|
From the Folkestone Chronicle 17 September 1859.
HYTHE PETTY SESSION
Thursday September 15th:- Before Rev. Mr. Biron, chairman, Major
General Sandilands, Dr. Gidley, and W.F. Browell esq.
Licencing Day. – The Wellington, Sandgate.
Mr. Offen applied for a transfer of the licence of this house from
Baker who formerly kept it, the consideration of the case having been
adjourned from the previous week at Elham.
Mr. Minter, solicitor of Folkestone, appeared for the applicant, and
said that the house had always been conducted in a respectable manner
since the present tenant had occupied it, and with regard to the
memorial that had been presented to the magistrates at Elham, praying
them not to grant the licence, one of the signatures was that of a
person in the same line of business, and the letter of the clergyman,
the Rev. Mr. Preston, was only from hearsay report, and not from his own
personal knowledge, therefore he thought it should have some weight with
the bench, particularly as he held another memorial in Mr. Offen's
favour, more numerously and quite as respectably signed as the one
against him, and from the absence of all complaints by the police
against the house, he left it in the hands of the magistrates feeling
satisfied in taking all things into consideration they would grant the
licence.
Mr. Superintendent Weston, K.C.C., was then asked by the bench if he had
any complaint to bring against Mr. Offen or the house, when he replied
he had none to bring against Offen – the house had acquired a bad name
under the late landlord, but was very well conducted now.
The bench consulted together, and the chairman said they had decided on
granting the licence to the applicant; the house it appeared had a bad
name from the last landlord, and through the beer shops in the
neighbourhood, therefore he must be very circumspect in his conducting
the house, or the licence would be taken away.
The licences for other houses in Sandgate were renewed without any
opposition.
|
|
Dover Chronicle 5 April 1862.
Hythe County Petty Sessions, Monday; Before J. Du Boulay.
Martin Holliday, James William Howell, soldiers in the 21st
Fusiliers, and Mary Ann Elden, a prostitute, were charged with
stealing a gold watch, a gold pin, and a gold seal, the property of
Ensign Kennear Brown, 21st Fusiliers, at Shorncliffe, on the 27th
March.
Prosecutor said: I am an Ensign in the 21st Fusiliers, which
regiment is at present stationed at Shorncliffe Camp. About half
past six on the evening of Thursday, the 27th March, I went into my
hut to dress for dinner, and being rather late I laid my watch upon
my dressing table. I usually lock it up in my drawers when I do not
require it. There were attached to the watch, by a hair guard, a
gold seal and a gold watch key. I also left a gold scarf pin lying
on the table close to my watch. Having dressed myself, I locked the
door of my room and left for dinner, hanging the key behind a
curtain which runs across the passage. On my return from dinner,
about half past ten, there was a light burning in my room. I had not
lighted any candles while dressing. About ten minutes after I had
returned, wishing to ascertain the time, I went to get my watch from
the table, but it was gone. The next morning I also missed my scarf
pin. The watch, pin, seal and key produced are my property, and the
value of the same I estimate at about £30.
Lewis Lewis examined: I am a private in the 21st Fusiliers. On
Monday night last, about nine o'clock, and after the lights were put
out in our hut, the prisoner Howell called me to his bedside and
asked me whether I could keep a watch for him till the morning. He
gave me the watch in my hand, but I cannot identify it as the one
produced as it was dark at the time. I asked him where he had got it
from, and he told me Holliday had given it to him. I told him not to
get himself into trouble over the watch, as it might belong to his
(Holliday's) master, and he promised to give it back. Holliday had
left the hut before this conversation took place. The prisoner
Holliday afterwards came in, and Howell gave him the watch and he
went out again. The next morning I told Howell I hoped I should hear
no more about the watch, for if I did I should report him. The same
morning I heard the police making inquiries about a robbery, and I
then reported the circumstances to my pay-sergeant.
Cross-examined by Holliday: You were standing between Howell's bed
and the drummer's when the former gave you the watch. The lights
were out at the time, but I saw him give you the watch as I was not
in bed at the time. I was about half a yard distant from you. I saw
the watch when I had it in my hand, but it was too dark for me to
see what colour it was. I am quite certain it was Thursday when the
conversation took place.
Cross-examined by Howell: I have already stated I cannot swear the
watch produced is the same one you handed to me, I am certain,
however, that you did give me the watch on Thursday night.
Francis Chappell examined: I am a private in the 21st Fusiliers.
About a quarter to eight o'clock on Thursday night, I saw the
prisoners Holliday and Howell talking together outside the
"Wellington," Sandgate. On coming up to them I saw Holliday give a pin
to Howell. The pin produced I believe to be the same. We then went
into the "Wellington," and Holliday left us to go into the skittle
alley.
Police sergeant Smith, K.C.C.: From information received, I
apprehended the prisoner Holliday on Friday afternoon upon a charge
of being concerned in this robbery. He denied any knowledge of it. I
afterwards proceeded to Dover, and found the prisoners Howell and
Elden drinking together at a public house. I charged Howell with
stealing the property mentioned in the charge, which he denied. I
asked the female prisoner what she knew about the robbery, and she
replied “Nothing.” Howell was then locked up in the station-house at
Dover. On the 29th I again found the female prisoner at Dover, and I
then questioned her very closely with reference to the robbery, but
she professed not to know anything about it. When I arrived at
Seabrook lock-up with Howell, he admitted that he had sold the watch
to a very fat man in Dover Market-place, and the seal to Mr. Hart,
of Folkestone, who he said gave him a shilling for it. I
subsequently went to the "Radnor Inn," Folkestone, when the landlord,
Robert Tindall, handed me the pin produced. He said that he bought
it of the female prisoner for 2s. 6d. I took het into custody
yesterday, and, when acquainting her with the charge against her,
she said that Howell had given it to her, saying that it was a
present from his brother.
Robert Tindall, the landlord of the "Radnor Inn," examined: On Friday
night last the female prisoner came into my house and asked me
whether I would purchase a pin, at the same time handing me the one
now produced. She said she had been with an officer who had no
money, which I believe is very often the case with a great number of
them (laughter). She asked 3s. for the pin, but she ultimately sold
it to me for 2s. 6d. At the time I bought it I had no suspicion it
was stolen. On hearing of the robbery, I gave information to the
police.
By Howell: I believe it was Friday night when the prisoner sold the
pin, but I am not quite certain.
The prisoner Howell then said that it was Thursday night.
Superintendent Coram, of the Dover Police Force, proved the
discovery of the watch at Dover.’’
The prisoners Holliday and Howell said they should reserve their
defence. The female prisoner said she should not have sold the pin
had she not believed the representation made of its being a present
from his brother to be correct. She did not sell it for herself, but
handed over the money immediately to Howell.
The Magistrate committed the prisoners for trial at the next East
Kent Quarter Sessions, to be holden at Canterbury on Tuesday next,
and the witnesses were bound over to appear and give evidence.
John Barkley, a resident of New Street, Dover, and who has lately
occupied a stall in the Market as a pork-butcher, was then charged
with receiving the watch referred to in the last case, well-knowing
it to have been stolen. Mr. Delasaux, solicitor, Canterbury,
defended the prisoner.
John Coram, examined: I am Superintendent of the Dover Police Force.
On Saturday last, between three and four o'clock, from information
received, I went to the prisoner in the Dover Market and I said to
him “You've bought a watch of a soldier, haven't you?”, and he
replied Yes, I have.” I said “Where is it?” and he said “I have not
got it here, but I will go and fetch it.” I then went away with him,
and on the road he said “It's in my garden.” We proceeded there, and
at a spot in the garden the prisoner removed the earth to a depth of
about five or six inches, and produced the watch, wrapped in a piece
of brown paper, which he handed to me. He said he bought it of a
soldier for 30s., believing it to be a silver-gilt one. I then took
him into custody, and upon the road to the station-house he saw
Howell, one of the prisoners in the last case, upon which he
observed “That's the man I bought it of.” He then turned to Howell
and said “You've not only got yourself in trouble, but me also.”
From the evidence I have heard today, I believe the watch to have
been stolen.
In reply to the prisoner's solicitor, Mr. Coram said he had been
Superintendent of the Dover Police for eleven years, and during that
time he had never heard anything against the prisoner's character.
He had always known him as an honest, hard-working and industrious
man.
Mr. Kennear Brown was then called, but his evidence was simply a
repetition of that given in the last case.
Thomas Hammond deposed: I am the landlord of the "Prince of Wales"
public house, Buckland, Dover. I was present on the Market-place on
Friday last when the watch was offered for sale by a soldier of the
21st Regiment. (The witness here identified the prisoner Howell as the soldier he alluded to.) There were several of us standing in a
group, but I cannot say whether Barkley was actually present when
the watch was offered. He may have stepped a one side just then. I
looked at the watch, and someone remarked that as I was a bit of a
watchmaker I had better buy it, but I declined to do so, as I
thought I had got into enough trouble about watches (laughter). I
told the soldier that if he showed the watch to Mr. Coram and it was
all right he would no doubt get someone to buy it.
By Mr. Delasaux: The watch was offered publicly for sale. The
soldier said his friends had made him a present of it. He did not
say whether the watch was gold, silver-gilt, or anything else (a
laugh). He wanted £3 for it. No-one bought the watch then, but any
of them could have done so if they liked. I have known the prisoner
all his lifetime, and have never heard anything against his
character.
Mr. Delasaux: Is that a pretty good sort of a watch?
Hammond: How should I know? (Laughter)
Mr. Delasaux: No, I should think you would not; and Barkley would
not, would he?
Hammond: No, I should think not.
Mr. Delasaux briefly addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner.
He contended that no prima facie case had been made out against his
client, inasmuch as it had not been proved that at the time he
bought the watch he had any knowledge that it was stolen property,
which the law required should be done in order to ensure a
conviction. He then alluded to the evidence of the Superintendent of
the Dover Police Force, which he had no doubt was the very essence
of truth, and dwelt very strongly upon the fact thet the prisoner,
when questioned about the watch, without hesitation admitted that he
had purchased the property. It was a matter of very little
importance how the property was disposed of after it was purchased,
as the case could not be sustained if it was not proved in evidence
that the party had at the time of buying the watch a knowledge that
the property was the result of a robbery.
Defendant, having been cautioned in the usual manner, said as
follows in his defence: When I purchased the watch I had no idea it
was stolen, it having been offered publicly for sale in the
Market-place. I was ignorant of its being a gold watch.
The prisoner was then committed to take his trial at the East Kent
Quarter Sessions, James Wilkins of the "Lord Raglan," Dover, being
accepted as bail for his appearance.
|
|
From the Dover Express, 22 October, 1869.
APPEALS. Charles Wells v. The Justices of Kent.
Mr. Barrow for the appellant, and Mr. Biron for the respondent.
From the opening statement of Mr. Barrow it appeared that the justices
sitting at Hythe had declined to renew an ale-house license for a public
house kept by the appellant called the "Wellington Inn," at Sandgate.
Mr. Wells had kept this house for ten years. He was a man of
irreproachable character; and no reason had been alleged by the
magistrates. In reality he (the learned councel) was fighting with a
sham; and it was only a surmise that the course taken by the magistrates
arose through their believing that a cottage which was attached to the
inn was used for immoral purposes, and that this dwelling directly
communicated with the "Wellington." In taking this view the justices had
erred, as he should show by the clearest evidence. The appellant stated
that his father had kept the "Star" at Newington for 50 years, and he
was with him a great portion of that time, for ten years he (witness)
had kept the "Wellington," at Sandgate, and during the whole of that
time he had never been complained against as to the mode in which he
conducted the "Wellington."
Br Mr. Biron:- The house and cottage are hired together, and the rent
paid in a lump sum. He would not say that three women who lived in the
cottage in July, 1866, were "camp prostitutes." The cottage was
furnished and they paid him rent; also for the use of the furniture. He
had never been cautioned by the magistrates at Hythe that if he did not
keep his house better his house would not be reallowed. The military
authorities had not complained against him, but his house had been "put
out of bounds" by the direction of the commanding officer he presumed.
He always know the character of any tenants, and if they did not behave
themselves they would very soon have to turn out. He was master there.
(laughter) The last tenant he had was a married woman; he knew her to be
married because a he received a letter addressed to "Mrs. Bevan." There
were some girls in the house just prior to the licensing day, and he
gave them notice to quit because he had heard how other inn-keepers had
been served about their license.
Re-examined:- The girls who hired the cottage acted as waitresses in his
house.
Mr. Garrat, a baker, was called, and gave it as his opinion that the
house had always been conducted in a quiet and respectable manner.
Cross-examined:- He used to keep the "Victoria'' beer-house, and
continued to do so as long as it paid him. Two girls lived with him.
George Philpott, a shoemaker, who informed the Court that he lived "werry"
near the "Wellington," gave it as his opinion that the house was
conducted as respectably us others were.
At this point the Court stopped the case and dismissed the appeal, with
costs.
|
)