after
leaving the market I went to the Swan. That was about 8.30. Previously
to going to the Swan I had not been in any public house before that day.
On entering the Swan I went to the public bar, and was served by
defendant, Mr. Clark. There were other people present, but I do not know
their names.
The Chief Constable: Can you tell us how long you stayed in the house?
Witness: Yes. I stayed in there until I came out. (Laughter)
The Chief Constable: When did you come out?
Witness: About 10.30.
When you went to the Swan, had you a cut over your eye? – No.
When did you discover it? – The next morning.
Where were you? – In here.
Mr. Mercer: Suckling, are you given to drink? – No, sir.
Have you been convicted here before or anywhere else for drunkenness? –
No, sir.
Which way did you come from the Market? – I came straight up Dover
Street.
You had 1s. 6d. when you went to the Swan? – Yes, sir.
How much had you when you counted your money next morning? –
Elevenpence.
What do you remember after half past eight? – I can't remember anything.
Suppose I call witnesses to prove that you went into the house at 8.30
and were turned out, went back again, and were again turned out, would
that be true? – No.
You don't remember anything, and yet you remember that you remained on
the premises? – I might have gone out the back, but not off the
premises.
As a matter of fact you don't remember anything, eh? – No.
Inspector Swift deposed that he went to defendant and told him he would
in all probability be prosecuted for permitting drunkenness on his
premises, and defendant replied “You mean Suckling”.
Mr. Mercer then called the defendant Clark, who said: I have been 12½
years a licensed victualler in the town. I have £1,400 invested in this
house. I know Suckling. On the 17th he came in the room about 8 o'clock
and sold some fish. When I next saw him it was between ten minutes and a
quarter past 10. When he came in I saw he had had enough. At that time
Mr. Pope and Mr. Bull were in the bar. I told Suckling to clear off
home. Mr. Pope said to me “He has drunk my beer”. I looked and found
that he had. Suckling was then gone. I replaced Pope's beer. I was about
the bar from 6 p.m. until closing time, only being absent about ten
minutes for supper.
Cheif Constable Reeve: Now, Mr. Clark, the very first statement you made
to Mr. Mercer was that you have never been summoned or cautioned. Is
that true?
Witness: Yes.
Come, let me refresh your memory. Have I not cautioned you? – Yes, but
nothing serious.
I'm sorry for you if you do not think it serious. Did I not meet you
myself and caution you as to the conduct of the house? – Yes.
Do you seriously mean to say that the man Suckling was not in your house
between 8.30 and 10? – I do.
And that he came in drunk soon after ten? – Yes, that is so.
And did you refuse to serve him? – I did.
When Suckling came in, where was the barman? – In the club room.
How long did Mr. Pope remain after Suckling left? – I don't know.
When Suckling left the house, did you follow, or anyone else, to see
what became of him? – No, I did not.
Is not Suckling a regular customer, spending hours in the house daily? –
No, only a casual customer. He would not stay longer than any other
casual customer.
Mr. Boyd: You say you have been a licensed holder about twelve years? –
Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyd: Yet you know this man has been addicted to drink, and serve
him. Extraordinary!
Mr. Mercer, before calling further evidence, asked the Bench to find
that the balance of evidence must preponderate in favour of the
defendant, whose evidence and that of his witnesses must weigh against
that of the man Suckling, who in evidence remembered nothing.
John Hatfield, barmanat the Swan, said on Wednesday, April 17th,
Suckling came into the bar about 8.15; the man was then sober, and fater
selling his pennyworth of fish had a pint of beer and went out after
about twenty minutes. About 10.10 witness again heard Suckling enter the
bar, and Mr. Clarke refused to serve him and told witness to put the man
out. By the time he got there Suckling had gone out.
The Chief Constable: Is it possible that Suckling could have gone into
the public bar from the private bar without your seeing him? – It was
not possible.
Did you see Suckling take up the pint of beer? – No, I did not.
Then you cannot tell me whether he was served or not? – Yes, I know he
was not served.
That's funny. You did not see him drink the beer, but know he was not
served.
Thomas Pope, painter, of Princess Street, said while at the Swan on the
night of the 17th, Suckling, who was intoxicated, came in. Suckling had
asked fo a pint of beer. Mr. Clark replied “You have had quite enough”
and refused to serve him.
James Boxer, of 32, Gladstone Road, a ginger beer manufacturer, said on
the 17th inst., shortly after 10 o'clock, he visited the saloon bar of
the Swan. Suckling entered the public bar a few minutes later. Suckling
said “Hello, Mr. Boxer. Are you going to treat me?” Clark said “No, Mr.
Boxer. He has had too much already.
After cross-examination the Bench retired, and on returning the Chairman
said: We have come to the decision that there is not sufficient evidence
of permitting on which we can convict you, but at the same time we have
come to the conclusion that you did not use sufficient caution, or eject
the man at the proper time.
|
Folkestone Express 4 May 1907.
Saturday, April 27th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, T.
Ames, G. Hawkesley, and G. Boyd Esqs.
Alfred Robert Clark, the licensee of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was
summoned for permitting drunkenness. Mr. R.M. Mercer, solicitor,
appeared on behalf of the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.
P.C. Allen said on Wednesday evening, April 17th, he was on duty in
Dover Road. About 10.25 he arrived opposite the Swan Inn, which was kept
by the defendant. Witness was on the opposite side of the road to the
Inn. He had been there about three minutes, when he saw a man named
Suckling coming out of the public bar, which was at the corner of the
public house and faced the Skew Bridge. He was very drunk, and was
holding himself up by the sides of the doorway. He went a few yards,
staggered about, and fell down in the road. He fell down again twice
after that, and then went towards the Skew Bridge. He went through the
arch, staggered across the road, and then hung on to the railings.
Witness took him into custody, and with the assistance of P.C. Eason
brought him to the police station. Suckling could not have entered the
inn during the time witness was there without him seeing him. He did not
see the landlord or any of jis servants put Suckling out.
P.C. Eason said on the evening of the 17th of that month he was on duty
in Dover Road. About 10.25 he was near the Skew Arch, when he saw a man
by the name of Suckling come out of the bar of the Swan Inn. He
staggered about and then fell into the road. He got up and went a few
yards further, and then fell again. After falling a third time Suckling
walked up the road to the Skew Bridge, and the propped himself up
against the arch. He was subsequently arrested by P.C. Allen and brought
to the police station. He was very drunk and practically helpless.
Witness had passed the Swan Inn about ten or twelve minutes past ten,
but at that time he saw nothing of Suckling. During the five minutes
witness had been standing at the Skew Bridge Suckling could not have
entered the bar without him seeing him.
In cross-examination Eason said he was a good judge of the time, but on
being put to the test he turned out to be incorrect, and his guesses at
the correct time caused much laughter.
Florence Hambrook said she was employed by Mr. Morrison, who kept a fish
shop in Dover Road. The shop was just above the Swan Inn, Folly Road
running down between the shop and the Swan. On Wednesday, 17th April,
about twenty minutes past ten in the evening, she saw a man named
Suckling come out from the public bar of the Swan Inn. He was very
drunk. Witness saw him fall down in the road, about a yard from the inn.
She saw him fall down again, and the next time she saw Suckling was in
charge of two constables.
Horation Albert Suckling said he lived at 74, Bridge Street, and was a
fish hawker. He remembered Wednesday, the 17th April. He was not working
at all that day. He was down in the fish market. About eight o'clock in
the evening he left the fish market, and went into the Swan about 8.30.
Previous to going into the Swan he had not been to any other public
house that day. He was perfectly sober. He had a pint of beer. He
remained there until a little after ten. He did not remember leaving the
house. He could not remember how many drinks he had. He did not remember
what happened after he left the Swan. He remembered being arrested, but
he did not remember falling down. When he went into the Swan he did not
have a cut over his eye. He was not sober when he left the Swan. He had
been in a public house in the morning.
Cross-examined, witness said he could not remember anything after 8.30.
Inspector Swift said on April 18th he went to the Swan Inn, where he saw
defendant. He told him about Suckling, who had made a statement that
morning to the police that he went into those premises at 8.30 the
previous evening and remained there until the time he was arrested, at
twenty five minutes past ten. Defendant replied that Suckling came in
twice, but he did not attend to him himself until ten minutes past ten.
He (defendant) then said that Suckling had already had enough and had
better have some ginger beer. Suckling then took up a pint of beer
belonging to Mr. Pope and drank it off. Witness told defendant that
information would be laid against him.
Before calling witnesses for the defence, Mr. Mercer drew the
Magistrates' attention to Section 4 of the Licensing Act of 1902, and
Section 13 under which that summons had been issued.
The defendant then went into the witness box. He said he had been a
licensed victualler in that town for twelve and a half years – eight
years at the Eagle, eighteen months at the Eagle in High Street, and
three years at the Swan. During that time there had never been a
complaint or a summons against him. He had invested in the Swan £1,400,
which was practically all his money. Witness knew Suckling and knew his
proclivities. He remembered Suckling coming in on the 17th April. He
came in a little before eight o'clock and remained there about half an
hour, during which time he sold some fish. Witness believed he was
supplied with some drink. He did not serve him. Witness next saw
Suckling a little before ten. He was drunk when he came in, and wanted a
pint of beer. A Mr. Pope was in teh public bar, and a Mr. Boxer in the
saloon bar. Witness told him he had had enough to drink. Suckling then
asked Mr. Boxer to treat him. Witness told Suckling he was not to have
anything. Then Mr. Pope said Suckling had drank his beer, and, looking
round, witness saw the glass was empty. Witness told Suckling to clear
out. He had a barman there ready to put him out, but before he could get
round Suckling was gone.
Cross-examined, witness admitted that the Chief Constable had cautioned
him about the conduct of his house, but he did not think it was serious.
Mr. Mercer said he ventured to say, if the facts should prove to their
satisfaction, they would say he was right, after having read that
Section of the Act, and he (defendant) rebutted the prima facie
presumption of permitting drunkenness in doing his best to get Suckling
out directly he recognised he was drunk. He ventured to say the balance
of the evidence must preponderate in favour of his case.
John Hatfield, barman at the Swan Inn, said Suckling came into the bar
about ten minutes past eight. He was perfectly sober, and witness served
him with some beer. There was no truth in the statement that he was
there from eight to ten.
Thomas Pope said he lived in Princess Street, and was a house painter.
He called in at the Swan on the 17th April, about five or ten minutes
past ten. There was no-one in the bar then. While he was there he saw
Suckling come in. He was intoxicated. In further evidence Pope generally
corroborated defendant's statement. Suckling was on the premises about
three or four minutes.
James Boxer, of Gladstone Road, ginger beer manufacturer, said shortly
after ten o'clock on the evening of the 17th April he went into the
saloon bar of the Swan Inn. Suckling entered the public bar two or three
minutes later. He saw Suckling take Mr. Pope's beer after being refused
by defendant. He could not suggest anything that the landlord did not do
to get him out.
The Magistrates retired, and upon their return the Chairman said that
they had come to the decision that there was not sufficient evidence on
which they could convict defendant for permitting drunkenness, but they
did not consider defendant ejected Suckling from the bar as quickly as
he should have done.
Note: No mention of Clark at the Eagle, High Street in More Bastions.
|
Folkestone Herald 4 May 1907.
Saturday, April 27th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Councillor G. Boyd,
Messrs. T. Ames, R.J. Linton, J. Stainer and G. Hawksley.
Alfred Robert Clark, of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for
permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 17th inst. Mr. R.M. Mercer
appeared on behalf of defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.
P.C. Allen deposed that on the 17th April, at about half past ten, he
saw a man named Suckling coming out of the Swan Inn very drunk. He left
the door at the corner which faced the Skew Arches. Suckling was holding
himself up by both sides of the door. He came out a few yards, staggered
about, and fell down.
Mr. Mercer, interposing, said that he did not deny that Suckling was
drunk.
Continuing, P.C. Allen said that he took Suckling into custody, and with
the assistance of P.C. Eason brought him to the police station. Witness
said that accused did not enter the public house during the time (about
three minutes) he was outside. No-one was behind Suckling when he left
the house, and no-one ordered him out.
P.C. Eason stated that he saw Suckling leave the Swan Inn. He was very
drunk indeed, being in a practically helpless condition. Witness had
passed the Swan Inn previously, at about 10.10 or 10.12 p.m., and he did
not see anything of the man then. He looked down towards the Swan Inn,
but did not see Suckling enter the house.
Florence Hambrook, in the employ of Mr. Morrison, Dover Road, said she
saw Suckling come from the door of the Swan Inn in a very drunken
condition.
Horation Albert Suckling deposed that he lived at 74, Bridge Street, and
was a fish hawker. On the 17th inst. he was not working, but went down
to the fish market and stood about there. He went to the Swan Inn at
about 8.30 p.m. He had not been in any public house before that evening,
and he was perfectly sober. He had a pint of beer on entering, and Mr.
Clark served him. He went into the public bar, where there were some
other people whom he knew by sight. He remained there till he came out
after ten o'clock. He did not remember leaving the house, and did not
remember how many drinks he had. He knew, however, that he had more than
one pint. He was not sure if Mr. Clark was in the bar the whole time. He
knew that he had no cut on his face when he went to the Swan, but found
out that he had a cut in the morning, when he was in the police station.
Mr. Mercer, in cross-examining Suckling, asked him if he remembered
anything after 8.30 p.m. – No.
Although you remember nothing after 8.30, yet you remember that you were
in the house the whole of the time? – Yes.
Mr. Mercer: It is inconceivable that you remember being in the house the
whole of the time if you remember noting after 8.30.
Inspector Swift deposed that on the 18th April he went to the Swan Inn,
Dover Road. He saw Mr. Clark, and said to him “I have come about the
affair that took place last night. At 10.25 p.m. a man in a drunken
condition was seen to leave your premises. He was taken into custody,
and he made a statement this morning to the police to the effect that he
came to your premises at 8.30 last evening, and remained till the time
he was arrested at 10.25”. Defendant said he knew the man Suckling, who
came to the house twice the previous evening. Defendant further stated
that he did serve Suckling when he came at about 10.10 p.m., for he
(defendant) said “You have already had enough, and you had better have
some ginger beer”. It appeared, from what defendant said, that Suckling
thereupon took up the pint of beer belonging to Mr. Pope and drank it
off. Witness told defendant that in all probability he would be
prosecuted for permitting drunkenness.
Defendant, on oath, stated that he had been a licensed victualler in the
town for 12½ years. He had never had a summons or a complaint against
him. He had invested £1,400 in the house, and was an experienced man. He
remembered the day in question when Suckling (whom he knew very well)
came to the house a little before eight o'clock. Witness did not serve
him then, but his man did. Suckling left the house at about 8.30, and
did not come back till 10. When he came into the public bar at about 10
p.m. he was drunk; witness noticed it at once. Suckling called for a
pint of beer, but witness told him he had had enough to drink. At this
time witness was serving Mr. Pope with a pint of beer, which he placed
in front of him. Mr. Pope took a drink, and just afterwards Suckling
picked it up and drank it off, then asking Mr. Boxer, who was in the
saloon bar, to treat him to a drink. Witness told Suckling to clear off
home, and refused to give him a drink. Suckling only stayed there about
two or three minutes, and on being told went out without making a row.
Witness told the barman to put Suckling out. Suckling had, however, gone
before the barman got to him.
The Chief Constable: You say that you have never been summoned or
cautioned? – Yes.
Did I not caution you once, about three months ago? – Defendant said he
did not consider that that was a caution when the Chief Constable spoke
to him on that occasion.
Mr. Mercer, in addressing the Bench, asked if they were going to take
the evidence of a drunken man, who remembered nothing that occurred
after 8.30.
John Hadfield, barman at the Swan Inn, said Suckling came in at about
8.10 p.m., and was perfectly sober. He had half a pint of beer, and went
into the private bar. He saw Suckling go out about twenty minutes later.
He returned again at about 10.10 or 10.15 p.m., and Mr. Clark told him
to clear off home. There was no truth in the statement that he was in
the house the whole of the time.
Thos. Pope, a painter, of 5, Princess Street, stated that he went to the
Swan Inn about 10.05 p.m., and while there Suckling entered in an
intoxicated condition and asked for a drink. He was told by the landlord
that he had had quite enough, and the best thing he could do was to get
home. Suckling then took his (witness's) glass of beer and drank it. He
drew the landlord's attention to it, and he was supplied with some more.
The landlord then told Suckling to go. Suckling was only there about
three or four minutes, and the landlord, in his opinion, could have done
nothing to get Suckling out of the premises quicker.
James Boxer, 32, Gladstone Road, said he saw Suckling drink Mr. Pope's
beer. Suckling called to him (witness), and asked if he would treat him.
Mr. Clark said he would not give him anything to drink. Suckling went
out after being there two or three minutes.
The Chairman said the Bench had come to the decision that there was not
sufficient evidence to convict defendant, but they did not think that
Suckling was got out of the premises as soon as possible.
|
Folkestone Express 28 December 1907.
Local News.
Just before one o'clock on Monday a collision occurred at the top of
Shellons Street, between a cab belonging to Mr. A.R. Clarke, of the Swan
Inn, Dover Road, and a London and South Coast motor coach. The motor
coach was proceeding down Cheriton Road towards Shellons Street, while
the cab was coming across Guildhall Street by the Shakespeare Hotel.
Apparently both drivers were unaware of each other's presence until they
were practically in collision. The driver of the cab, in order to avoid
the motor coach, turned into Shellons Street. He was hardly quick
enough, and before the chauffeur could pull up the coach had crashed
into the horse, which fell and broke its leg. The front part of the
coach ran on to the pavement by Mr. Strood's shop, where it came to a
standstill. The cab was not damaged at all,, but the horse had to be
shot, which was done by Mr. Attwood.
|
Folkestone Daily News 18 February 1908.
County Court.
Tuesday, February 18th: Before Judge Shortt.
Clark v London and South Coast Motor Co: This was a case tried before a
jury.
Mr. Theodore Matthew appeared for the plaintiff, and said that his
client lived at the Swan Inn. He was a proprietor of carriages, and on
the 23rd December last one of his carriages was passing along Guildhall
Street, and when at the junction of Shellons Street and Cheriton Road,
it was run iton by one of the defendant's motor cars, with the result
that the horse in the carriage had to be destroyed.
George Benjamin Phillips, a driver in the employ of the plaintiff, said
on the 23rd December he went out with his fly. On returning home about
12 o'clock, and when within two yards of the Shakespeare, he saw a motor
car coming from the direction of Cheriton Road. As he saw an accident
was inevitable, he tried to turn his horse and get out of the way, but
failed, and the motor ran into his horse, breaking one of its legs.
In reply to Mr. Frame Dodd, for the Company, witness said there was no
other vehicle there. P.C. Kettle came up and took the position of the
motor car, and witness told him the horse cost thirty five guineas.
Grecian Bell, of Linhurst Road, Peckham, said he was on his way to the
Post Office on 23rd December last. When in Shellons Street he saw a
motor car coming down Cheriton Road and a fly crossing the top of
Shellons Street. The car struck the horse's leg, but he could not say
what rate it was going at.
Miss Margaret Wylle, of Regent's Park, said she was looking out of Mr.
Strood's window, and saw the motor car coming down Cheriton Road, and
the fly coming from the direction of Darlington. The car, in her
opinion, was travelling at much too fast a pace for a wet day. When
opposite her the car ran into the horse. The driver of the car did not
blow his horn until he was within a few yards of the fly.
Archibald Edwards, of Gladstone Road, said he was coming down Cheriton
Road and the motor car was in front of him. He saw the car strike the
horse on the near side, and the driver tried to avoid an accident by
turning his horse down Shellons Street. Had he not done so, the car
would have struck him broadside.
Frederick George Mercer, of Dover Road, said he was going up Shellons
Street on the 23rd December last, and saw the driver jump off the fly.
He did not see the accident happen, but heard the driver of the car say
he could not help it, as the roads were slippery.
Frederick Tritton, of 20 East Cliff, said he was in the vicinity of the
accident and saw the motor car run into the fly. The driver of the
latter tried to turn his horse down Shellons Street to avoid an
accident.
Henry Dawkins, 2 Ingles Mews, said he examined the horse in question for
Mr. Clark, and advised him to buy it. He considered it well worth 45
guineas.
John Morphy, of Coolinge Road, said the horse was well worth £50.
This concluded the case for the plaintiff.
Richard Littlehale, a motor car driver in the employ of the defendant
Company, said he was driving a motor car down Cheriton Road on the 23rd
December last. The roads were very greasy, and when near Shellons Street
he was going about four miles an hour. As soon as he saw the horse and
fly he put on his brakes, and this caused his car to slip down the road.
One of his wheels went on to the pavement. Had he been going at eight
miles an hour and a clear road he would have pulled up.
Cross-examined by Mr. Matthew: The witnesses who said I was travelling
fast are wrong.
You say the fly was coming along rather fast? – I don't think I said
anything about seeing the driver coming along at a fast pace.
Oh, yes, you did.
His Honour said he had taken a note of what the witness had said, and he
found he had said the fly was coming along at rather a fast pace.
William Want said he was the conductor of the car in question on
December 23rd. There was another car near the Shakespeare Hotel. The
driver sounded the horn twice. Witness did not see the horse until they
were right on it, and the driver tried to avoid an accident by running
on to the pavement.
Cross-examined by Mr. Matthew: They were going about four miles an hour,
but they were too far over the fly to allow them to turn into Guildhall
Street.
Charles Hinds, a motor driver, said he was outside the Shakespeare Hotel
when the accident happened. He heard the horn twice, and saw the car run
into the horse. It was impossible to avoid an accident, although the fly
driver did all he could to avoid one.
Cross-examined by Mr. Matthew: How fast was the fly going? – About eight
miles an hour.
Then you mean to say the fly ran into the car? – Yes.
P.C. Kettle said he was called to the scene of the accident just after
it occurred. One wheel of the car was on the pavement. A veterinary
surgeon was sent for, and he advised that the horse should be shot.
Witness did not see Hinds' car there.
Mr. Dodds, for the defendant Company, briefly addressed the jury,
pointing out that it was not the duty of a defendant to prove that he
was innocent, but for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was the
guilty party. He submitted that in the present case proof of negligence
had not been produced, and therefore he was entitled to a verdict in his
favour.
Mr. Matthew said all the plaintiff's witnesses were independent people,
whereas the witnesses on the other side were, to a certain extent,
prejudiced. It was absurd to say that the fly ran into the motor car. He
contended that a case of negligence had been proved against the Company.
His Honour briefly summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for the
defendant.
|
Folkestone Express 22 February 1908.
County Court.
Tuesday, February 18th: Before Judge Shortt.
Alfred L. Clarke v London and South Coast Motor Service Ltd.: The
plaintiff claimed £70 for damages done to his horse and motor coach,
owing, he contended, to negligence. A jury was empanelled in this case.
Mr. Theodore Matthew, instructed by Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury,
represented the plaintiff, and Mr. F. Dodd, instructed by Messrs.
Reynolds and Son, 5, Arundel Street, Strand, London, for the defendants.
Mr. Matthew said the issue the jury had to decide was a simple one,
whether a horse, the property of the plaintiff, was injured so that it
had to be killed owing to the negligence of the defendant's driver, and
they would also be asked to estimate the value of the animal.
George Benjamin Phillips, living at 15, Darlington Street, said he was
employed by the plaintiff, who was a fly proprietor. On Monday, December
23rd, he went out with his fly. About half past twelve he was returning
with his fly from his home in Guildhall Street. When he got to the
corner of Shellons Street he saw a motor coming from the direction of
Cheriton Road. Directly he saw him the driver blew his horn. The only
possible thing he could do was to pull his horse up, but the rear wheel
of the motor struck the horse's foreleg. The horse stood holding its leg
up, so he jumped down at once. The motor ran onto the pavement near
Strood's shop. The driver said he could not stop on account of the road
being slippery and the brakes skidding. He would not allow anything to
be touched until the police saw the position of the vehicles. Mr.
Hogben, the veterinary surgeon, was sent for, and he ordered the horse
to be shot. The motor was about five or six yards from him when the horn
was sounded. He (witness) was going about four or five miles an hour.
Cross-examined, witness said he saw no other motor car close to the
kerb. At the time of the accident he was in the middle of Guildhall
Street, with the horse turning down Shellons Street. The skin of the
horse's leg was not caught. The roads were a little greasy that day. The
off-side wheel and the engine of the car were on the pavement, but had
not the near side wheel caught the kerb it would have gone further. He
told the police constable who came that the horse cost 35 guineas. He
did not tell him the motor was going fast. He (witness) was not going at
a considerable pace. He was going to a cab stand, and had no job to
which he was going.
Re-examined, he said if he had not pulled up the motor would have caught
him broadside.
Graham Bell, of Lyndhurst Road, Peckham, said he was going from the
Drill Halls up Shellons Street, when he saw the fly crossing at the top
of the street and the motor coming down Cheriton Road. The driver of the
fly pulled his horse facing him and the motor car, which came rather
quickly, ran into the horse. The car ran onto the pavement, and both off
wheels of the car were on the pavement. The fly was going slowly. He was
not able to say whether the motor skidded. He could not say that he
formed an opinion of who was responsible for the accident.
Miss Margaret Wylie, 1, Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, London, said on
December 23rd, at half past twelve, she was in Strood's shop, looking
out of the window. She saw a motor car coming far too quickly for a wet
day down Cheriton Road. The motor never “tooted” at all until it got to
the corner. It was too late, and it caught the horse, which the driver
had pulled with its head down Shellons Street. She afterwards gave her
name to the driver of the fly. She was noticing the car because she was
intending to go to Hythe by one of them, but she did not go by one of
them afterwards.
Cross-examined, witness said she did not notice any motor standing near
the Shakespeare Hotel.
Archibald Edwards, a carrier, of 12, Gladstone Road, said he was coming
down Cheriton Road when he noticed the motor coach passing him. The
motor car driver sounded his horn when on the corner, and, no doubt,
when he saw the horse. He did not see the fly until the two vehicles
were pretty well on to each other. The fly could not have been going
very fast by the manner in which it was pulled up. The car was going
from six to eight miles an hour. There was a drop in the road halfway
across Guildhall Street.
Cross-examined, he said he did not see any other vehicle near the
Shakespeare Hotel.
Frederick George Mercer, a builder, of 33, Tontine Street, said he asked
the fly driver how the accident happened, and the driver of the coach
said he could not help it, because the road was slippery and the car
skidded.
Frederick Tritton, a fishmonger, of 20, East Cliff, said he was crossing
Guildhall Street at the time of the accident. The motor coach came
straight down Cheriton Road. It was going fast, while the fly was going
at a jog trot, as though the driver was looking for a job. There were
two off fore wheels of the coach on the pavement, and it seemed to him
that half of the car was on the pavement.
Henry Dawkins, of 2, Ingles Mews, a coachman in the employ of Alderman
Banks, said Mr. Clarke asked him to examine the horse before he
purchased it, and he told him, when he advised him to buy it, it was
dirt cheap at £45. Later he (witness) asked him to sell it to him for
£55.
Cross-examined, he said the horse was six years old next spring. It was
bred by Mr. Heritage, who evidently did not know its value.
John Murphy, a horse dealer, of Ingles Mews, said he should value the
horse at £50. If he had had him he would not have taken that for him,
because he was fit for a weight-carrying hunter.
This concluded the plaintiff's case.
Richard Littlehales, the driver of the coach, residing at 17, Bradstone
Avenue, said he had been driving for four years. On December 23rd he was
driving down Cheriton Road. It had been raining and the road was greasy.
In Cheriton Road there was a motor by the Shakespeare Hotel. He had no
passengers in the coach, and before he got to the corner he was going
about four or five miles an hour. He pulled up when he saw the horse. He
sounded the horn twice, the first time just a little lower down than
Leney's yard, and the second time just before he saw the horse. When he
got to the corner he saw the horse coming along at rather a fast pace.
He put his brakes on and, he supposed, owing to the roads being
slippery, they locked and the wheels skidded. When he saw the horse he
kept straight on and he went on to the pavement. He thought they were
blocking the traffic, and he suggested they should move, but he did not
move until P.C. Kettle came. After the horse hit his nearside wheel the
back of the cab was towards Guildhall Street. His brakes were in
perfectly good order. From the time he saw the horse until he pulled up
he covered about eight yards. The horse was not knocked down.
Cross-examined: The witnesses who said he was going at a fast pace were
wrong. It was right the horse was going at a fast pace. The fly man had
more chance of avoiding the accident than he had. His coach weighed 2
tons 13 cwt., and the driver of the fly really drove into him at a fast
pace. Two days before that case he had a little collision with a fly,
and he paid the damage for it because he thought people were prejudiced
against motors. He did not run into a team of horses in Dymchurch Road
last year. He had had two accidents before, but he had not done so much
damage as he had done in that case. He was always careful about his
driving.
Re-examined, he said the near side front wheel caught the horse.
William George Want, the conductor of the coach, said he was sitting on
the front seat with the driver. They were going to the garage. When they
came down Cheriton Road he saw another motor near the Shakespeare Hotel.
The driver sounded his horn twice, for it was a dangerous corner. He did
not see the horse until they got to the corner and the coach ran on to
the pavement. The horse was coming along far too fast for it to be
pulled up, and its leg shot out and went under the wheel.
Cross-examined, witness said they had not time to turn into Guildhall
Street. They were going about four miles an hour. He had only been on
the car once when they had an accident. That was when they ran into a
cab coming out of Cheriton Gardens.
Robert Charles Hind, a motor car driver, of Cheriton, said he had
nothing to do with the defendant company. He was outside the Shakespeare
Hotel with his car at the time of the accident. He heard the driver
sound the horn twice, and he saw the horse strike the coach. The coach
came past him at about five miles an hour and when the brakes were
applied it seemed to swerve. Only one wheel of the car went on to the
pavement. The horse, which was going at a brisk trot, was struck by the
front wheel of the coach.
Cross-examined, he thought the driver of the fly was really the cause of
the accident, for the horse was going at eight miles an hour. The coach
could have been pulled up in its own length, but the horse ran into it.
He had a little sympathy for a motor having had an accident. In that
case it was a landau.
P.C. Kettle said he did not see the accident. He saw the vehicles after
the accident. The front wheel of the coach was on the pavement. The
roads were wet. He did not see Hind's motor near the Shakespeare Hotel.
Both Mr. Dodd and Mr. Matthew addressed the jury, and his Honour, in
summing up, said there was no doubt the burden of proof was on the
plaintiff. It was not for the defendant to disprove the case, but it was
incumbent upon the plaintiff, if he was to succeed, to prove beyond all
reasonable doubt that it was caused through the negligence of the driver
of the coach.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and on their return they
announced they had found for the defendant, and his Honour gave
judgement in accordance with the jury's finding.
|
Folkestone Herald 22 February 1908.
County Court.
Tuesday, February 18th: Before Judge Shortt.
Alfred R. Clark v London and South Coast Motor Service Ltd: Claim for
damages amounting to £70, for loss alleged to have been caused by
negligence on the part of the defendant Company. A jury was empanelled
in this case.
Mr. Theodore Matthew, barrister, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F.
Dodd, barrister, for the defendant Company.
Mr. Matthew said it would be for the jury to judge as to whether or not
the defendants were guilty of negligence, and whether a horse was worth
£70.
Mr. George B. Phillips, of 15, Darlington Street, said that he was
employed by the plaintiff, who was a fly proprietor. He had been in that
employ for eight years. On Monday, December 23rd, he was out driving,
and after dinner, about 12.30 p.m., he was returning by way of Guildhall
Street to the Town Hall. Within a few yards of the Shakespeare Hotel he
saw a motor car coming from the Cheriton Road. Witness thought the only
thing to do was to pull his horse's head to the left. He did so, and the
car ran into the horse's foreleg, which was broken. The driver said that
he could not stop, as his car skidded. The police and a veterinary
surgeon were sent for, and by the advice of the veterinary surgeon the
horse was shot. When witness first saw the motor it was five or six
yards away from the corner. Witness then pulled to the left, but
notwithstanding that, the car ran into him, and on to the pavement, on
the right side of Shellons Street.
Cross-examined: There was no other vehicle standing on the corner, or
opposite to the Shakespeare. The horn was only sounded once. Witness was
going about four miles an hour. In Guildhall Street, and on the north
side of Shellons Street there was a cab rank, but there were no vehicles
there. When he turned down Shellons Street, he was in the middle of that
road.
Witness pointed out on a plan to Mr. Dodd the positions of the vehicles
at the time of the occurrence and before. He added that the skin on the
horse's leg was not cut. The roads were a little greasy that day. The
engine and off-side wheel wee on the pavement. P.C. Kettle came to the
scene, and examined the horse. He told the policeman that the horse cost
35 guineas. He did not tell him that the motor bus was driving
furiously. The horse was kept where it was struck until the arrival of
the veterinary surgeon and the policeman. Witness did not on that day
have a job to go to. He was going to the cab stand.
Re-examined: Had he not turned his horse's head down Shellons Street, he
would have been run into broadside on, and probably would have been
killed.
Mr. Graham Bell, living at Peckham, said that he was coming up Shellons
Street at the time of the accident. He saw the head of the motor coming
across the head of Shellons Street. The cab driver pulled his horse's
head round facing witness, and the motor ran into the horse's legs. The
fly was going slowly. He could not tell whether the motor skidded. He
did not form any opinion at the time as to whose fault the accident was.
Cross-examined: Witness said that he was on the Drill Halls side of
Shellons Street at the time. Both off-side wheels of the motor were on
the pavement. Plan produced by Mr. Dodd was not a correct one. The
wheels of the motor and cab were locked.
Re-examined: The two vehicles were a little farther down the road than
the corner.
Miss Wiley, of 1, Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, London, said at the
time of the accident she was in Strood's shop in Guildhall Street,
looking out of the window. She saw a motor coming down the road
opposite. It was coming far too quickly for a wet day. The fly was
coming along Guildhall Street. The motor man never “tooted” till he got
to the corner, when he ran into the horse. She gave her name to the
driver of the fly.
Cross-examined: She was in the Shellons Street side of the shop, right
inside. She did not see the cab coming along, and did not see them until
they were nearly in contact. She had only seen the motor bus a moment
before the impact – about 15 yards before it came to the corner.
Mr. Archibald Edwards, 12, Gladstone Road, said that at the time of the
accident he was coming down Cheriton Road, when he saw a motor coach
pass him. He saw it crossing Guildhall Street; He was about five yards
away at the time. The motor driver sounded his horn as he saw the horse.
He did not see the fly until they were pretty well hitting one another.
The fly could not have been going very fast. He saw the fly man pull up,
and then pull round. If he had gone right on, the coach would have gone
into him. The coach was going at about six or eight miles an hour.
Cross-examined: The horse was not knocked down at all. It was hit
between the knee and the first joint.
Mr. eorge Mercer, of 33, Tontine Street, builder, said that at about the
time of the accident he was coming up Shellons Street. He saw the fly
and the motor just after the accident. He said to the fly driver “What
is the matter?”, and the flyman said “The car ran into me”. The car
driver said “Yes, the road was so slippery I could not help it”.
Mr. Tritton, 20, East Cliff, said he was crossing Guildhall Street
towards Shellons Street at the time of the accident. He was coming
across from Singer's to Strood's. He saw a cab coming along at a jog
trot. The motor came fast down Cheriton Road and dashed into the fly.
The fly driver pulled his horse round to avoid the accident if he could,
but the motor was coming too fast. He should say that there were two
wheels and half the car on the pavement.
Cross-examined: His view of the accident was an instantaneous one. He
was about half way across the street. When both the vehicles were at
rest the cab was slightly inclined towards Shellons Street – more
towards Guildhall Street – but the horse was turned right down Shellons
Street.
Mr. Hy. Dorkins, of 2, Ingles Mews, coachman for over thirty years, said
that he examined the horse before Mr. Clark bought it. He told him it
was “dirt cheap” at £45.
Cross-examined: The horse would have been six years old next spring.
Mr. Job Murphy, horse dealer, of 52, Coolinge Lane, valued the horse at
£50. If he had had it he would not have sold it at that price.
This concluded the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Richard Littlehales, 17, Bradstone Avenue, said he was a driver in
the employ of the defendant Company. He had been a driver for four
years. At the time of the accident he was driving down Cheriton Road to
Shellons Street. There had been rain, and the road was slippery. There
was a slight drop in Cheriton road, and a bigger one in Shellons Street.
There was another motor by the Shakespeare Hotel in charge of a man
named Hynes. He had no passengers in the coach, and was going at about
four or five miles an hour to the garage. When he saw the horse he put
his brakes on. He sounded his horn in Cheriton Road, just below Leney's
yard, and also just before he saw the horse. Just as he came to the
corner he saw the horse coming along at a rather fast pace. He put all
his brakes on rather suddenly. The road being slippery, the brakes
locked the wheel, and the car ran a little down before stopping. When he
saw the horse coming along he went straight on, and one wheel only ran
on to the pavement opposite Strood's. He suggested that they should move
because he thought they were blocking the road. At the time everything
was at a standstill; the horse was turned right down Shellons Street,
and the back of the cab was towards Guildhall Street. The brakes of his
motor were in perfectly good order. After seeing the horse he travelled
about eight yards before stopping.
Cross-examined: The witnesses who said that he was coming down at a
rapid rate were wrong. The flyman had more chance of avoiding the
accident that witness. He drove into witness. Witness's coach weighed
two tons 13 cwt.
Mr. Matthew: Have you had an accident before?
Witness: I should like to see the motor driver who had not. (Laughter)
In further reply, witness said that a few days before the accident he
had a slight accident, and paid compensation. Guildhall Street was a
dangerous place to cross.
Re-examined: Having had accidents before he was specially careful now.
The nearside front wheel came in contact with the horse's leg.
Mr. Wm. George Want, conductor of the motor coach, said that at the time
he was sitting on the front seat with the driver. There was another
motor opposite the Shakespeare. He was certain that the driver sounded
the horn twice before coming to the corner. The horse was coming too
fast to pull up. The coach ran on to the pavement, and the horse's front
leg shot out and went under the wheel.
Cross-examined: They did not have time to turn into Guildhall Street.
The coach was travelling at about four miles an hour. They would have
run into Strood's shop if they had turned. He had only been on the coach
once before when there was a slight accident.
Mr. Charles Hynes, 83, High Street, Cheriton, motor driver to another
Company, said that he was outside the Shakespeare Hotel at the time of
the accident. The horn was sounded twice. The coach came down at about
five miles an hour. By the sudden application of the brakes the coach
swerved a little. Only one wheel of the coach went on to the pavement.
The horse was coming along at a brisk trot, and the driver pulled his
horse back when he saw the coach. The near front wheel of the coach hit
the horse's leg.
Cross-examined: It was entirely the fault of the fly, which was going at
about 8 miles an hour. The car could have pulled up in less than its own
length, but the horse ran into the motor. The horn was sounded just
opposite witness, and again when the driver saw the horse. Witness had
some sympathy with motor drivers who had accidents.
P.C. Kettle said that he did not see the accident occur. He was called
to it, and found the vehicles at rest. The horse was standing, and one
front wheel of the motor was on the pavement opposite Strood's.
After Mr. Dodd and Mr. Matthew had addressed the jury, his Honour
complimented them on the brevity with which the case had been conducted.
He pointed out that the burden of proof was entirely upon the plaintiff.
It was not for the defendant to disprove liability; it was for the
plaintiff to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the cause of the
accident was some negligence on the part of the motor driver.
The jury retired at 3.40 p.m. to consider their verdict, and after an
absence of ten minutes they came back, and returned a verdict for the
defendant company.
Judgement was accordingly entered for the defendant company.
|
Folkestone Express 6 May 1911.
Saturday, April 29th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer,
R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.
Robert Death was summoned for assaulting Charles Andrews. He pleaded Not
Guilty.
Charles Andrews, 16, Athelstan Road, a limeburner, said on Sunday, 2nd
April, about ten o'clock in the evening, he was in Dover Road, near the
Skew Arches. He had come out of the Swan public house with a man named
Tutt. He said “Goodnight” to a man named Gillam, and was going over to
the urinal, near the arches, when he received a blow in the left eye and
fell down and became insensible. He underwent medical treatment as a
result of the blow. He did not know the defendant.
Frederick Tutt, 19, Canterbury Road, a carter, said he remembered Sunday
night, the 2nd of April. He left the Swan withthe last witness at ten
o'clock. Gillam and Andrews were walking together, and witness was just
behind. Andrews said “Goodnight” to Gillam and told witness to wait.
Witness then saw defendant come up and strike Andrews in the face with
his fist. Andrews fell on his back, and witness picked him up and helped
him home. He was insensible, and bled at the nose and mouth. Witness saw
defendant in the public house. There was no quarrel.
Charlotte Andrews, wife of the complainant, said she was at home when
her husband was brought home. He was insensible, and it was five o'clock
the next morning before he knew anything. There was a cut at the back of
his head, and he had a black eye. Witness called in a doctor on the
following Friday, and complainant did not get up until Thursday in last
week. Defendant called on witness on the Friday following the
occurrence. He said he was the man who struck her husband. He had had
words with him before he struck him. Andrews said that if he (defendant)
had said as much to him as he (defendant) said to Gillam he would have
floored him.
Death said it was because Andrews threatened him that he did what he
did.
The Chief Constable said there was one conviction for gambling six years
ago against defendant. He was in the employ of the railway company.
The Chairman said defendant was liable to a fine of £5, or two months'
hard labour without the option of a fine. It was a most unprovoked and
brutal assault, and he would be fined 40s. and 11s. costs, or one
month's hard labour.
|
Folkestone Herald 6 May 1911.
Saturday, April 29th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I.
Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.
Robert Death was summoned for assaulting Charles Andrews. Defendant
pleaded Not Guilty.
Charles Andrews, of 16, Athelstan Road, said that on April 2nd at about
10 p.m. he was in Dover Road, near the Skew Arches. He was coming out of
the Swan public house with a friend, when he saw defendant talking with
a man named Gillam, and bade Gillam goodnight. Shortly afterwards,
witness left his friend to go across the road, when he received a blow
which caused him to become unconscious. He did not see who struck him,
nor did he hear defendant come up to him. He was confined to bed for 17
days as a result of the blow, and had been under the doctor's hands for
that period. Witness had never spoken to defendant in his life.
Frederick Tutt, of 19, Canterbury Road, a carter, stated that he left
the Swan Inn with the last witness on the evening of April 2nd at about
10 o'clock, and proceeded in the direction of the Arches. Gillam and
Andrews walked on ahead of him for a moment or two, but afterwards
witness joined complainant again. As they got near the Arches, Andrews
left witness and went across the road. Thereupon defendant came across
the road and struck the complainant in the face with his fist, causing
him to fall heavily on his back and head. Witness picked him up and took
him home. Witness was about seven or eight yards from complainant when
the blow was struck, and did not hear any word spoken.
Defendant: Did you see anybody pick me up?
Witness: No.
The Chairman: Was there any fighting going on of any description?
Witness: Not that I know of.
The Magistrates' Clerk: As far as you know then, it was an unprovoked
assault?
Witness: Yes.
Mrs. Charlotte Andrews, wife of complainant, said she was at home when
her husband was brought in. He was unconscious, and was suffering from a
cut on the eye and a bad cut on the back of the head. So bad did he
become that during the week she called in the doctor, and he had been
under his hands ever since. Defendant called to see her on Friday, and
said he was the man who had struck her husband, and that he had had
words with him.
Defendant then said he had been threatened by complainant in the public
house. He had no witnesses.
The Chairman said defendant was liable to be fined £5 or imprisonment
without the option of a fine for two months. The Bench were of the
opinion that he was guilty of a brutal and unprovoked assault, and he
would be fined 40s. and 11s. costs.
|
Folkestone Daily News 13 August 1912.
Tuesday, August 10th: Before Messrs. Stainer, Swoffer, Harrison,
Morrison, Boyd, and Stace.
Mr. Phillips was present to ask for the transfer of the licence of the
"Swan," Dover Road.
It was explained, however, that a difficulty arose through the absence
of the landlord, who could not be traced.
The application was therefore adjourned.
|
Folkestone Express 17 August 1912.
Tuesday, August 13th: Before J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, W.J.
Harrison, E.T. Morrison, and A. Stace Esqs.
The Clerk said there was notice of an application that morning for a
protection order in respect of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, but Mr.
Phillips, on behalf of the owners, informed him that there was some
hitch, and the application would not be made.
The Chief Constable said he had inquired into the character of the
proposed incoming tenant. He understood the hitch had arisen out of the
outgoing tenant not being there.
Mr. Phillips said that was so.
The Clerk (to Mr. Phillips): Then you do not make any application. You
must come again in due course.
|
Folkestone Daily News 20 August 1912.
Local News.
Mr. Clarke, proprietor of the "Swan Hotel," Dover Road, mysteriously
disappeared some few days since. Such disappearance has caused a good
deal of speculation as to his whereabouts and the reason as to his
absence. Some thought he might have gone for a holiday, and others that
he had gone abroad.
All doubts were settled on Monday morning by the news reaching
Folkestone that he had been found shot in a lane near West Hythe,
leading to the canal. He was in a very decomposed condition and
presented a fearful sight.
Clarke was a native of Hythe, but had resided in Folkestone for many
years. He was a man greatly respected and is reported to have been very
successful in the licensing victuallers' trade.
The County Coroner will hold an inquest on Tuesday at the "County Members
Hotel," Lympne.
|
Exeter and Plymouth Gazette 21 August 1912.
Mr. Alfred Robert Clarke, landlord of the "Swan Hotel," Dover-road,
Folkestone, was found dead under a hedge at Lympe, near Hythe. Mr.
Clarke disappeared on August 6th.
|
Folkestone Daily News 23 August 1912.
Local News.
The County Coroner held an inquest at the County Members Hotel, Lympne,
on Tuesday, when the jury returned a verdict that Robert Clarke
committed suicide while temporarily insane.
|
Folkestone Express 24 August 1912.
Inquest.
Mr. A. Clarke, the licensee of the "Swan Inn," Dover Road, who had been
missing from Folkestone for about three weeks, was found dead on Sunday
evening in a secluded spot about four miles west of Hythe. His body was
discovered by a man named Percy Cheeseman, who at once gave information
to the police. Close to the dead man's head was a revolver, by which it
is almost certain that the unfortunate man shot himself. The body was in
an advanced state of decomposition, and it was impossible to identify
the man by his face, as it was practically eaten away. However, several
articles found in the pockets of the clothing proved who the man was.
With assistance the police had the body removed to the "County Members
Inn," at Lympne, where an inquest was held last Tuesday.
It appeared that
Clarke, after leaving Folkestone, went to West Hythe, where he took
lodgings and remained until the day after Bank Holiday, since when all
trace was lost of him until his dead body was discovered. It is
therefore probable that he met his death about that time. When the
clothing was searched a considerable sum of money was found on him. On
Tuesday week an application was made to the Borough Magistrates to
transfer the licence of the "Swan Inn," but it could not be proceeded with
owing to the fact that the present licensee (Clarke) was not present.
The deceased man had not lived with his wife for a considerable time,
and on Monday the County Police were making enquiries as to her
whereabouts.
The inquest was held at the "County Members Inn," Lympne, on Tuesday
afternoon, when the inquiry was conducted by Mr. A. K. Mowll, the Deputy
Coroner for East Kent.
Alonzo William Alexander Clarke, a baker, of 10, Russell Street, Dover,
said he was the brother of the deceased. He identified the clothes on
the body viewed by the jury as those belonging to his brother, Alfred
Robert. He had seen him wear them at Folkestone. His brother was a
publican, and was the landlord of the "Swan Inn," Dover Road, Folkestone.
He recognised the gold watch and Albert, gold seal, gold pin, and two
rings (produced) as his brother's property. His brother was fifty years
old last September. He was married, but had no children. His wife was
not living with him, but left him about two years and a half ago. He was
then holding the licence of the "Swan Inn." He last saw his brother alive
on August 2nd, a day before he was missing. It was between five and six
in the afternoon he met the deceased in Biggin Street, Dover. He asked
him (the deceased) how he was, and he replied that he was not at all
well, and was taking steps to get rid of his business and to be out
within a fortnight. Previous to that he saw him some weeks ago. His
brother complained to him on the last occasion he saw him that he was
not up to the mark, his teeth troubling him a great deal. He knew there
were things on his brother's mind in relation to his family life. He was
upset at the time his wife left him, and he never seemed to recover
properly from it. He heard by telegram that his brother was missing on
the following Tuesday.
John Hadfield, of the "Swan Inn," Folkestone, said he was employed by the
deceased as barman at the house. Mr. Clarke had been tenant at the "Swan
Inn" for nine years. He left because he saw how things were going between
the deceased's wife and another man. He told Mr. Clarke what was
happening, and he left six months before Mrs, Clarke eloped with the
man. He last saw his employer at 11 a.m. on August 3rd, when he told him
he was going to the bank to get change, and he would not be long. He
never came back. On the following Tuesday he informed the deceased's
brother and sister, and the brewers that he was missing. On the 13th
August he told the police that Mr. Clarke was missing, that being the
day when the licence was to have been transferred. The deceased had got
mixed up with a woman who lived in one of his cottages, and she had
given birth to a child four months ago. The woman said he was the father
of the child, and the deceased said he was not. He used to sleep off the
premises about fifteen months ago. He had informed witness that she was
trying to get some money out of him. The deceased's house was doing a
good trade, and the accounts were all in good order. Mr. Clarke had
threatened to take his wife's life, but had never threatened to take his
own life. He never said he was worrying over anything, and he never gave
him the idea that he was going to put an end to his existence. He never
seemed at all strange in his manner. He, however, complained of pains in
his head the Friday previous to his going away, and he said he had
dropped his false teeth and had broken them. When he came back from
Dover on the Friday he told deceased that he was thinking of going in
for the "Richmond" house, and the deceased said that he had practically
got rid of the house, and if he (witness) stopped with him until he went
he would give him a cheque.
Peter John Uden, of the "Carpenters Arms," West Hythe, said a man, who was
a stranger to him, came to his house at six o'clock on the evening of
the 3rd August. He asked for tea, and he was served with it. He asked
for a bed, and he (witness) got him one at Nightingale Cottage, close
by. He left the house about eight o'clock and went to bed. He came on
the following morning about ten o'clock and had breakfast. He stayed
about the place all day on Sunday, and on Monday morning he came to the
house again. After breakfast he came to the bar and asked if he could
put him half a quarter of whisky in a bottle for him to take away. As
the weather was bad, he asked him (witness) to lend him a Mackintosh, as
he was going for a stroll. He said he would be back for dinner, but he
did not return until evening. On the Tuesday morning he came in to
breakfast about 9.30, and afterwards he had another half quartern of
whisky to take away. He then paid up his account for the time he was
staying there, it including his night's lodgings and amounting to 15s.
He said he might not be back until evening, and asked him to lend him
his Mackintosh again. He went on the canal bank, and proceeded in the
direction of Hythe. That was the last he saw of him. The body viewed by
the jury had his Mackintosh on it. The man did not appear to be strange
in his manner, but was very quiet. On the Sunday he was in the smoke
room all day, and smoked several cigars. He was very pleasant when
spoken to. He (witness) had other people staying in the house, or they
would have put him up. His (witness's) wife asked him for his name, and
he replied “Oh, it's all right”. He had no luggage with him. The man
only had one pint of beer in his house, and that was the only
intoxicant, besides the whisky, he had in his house.
John Hadfield, re-called, said the deceased was practically a
teetotaller.
Walter Cheeseman, a farmer, of Court-at-Street, Lympne, said he had been
to look at some sheep near Aldergate Bridge at a quarter to seven on
Sunday evening, the 18th, when he smelled something very offensive. He
thought it must be the body of a dead sheep, so he looked into the
bracken. He then noticed the body of a man in the bracken, on a bank in
a meadow, five or six rods away from the road leading to Aldington. It
was impossible to see the body from the road. The deceased was lying on
his back, with his arms on his chest. It was getting dusk, and he
immediately sent for P.C. Kingsbury at Sellinge, but could not find him
until one o'clock in the morning, as he was on duty. As soon as it was
light the constable came to his house, and they went to the spot, where
they saw the body lying in the same position. He then saw a revolver in
the man's right hand. He saw the constable take the two envelopes
(produced) from the pockets of the clothing.
The Coroner was then handed the two envelopes, the writing on which was
not easily distinguishable. He said the first one had on one side of it
“Mr. Clarke, "Swan Hotel," Folkestone”. On the other side was “Mrs. Looker.
I am sorry for what I have done to you. Get the deeds of Ivy Cottage at
Lloyds Bank. The house you can have, also the furniture. Ever, A. R.
Clarke”. The second ran as follows: “I find those papers I signed were
false, not what you told me they were. They told me they were for £600
valuation, to be paid in bills”. Mr. Mowll thereupon asked if anyone
could explain either of the letters. The witness Hadfield said Mrs.
Looker was the woman to whom he had referred; and Mr. Battiscombe, of
Messrs. Flint and Co., said he could explain the other letter.
Witness, continuing, said he was present when the constable searched the
body, and took from the clothing a gun licence, which was taken out on
August 3rd, the five chambered revolver (produced) with one discharged
cartridge and four loaded cartridges in it, an account from Messrs.
Upton Bros., another account from Messrs. Lee and Son for £1 12s. 6d.,
the jewellery previously identified, a note with £700 and £16 upon it, a
box containing 42 loaded cartridges, and £14 16s. 7d. in money.
P.C. Kingsbury, stationed at Sellindge, said he searched the body and
found the articles previously described. He conveyed the body later to
the "County Members."
Mr. C. W. Battiscombe, Managing Secretary for Messrs. Flint and Co., said
he could throw a little light on the second paper read by the Coroner.
On Aug. 1st Mr. Clarke came to his office in the afternoon to see him in
regard to a contract he had seen in respect to the change at the house
he was giving up. The contract was between him and the prospective
tenant. Deceased said he did not think the contract was quite in order
and he asked him if he would read it through. He (witness) did so, and
then pointed out that it was all in order. So far as he could see, it
was perfectly in order, and Clarke was quite satisfied when he left the
office that it was so. The contract was drawn up by Messrs. Phillips and
Son, valuers, of Dover, who were acting on behalf of the prospective
tenant. Deceased's accounts were up to date, and there were no debts
owing to them. He was in a most happy position, so far as their accounts
were concerned – in fact, they could not be better. Deceased would have
come out of the house with over £700. He was a first class tenant, and
so far as he (witness) knew there was nothing for him to worry about.
Dr. Clifford Hackney said he examined the body at seven o'clock on
Monday evening in the coach house of the "County Members Inn." The
features were unrecognisable, as they were in a state of advanced
decomposition. An examination of the body revealed no injury of any kind
until he came to the head, when he found a hole in the right upper
jawbone, and a fracture of the bone, which was splintered from the hole.
The hole suggested to him gun trouble. The point of entry was all eaten
away, but the hole went in the direction of the base of the skull. The
right hand was clenched in the typical position for gripping a revolver,
the position of the trigger finger being projected. The man must have
been dead for fourteen days. The cause of death was the injury to the
upper jawbone, probably from the revolver. The size of one of the
undischarged cartridges was about the size of the hole in the jaw.
The Coroner, in summing up, said he thought the jury must come to the
conclusion that the body was that of Alfred Robert Clarke. He also
thought it was quite clear from the evidence that the deceased must have
taken his own life. It was for the jury to say whether at the time the
deceased was temporarily insane.
The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide whilst temporarily insane”.
|
Folkestone Herald 24 August 1912.
Inquest.
A sensation was caused on Monday by the news that the body of Mr. Alfred
Robert Clarke, the landlord of the "Swan Hotel," Dover Road, Folkestone,
had been found a few miles west of Hythe. It was discovered near a hedge
not far from Aldergate Bridge, in the parish of Lympne, by a man whose
attention was drawn to it on account of a strong odour.
There was a bullet wound in the head, and in one hand was clasped a
five-chambered revolver containing four full cartridges and one empty
one. On the body were about forty other cartridges. The corpse was
decomposing.
Mr. Clarke left the "Swan Hotel" on the 3rd August. He stayed at West
Hythe until August 6th, when he disappeared. Formerly the deceased held
the licence of the "Eagle," Guildhall Street, and was likewise known as
the owner of bath-chairs.
An inquest on the body was held at the "County Members Inn," Lympne, on
Tuesday afternoon by Mr. A.K. Mowll, Deputy Coroner. Mr. G. W. Haines,
solicitor, of Folkestone, was present.
Previously to the jury going to view the body, the Deputy Coroner asked
each to put in his mouth a medical lozenge, a quantity of which he had
brought with him.
Mr. Alonzo William Alexander Clarke, a master baker, identified the
clothes of the deceased as those belonging to his brother. (The Deputy
Coroner had previously remarked that it was impossible to recognise the
features of the deceased.) Witness had seen his brother wearing those
clothes when he had been over to Folkestone. His brother was a publican,
and kept the "Swan Inn," Dover Road, Folkestone. Witness identified the
gold watch, chain, rings, and other articles now produced, as having
belonged to his brother. The age of the deceased was fifty last
December; he was married, but there were no children. His wife was not
living with him, she having left him about 2½ years ago. Witness last
saw his brother on Friday, August 2nd, between the hours of five and six
in the afternoon. The deceased was then on his holidays in Dover, and
they met in Biggin Street. They stopped and had a talk. Deceased said he
was not very well, that he was taking steps to get rid of his business,
and was hoping to leave it in a fortnight's time. Witness had not seen
him for some time previously, though Alfred had called at his house a
fortnight before his death, when he (witness) was out. His brother had
complained about his teeth, and witness told him that he wanted a
change. Deceased had a season ticket on the railway, and witness had
suggested to him that he should travel up and down a bit. Witness knew
that there were things on his brother's mind which he would not reveal
to him. Deceased did not seem to have properly recovered from his wife
leaving him. Witness was informed by telegram of his brother being
missing.
Mr. John Hadfield stated that he was now manager at the "Swan Inn," but
had been in the employ of deceased as barman. Witness was with him some
time before Mrs. Clarke eloped with another man; he could see that there
was something coming off, and so he (witness) left the Swan Inn in order
that he would not be placed in any difficulties. He came back in the
employ of Mr. Clarke afterwards. Witness last saw the deceased on August
3rd, at about 11 a.m., when the latter said that he was going to the
bank to get some change, and that he would not be long. However, he
never came back. Witness informed the brewery, and also the brother of
the deceased on Tuesday, August 13th; that was the day of the transfer.
He told the police the same day. He knew the deceased had been accused
by a woman of being the father of her child, but he had denied it. He
also knew that Mr. Clarke had slept away from the house for the past
fifteen months. Deceased had told him that the woman had been trying to
get some money out of him. Witness knew that there was no worry in
connection with the house; there was a good trade, and all the accounts
were in order.
The Deputy Coroner: Did he ever threaten to take his life?
Witness: No, but he threatened once to take the life of his wife if ever
she came to Folkestone.
I didn't ask you that. Did he ever threaten himself?
No, I never heard
him.
Did he ever complain?
Only about his head and his teeth.
Continuing, witness said that, in the course of a conversation he had
with the deceased, the latter talked about going to Richmond, and said
that he had practically got rid of the "Swan." He also told witness that
if he stayed with him he would write him a cheque. Witness understood by
this that if he stayed with Mr. Clarke until he left the Swan he would
receive the cheque as a little present.
Mr. Peter Uden, licensee of the "Carpenters Arms," West Hythe, said that
on August 3rd, at about six in the evening, a stranger came to him and
asked for tea, and afterwards for a bed. Witness got the latter for him
at Nightingale Cottage, which was close by. Deceased came to the
"Carpenters Arms" for breakfast the next morning (Sunday), and stayed
about the place all day. He came in again for breakfast on the Monday,
and he afterwards came to the bar and asked witness if he would put a
half quarter of whisky up in a bottle for him to take away. He also
asked if, as the weather was bad, witness could lend him a Mackintosh,
as he was going for a stroll, and said that he would be back for dinner.
However, he did not come back that day until supper time. Deceased had
breakfast on Tuesday morning at about 9.30, and after that he had
another half quarter of whisky in a bottle. He paid up all his accounts
that morning, including that for the night at Nightingale Cottage, the
total being 15s. He then said that he might not be back before the
evening, and asked witness if he would lend him the Mackintosh again,
which he did. Deceased then went up on the Canal bank, and proceeded in
the direction of Hythe. That was the last which witness saw of him.
Witness identified the Mackintosh as the one which he had lent to the
deceased, and he also recognised the clothes as having been worn by the
deceased.
The Deputy Coroner: How did he behave while he was with you?
Witness: He was a very quiet man; he did not speak unless he was spoken
to. There seemed nothing strange about him, however.
You say that he stayed about your place all day on Sunday. What was he
doing with himself?
He was smoking sometimes, and sometimes he was
reading.
What was he reading? Do you know?
He was reading the Folkestone
Herald; he seemed rather anxious to have the Folkestone Herald.
In reply to further questions, witness said he could not provide a bed
for the deceased at the "Carpenters Arms," because he already had ten
people sleeping there. Witness's wife did ask him his name, but he said
“Oh, it doesn't matter”. They (witness and his wife) had wondered who he
was and where he had come from. The deceased had no luggage with him.
While he was at the "Carpenters Arms" his drinks consisted of stone ginger
beer chiefly, but he had a pint of beer on the Sunday. He had never
asked witness as to where he could get a revolver or anything else of
that sort.
Mr. John Hadfield was re-called at this point, and, in reply to a
question put by Mr. Mowll, said the deceased was practically a
teetotaller, drinking ginger beer during the day, though he usually had
some port wine during the evening.
Mr. Walter Cheeseman, a farmer, of Court-at-Street, Lympne, described
how he found the body. He said it was at about 6.45 on Sunday evening,
August 18th. He had been round to have a look at some sheep which he had
near Aldergate Bridge (about two miles west of the "County Members Inn")
when, smelling something offensive, he looked amongst some bracken,
thinking that the cause of the smell was a dead sheep. He found it to be
the body of a man. The spot was near a by road, though it could not have
been seen from the thoroughfare. The corpse was in a meadow which
belonged to Mr. Frederick Uden, of Hythe. The deceased was lying on his
back with his arms across his chest. Witness noticed no revolver then;
it was getting dusk. He went to the police at Sellinge, but could not
find P.C. Kingsbury there, as he was on duty elsewhere. It was after
midnight before he found him and told him of his discovery. When witness
again saw the body in the morning he noticed that a revolver was in the
right hand.
The police then produced various documents which had been found upon the
body. One was a note written on the back of an old envelope addressed to
the decease at the "Swan Inn;" the note was partially indecipherable, but
the Deputy Coroner read it as best he could. It was addressed to Mrs. Looker, of Ivy Cottage, and apparently ran as follows:- I am sorry for
what I have done to you. Hope you will forgive me. Get the deeds of Ivy
Cottage at the bank; the house you can have. Ever (?) A .R. Clarke.
Then followed a postscript in which some mention was made of £709, and
also the passage “I have found that the papers I signed were false”.
The police also produced a gun licence taken out on August 3rd, and
other documents relating to the business of the deceased. The contents
of these, however, were not made public. The revolver was also produced,
and it was mentioned that when found it contained four loaded cartridges
and a blank one. There was also a box of 42 cartridges, while the sum of
£14 in gold and 16s. 7d. in other coin were likewise found upon the
deceased. The false teeth were broken.
P.C. Kingsbury deposed to having his attention called to the body, and
to searching the clothes, etc., on Monday, August 19th. He found the
articles and documents produced that afternoon.
Mr. Christopher William Battiscombe, Secretary to Flint's Brewery,
Canterbury, was called with the object of throwing, if possible, some
light upon the passage written by the deceased “I have found that the
papers I signed were false”. Witness stated that Mr. Clarke once called
to see him in regard to a contract he had signed about giving up the
"Swan Inn." Deceased then seemed to think that the thing was not in order,
but after hearing the document read through with some explanations he
went away quite satisfied. Witness added that the accounts of the
deceased were absolutely up to date.
The Deputy Coroner suggested that the £709 mentioned in the note might
have been the amount Mr. Clarke was going to receive at the termination
of his tenancy of the "Swan Inn."
Witness: I can throw no light upon that. He would get a few hundred
pounds; it would be more, I think.
Dr. Clifford Hackney, of Hythe, gave evidence as to his examination of
the body on Monday evening in a shed attached to the "County Members Inn."
The features were unrecognisable, owing to decomposition. There was no
injury to the body, but in the head was what appeared to be a shot hole,
the direction of which was towards the base of the skull. The right hand
was clenched; this would be a typical position for gripping a revolver,
the position of the trigger finger being particularly well marked. The
deceased must have been dead not less than fourteen days. The cause of
death was the injury to the jawbone; this injury could have been caused
by a shot from the revolver produced.
The Deputy Coroner reviewed the evidence taken, and said that to his
mind there was only one question for the jury to decide – that of
sanity. There was no doubt that the body was that of Mr. Clarke, and, to
his mind, he had come to that part of the district with the idea of
taking his life. He was a man who was practically a teetotaller, and he
had got the whisky perhaps to get his heart high enough to commit the
deed. They also had that letter to Mrs. Looker written on the back of
the envelope, which also showed that the idea was in his mind.
The jury, with but little discussion, returned a verdict of “Suicide
whilst temporarily insane”.
|
Southeastern Gazette 27 August 1912.
Local News.
The Deputy Coroner for East Kent (Mr. A. K. Mowll) held an inquest at
Lympne, on Monday on the body of Alfred Robert Clarke, aged fifty.
Alonzo William Alexander Clarke, of 10, Russell Street, Dover, a master
baker, identified the body as that of his brother who was the licensee
of the "Swan Inn," Dover Road, Folkestone. The deceased was married but
had no children. His wife left him some two and a half years ago.
Witness saw his brother alive last on Friday, August 2nd, but he then
said he did not feel at all well.
John Hadfield, barman at the "Swan Hotel," Folkestone, said the deceased
was the tenant of the house for eight or nine years. Witness left his
employ about three years ago, but came back again after Mrs. Clarke had
eloped with another man. Witness left because of the unpleasantness.
Witness saw deceased alive at 11 a.m. on August 3rd. He said he was
going to the bank to get change and that he would not be long, but he
never came back. Some four months ago a, woman who lived in one of the
deceased's cottages gave birth to a child, and deceased told witness
that she said it was his and had been trying to get some money out of
him.
Peter John Uden, of the "Carpenters' Arms," West Hythe, stated that the
deceased came to his house at 6 p.m. on Saturday, August 3rd. He. asked
for tea, and subsequently witness got him a bed at Nightingale Cottage
close by. The deceased remained about until Tuesday, the 6th August,
when he paid his account. He borrowed witness's mackintosh and said he
would be back in the evening, but he never returned.
Walter Cheeseman, grazier and farmer, of Court-at-Street, Lympne, stated
that at 6.45 on the evening of Sunday. August 18th, he was looking at
some sheep of his near Aldergate Bridge when he smelt something which
might be a sheep. He went into a meadow in the occupation of a Mr. Uden
and saw on the top of a bank hidden by bracken the body of a man. He was
lying on his back with his arms on his chest. Witness did not notice
whether there was a revolver as it was getting dusk. He communicated
with the police. The next day on going to the spot with a police
constable he saw the revolver in the deceased's right hand lying across
his chest.
P.O. Kingsbury gave a list of the articles he found on the body,
including £14 16s. 7d. in cash.
Mr. C. W. Battiscombe, manager and secretary of Messrs. Flint and Co.,
Ltd., stated that the deceased owed nothing to his firm except on the.
current account. As far as witness knew there was nothing for the
deceased to have worried about.
Dr. Hacknev, who examined the body, stated that the deceased's features
were unrecognisable, being in an advanced state of decomposition. There
was a hole in the right upper jawbone and a splinter of the jawbone from
the hole. The hole suggested to him a gunshot wound. The man must have
been dead for about fourteen days.
The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide during Temporary Insanity”.
|
Folkestone Herald 21 September 1912.
Friday, September 20th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Col.
Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, Col. Owen, Capt. Chamier, and Mr. J. J.
Giles.
Mr. G. W. Haines applied on behalf of Mrs. Clarke, of the "Swan Hotel,"
Dover Road, the landlord of which, Mr. Clarke, was recently found dead
near Hythe, for the transfer of the licence to Mr. Norman. Letters of
administration had been granted to Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Norman was
well-known in the town, and had formerly been landlord of the "Gun Tavern"
for 12 years.
The application was granted.
|
Folkestone Daily News 21 September 1912.
Friday, September 20th: Before Messrs. Vaughan, Giles, Fynmore, Jenner
and Chamier.
The licence of the "Swan," Dover Road, was transferred to Mr. Norman, who
some years since held the licence of the "Gun," Cheriton Road.
|
Folkestone Express 28 September 1912.
Friday, September 20th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Alderman Jenner, Lieut.
Col. Fynmore, Captain Chamier, J.J. Giles Esq., and Captain Owen.
Mr. G. W. Haines applied for the temporary transfer of the "Swan Inn" to
Mr. Norman. He said they would remember the landlord recently died, and
his widow, to whom letters of administration had been granted, applied
for the temporary transfer to Mr. Norman, who was well-known in the
town, having some time ago kept the "Gun Tavern" for twelve years.
The Bench granted the temporary authority asked for.
|
Folkestone Express 5 October 1912.
Local News.
At the police court on Wednesday the following transfer of licences was
sanctioned by the Magistrates: Swan Hotel, Dover Road, from the late Mr.
A.R. Clarke to Mr. Norman.
|
Folkestone Herald 5 October 1912.
Wednesday, October 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. G.I.
Swoffer, and Mr. R.J. Linton.
Mr. G.W. Haines appeared on behalf of Mrs. Robert Clarke, whose husband
died recently. The licence was transferred to the applicant, who now
wished to transfer it to Mr. Norman. The application was granted.
|
Folkestone Express 12 October 1912.
Notice.
Alfred Robert Clarke, Deceased.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having claims against the estate
of Alfred Robert Clarke, late a licensed victualler, of the Swan Inn,
176, Dover Road, Folkestone, Kent, who died on the 6th day of August,
1912, intestate, are herby required to send particulars of such claims
to me the undersigned on behalf of the Administratrix on or before the
30th day of November next, after which date the Administratrix will
distribute the assets having regard only to claims then notified.
Dated this 3rd day of October, 1912.
Geo. W. Haines, 18 & 20, Church Street, Folkestone, Solicitor for the
Administratrix.
|
Folkestone Express 29 August 1914.
Saturday, August 22nd: Before Mr. E. T. Ward and Col. Owen.
Lucy Foreman was charged with stealing a ring, the property of a
fellow servant at the "Royal
Pavilion Hotel."
Maud Ellen Lambert, a chambermaid employed at the "Royal
Pavilion Hotel," said the prisoner had also been employed there as
staff maid from July 28th until August 14th, when she left without
notice. The ring (produced) was her property. On Thursday week she
placed the ring in a hatpin box in her bedroom, and she saw it safe on
the following morning at ten o'clock. The same evening she went to the
box, but the ring was missing. She made a search for it, but could not
find it, and on Saturday she gave information to the police. On Friday
she was shown the ring with two others, and identified it as her
property. She valued the ring at 32/6. On Thursday before the prisoner
left she was sweeping he (prosecutrix's) room at four o'clock. She did
not give the prisoner permission to take the ring; in fact, she had not
even shown it to her.
Harrison Prescott, manager to Mr. S. W. Joseph, pawnbroker, of High
Street, said the previous day, at half past eleven, the prisoner came to
the shop and offered the ring produced in pledge, and asked a loan of
5/- or 6/-. She said it was her property, and had been in her possession
five or six years, it having been given to her by a young man. He
ultimately advanced 5/- on it. Prisoner gave the name of Lily Gilham,
85a, Marshall Street. Later in the day he handed it over to Det. Sergt.
Johnson.
Det. Sergt. Johnson said from information received he made inquiries.
The previous evening at 9.45, he, in company with P. C. Butcher, saw the
prisoner in the public bar of the "Swan Inn," Dover Road. He called her
outside, and told her they were two police officers, and asked her her
name. She replied “Lucy Foreman”. He then cautioned her, and showed the
ring (produced), which had been given to him by the last witness, and
told her she answered the description of a woman who had pledged the
ring, which had been stolen, at Mr. Joseph's, and had been identified by
Maud Lambert as her property. He informed her she would be charged with
stealing it from a bedroom at the "Royal
Pavilion Hotel" on the 14th. She replied “My young man, named
Carter, gave it to me two years ago”. He saw Carter in the prisoner's
presence, and showed him the ring produced, and told him that the
prisoner said he gave her the ring two years ago, He replied “I did not.
She asked me to pledge it for her. I took it down to the pawnshop, and
they refused to take it in”. Prisoner then said “I may as well tell you
the truth. My husband gave it to me as an engagement ring ten years ago,
but he is now in Canada”. He brought her to the police station and
formally charged her, and she again said her husband gave it to her ten
years ago. Prisoner had not a wedding ring on.
Prisoner asked the Magistrates to decide the case, and pleaded Not
Guilty. She said her husband gave her the ring ten years ago when she
was in the Victoria Hospital.
The Clerk pointed out that she told Det. Sergt. Johnson that her
young man gave it to her two years ago.
Prisoner said what she told the Magistrates was the truth.
The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said they knew nothing about the
prisoner there. She had, however, been drifting about a good deal. Mr.
Easton, the Police Court Missioner, told him that she was eight or nine
years ago in service in the town, and bore a very good character then.
She was married, but her husband had deserted her, and she had one or
two children in the Cottage Homes at Chatham. He was afraid she had not
been leading a very good life since she had been down there.
The Clerk said Mr. Easton informed him that the prisoner had been in
a Salvation Army Home from January to July, when she was found that
situation down there.
Prisoner agreed to go into a home.
The Chairman said they did not wish to send her to prison. They
wished to give her another chance. They had decided to bind her over for
twelve months, the condition being that she was to go into a home for
that period, during which time she would be under the supervision of the
Probation Officer.
|
Folkestone Herald 29 August 1914.
Saturday, August 22nd: Before Mr. E. T. Ward and Col. G. P. Owen.
Lucy Foreman was charged with stealing a ring, the property of Maud
Ellen Lambert. She pleaded Not Guilty.
Miss Maud Ellen Lambert said she was employed at the "Royal
Pavilion Hotel," and prisoner was employed there as staff maid from
July 24th till August 10th. On the 14th inst. accused left without
giving notice. The ring produced was identified by the witness as her
property. On Thursday, August 13th, witness placed the ring in a hairpin
box. At 10 o'clock on Friday morning it was safe there, but on the same
evening when witness went to the box it was gone. She made a search, but
was unable to find it. On Saturday afternoon witness gave information to
the police, and on Friday afternoon, the 21st inst., she was shown the
ring with two others. She identified hers. She valued it at 32s. 6d. On
the day it disappeared prisoner swept out her room. Accused left about
seven in the evening. Witness had not given or lent the ring to
prisoner.
Mr. H. Prescott, employed by Mr. S. W. Joseph, pawnbroker, deposed
that on Friday, 21st inst., at 11.30, prisoner came into the shop and
asked for a loan of 5s. or 6s. on the ring. Witness asked her if it was
her property, and she said it had been in her possession for about two
years, it having been given to her by her young man. Witness advanced
her 7s. in the name of Lillie Gibbons, 85a, Marshall Street. Later in
the day witness handed over the ring to Detective Sergt. Johnson.
Detective Sergt. Johnson deposed that on Friday night, at 9.45, he
saw prisoner at the "Swan Hotel," in Dover Road. In the company of P.C.
Butcher he called her outside and told her they were two police
officers. Witness asked her for her name and she replied “Lucy Foreman”.
He then cautioned her and showed her the ring, telling her that it had
been stolen and that Miss Lambert identified it as her property. Witness
added that she would be charged with stealing it from a bedroom at the "Royal
Pavilion Hotel" on the 14th inst. She said “My young man, Carter,
gave it to me two years ago”. Witness then saw Carter in prisoner's
presence and showed him the ring, but he said he did not give it to her.
Carter said she had asked him to pledge it, but they refused to do so at
the pawnshop. Accused then said “I may as well tell you the truth. My
husband gave it to me ten years ago, but he is now in Canada”. Witness
brought her to the police station and there formally charged her.
Prisoner again said her husband, who was in Canada, gave it to her ten
years ago.
Prisoner, in defence, said her husband had given it to her ten years
ago when she was in the Royal Victoria Hospital.
The Chairman asked her if she would go in a home. At first she
refused, but on second thought she said she would. She was then bound
over for 12 months, and to go into a home selected by Mr. Easton, the
Police Court Missioner, for that period.
|
Folkestone Express 24 October 1914.
Local News.
On Tuesday, application was made at the Police Court with regard to the
transfer of the licence of the Swan Inn from Mr. Norman to Mr. E. Miles.
The Chief Constable said it was a similar application to that of the
previous day, and was done for safety. Mr. Miles was a very respectable
man, and he had had a licence at Canterbury.
Mr. Norman said he was a naturalised Englishman, and had lived here for
forty years. He had a public house for twenty two years at Postling, and
had been two years at the Swan. He had no objection to the transfer,
The application was granted.
Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.
|
Folkestone Express 28 November 1914.
Wednesday, November 25th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton,
G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison esqs.
Mr. Phillips, on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, said he wished
the Bench to give Mr. E. Miles, now in possession, temporary permission
to sell at the Swan Inn. They would shortly ask for the transfer of the
licence to Mr. Clarke, of Watford.
The request was granted.
Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.
|
Folkestone Herald 28 November 1914.
Wednesday, November 25th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Mr.
G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner,
Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Mr. J.J. Giles.
A temporary transfer of the licence of the Swan Inn from Mr. Ernest
Miles to Mr. Butler, of Ramsgate, was applied for.
The Bench decided that Mr. Butler was not a suitable person, and the
application was withdrawn until December 9th, when Mr. Clark, of
Watford, would be proposed, Mr. Miles remaining in control until that
time.
Note: No record of Miles in More Bastions.
|
Folkestone Herald 9 January 1915.
Correction.
We desire to apologise for the insertion in our issue of 28th November,
1914, of an erroneous report of application for transfer of the Swan
Inn, Folkestone, in which we wrongly stated that “the Bench decided that
Mr. Butler (the applicant) was not a suitable person”.
We desire to state that the application was withdrawn by the holder of
the licence, and the question of Mr. Butler's fitness did not arise
before the Justices.
|
Folkestone Express 16 January 1915.
Wednesday, January 13th: Before Lieut. Col.Fynmore, J. Linton, G.I.
Swoffer, W.G. Harrison and G. Boyd Esqs., and Colonel Owen.
The transfer to Mr. W.H. Clarke from Mr. Norman of the licence of the
Swan Inn was granted.
|
Folkestone Herald 16 January 1915.
Wednesday, January 13th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. R.J.
Linton, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison,
and Col. G.P. Owen.
An application for the transfer of the licence of the Swan Inn to Mr.
W.H. Clark was granted.
The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Andrew) stated that the applicant had been
in the house for a month, and everything was satisfactory.
|
Folkestone Herald 24 November 1923.
Local News.
At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday (before Mr. G.I. Swoffer)
the licence of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was transferred to Mr. Alfred
James Parker, who was licensee of the Dolphin Inn, Dover, for sixteen
years.
|
Folkestone Express 24 May 1924.
Wednesday, May 21st: Before the Rev. Epworth Thompson, Mr. L.G.A.
Collins, Councillor W. Hollands, Mr. Blamey, and Col. P. Broome-Giles.
The licence (temporary authority) of the Swan Hotel, Dover Road, was
granted to Mr. S.C. Herbert, late of the Clarendon Hotel, Snargate
Street, Dover.
|
Folkestone Express 5 July 1924.
Local News.
On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates transferred the licence of the
Swan Hotel, Dover Road, to Mr. S.C.W. Herbert.
|
Folkestone Herald 5 July 1924.
Local News.
At a special transfer sessions of the Folkestone Licensing Magistrates
on Wednesday the Magistrates granted Mr. Sidney Charles W. Herbert the
full transfer of the licence of the Swan Hotel.
|
Folkestone Herald 23 January 1926.
Obituary.
We regret the death, at the Swan Inn, Dover Road, of Mrs. Annie Buller
Saunders, at the age of sixty years. Deceased was the widow of the late
Mr. “Sid” Saunders, who was successively landlord of the Railway Bell
Hotel, Folkestone; the White Lion, Cheriton; East Cliff Tavern, and the
Fountain Hotel, Seabrook. Her happy and cheerful disposition endeared
her to all. To do a good and deserving turn to others afforded her real
joy. To her only child, Mrs. Herbert, the wife of Mr. S. Herbert, of the
Swan Inn, sincere sympathy is extended.
The funeral took place at the Cemetery.
|
Folkestone Express 5 September 1931.
Wednesday, September 2nd: Before Mr. J.H. Blamey and Mr. S.B. Corser.
Percy George Savage, a fruiterer, of Dover Road, Folkestone, appeared in
the dock on five charges of obtaining five sums of £6 each by false
pretences with intent to defraud. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared to defend.
Harry Franklin, a grocer, of 103, Dover Road, Folkestone, said that
defendant, whom he knew, called on him on the 22nd August at about six
o'clock. He said “I was late for the bank. Could you cash a cheque for
me?” Defendant then produced a cheque for £6, payable to “Self”, and
signed P.G. Savage. It was already endorsed. Witness cashed it, and gave
defendant £6 for it. He quite thought the cheque would be met. He paid
it into the bank on August 24th, and it was returned to him the next
morning marked “Refer to drawer”.
Mr. Banniface reserved his cross-examination in the case of each
witness.
Thomas William Andrews, of 65 Tontine Street, Folkestone, a boot and
shoe dealer, said he knew the defendant quite well. On 22nd August, at
about 6.15 p.m., defendant called on him at the shop. He asked him if he
would change him a cheque. He produced a cheque, already drawn, signed
P.G. Savage, and payable to “Self”. Witness cashed the cheque and gave
defendant £6. He paid the cheque into his bank on the following morning,
and it was returned the next day marked “Refer to drawer”. He had never
changed cheques for the defendant before.
Miss Doris Minnie Martin, bookkeeper to Mr. E.C. Hann, butcher, of 104,
Dover Road, Folkestone, said she knew the defendant. He came to the shop
at about 8.30 p.m. on the 22nd August and asked her if she would cash a
cheque for him as the bank was closed and he wanted some change. He
produced a cheque, already drawn, for £6, payable to “Self”, and signed
P.G. Savage. She cashed the cheque and handed the defendant £6. The
cheque was paid into Mr. Hann's bank on the following Monday and
returned the next day marked “Refer to drawer”.
Harry Edward Carey, tobacconist, of 135, Dover Road, Folkestone, said he
knew the defendant by sight. Defendant called at his shop at about 8.45
p.m. on the 22nd August, where he produced a cheque for £6. It was
already drawn and endorsed. Defendant said “Would you mind cashing a
little cheque for me? I have bought a wireless set and have not enough
ready cash to pay for it”. He cashed the cheque and gave the defendant
the money. At about 8.15a.m. on the following morning, defendant came
with a cheque to the shop, marked £6, payable to “Self”. It was endorsed
P.G. Savage. He said “Could you cash another little cheque for me? I am
going to London for the day and will be leaving before the bank is
open”. He cashed the cheque, expecting it to be met by the bank. He paid
the cheques into his bank on Wednesday, August 26th, and they were both
returned marked “Refer to drawer” on the 27th August.
Harry Godfrey Read, licensee of the Railway Tavern, Dover Road, said he
had known defendant casually for about six years. At about 9 p.m. on the
22nd August defendant came to him and produced a cheque, asking him if
he would change it for him as he was short of cash. It was marked
payable to “Self” and endorsed P.G. Savage. He gave defendant £6 and
received the cheque in exchange. He paid in the cheque on the following
Monday at the bank and it was returned the next day marked “Refer to
drawer”.
Police Sergeant Lawrence said at 3 p.m. the previous day he saw the
defendant detained at Gillingham Police Station, Dorsetshire. He
informed him that he was a police officer from Folkestone and held a
warrant for his arrest. He read the warrant over to him and cautioned
him, and he replied “I have nothing to say”. He brought him to the
Folkestone Police Station, where he was charged and cautioned. Defendant
replied “There is nothing for me to say. I thought there was enough
security for me at the bank”. On being searched, in his possession he
had £125 5s. 8d. in Treasury notes and silver, and three cheque books of
the National Provincial Bank, Folkestone.
The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said that that was as far as he
could take that case that day. There were enquiries to be made and
further evidence to bring before the Court.
The Chairman said that the case would be adjourned until today (Friday)
and bail granted, the defendant in £50, and two sureties of £25 or one
of £50.
|
Folkestone Herald 5 September 1931.
Local News.
At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday, Percy George Savage, a local
trader carrying on business in Dover Road, was bound over for two years
following the hearing of a number of indictments charging him with
having obtained various sums of money by false pretences.
Savage was first brought before the Magistrates on Tuesday, when he was
charged with having by false pretences and with intent to defraud
obtained £6 from Mr. Henry Franklyn on August 22nd. Four separate
charges of having on the same day (August 22nd) obtained by false
pretences the sum of £6 from each of the following: Thomas William
Andrews, Doris Minnie Martin, Harry Edward Carey and Henry Godfrey Reed
were also preferred. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for Savage.
Evidence was given by Henry Franklyn, a grocer, of 103, Dover Road;
Thomas William Andrews, a boot and shoe dealer, of 96, Tontine Street;
Doris Minnie Martin, cashier to E.C. Hann, a butcher, of Dover Road;
Harry Edward Carey, a tobacconist, of 137, Dover Road; and Harry Godfrey
Reed, licensee of the Railway Tavern, Dover Road, that on August 22nd
they had cashed cheques for £6 each for defendant and that the cheques
had later been returned marked “R.D.”. Mr. Carey stated that he had also
cashed a further cheque for £6 for Savage on August 24th and it had been
returned.
Detective Sergeant Lawrence said at 3 p.m. the previous day (September
1st) he saw prisoner detained at Gillingham Police Station, Dorsetshire.
He told him he had a warrant for his arrest and cautioned him and he
replied “I have nothing to say. I thought there was enough security at
the bank”. He brought him to the Folkestone Police Station, where he was
again charged and cautioned. He replied “There is nothing for me to say.
I thought there was enough security at the bank”. Defendant had in his
possession £125 in Treasury notes and some silver, and three cheque
books of the National Provincial Bank, Folkestone (produced).
The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) asked for an adjournment of one
week.
The Bench adjourned the hearing until Friday, bail being granted.
When savage was again before the Magistrates yesterday (Friday), four
further charges of obtaining by false pretences with intent to defraud
four sums amounting together to £28, were preferred against him. Mr.
Bonniface again appeared for Savage.
Robert Oliver Wiltshire, a motor cycle engineer, of 51, Dover Street,
Folkestone, said that he knew Savage, who called upon him on August 23rd
at about 5.30 p.m. He had a cheque with him (produced), endorsed P.G.
Savage, for £6. He asked if witness could cash the cheque for him, and
deduct 13s. 6d. he owed witness. This witness did. The cheque was
returned marked “R.D.”.
Sidney Charles Windsor Herbert, licensee of the Swan Hotel, Dover Road,
said Savage called at witness's bar on August 22nd, and at his request
he changed a cheque for £6 for him. It was returned marked “R.D.”.
Albert Edward Palmer, an outfitter, of 69, Tontine Street, Folkestone,
said Savage called upon him on August 22nd. He said he wanted to pay for
a wireless set, and asked witness to cash a cheque for £10. It was
signed and endorsed P.G. Savage. He cashed the cheque, which was later
returned marked “R.D.”.
William Edward Miles, of 129, Dover Road, Folkestone, a butcher, gave
evidence of changing a cheque for £6 for Savage. It was not honoured by
the bank.
Alexander Eustace Roberts, manager of the National Provincial Bank, said
Savage was a customer at his bank. He produced a certificate copy of
Savage's account. The account went on from June 30th, 1930, till August
24th, 1931. On August 24th it showed debits of £25, £25, and £10, the
total debit balance on that date being £565 2s. 6d. Witness was in his
office on August 24th and saw Savage at about 10.20 a.m. He had not seen
Savage for 12 months, but he had written him a letter. Witness was not
expecting a visit from him. Savage produced a cheque for £25, payable to
self, and asked if witness would cash it. Witness agreed to do so, and
the cheque was met by his bank. Savage did not mention any other cheque;
he did not say he had drawn other cheques which were unpresented.
Witness examined ten cheques which the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) produced,
all drawn on the National Provincial Bank, and signed by Savage. They
were all presented at witness's bank for payment, and were returned
marked “R.D.” in each case. Savage had no reason to expect that these
cheques would be met by the bank from anything he had said to witness,
or from anything witness had said to him. He had not told Savage he
could cash another cheque for £25, or a cheque for £10.
By Mr. Bonniface: Witness could not tell which of the cheques for £25
was authorised by him. A cheque for £35 was cashed by Savage before he
came to interview witness. The bank had securities deposited with them.
The bank had a security upon Savage, being a conveyance for a shop and
premises which were bought for £800. There was no reason for Savage to
tell him during their interview that he had cashed other cheques.
Savage's account was a perfectly open one until 3 o'clock on August
24th. Witness would certainly have tried to help Savage if he had
disclosed the fact that he had drawn the other cheques. He thought the
security his bank held would be ample to secure the overdraft as shown
in the account in addition to the cheques mentioned in the charge,
providing the property was of the same value.
In reply to the Clerk, witness said that Savage had been given a limit
of overdraft of £500 over a year ago. If he had known that Savage had
cashed a cheque for £25 he would not have cashed another cheque for £25.
He was not aware that Savage was going away that day.
Further, in reply to Mr. Bonniface, witness admitted that in July last,
Savage had been allowed to exceed the limit of his overdraft.
Mr. W. Chard, a cashier and acting manager at the National Provincial
Bank on August 25th, produced a letter in Savage's handwriting which was
received at the bank on August 25th. It was addressed to Mr. Roberts.
The Clerk read the letter to the Magistrates, but at the request of Mr.
Bonniface he did not read it aloud.
In reply to Mr. Bonniface, witness said Savage had in the letter asked
him to sell the property, and to reimburse the bank.
The Chief Constable put in a letter from Savage received by him on
August 24th. This the Clerk also read to the Magistrates. A day or so
afterwards, he (the Chief Constable) received two £1 notes in an
envelope from Savage.
Mr. Bonniface here submitted that there was no case in law of obtaining
those sums of money by false pretences.
After a short retirement, the Bench decided that the case should
proceed, and Savage elected to be tried summarily, and pleaded Not
Guilty.
In addressing the Bench, Mr. Bonniface said that he was not anxious to
give pain to anybody, and so he had decided to rely entirely upon the
statements contained in the letters which were before the Bench, and to
say that, had his client gone into the box, he would have substantiated
on oath those statements which were contained in those letters. He would
have given an explanation of what was undoubtedly, to say the least, a
most foolish action on his part on Saturday, August 22nd, when he asked
those various tradespeople to cash the cheques.
Mr. Bonniface, continuing, said that he had received instructions that
morning, even if the case were dismissed, as he confidently anticipated
it would be, to pay each of the tradesmen from the money which was in
Savage's possession the amounts of the cheques which they had cashed for
him. Savage never had any intention of obtaining money from them in a
fraudulent manner; he had every intention and hope and anticipation that
those cheques would be met, more especially having regard to the
instruction he gave in his letter to the bank to sell his property. He
was honest enough even after that to send to the Chief Constable within
two or three days the amount he had written saying he would send. They
had before them a man who had never been in any trouble before, a man
who had carried on a business in Folkestone for some years. He was
upright and had never overdrawn his account during the time he had
operated it at the National Provincial Bank. If a good character could
not stand a man in that position in his stead, then a good character was
not worth having. He asked the Bench to say that that was a case where
they could rightly discharge defendant under the Probation of Offenders'
Act.
Without retiring the Bench arrived at their decision, and asked the
Chief Constable if there were any previous convictions against Savage.
The Chief Constable said there were not.
The Chairman said that, taking into consideration the circumstances of
his case, they were going to bind Savage over for two years under the
Probation of Offenders' Act. An order would be made for the full
restitution of the money in respect of the charges, and for the payment
of the costs (£6) of the prosecution. They hoped that that would be an
end of his trouble.
On hearing this decision, Savage went across to the solicitors' table
and shook Mr. Bonniface heartily by the hand.
|
Folkestone Express 12 September 1931.
Friday, September 4th: Before Mr. J.H. Blamey and Mr. S.B. Corser.
Percy George Savage, a fruiterer, of Dover Road, Folkestone, appeared on
remand on five charges of obtaining, by false pretences, with intent to
defraud, five separate sums of £6 each. There were four further charges
brought against the prisoner of obtaining three further sums of £6 each
and also a sum of £10 by false pretences with intent to defraud. Mr.
B.H. Bonniface appeared to defend.
P.S. Lawrence, cross-examined, said that he had found a Southern Railway
cloakroom ticket in his possession.
Roland Oliver Wiltshire, a cycle dealer, of 51, Dover Street,
Folkestone, said prisoner called upon him on August 23rd at 5.30 p.m.
Prisoner had a cheque with him, signed .G. Savage, payable to “Self”,
and it was for £6. He asked if he could cash the cheque for him and take
out the 13s. 6d. he owed him. He cashed the cheque, deducted 13s. 6d.,
and gave prisoner the balance. He paid in the cheque on Tuesday, August
25th, and it was returned on the following Thursday marked “Refer to
drawer”.
Sidney Charles W. Herbert, licensee of the Swan, Dover Road, Folkestone,
said he had known the prisoner for a number of years. He called at the
bar on Saturday, August 22nd, at about seven o'clock, and asked him if
he could change a cheque for him as he wanted to get away on business,
and he had not been able to get to a bank as he had been too busy.
Prisoner had a new cheque book in his hand, and he wrote out a cheque
for £6 in the bar. It was marked payable to “Self”, and signed P.G.
Savage. Witness gave prisoner six £1 notes. He presented the cheque on
the following Monday morning at the National Provincial bank, Sandgate
Road, and it was returned to him “R.D.” on August 25th.
Albert Edward Palmer, an outfitter, of 69, Tontine Street, Folkestone,
said he knew prisoner quite well. He called at eight o'clock on
Saturday, August 22nd, and said he wanted to pay for a wireless set. He
gave him a cheque made out for £10, payable to “Self” and endorsed P.G.
Savage, and asked him to cash it. He paid it into his bank on August
29th, and on August 31st it was returned marked “Refer to drawer”.
William Edward Miles, a butcher, of 129, Dover Road, said he knew the
prisoner and had had business dealings with him. He came into his shop
in the evening on August 22nd at about eight o'clock, and asked him if
he would oblige by changing a cheque as he was too late for the bank. He
produced a cheque fro £6, payable to “Self” and signed P.G. Savage. He
gave prisoner £6 in Treasury notes. He paid the cheque into his bank in
Tontine Street on August 24th, and it was returned to him marked “Refer
to drawer”.
Mr. H.A.E. Roberts, manager of the National Provincial Bank, Folkestone,
on sub-poena, produced a copy of the prisoner's account. The copy went
back to the 30th June, 1930, and carried on to August 24th, 1931. It
showed on the 24th August debits of £25, £25, and £10, making a total
debit balance on that day of £565 2s. 6d. He saw prisoner on August 24th
at about 10.20 a.m. Prisoner had asked to see him, but he had not been
expecting to see him from anything that had transpired before. He did
not think he had seen prisoner for twelve months, but he could not be
certain of the date. He had written him a letter. Prisoner produced a
cheque for £25, payable to “Self”, and asked him if he would cash it. He
agreed to do so, and the cheque was met by the bank. He did not mention
any other cheques and did not tell him that he had drawn cheques which
were unpresented. The ten cheques produced were drawn on the National
Provincial Bank and were signed by the prisoner. In each case they were
returned marked “R.D.” Prisoner had no reason to expect those cheques to
be met from anything he had said to him (witness) or from anything
witness had said to him. He did not tell prisoner at the interview that
he would cash another cheque for £25 or for £10.
By Mr. Bonniface, witness said that he could not say which of the £25 he
had cashed marked in the account. It was a fact that the first £25 was
cashed before prisoner came to witness with the second cheque. He could
not say definitely when the cheque for £10 was cashed. The bank had
security upon the prisoner, being the conveyance of a shop and premises
bought for £800. There was no reason for prisoner to tell him that the
other cheques had been drawn. His account was a perfectly open one until
three o'clock on the 24th August. He very possibly might have tried to
help the defendant if he had disclosed his true position and that he had
drawn the other cheques mentioned. He would think the bank held ample
security to meet the overdraft in addition to cheques mentioned in the
charge, subject to the property being of the same value.
In reply to the magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes), witness said that
prisoner had been given a limit of overdraft. This was £500, and had
been given him over a year ago. If he had been aware of the prisoner
cashing £25 at the bank, he would not have cashed the other £25.
Prisoner did not tell him that he was going away that day.
Mr. Bonniface: As a matter of fact, this account shows that the
defendant has been allowed to draw over the £500?
Witness: That is so.
Mr. Bonniface: That was in July last?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Chard, a cashier at the National Provincial Bank Ltd., said he was
acting manager at the bank on the 24th August. A letter was received at
the bank on August 25th, addressed to last witness, in the prisoner's
handwriting.
The Magistrates' Clerk read the letter over to the Magistrates, but upon
the instructions of Mr. Bonniface, did not do this aloud.
Mr. Bonniface, cross-examining, said that in the letter the prisoner
asked him to sell the property and to reimburse the bank. He also stated
that he had taken certain monies.
Witness said that was so.
The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), on oath, said that he also
received a letter from the prisoner on the morning of the 25th August.
It contained similar phrases to those in the previous letter produced.
The Magistrates' Clerk read this letter over to the Bench, but it was
inaudible to the public.
Cross-examined, the Chief Constable said that he received £2 by letter
from the prisoner two days later, as stated in the letter.
Mr. Bonniface said that, in law, he submitted that there was no case of
obtaining the sum by false pretences at all. If the defendant had a
reasonable belief at the time he gave the cheque that it would be met,
then the crime of false pretences went. The bank manager told them that
it was still an open account until three o'clock of the afternoon of the
24th August, so that on the 22nd and 23rd the account was an open
account, and on the morning of the 24th it was an open account. So open
was it that the bank over the counter paid £25 after ten o'clock, and
also £10 over the counter after ten o'clock. There was no doubt about it
that the bank paid over £25. They knew it was an open account. If the
bank met the cheque, could they say that on the 22nd these other cheques
would not be met? £800 was the price given for that property. They read
a letter in which the man told the bank to sell the property. He
anticipated that that would be met. It was for the prosecution to show
that he knew from the bank manager beforehand that these cheques would
not be met. The bank manager told them that he did not expect him to
call. He submitted that on the evidence they had before them they could
not commit that man for trial. He submitted to them that the prosecution
had fallen short of what in law they were bound to prove.
The Bench retired.
The Magistrates' Clerk, on their return, said they had decided that the
case must proceed.
Mr. Bonniface said the prisoner would elect to go for trial.
The Magistrates' Clerk asked Mr. Bonniface to discuss this with the
prisoner. This was done, and prisoner then pleaded Not Guilty and
elected to be dealt with by the Bench.
Mr. Bonniface, addressing the Magistrates, said that he had decided to
rely solely upon the statements in the letters. Had prisoner gone into
the box, he would have submitted on oath those statements contained in
those letters. He aws most anxious in that submission not to hurt
anybody's feelings, because there were rights and wrongs in every case,
and there might be rights and wrongs in the case of that particular
trouble. He was sure they would appreciate that he must refer to the
fact that undoubtedly at that time there was family trouble between the
wife and the husband, and je did not ant to enlarge upon that, but it
apparently came to such a pass that on that particular occasion the
defendant felt that he could not live with his wife any longer. That was
the position, and undoubtedly foolishly – though he still contended not
criminally – that man obtained that money by those cheques. He was
entitled to say that he received instructions that morning that even if
the case was dismissed, as he confidently anticipated it would be, he
was to pay each of those tradesmen from the money which was in that
man's possession the amounts of the cheques which were cashed for him.
He had never had any intention of obtaining money from them that they
should lose. He had every intention and every hope and every
anticipation that those cheques would be met, more especially having
regard to the instructions he gave to the bank to sell his property. He
suggested that the Bench should discharge the prisoner under the
Probation of Offenders Act.
The Chief Constable said there were no previous convictions against
prisoner.
The Chairman said that taking into consideration the circumstances of
the case, they were going to bind the prisoner over for two years under
the Probation Act, and an order would be made for the restitution of the
money to the people concerned. Prisoner would also pay the costs of the
prosecution, which would amount to £6. The Bench had taken a very
lenient view of the case, and hoped that would end his troubles.
Before leaving the Court, Savage shook hands with Mr. Bonniface.
|
Folkestone Herald 22 July 1933.
Local News.
There was a sequel at the Folkestone Police Court on Monday to a scene
at a Folkestone licensed victualler's house on Saturday, when William D.
Thomas was charged with committing wilful damage at the Swan Hotel,
Dover Road. Homas was found Guilty and sentenced to two months' hard
labour.
Sidney Charles W. Herbert, landlord of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, said at
about 8.10 on Saturday night the prisoner came into his house begging.
Witness was attending to his customers at the time, but told Thomas that
he did not allow begging on his premises, and he asked him to leave. He
then became rather abusive and witness told him to go. When he refused
to do so witness opened the door wide and stepped back into the bar,
again requiring Thomas to go. Prisoner then took his hat off and said
“Ladies and gentlemen”. Witness then put him out and shut the door. As
he turned to go back he put his foot against the door. Thomas then
raised his hand, struck the glass panel in the door and shattered it. It
was a deliberate action on prisoner's part. Thomas then ran away into
Folly Road. Witness chased him and he went into Rossendale Road. The
next he saw of prisoner was that he was in charge of P.S. Southey. The
damage amounted to £4 2s. 6d.
P.S. Southey said at 8.10 p.m. on Saturday he was in Warren Road when he
saw Thomas being chased by the last witness. He followed, and caught
prisoner in Rossendale Road. He said to him “What have you been doing?”,
but Thomas made no reply. He then took prisoner back to the last
witness, who said “That man has broken a panel in the saloon bar of my
house. I wish to charge him with it”. When charged at the police
station, Thomas said “I plead Guilty”. The third and fourth fingers of
prisoner's right hand were cut across the knuckles. They were bleeding
freely and had to be dressed.
Defendant said he was very sorry that it had happened. He had been out
all the previous night. He had no intention of breaking the glass panel.
Mr. Herbert, re-called, said Thomas appeared to be sober at the time.
Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock said Thomas had only arrived in the town on
the previous day. There was no doubt that he was getting his living by
begging. At Uxbridge on June 10th, 1930, he was sentenced to 14 days'
imprisonment for stealing a cycle. There were other convictions for
drunkenness. He had been in the Army, prisoner told them.
The Chairman (Mr. W.R. Boughton) said the prisoner made himself a
perfect nuisance. He would go to prison for two months with hard labour.
|
Folkestone Express 24 March 1934.
Local News.
Four silver cups, awarded by the United Friendly Societies (Folkestone)
Royal Victoria Hospital Saturday and Sunday Fund to the licensed houses
collecting the highest amount of money in the town during the year, were
presented on Monday evening.
The principal award went to Mr. T.I. Jordan, of the Richmond Tavern, who
collected £16 15s. towards the fund. The second prize was gained by Mrs.
E.A. Summerfield, of the Royal Standard, collecting £8 6s. 8d.; third
place by Mr. S. Herbert, of the Swan, with £4 7s. 6d.; and finally Mr.
H.W. Cork, of the Red Cow, who collected £3 12s. 8d. Messrs. B. Todd, S.
Burvill, G. Spicer, and Mr. G. Dunkling, who superintended the
collecting at the respective houses, were the recipients of presents of
cigarettes.
|
Folkestone Herald 12 June 1937.
Local News.
Mr. Sid Herbert wishes to announce that he has no intention of leaving
the Swan, Dover Road. He will be pleased to welcome old and new friends
as usual. There is always a warm welcome at the Swan, and Mr. Sid
Herbert, the landlord for the past 13 years, hopes to stay for many
years to come.
|
Folkestone Herald 25 April 1942.
Local News.
At a Transfer Sessions, held at the Folkestone Police Court on
Wednesday, several licences were dealt with.
The licence of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, destroyed by enemy action in
1940, was transferred from Mr. Sidney Herbert to Mr. Fullager, Secretary
of Fremlin’s Ltd.
Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.
Alderman R.G. Wood presided with Alderman J.W. Stainer.
|
Folkestone Gazette 12 February 1964.
Obituary.
A well-known personality in Folkestone for many years, Mr. Sidney
Charles Windsor Herbert, of 43, Stanley Road, Cheriton, died suddenly on
Sunday last week.
Mr. Herbert, who was 74, was born in Canterbury Road and, after leaving
school, entered his father’s boot and shoe business in that road. Later
he handed over the business to his brother, Leslie, and went to Dover,
where he had a hotel in Snargate Street for a time. His home town,
however, strongly appealed to him and he returned to Folkestone to
become licensee of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, in the early 20’s. Mr.
Herbert and his wife were there until the premises were badly damaged
during an air raid in October, 1940. Mr. Herbert was injured and never
recovered his full health although he continued to take a great deal of
interest in town affairs. Before the last war his close association and
interest in Folkestone Football Club was one of his numerous activities.
He was connected with the club as far back as the days when it played on
the Canterbury Road ground, not far from his home. Then when the club
re-formed after World War I at Cheriton Road ground, he became one of
its keenest workers, and his interest in the club’s welfare continued
for a considerable time. He was Chairman of the Folkestone and District
Licensed Victuallers’ Association for some years. A Freemason, he
belonged to a Dover lodge. Since the last war he found great pleasure in
bowls and was a Vice-President of Folkestone Bowls Club, and he was
similarly honoured by Cheriton Bowls Club. In the pre-World War I years
he took a great deal of interest in darts and was one of the founders of
the original Licensed Victuallers’ League. Mr. Herbert was married three
times. His first wife died the early 20’s. He married again and his
second wife died in 1952. He is survived by the wife his third marriage,
10 years ago.
The funeral took place on Friday, a service in St. Martin's Church
preceding interment in his second wife’s grave. The Rector, the Rev. C.
Munt officiated.
|
LICENSEE LIST
ROBINSON James Golder 1847-55
(age 35 in 1851)
FRANKS William (rendered by sickness incapable of keeping the house)
1855-June/57
ROBINSON William Hall June/1857-73 dec'd (age 38 in 1861)
ROBINSON William Hall 1873-98 dec'd (age 38 in 1891)
ROBINSON Elizabeth 1898-1904 (married Brett)
BRETT Perren William 1901-03+ (age 44 in 1901)
(married to Elizabeth Robinson, but her name over the door)
CLARKE Alfred Robert 1904-Aug/1912 dec'd
NORMAN Christian 1912-14
MILES Ernest Mr Oct-Dec/1914
CLARKE William P 1914-23
PARKER William 1923-24
HERBERT Sidney Charles W 1924-40
FULLAGER Mr 1942 (protection)
From Bagshaw Directory 1847
From Melville's Directory 1858
From the Post Office Directory 1862
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From the Post Office Directory 1891
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From the Post Office Directory 1903
From the Kelly's Directory 1903
From the Post Office Directory 1913
From the Post Office Directory 1922
From the Post Office Directory 1930
From the Kelly's Directory 1934
From the Post Office Directory 1938
From the Folkestone Chronicle
|