Folkestone Express 6 March 1869.

Robbery.

A female, who represented herself as the wife of a private of the fourth Dragoon Guards, took lodgings at the White Lion Inn a few weeks back. On Saturday afternoon last she left, and Mr. Hammon, the landlord of the inn, missed a gold watch and gold chain, two seals, a pair of earrings and several articles of underclothing. He immediately communicated with the police, and from enquiries that have since been made it appears that a person pawned the jewellery at Mr. Hart's, Folkestone, and took lodgings at the Wheatsheaf Tavern on Saturday night with her supposed husband. They proceeded from Folkestone to London by train on Sunday, and up to the present time have succeeded in eluding the police.

Folkestone Express 10 July 1869.

Wednesday, July 7th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

John Jinkings applied for a transfer of the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street. The wife of the applicant appeared, and was reproved for not admitting the police when they called at the house. The application was then granted.

Note: Jinkings is listed in More Bastions as having been at the Wheatsheaf between 1859 and 1864!

Folkestone Express 11 September 1869.

Wednesday, September 8th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day.

Spirit license was granted to John Jinkings at the Wheatsheaf.

Note: Jinkings was only listed at the Wheatsheaf between 1859 and 1864 according to More Bastions. Observer has this transfer at the Mechanics Arms!

Folkestone Express 27 August 1870.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott, J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

The Wheatsheaf: Messrs. Dickenson said the landlord had left this house and taken away his license. Applicants did not occupy the premises themselves.

The Clerk said a license could only be granted to the occupier.

Folkestone Express 15 October 1870.

Wednesday, October 12th: Before W. Bateman and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Special Licensing Meeting.

Messrs. C. & A. Dickenson applied for a license for the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street. The old tenant has left the town and the license has been lost. Messrs. Dickenson took possession of the house when the late occupier left the house. Under the 6th sec. of the Act, if any person should remove or neglect to apply for a license, the new occupier may apply at any special session for a new license. The application was made on behalf of Mr. George Verrall, and the testimonials of character produced proving satisfactory the license was granted.

Note: No mention of Verrall in More Bastions, which lists George Holliday from 1867-1896!

Folkestone Express 7 January 1871.

Wednesday, January 4th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Clarke and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

A temporary authority to sell beer was granted to Thomas Hubbard at the Wheatsheaf.

Note: No mention of Hubbard in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 15 April 1871.

Tuesday, April 11th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

William Hall (21) was charged with deserting from the 34th Regiment.

Supt. Martin said the previous day, about twenty minutes to twelve, he went into Mr. Josephs' pawnbrokers shop, High Street, where he saw the prisoner; he wanted to pawn a gold watch. He took the prisoner from the shop and asked him his name. He said he lodged at the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street; charged him with being a deserter. He searched him, but did not find a pass on him. He was dressed in private clothes. He said he got the watch from his father. Lieut. Newingham, 34th Reg., identified the prisoner at the station house, and also the watch, which was stolen twelve months since.

Ordered to be sent to the Camp, in civil custody, as a deserter.

Folkestone Express 1 June 1872.

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

A temporary authority was granted to George Holloway for the Wheatsheaf, Canterbury Road.

Note: More Bastions lists George Holliday as licensee from 1867 – 1896.

Folkestone Express 28 July 1883.

Wednesday, July 25th: Before The Mayor and J. Holden Esq.

Richard Flowers was summoned for assaulting James Standen. He pleaded Guilty. Mr. Ward appeared for the complainant, and stated that the assault was of a very gross character, the defendant having deliberately struck him as he was leaving the Wheatsheaf Inn, New Bridge Street on the 19th.

Defendant said the assault was of a very trivial nature. He and the complainant had always been friends. He was fined 5s. and 8s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 26 April 1884.

Saturday, April 19th: Before General Armstrong C.B., Captain Fletcher, Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad and M. Bell Esq.

William Sellis and John Brown were summoned for assaulting Richard Burchett on the 12th April.

Complainant, a labourer, living at No. 5, Bridge Street, said on Saturday night, the 12th, at ten minutes to eleven, he was coming out of the Wheatsheaf public house, when Sellis, who was standing on the edge of the pavement, took hold of his coat and tried to throw him down. He asked Sellis to let him go, but he clung on to him and tore his coat. He succeeded in getting to his house across the road, and whilst he was trying to bolt the door the two defendants and another man forced their way into the front room. They knocked him down and ill-used him. He was struck on the head with something, which rendered him insensible. He had never had any disagreement with the defendants before. Neither of the two was sober.

In reply to Sellis, complainant denied that he drank their beer. He admitted that he pushed Sellis away from his door, and he stumbled, but did not fall.

Mary E. Burchett, wife of the complainant, said she saw Sellis go out of the house. Afterwards Flowers came in and persuaded Brown to go out. Her husband was lying senseless, and he had a cut under his eye. She did not see the assault. Her husband had only been gone from home about ten minutes.

Richard Flowers said he saw Brown striking Burchett with his fist. Burchett was bleeding. Witness took Brown out into the street.

Sellis said Burchett knocked him down, and to save himself he caught hold of his coat, which tore.

Brown was fined 40s. and 9s. costs and Sellis 40s. and 10s. costs, or one month's hard labour in each case.

Folkestone Express 29 August 1885.

Inquest.

The shooting gallery in Tontine Street, besides being a nuisance, has been shown to be a considerable source of danger. On Monday afternoon, between one and two o'clock, a boy who was passing received a shot in the abdomen, and was taken to the Infirmary, when he was attended by Dr. Tyson. The facts of the case were elicited before the Magistrates on Tuesday morning, when an elderly man named Charles Copping, a ship's carpenter, employed by the S.E.R. Company, was charged with causing injury to the boy, whose name is George Holliday.

On Tuesday the injured lad died from the effects of his injuries, and on Wednesday evening an inquest was held at the Town Hall before the Borough Coroner. The following evidence was taken:

Thomas Bottle, a carter, living at 42, Coolinge Street, identified the body, which was lying at the Hospital, as that of William George Holliday, son of George Holliday, of the Wheatsheaf public house. On Monday, about five minutes to one, he was walking with the deceased in Tontine Street, going towards the Viaduct. They were on the right hand side, walking close to the gutter. Deceased helloed out and said he was shot. They were opposite Mr. Bridges' yard, and he took deceased in there. He put his hand down to his stomach. He heard a sound like the snap of a whip, but did not notice where it came from. He saw no-one with a gun. He knew there was a shooting gallery there, but did not think of it at the time. He was looking at deceased. He undressed deceased to see if he was shot, and saw a bullet wound in the side of his stomach, and it was bleeding. A young man named Spicer helped witness to carry deceased into Mr. Lea's, the chemist, who said he could do nothing for him, and they then took him to the Dispensary, and witness went and told his mother. He had measured the distance from the centre of the door of the shooting gallery to the spot where deceased was standing; it was 46 feet.

David Paul, a glass blower and manager of the shooting gallery, living at 27, North Street, said the saloon belonged to Mr. De Lacy. It was a galvanised iron building, and situated on the right hand of Tontine Street, going up in a line with the ordinary buildings. It was 26 feet long and 12 feet wide. Persons who went in to shoot stood with their backs to the street, and the bullets struck against wrought iron bullet proof plates. A counter went right across the saloon, from five to six feet from the front door, on which the guns were laid. They were Eley's No. 1 saloon guns and were loaded with Eley's No. 1 cartridges. He could not say the weight of the powder in the cartridge. On Monday at five minutes to one there were three persons in the saloon besides himself; Mr. Standing, pork butcher, a man lately in the employ of Mr. Major, butcher, and the man using the gun, whose name he did not then know, but whom he identified as Charles Copping. He had two shots at a bottle, and had paid for a third. He loaded the gun a third time, and Copping gave him a penny and took the gun. He was standing against the counter, with his back to the street. He put the gun to his shoulder and pointed to a bottle at the other end of the building. While he was in that position one of the South Eastern boatmen passed and shouted out in a joke “Chuck him out”. Copping turned round to see who it was. The man had then passed on. He told Copping it was very foolish of him to turn round with the gun in his hand, because it would be firing in the street. The gun was not at his shoulder when he turned round, but the muzzle pointed down the street. Copping still held the gun in that position, and while he was holding it it went off. Witness took the gun from Copping, because he heard the trigger go down, saying “I hope that gun has not gone off down the street”. He did not hear any report. The guns made very little reports. Copping looked out of the door, but said nothing. A few minutes after Mr. De Lacy went in, and asked if a boy had been shooting there. He said “No”. Mr. De Lacy went out and returned in a minute or two and said a boy had been shot. Copping then said “I pulled the gun off”. The man who called out was going towards the harbour. He did not know what the pull of the trigger was; the lock was in good order and pulled stiffly. The gun was cocked when he gave it to Copping. He always told people the guns were cocked and had a light pull.

James Standing, pork butcher, of 42, Tontine Street, said he was standing looking into the window of the shooting saloon about one o'clock on Monday. He saw Copping go in, and heard him ask to have a penny shot. He shot twice at a bottle, and asked to have a third shot. The gun was loaded and handed to him by Paul. Copping put the gun to his shoulder and stood against the counter aiming at the bottles. A young man passing said “Chuck him out of there. He can't shoot” in a joke, and passed on. Copping turned half way round to the doorway, and the muzzle of the gun pointed out of the door. He had taken the gun from his shoulder and took from two to three steps from the counter to the doorway. Mr. Paul helloed to him not to point the gun in the street. Copping said nothing, but appeared to be looking after the man who had called out. He did not say “Can't I shoot? I'll show you!”. Witness told him he must not point the gun in the street,, and immediately the gun went off. Copping handed the gun back to Paul, who made some remark, but what it was witness could not say.

The enquiry was then adjourned until Thursday.

Mr. Mowll said Copping deeply regretted what had occurred and desired to give evidence. The witness said on Monday he was on his way to dinner, shortly before one o'clock. He went into the shooting saloon in Tontine Street. He asked for a gun. The guns were lying on the counter. He paid a penny, Paul handed him a gun, and he discharged it at a bottle at the other end of the building. He missed the bottle and asked for another shot. He fired again and missed, and asked for another. Paul handed him the gun, but said nothing. He had never seen one of the guns before. He placed the gun to his shoulder and was aiming at a little glass globe. While he was doing so, someone passed in the street and called “Turn him out” or “Push him out. He can't shoot”. At that time his back was to the street. He did not know the person's voice, but he called out very loud. He dropped the gun to his hip, turned round to the left, took a step forward and looked out into the street to see if he could see the man who called out. The muzzle of the gun pointed just out of the door towards the harbour. He did not see anyone that he knew. When the man called out it startled him, and if he had seen who it was he should have spoken to him about it when he met him. While he was looking out at the door the gun went off. Standing was outside, looking through the window, and he said it was very foolish to let the gun point into the street. He heard a very slight noise when he fired the first two shots. He did not hear any noise except the falling of the hammer. He was not used to guns. He did not know it was loaded with powder and ball. He thought it was only loaded with a dart and a cap on the nipple. Paul did not say the gun was loaded and pulled light. He could not say whether he pulled the trigger. He did not intend to pull it. Nor could he say whether his finger was on the trigger. He did not see anyone in the street but Standing. He stepped back from the door, and Paul either took the gun out of his hand, or he gave it up – he could not say which. Paul said nothing to him that he could recollect. He left the gallery and went on to the footpath, and then he heard that a boy had been shot. Sergeant Ovenden took witness first to the Dispensary, and then to the Police Station, where he was detained till nine o'clock at night.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, he said he had been 35 years in the employ of the Railway Company.

Mr. W.J. Tyson, M.D., said he saw the deceased boy at the Infirmary on Monday at half past one o'clock. He examined him and found a wound on the lower part of the stomach. He probed it but found nothing in it. The next day at eight o'clock in the evening he saw the deceased again. He said he felt something in a spot indicated, and on examining it he found the bullet, which had passed from the bladder through the urethra. The inflammation might have been set up by the escape of urine, or from the wound alone.

Mr. E.C. Maynard, surgeon, said he was at the Infirmary when deceased was taken in. He examined him and found a wound at the lower part of the stomach, which was bleeding. He probed the wound and found nothing. On the following day he saw deceased. He died at half past ten on Tuesday evening. He had since made a post mortem examination, and found that death was caused by acute peritonitis arising from the inflammation set up by the passage of a bullet which had penetrated the bladder.

Supt. Taylor gave evidence similar to that which he gave on Tuesday. He charged Copping with discharging a firearm within 50 feet of the centre of the roadway.

Mr. Mowll addressed the jury on Copping's behalf, urging that there was no culpable negligence on his part, but that it was a pure accident.

The Coroner summed up at considerable length, explaining the law as to what constituted criminal negligence, and pointing out that if Copping did not know that he was holding a dangerous weapon, then it might be fairly inferred that it was a misadventure.

The jury returned a verdict that the deceased met his death by misadventure, and added a rider expressing a hop that steps would be taken to have the shooting saloon closed.

Folkestone Express 5 September 1885.

Local News.

On Friday morning Charles Copping was charged before Captain Carter, Alderman Sherwood, Dr. Bateman and J. Fitness Esq. with “Feloniously killing and slaying one William George Holliday”. The evidence taken at the Coroner's inquest was repeated by the several witnesses, who in their cross-examination by Mr. Mowll, who appeared for the accused, added nothing of importance.

Mr. Mowll then put in the evidence given by Copping at the inquest as his statement before the magistrates, and it was read. Mr. Mowll desired to supplement that statement, and asked the Bench to bear with him while he made a few observations on the man's behalf. He was quite sure, if the magistrates determined to send the man for trial, it would only be from a strict sense of public duty, because he maintained that as the case had already been investigated before a Coroner's jury, who had the great advantage of the advice and experience of his friend Mr. Minter, and who had the opportunity of hearing the man's evidence, and judging of the way in which he gave it, yet they came to the conclusion that the boy's death was not the result of culpable negligence, but of misadventure, and consequently Copping was discharged. The facts of the case were practically not disputed. Defendant was in the employ of the South Eastern railway Company. He was going home to dinner, he saw the shooting gallery, and having threepence in his pocket he went in to have three shots at a glass bottle. He fired two shots and was about to fire the third, when someone passing outside subjected him to a little chaff. In a moment the man turned round and looked out of the door, having the gun in his hand, and it went off. What he put before the Coroner's jury was that it was instantly done, and there was no culpable negligence such as the Bench must come to the conclusion there was before they committed the man to take his trial. When his learned friend summed up the case to the jury, he pointed out what appeared to be the crux of the case. The man in his evidence swore that he did not know whether the gun was loaded with powder and bullet or with a dart, and if the Magistrates would carry their minds back to a time when they were foolish enough, in the days of their boyhoods, to have some shots at fairs with those rifles, they would remember that they were only loaded with a cap and a dart. The Bench would see the man knew practically nothing about firearms, and it was clear there was nothing in the report of the rifle to lead one to suppose it was charged with powder and ball. The Bench had inspected the cartridge, and knew that it only contained one or two grains of powder so that the noise of the report was reduced to a minimum – all the witnesses agreed that it was nothing more than the hammer going down on the cap. If that were so, and if Copping honestly believed it was only a dart, such as was ordinarily used on these occasions, then, as the learned Coroner put it to the jury, there was no negligence whatever in his taking the rifle in his hand to the door, because the dart could not possibly have caused any injury. The evidence of Copping was not contradicted beyond the fact that Paul swore before the Coroner's jury that he told him the rifle was loaded and the pull was light, but he contradicted himself. No doubt he was anxious to shield himself. The duty the Bench had to discharge was this: They had to consider whether under the circumstances of the case there was any reasonable probability that the jury would convict the man on manslaughter, and if they came to the conclusion that there was no such probability, then defendant was entitled to be dismissed. Were the Bench going to say that another jury would be likely to reverse the decision the Coroner's jury arrived at – a jury, which he pointed out, was composed of men of more than ordinary intelligence. It was not only the distress and anguish the man would suffer during the three or four months he was waiting his trial, but of course to a man in his class of life the very cost of the trial would be enormous punishment. He asked the Bench to consider all those facts, and hoped they would come to the conclusion that it was not necessary to send the case for trial.

The Magistrates consulted with the Clerk for a long time, and then Captain Carter, addressing Copping, said: We are very sorry to see you placed in the serious position you are in. The Bench have given very careful consideration to the evidence that has been given, and also to the able defence put forward by your solicitor. We are clearly of opinion that we have no option in this case but we must send you for trial. A jury under the direction of a judge will say how far you have been culpable in causing the death of the boy. We must therefore commit you for trial at the next assizes. At the same time the Bench sympathise with you very much in the unfortunate position in which you are placed.

Bail was accepted for the defendant, himself in £25, and one security in £25.

Folkestone Express 31 October 1885.

Kent Assizes.

At the Kent Assizes on Monday, Charles Copping, on bail, was indicted for the manslaughter of William George Holliday, at Folkestone, on the 25th August. Mr. Denman prosecuted, and Mr. Stephen defended. David Paul deposed that he was the manager of De Lacy's shooting saloon in Tontine Street, Folkestone. On the 24th August the prisoner came to the saloon, at about one o'clock, and had some shots. The third time witness cocked the rifle ready for him to fire, and just as he was about to fire a man passed, and as prisoner turned round he brought the gun down to the “charge”, with the muzzle pointing down Tontine Street.

By Mr. Stephen: He never heard the report of the gun. It generally made a very slight report.

James Standing, a pork butcher, carrying on business in Tontine Street, deposed that he knew the deceased. On the 24th August his attention was attracted to the shooting gallery, and he then saw the prisoner go in.

Thomas Bottle, a carter, living at Folkestone, said he was going up Tontine Street on the day in question, and when he got opposite Messrs. Bridge's offices he met the deceased, who immediately exclaimed “I am shot”. Witness took him into a yard close by, and witness then saw a wound in the left side of the stomach.

Thomas William Spicer, a labourer, said he saw the boy Holliday fall down, and on picking him up, he found he was shot.

Supt. Taylor, of the Folkestone police, deposed to apprehending the prisoner.

After further evidence, the jury acquitted the prisoner.

Folkestone Express 19 December 1891

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Monday evening, before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, on the body of Cordelia Grinstead, who died suddenly in the Royal Standard Inn on Saturday morning.

Henry Grinstead, a plasterer, living in Canterbury Road, said the deceased was his wife, and her age was 51. She lived with him, and died on Saturday about a quarter past eleven in the Royal Standard public house. He last saw her alive at eight o'clock on Saturday morning, going down the footpath leading to the road in front of his house. She had not slept with him, but downstairs on the same floor as his mother slept. His mother's age was 85, and was, considering her age, active, and did the housework. He went to bed on Friday night about 10.30, leaving his wife lying on the sofa, where she slept. He said to her “Don't you think it's time I slept upstairs and you there, as I'm sober and you're drunk?” He had been in the habit of sleeping on the sofa, as he would not sleep with her because she was drunk. She was drunk on Friday night. There was no quarrel between them, but they were in the habit of quarrelling, and that was the reason he would not sleep with her. The drunken habits of the deceased had been going on for ten or twelve years. As deceased was going down the path she appeared to be sober, as she brushed her dress as she walked along.

Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Smith, wife of the landlord of the Sportsman's Tavern, Sidney Street, said on Saturday morning the deceased went to their house about 9.30 and asked for some beer, and witness refused her. She seemed all right, but looked very pale.

Mrs. Amy Merton, of the Royal Standard Tavern, said the deceased went to her house at about a quarter to eleven on Saturday morning. She was not indoors when deceased went in, but when she returned at about ten minutes to eleven she saw deceased in a fit in a chair. She sent for assistance, and Dr. Barrett came about twelve o'clock. Deceased was dead when he arrived.

Mrs. Sarah Holliday, of the Wheatsheaf Inn, said she saw the deceased between half past ten and eleven on Saturday morning. Deceased asked her to serve her with 4d. worth of whisky, and passed the remark that she was not feeling very well.

William Peard Barrett, M.R.C.S., said he was called to see the deceased on Saturday last at about a quarter to one. He went to the Royal Standard and found deceased lying on the couch dead. He had made a post mortem examination of the body, and found she had a large, and several small, tumours on the liver. A small one had burst, causing syncope, from which she died.

The jury found that the deceased died from natural causes.

Folkestone Express 16 July 1892.

Saturday, July 9th: Before J. Fitness, J. Holden, J. Pledge, E. Ward, and G. Spurgen Esqs.

George Holliday was charged with having his house , the Wheatsheaf Inn, open for the sale of intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 26th June.

He pleaded Guilty.

Sergeant Lilley said he, with Sergeant Swift, watched the Wheatsheaf, in Bridge Street, between 7.30 and 8.50, and saw eight men go in. When he went in defendant and his wife were behind the bar.

Mr. Minter appeared for the owners, Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe. The defendant had been in the house for 20 years. He drew some beer for the milkman, who was a bona fide traveller. He was a quiet, inoffensive man, and kept the house very orderly. He (Mr. Minter) asked the Bench in this case also not to endorse the licence.

Superintendent Taylor said there was no special complaint against the house, which, however, was very difficult to watch.

The Bench imposed in this case the same fine of £5 and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Annual Licensing Day.

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, presided over by the Vicar of Folkestone, to appear before the justices. He did not do so in any spirit of dictation to the Bench, but that they might see the views of the Society upon the subject, and he would put in a resolution passed the other day at a meeting held in the vestry, asking the justices not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels or restaurants. It also particularly urged that grocer's licenses were peculiarly fraught with mischief as giving great facilities to women. They also thought that the number of licenses, of which there were 82, should be reduced, especially where there had been convictions for violation of the law. They did not specially single out any particular houses, but they thought when there had been recent convictions, they might refuse the renewal of licenses to such houses. Further they especially called attention to the preponderance in the number of houses at the lower end of the town – there were 79 east of Alexandra Gardens, while there were only three on the west. Mr. Gardner also referred to the fact that the magistrates last year refused to renew in English counties 117 licenses, and in boroughs as many as 101.

Adjourned Applications.

The applications in respect of the Folkestone Cutter, the Alexandra, the Wheatsheaf, the Warren, the Wonder, and the Cinque Ports Arms, where there had been convictions for breaches of the law, were ordered to stand over until the adjourned licensing day, Wednesday the 28th of September.

Folkestone Express 1 October 1892.

Wednesday, September 28th: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole, and J. Pledge Esqs.

This was the adjourned licensing day, and Mr. J. Clark said: Before the business commences I want to make an announcement. It has been done in other places, and we consider the same should be done here. It is the unanimous opinion of the licensing committee that there are far too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they would suggest to the owners of houses that they should talk it over amongst themselves and agree as to which houses it would be best to drop. If nothing is done between now and next licensing day, the magistrates will be obliged to suppress some of the houses in the town. So if the owners would talk it over among themselves which houses it would be best to drop, it would save us great difficulty.

The Wheatsheaf.

George Holliday applied for the renewal of the licence of the Wheatsheaf. He was convicted on the 9th July for selling on Sunday and proof of the conviction was put in. The fine was £5 and costs, and the licence was not endorsed.

Sergeant Swift said he paced the distances of other licenses from the Wheatsheaf. There were six within 350 paces.

Mr. Minter appeared for the applicant and for Messrs. Mackeson, the owners. He said Holliday had held the licence for upwards of twenty years, and there had been no complaint against him. On the occasion of the offence, it was a milkman who was served with beer. He appealed to the Bench to renew the licence.

The Bench decided to renew the licence, and the Chairman remarked that it was not only the milkman – there were others.

Mr. Mowll: And they pleaded Guilty, sir.

Mr. Minter: That showed they were honest. (Laughter)

The Cutter, Dover Street.

Mr. Gatley applied for a renewal of the licence, transferred to him from Mr. Burgess. Mr. Mowll appeared to oppose.

Sergeant Swift said he measured the distance of other licensed houses from the Cutter.

Mr. Minter appeared for the applicant and said the owners, after the conviction of Burgess, at once took measures to remove him and get a new tenant.

The Bench renewed the licence.

Folkestone Express 18 August 1900.

Saturday, August 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman G. Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Holliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, and George Tanner were both summoned for being drunk and disorderly. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for both defendants, and pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Laurence said on Saturday night, the 4th inst., about 10.45 p.m., he was in Canterbury Road, and heard a disturbance in Bridge Street. He went to discover the cause of the turbulence, and saw defendant Holliday outside his house and fighting with the other defendant. When Holliday saw witness he went indoors, and Tanner went up Bridge Street. When he took his name and address, defendant said “A good job, too”. About 11.20 p.m. he was told he was wanted in Arthur Street. He proceeded at once and saw a large crowd, and in the centre he saw defendant Holliday and a young man named Smith, both causing a disturbance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, he said nothing struck him particularly that defendant Holliday was drunk.

Michael Coughlan, a collector in the employ of the Folkestone Amusements Association, and residing at 100, Canterbury Road, said he saw defendant Holliday sitting on a window, and he wanted to fight with Smith. There was a large crowd present.

Mr. Haines said the offence before them was of a very serious character, and the defendant's licence was liable to be endorsed. He said he was able to submit evidence that defendant was not drunk, but was excited. He had just ejected a woman, and somehow or other defendant Tanner interfered, and consequently the three went into the road, but there was not much disturbance, and he contended in the locality where it took place it did not take much to cause a crowd.

Thomas Holliday was then sworn, and stated that on the night in question, about quarter to eleven, he had a woman come into his house, and in consequence of her behaviour he had reason to put her out. While he was ejecting her the defendant Tanner interfered, and he was in the scuffle. Subsequently they fell into the road, and they both got up. Witness asked Tanner why he interfered, and he replied he was very sorry. The constable appeared upon the scene and took the names and addresses. As it was time, he closed his establishment, and he took a walk (which he usually did) and he met Smith. They had a conversation and smoked their pipes. No miswords passed between them, and the word “fighting” was not mentioned. Subsequently he bade Smith “Goodnight”, and they parted. He went straight home and retired to bed.

Questioned by Supt. Reeve, he said he ejected Tanner because he interfered. A crowd of about 20 or 30 gathered. He ejected the woman, whose name is E. Small, because she was disorderly. He was positive that they had no words, and he did not see Smith's motor and did not hear her tell Smith to go to bed. He considered the constable's evidence about his drunkenness was false. During the evening he had only consumed four glasses of ale, which he usually took.

George Tanner stated that on Saturday he was in Bridge Street, and about 10.20 p.m. he was in the bar at the Wheatsheaf public house, and there was a woman who drunk a glass of ginger beer. She then became disorderly, and it became necessary for the landlord to eject her. He interfered because he thought Mr. Holliday was handling her a bit too rough. They both went out together into the road, and then got up and went away. He denied that he was drunk.

Daniel Brien, a lodger at the Wheatsheaf, said the defendants were not drunk, only a little excited. They did not fight.

Alfred Smith gave evidence to the same effect. In reply to Supt. Reeve he said defendant was not drunk, and they did not have a fight by the window. He could not say why his mother told him to go home. It was not because of the great disturbance.

The Bench said they were not unanimous, but as there was a certain doubt on the evidence they dismissed the case.

Folkestone Express 3 November 1900.

Tuesday, October 30th: Before J. Hoad, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Holliday, landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and further with assaulting P.C. Allen, to which offences he pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Thomas Taylor deposed that at about 11.30 p.m. on Monday he was on duty in Bridge Street, where he had cause to speak to three men who were the worse for drink. He asked them to be quiet and go home properly, which they did. The prisoner was not among them. He saw him standing in the doorway of his own house with two other men, and he swore at witness, saying he would kill him if he would take off his uniform. Soon after his wife came and pulled him indoors. Previously witness took his name and address and told him he would report him for being drunk and disorderly as he was drunk and using very bad language. A few minutes afterwards witness again saw him in Canterbury Road in company with another man named Court, and immediately the prisoner saw him coming he used such remarks as “I'll murder you”. Witness took him into custody and blew his whistle three times for assistance, in answer to which P.C. Allen came running up and assisted him. The prisoner became very violent and it became essential to handcuff him, during which time the prisoner gave Allen a kick in the mouth and caused blood to flow. He continued his violence, and in Dover Road it became necessary to strap his legs. He admitted that the prisoner said “If you will let my legs go I will walk properly”. The prisoner was very violent all the way to the police station, where he charged him with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Thomas William Allen stated about 11.30 p.m. on Monday he was on duty in Dover Road opposite the Swan public house, where he heard a policeman's whistle blown three times. He ran in the direction of the sound, and as soon as he arrived in Canterbury Road he saw the last witness holding the prisoner, who was very drunk and very violent; also using bad language. He was taken into custody, and when in Dover Road he was very violent and had to be handcuffed. He kept kicking, and continually shouted out “I'll knock your brains out”. He then deliberately kicked witness in the mouth and caused blood to flow, and was very violent all the way to the police station and used most disgusting language. He as there charged by witness with assaulting him while in the execution of his duty, and the prisoner made no reply.

Sergt. Osborne said he was on duty in the police station office about 12.05 a.m. at midnight when the prisoner was brought in by the last two witnesses. He was drunk.

William Court, by trade a bricklayer, and residing at 35, Alexandra Street, said he met prisoner Holliday about 11.30 p.m. in Canterbury Road. They commenced a conversation, when P.C. Taylor came up and said to the prisoner “I have got you this time, Tom”. Witness told prisoner he was going home, when the constable interfered and said “I might want you yet”. The prisoner exclaimed “What for?” At this the constable blew his whistle four times. P.C. Allen then came running up and Taylor said, pointing to the prisoner, “That's the man you want”, and together they took him to the police station. He was perfectly sober and did not use any bad language until the constable took hold of him.

Questioned by Supt. Reeve, witness said the constables did not give the prisoner a chance to be quiet, and in his opinion the prisoner was arrested without a cause. He was quite sober. Witness did not see any disturbance, and left the Wheatsheaf Inn at eleven o'clock after being there fifteen minutes. He did not hear the constable call upon him to help him and did not know why he took his name and address at the police station.

Henry Ballad said he was locking up his house in Dover Road about 11.35 p.m., when he heard cries of pain. He ran out into the road, and opposite Bridgland's he found prisoner over on his back handcuffed. He was crying out “Please take your knee off my stomach”. The other constable was on his legs and as he was strapping them he received a kick in the mouth quite accidentally. He never used filthy language, and in his opinion he was not drunk.

In answer to Supt. Reeve, he said the man was quite sober, but he might have had a little to drink.

The prisoner said the constable Taylor had no cause to arrest him, and the persons he sent away had no connection with him and did not come to his house. As regarded the assault, they were on his stomach and nearly “winded” him, and in his struggling he might have kicked P.C. Allen in the mouth, but it was accidentally.

The Bench retired, and on their return said they were of the unanimous opinion that both cases had been proved, and for being drunk and disorderly they fined him £2 and 5s. 6d. costs or one month, and in the case of assault they considered the police ought to be protected, and for the cowardly assault they fined him £5 and 5s. 6d. costs, with the alternative of two months hard labour to follow the first.

The money was paid.

Folkestone Express 9 March 1901.

Licences.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before W. Wightwick, W. Salter, G.I. Swoffer, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Fredk. Edward Hall applied for a transfer of the Wheatsheaf, for which he held temporary authority. It was granted.

Folkestone Express 6 July 1901.

Wednesday, July 3rd: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Thomas Holliday, late landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, was summoned for using obscene language on June 24th. Mr. Minter defended.

P.C. Taylor said about 7.50 p.m. on June 24th he was in Canterbury Road in plain clothes, where he met the defendant Holliday, who stopped him and began questioning him about a case he had four months ago. Witness took no notice of him and walked away, but defendant challenged witness several times to fight. He swore at witness, and said in addition “Whenever you leave the police force, I'll flatten your ---- head. You are not fit to breathe”. Witness told him he would report him.

By Mr. Minter: Defendant was disorderly, but as he went home he did not take him into custody.

By Supt. Reeve: Everything said by Mr. Minter about him persecuting the defendant as to a previous conviction was untrue.

Mr. Minter asked for the report from P.C. Taylor, which, when read, said the defendant challenged him to fight, and used the expression “The defendant was drunk”.

In extenuation, Mr. Minter said this was a very serious offence. He was able to bring witnesses who would give evidence in entire contradiction to the constable's evidence. It was a question of whose testimony the Bench believed. If they believed that of the defence, the constable was not fit to be in the force, but on the other hand it was a grave offence against the defendant, who had been previously convicted.

Thomas Holliday said he was formerly landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn for five years. He had held two similar positions for eight years each. He was obliged to give up tenancy of the Wheatsheaf in consequence of a conviction by the Bench on the evidence of P.C.s Taylor and Allen. The constable Taylor had persecuted him, and the result was that charge. On June 24th he was going to his home, 21, Bridge Street, from the Fish Market, and when opposite the Swan Inn he met the witness Tutt and they walked together. He was sober. When they had passed the Skew Arch they saw P.C. Taylor talking to two people. They did not say anything to him. At the corner of Gladstone Road the constable overtook them, and he spoke to him first. He said “Holliday, how did you like your night's lodgings?” Witness said to him “Don't you think you have done enough to me without tantalising me?” Witness did not stop, and went home. At Denmark Street P.C. Taylor said to him “I'll have you the first chance I get”, and when at the corner of Bridge Street he said “I'll report you, Holliday”, and witness said he had nothing to report him upon. Witness did not challenge the constable, nor threaten him.

Questioned by the Chief Constable, witness said that when he came out of the Wonder Tavern P.C. Taylor said he would report him, but no-one heard it. He spoke very friendly to all the police force except Taylor and Allen. He did not remember how many public houses he had visited.

Frederick Tutt, a carter, said he was employed by Messrs. Bricknell and Sons. On Monday, the 24th, he met Holliday opposite the Swan Hotel and walked with him through Skew Bridge. They continued their walk up Canterbury Road. P.C. Taylor overtook defendant at the top of Gladstone Road, and he first spoke to Holliday, and not vice versa. He heard the word (as he was in the road) “lodge” or “lodgings” mentioned by the constable. They were both losing their tempers. At the bottom of Denmark Street he heard P.C. Taylor say “The first chance I get I'll have you, Holliday” and the defendant told him it was a pity he had nothing else to do.

Mrs. Louisa Sellwood said she saw Holliday in Dover Road with string of fish, and he was not drunk. She saw him subsequently with the constable, who she heard say “I'll report you” and then Holliday used a foul expression.

The Bench retired, and on their return said they were unanimous that the defendant had made use of obscene language and they inflicted a fine of 10s. and 12s. costs, which was paid.

Folkestone Express 12 August 1905.

Tuesday, August 8th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Spurgen, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Holliday was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road the previous night. Prisoner said he was the worse for drink, but not disorderly.

P.C. Allen said at 9.30 he was in Dover Road, near the Drill Hall, when the prisoner, who was very drunk, came across to him and used bad language. He requested him to go away several times, but he refused, and commenced to dance on the pavement. A large crowd of people gathered round the prisoner, so with the assistance of P.C. Prebble witness took him to the police station.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner once kept a public house in the town. There were three or four convictions against him for drunkenness and assaulting the police.

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

Folkestone Express 25 May 1907.

Wednesday, May 22nd: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, J. Stainer, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

William Hall was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises (East Cliff Tavern) on May 7th. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared on defendant's behalf.

Inspector Lilley said on Tuesday, the 7th inst., at 12.55 noon, he saw P.C. Prebble in Radnor Bridge Road, and from a communication he made to him he kept the East Cliff Tavern under observation until a few minutes past one. Then, in company with P.C.s Prebble and Johnson, he went into the house. In the bar he saw defendant sitting, and from his appearance he came to the conclusion he had had too much to drink. There was no-one behind the bar. The landlord subsequently came in through the front door. Witness told defendant he thought he had had too much to drink, and advised him to get off the premises. Defendant said “Do you think so?” Witness replied “Yes”, and defendant said “Then I don't”. Witness went outside and defendant followed with his brother and the landlord. He got into a hackney carriage and used abusive language. Witness told defendant he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises. He had no doubt as to defendant's condition.

P.C. Prebble said on Tuesday, May 7th, about 11.15, he saw defendant in Dover Road with his brother. Witness had a conversation with both of them. Defendant was under the influence of drink. Later witness accompanied Inspector Lilley to the East Cliff Tavern. He had previously kept observation on the house from 12.35 to one o'clock. On entering the house witness saw defendant sitting in the bar. He heard Inspector Lilley call the landlord's attention to defendant's condition. He heard the landlord say that defendant had only had one glass of ale there. Witness then went outside, and shortly afterwards defendant came out and got into a Victoria that was waiting. While Inspector Lilley was talking to defendant's brother, defendant became very excited and used abusive language towards the Inspector. Defendant was drunk.

P.C. H. Johnson said on May 7th, shortly after eleven o'clock in the morning, he saw defendant and his brother in Dover Street. Witness did not speak to them. Defendant was under the influence of drink. About 1.15 the witness accompanied Inspector Lilley and P.C. Prebble to the East Cliff Tavern, where he saw defendant sitting in the public bar. In his other evidence witness corroborated the previous evidence.

Defendant then went into the witness box. He said he had lived in the town twenty five years and was a builder. His brother kept the Wheatsheaf. On May 7th he went to his brother's and had a glass of ale there. He had recently lost his father, and his youngest brother, Arthur, was left sole executor and beneficiary of the will. Witness and his brother Frederick went to the youngest brother's house in Dover Road. There was an argument, and witness's brother said he would give him in charge. Later witness and Frederick Hall went to the East Cliff Tavern, and Frederick Hall called for a bottle of ale. They each had a glass. Witness did not drink all of his ale. He had been in the bar about half an hour when the police came in. Witness admitted he lost his temper, but he was not drunk and did not like being told about it. He had never been drunk in his life. The same evening witness went to Rugby.

Cross-examined, witness said he was perfectly sober. When the constables came in he became excited.

Frederick Hall said he was the licensee of the Wheatsheaf. He had been in the trade six years. On May 6th he buried his father, and on May 7th witness, accompanied by defendant, went to see his youngest brother about the will. Defendant became excited when his brother said he would give him in charge. About a quarter to ten that morning defendant had a glass of ale at witness's house. At 12.30 they went into the East Cliff Tavern The police entered about twenty five minutes afterwards. Witness saw defendant walk to the cab, and he walked as straight as anyone.

William Edward Featherby, a ship's carpenter, said he was in the East Cliff Tavern on May 7th. He was in the bar at the same time defendant was. Witness entered into conversation with defendant, and his talk was quite rational. He was perfectly sober.

Joseph Lott, a seaman, who was in the East Cliff Tavern on the day in question, said he heard defendant talking to Featherby, and he was sober.

The Magistrates then retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case must be dismissed. The police had acted perfectly fairly, but had mistaken excitement for drunkenness.

The summons against Martin G. Price, the landlord of the East Cliff Tavern, for permitting drunkenness, was withdrawn on the Chief Constable's application.

Folkestone Express 26 October 1907.

Saturday, October 19th: Before The Mayor, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Frederick William Hall, the landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, was summoned by Thomas Philpot for assaulting him.

The complainant explained that on Monday he was in the defendant's house with a man named Middleton. After he had had two raffles with the man, the landlord supplying the dice, the defendant came in and said “Philpot, you have not bought any ---- beer for twenty minutes”. He then hit him under the jaw with his fist, knocking him on the table, and he followed that up by a blow on the shoulder.

The defendant's story was that the complainant was causing a disturbance with Middleton and wanted to toss him for a shilling. He (defendant) told him gambling was not allowed, and if h could not behave himself he had better leave the house. Philpot said he would go when he pleased and then struck at him. He therefore got hold of him and put him out of the house.

Frederick Mullett and Albert Boxer, both whom were in the house at the time, corroborated the landlord.

The Mayor intimated that there was a great conflict of evidence, and the case would be dismissed, Philpot having to pay 4s. costs.

Folkestone Express 14 May 1910.

Wednesday, May 11th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward and W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

The licence of the Wheatsheaf was temporarily transferred from Mr. Hall to Mr. Dye.

Folkestone Express 28 May 1910.

Wednesday, May 25th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton, and Major Leggett.

The transfer of the licence of the Wheatsheaf from Mr. Hall to Mr. Dye was confirmed.

Folkestone Express 21 January 1911.

Inquest.

An inquest was opened at the Town hall on Thursday afternoon by Mr. G.W. Haines on the body of a newly born female child of Dorothy Dye, the daughter of Edward Dye, an innkeeper, residing at the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, when the following evidence was given:-

Norris Edward Dye, a licensed victualler, of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, said he saw the deceased child before it was removed to the mortuary. He identified the body viewed by the jury as that of a female child shown to him by his servant, Elizabeth Huxley, between 8 and 8.30 in the morning of Tuesday. She went to his bedroom and said “There is a child dead at the side of the bed”. Witness got up at once and went into a bedroom occupied by his daughter, Dorothy, and the servant, both of whom shared the same bed. When he got into the room he saw the body of a child lying on the floor by the edge of the bed. He did not see anything else there. The floor was covered with linoleum. The child was not under the bed and anyone could have easily have seen it on going into the room. His daughter was in bed. He saw at once the child was dead. He did not then notice that it was a girl. His daughter assisted in the business, and she should, in the ordinary way of business, to have got up about half past six or seven o'clock. She had always got up at that hour every morning up to Tuesday. He did not say anything to his daughter at the time, and he at once sent the servant for a doctor. His daughter appeared to him to be very bad, weak and exhausted, and he also thought she had lost most of her reason, because she seemed feverish, upset and absolutely in a bad way. She appeared to be fairly gone. Previous to that morning he had noticed something about his daughter's condition. It was on Thursday or Friday last that he first noticed her shape and form was not as it should be, so he taxed her with it after closing time. He asked her if she was all right, as he did not like her shape and form, and her reply to him was that she was all right – in fact, she swore to him she was all right. He was satisfied with all she said after what she told him. He was a married man, but his wife was not as she should be, and because of her mental condition, in his opinion, it was absolutely useless him speaking to her on the subject.

The Coroner: Is that the reason why you spoke to your maidservant about your daughter's condition?

Witness said that was so. The servant had been with him about thirteen or fourteen months. He told the servant of his suspicions, and asked her to speak to his daughter. She afterwards told him she had spoken to Dorothy, who, she said, swore that she was all right. His daughter's form was very pronounced, but he could not contradict what she said. His bedroom and the bedroom occupied by his daughter adjoined. He went to bed about half past eleven, his daughter and the servant going at the same time. His daughter was able to work up to the last, and was helping him in the bar up to eleven o'clock. He was a fairly sound sleeper and on Monday night he slept continuously. He heard nothing until he was awakened by Huxley. His daughter had not been walking out with anyone in that town. He had been there about seven or eight months. His daughter's young man lived away from the town. He knew she had not seen him since they had been in Folkestone. He was not aware of his daughter having communicated by letter to her young man with regard to her condition. Huxley did not tell him anything about what had happened during the night, but she told him she knew absolutely nothing about it when he questioned her. He had spoken to his daughter since Tuesday morning. He was afraid that she was not able to answer him rationally.

The Coroner: Cannot she answer your questions?

Witness: Well, no, sir.

Mr. Dye, continuing, said his daughter was twenty years old last birthday. She had never had a child before. He sent off for a doctor and a doctor from Sandgate Road came. He sent for the doctor as he wanted medical advice for his daughter. The doctor arrived between ten and eleven. He would not go up to see his daughter, and when he (witness) asked him to do so he absolutely refused. The doctor did not give him any reason. He told him there had been a confinement, but he would not go. In fact he (witness) almost prayed him to go up, but he would not go. Witness then sent for the nearest policeman he could find, and one came. Subsequently Dr. Gilbert came and attended his daughter. He had other children, four of whom went to school. His daughter had been looking after them. The eldest of the four was thirteen years old. He had had three other children, but they were dead.

Elizabeth Huxley said she was in domestic service, in the employ of Mr. Dye. She had to do the housework, and had been with Mr. Dye eight months. She was twenty one years old in May. She had shared the bedroom and bed with her employer's daughter, Dorothy, who assisted in the bar. Miss Dye and she looked after the children. Mrs. Dye did not realise or understand what was said to her; she simply repeated what anyone said to her, and witness was of opinion she was mentally deficient. Miss Dye had a young man previous to coming to Folkestone. Witness did not notice anything about Miss Dye until her father spoke to her about his daughter's condition. After he had drawn her attention to it she did not think anything about it until he asked her about it at night. Miss Dye went to bed before her and when witness went upstairs she said to her “You appear to be upset”, and she (witness) replied “Well, your dada is upset about you. Are you all right?” Miss Dye then said “I am all right with what you mean”. On Monday night they all went to bed about 11.30, and Miss Dye complained about having pains about twelve o'clock. She said she had pains in her stomach and down her side. Witness went downstairs and got some gin, but she refused to have it. Witness afterwards fell asleep and did not wake until half past seven the following morning. Miss Dye was then awake, and on sitting up in bed she saw the bedclothes were stained. She got up and dressed, and while dressing she put her foot on something wet. She got some matches, and on striking them she saw the baby, partly under the bed and lying alongside it. She asked Miss Dye what it was and she replied she did not know. Witness then said “There is a baby under the bed”. Miss Dye did not say any more, and she (witness) went at once and communicated with Mr. Dye, who told her to go for a doctor. She knew the child was dead at that time. She got the children ready for school first and then went to Dr. Gilbert's, where she was told the doctor had a consultation. She then went into Sandgate Road, and to Dr. Streatfield, who could not come. She proceeded to Dr. Dobbs, who came, and he told Mr. Dye that he had better inform the police. The doctor would not go upstairs, she understood. The child remained in the same position until the police came, between twelve and one.

P.C. Lemar said on Tuesday, from information received, he went to the Wheatsheaf public house, Bridge Street, where the servant took him upstairs to a bedroom adjoining the one in which he was informed the mother was lying. Huxley showed him the body of a newly born child wrapped up in a towel; it was dead. He did not see the mother, nor did he go into the room in which she was. He reported the matter at once to the office.

Mrs. Eleanor Dye, the wife of the landlord of the Wheatsheaf, said she had had ten children, and had lost five of them. She had two boys and three girls living. Her daughter, Dorothy, was about twenty two years of age, and was the eldest of the family. Witness did not assist in the business at all, but helped in the housework. Dorothy helped in the bar and was really the housekeeper, she being really with the children. She did not notice her daughter's condition, and her husband did not refer to it at all. Her daughter was a big girl, and she (witness) did not give a thought about such a thing. If her husband had any suspicion of such a thing she saw no reason why he should not have mentioned it to her. She had not spoken to her daughter about the occurrence.

The Coroner questioned the witness about her husband's and the previous witness's statements that she was not rational and could not understand what was said to her.

Mrs. Dye, who appeared to be quite rational, said she hoped it was not so, for her children's sake. She could not tell why they should say such things. Had she known her daughter's condition she would have made some arrangements.

Dr. Gilbert said on Tuesday, about a quarter to ten, the witness Huxley called at his house and asked him to come down to Bridge Street at once. He told her he was very busy, and if the case was urgent to get someone else and he would call later on when he went out. A telephone message was sent to him while he was at the Cemetery, and he arrived at the Wheatsheaf Inn about half past one He was then informed that a young woman, aged twenty one, some time during the night had given birth to a female child, the body of which was found under the bed. On going upstairs, in the first floor back room, he saw a young woman in bed. She showed traces of having recently been confined, and when asked about it her answer was that she did not know she was pregnant, but on going to bed the night before she did not feel very well. The witness Huxley was present and the young woman said her mind was an absolute blank as to what occurred and how the child got into the bed. On being taken to a front bedroom he saw lying on the table, covered with a cloth, the body of a well developed female child. The infant was on its back, with the chin resting on the breast, and with its head turned towards the right shoulder. There was a red mark on the right shoulder. The right side of the face was swollen and of a dark colour. The right ear was doubled forward. The nose was flattened on the face and blood was issuing from both nostrils and mouth. The lips were of a bluish-red colour, both hands were clenched, and the nails were of a bluish-red colour. On Wednesday he made a post mortem examination. The weight of the body was 6¾lbs; length 21½ inches. On washing the child he could find no marks of violence upon it. It was a well and fully developed child. The brain was normal, the heart weighed 2½ ozs. The whole of the chest was filled with lung tissue of a pinkish colour. The lung tissue crepitated under the fingers on pressure. He submitted the heart and lungs to the water test together and they both floated. He submitted a portion of the lung to the hydrostatic test, and that floated. He submitted the whole of the right lung to a pressure test of 14 stone and it floated. That proved that air had entered the lungs. The intestines and kidneys were normal. In his opinion the child had had a separate existence, and the cause of death was suffocation. The child had breathed for the full lung area was extended. The girl told him she knew nothing about it. She was perfectly rational, and she told him her mind was a perfect blank as to what took place.

Mr. Dye was re-called, and the Coroner, addressing him, said: I have had an opportunity of seeing your wife and hearing her evidence. I must say I am surprised at the evidence you gave that she is practically mentally deficient, and not able to transact the ordinary business of life, and that you did not even think of speaking to her concerning your suspicions. I can only say I see nothing wrong with Mrs. Dye. She answered every question I put to her and as plainly as any woman would.

Mr. Dye: It is a surprise to me. It is an exceptional condition for her to be in.

The Coroner: It is a surprise to her that you should say otherwise.

The Coroner summed up, and in the course of his remarks said the jury had to find how that infant came by its death. There was not a doubt, after the evidence, that the child was the daughter of Dorothy Dye. From the doctor's evidence it was proved that the child was a full-time one, and had nothing the matter with it, and that the child died from suffocation. It had a separate existence, and was born into the world alive. Therefore it had been suffocated. In all those cases one, of course, had to be careful in dealing with the evidence. It was very difficult to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon which they could base their verdict. The child had been found close to the bed, but the question of concealment of birth had nothing to do with them, although it might have with other authorities. He, however, did not see anything in the evidence to which they could attribute concealment, for the body could be seen by anyone going into the room. It was for the jury to say how that suffocation came about. In cases of infanticide, especially of that nature, it was the general custom of women to say that they did not know anything about it, and that it came in before they were aware of it, and could not help themselves. To say that that girl, Dorothy Dye, who was twenty two years of age, did not know what was the matter with her seemed difficult to believe. But they were not dealing with that. All they had to deal with was whether or not she, either by gross negligence or with an intention to do it, caused the death of the child. To bring in a verdict of manslaughter they would have to be certain that the woman was able, and in a condition to know what she was doing. For a jury of men to say what a woman's ability was, was a very difficult thing.

The jury returned a verdict that the child was accidentally suffocated through inattention at birth. The foreman stated that the jury further considered that the father of the girl should have been censured. They thought he ought to have consulted more with his wife and taken her into his confidence, as he was suspicious about his daughter's condition. They thought his evidence was very unsatisfactory.

The Coroner, addressing Dye, said he (Dye) heard what the jury's opinion was. If he had spoken to his wife on the matter she would have spoken to her daughter and arrangements would have been made, and by that means the child's life would have been saved. The reason he (Dye) had given for not confiding with his wife was that he did not consider her mentally competent to discuss with him a matter of that kind. The jury, and he accepted their view, had had an opportunity of hearing her, and they said they did not agree with him. What his reason was for saying she was incapable of giving evidence and discussing a matter of that kind he (the Coroner) could not say. If, however, he (Dye) had taken proper precautions the child might have been saved.

Folkestone Express 11 February 1911.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Monday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Ald. Jenner, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) presented his annual report, which was as follows:- Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 123 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz.: Full licences, 76; Beer “On”, 7; Beer “Off”, 6; Beer and Spirit Dealers “Off”, 14; Grocers, etc. “Off”, 10; Confectioners' Wine “Off”, 3; and Chemists' Wine “Off”, 7. This gives an average according to the Census of 1901 of one licence to every 249 persons, or one “On” licence to every 369 persons. This is a decrease of 2 licences as compared with the return submitted last year, as two “off” licences were not renewed at the last annual licensing meeting. In one case the renewal was not applied for, and in the other case the renewal was refused owing to the premises being then unoccupied. The licence of the Wellington Inn, referred last year to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy was renewed by that Committee at Canterbury on the 18th July, 1910. One licence is also granted by the Inland Revenue Authorities for the sale of wine, spirits and beer off the premises for which no Magistrates' certificate is required. Since the last annual licensing meeting 14 of the licences have been transferred, one licence was transferred twice; eight occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 35 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions. During the year ended 31st December last, 100 persons (76 males and 24 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 77 were convicted, and 23 discharged. This is an increase of 7 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year. Of those proceeded against, 34 were residents of the borough, 39 persons of no fixed abode, 13 soldiers, and 14 residents of other districts. No conviction has been recorded against any licence holder during the year. Proceedings were taken in one case for supplying drink to a person when drunk, but the case was dismissed. Fourteen clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 18 places registered for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, and am pleased to report that the houses generally have been conducted in a satisfactory manner. I have received notice of 5 applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.:- One beer “off”, one wine “off”, and three for music and dancing.

The Chairman said he was very glad to hear that the houses had been well conducted during the year, but the Licensing Committee were of opinion that there were still too many licences, and they were going to refer the consideration of one of them until the adjourned sessions on March 6th to see if it should be referred to the Compensation Authority. That house was the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street (Maurice Edward Dye).

The tenant was told by the Chairman that he would have notice served on him that the licence of his house was not required.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1911.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions for the borough were held on Monday at the Town Hall, when the principal business was to consider whether the house, the licence of which had been adjourned, should be referred to the East Kent Compensation Authority. The justices on the Bench were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, and W.C. Young.

The house in question was the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street.

Mr. G.W. Haines represented the owners (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.) and the tenant (Mr. M.E. Dye).

Mr. Reeve (the Chief Constable) gave evidence. He said he put in a notice of opposition served on the licensee in that case, the ground of opposition being that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. There were, within the jurisdiction of the Bench, 76 full licences, seven beer on licences, and 40 other licences, making a total of 123 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating drink in the borough at large, an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one on licence to every 369 persons, or one licence to every 249 persons. The Wheatsheaf was situate in Bridge Street, and he put in an ordnance survey showing the situation of that house. The present licensee was Mr. Morris Edward Dye, who obtained the transfer of the licence on 25th May, 1910. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Hythe. The net rateable value of the premises was £20. Bridge Street was in a working class neighbourhood off the Canterbury Road. The average net rateable value of houses in Bridge Street was £9 5s. The Wheatsheaf was originally two cottages, built about the year 1857, but it now formed one house, with a frontage of 29 feet 6 inches to Bridge Street. There were two doors from the street, one opening into a small partitioned off compartment, which was 5 ft. 4 in. by 3 ft., and had a serving window from the bar. The other door opened into a front bar, which was 11 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. 4 in. on the public side of the counter. On the right of that was an opening into a taproom, which was 22 ft. 2 in. by 11 ft. 5 in. wide, extending from the front to the rear of the building. At the far end of the tap was the scullery used by the licensee and the family, and the only oven or stove for cooking was in the taproom. Behind the front bar was the licensee's small living room, which was 8 ft. 2 in. by 10 ft. 9 in. The yard at the rear was approached by a small passage from the front public bar. The yard was enclosed, a scullery being on one side, and a wood shed forming the other side. There was no cellar, but the beer was delivered at the front bar, and taken through an opening in the counter into the public bar. There was only one floor upstairs. On the landing, facing the stairs, there was a small bedroom, without light or ventilation. On the left of the landing was a long room, extending from front to back over the taproom below, the back portion being used as a bedroom, and the front portion was screened off by a curtain and used as a store room. On the other side of the landing there were two bedrooms, one front and one back. The nearest public house, the Two Bells, at the corner of Canterbury Road, was just 36 yards from the Wheatsheaf. That house was a fully licensed house also, the Wheatsheaf having a full licence also. The Two Bells' rateable value was £28. On the opposite corner of Bridge Street and Canterbury Road was the Royal Standard, an on beerhouse. That was also 36 yards from that house, and its rateable value was £25 10s. The Railway Bell was 333 yards from that house, and of a rateable value of £92. The Swan, in Dover Road, was 347 yards from the house, and the rateable value was £56. The Black Bull, at the corner of Canterbury Road, was 374 yards away, and had a rateable value of £140. There were also three off beer licences in that neighbourhood, one situate in Canterbury Road, 108 yards away from the Wheatsheaf, another, the Alexandra Tavern, situate at the corner of Bridge Street and Alexandra Street, was 122 yards away, and the third, the Sportsman, in Sidney Street, was 187 yards away. The accommodation provided in the Wheatsheaf for the public was inferior to that of the adjoining houses – the Two Bells and the Royal Standard – and also decidedly inferior to the others. The trade had been for some time very small. At the time of his visit, three o'clock on the 23rd February, there was one customer on the premises. The licensee's daughter was in charge of the premises, and stated it was very unusual to see three customers in together, daytime or evening, and that the previous Sunday not eight people came in either midday or evening. He considered the licence to be unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, as there was, in his opinion, ample accommodation in the houses remaining to supply the legitimate requirements of the district.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, the Chief Constable said he had not taken the number of houses in the district served by the public houses. He should not think the number worked out at one on licence to every 953 people in the district.

Mr. Haines mentioned the area he included in his figures of one on licence to every 953 persons.

The Chief Constable replied that it was a rather wide area to take Linden Crescent, Fernbank Crescent, Albion Road and Gladstone Road in the roads served by the licensed houses referred to by him. Answering further questions by Mr. Haines, he said he believed the number of houses to the number of people in the district was the lowest in the town.

Mr. Haines: Do you think if a fresh tenant took the business that he could get a living there? Do you say it would be impossible for him to do it?

Mr. Reeve: I should not like to try it.

The Chief Constable, further cross-examined, said the licence was granted about 1860. He did not know how many tenants there had been during the fifty years. He would take it that there had been four tenants in fifty years. The first tenant, who held it until 1880, was a man who worked every day. No doubt a man of that kind would attract a number of his fellow workmen there, which a man like the present tenant might not be able to do. It was quite clear to him that there was no-one going to the house and no business being transacted, and it might be as well taken away. He thought the fact that the trade had left that house and that there were two houses immediately adjoining, which were doing a good trade, and that house was doing nothing, spoke for itself, and that the others could meet the whole of the trade.

Mr. Haines: Yes, they mat be able to meet it.

Mr. Reeve: They do, sir.

Mr. Haines: Would there be any objection to transferring the licence to another district?

Mr. Reeve: I would be sorry to see this particular licence transferred to any other district. I should be sorry to see more public houses in this borough.

In answer further to Mr. Haines, Mr. Reeve said it was for the Licensing Justices to say whether there was redundancy or not. He had picked that house because there were three houses in that spot, and it had no trade to it.

P.C. L. Johnson said he knew the Wheatsheaf. He had had occasion to visit it on several occasions. On November 28th he visited the house about three p.m. for the purpose of serving a Poor Rate summons upon the licensee, Mr. Dye. There was no business being done in the house at the time, and there was not a single customer in either bar. On Thursday, January 19th, at 11.30 a.m., and on February 22nd, at one p.m., there were no customers. On Thursday, February 23rd, at 5.40 p.m., he went to serve a summons on the licence holder, and there were no customers then. On Saturday, February 25th, at nine o'clock, there were no customers. On February 28th, at 12.35 midday, he found two customers in the public bar, and they were two women whom he knew to be prostitutes. On March 1st, at twenty five minutes past ten in the evening, there were no customers, and on Friday, March 3rd, at three o'clock in the afternoon, he found one customer in the public bar. On Saturday, at a quarter past one, there was one customer in the public bar. He had visited the house ten times, and altogether he had only found four customers in the house. He should say the licence was not necessary, as there would be ample accommodation in the remaining houses if it was taken away.

Cross-examined, witness said up to the last year or so he thought the house had done a fair business.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said he served notice of opposition on the licensee, Mr. Dye, on February 16th, at 1.45 p.m. He explained the notice to Mr. Dye, who said “The house is not required. I cannot get a living”. The bars were empty, and there were no customers on the premises at the time. On the following day at ten minutes past six he visited the house and there were no customers whatever. On the 18th February, at half past eleven in the morning, there were no customers there, and on the 19th at 7.40 p.m. the bar was again empty. On February 20th he was outside the house at turning out time at eleven o'clock, and no-one then left the premises. On the 28th February at turning out time again no-one left the premises. At 8.15 the previous night he visited the premises, and the bars were empty. In his opinion if that licence was taken away there would be quite ample accommodation in the remaining houses for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, witness said he believed that prior to the tenant taking the house there was a fair business done at the house. Mr. Dye had a wife and several children to keep, but he had a pension of 22s. a week.

Mr. Haines said he did not pretend to say the business was what it ought to have been during the past year. He pointed out to the Magistrates that all the visits, with the exception of three, by the police, had been after the house was put back. The fact that the police visited the premises so often was not good for the trade of the house. Up to the present tenant going into the house it had done very good business, and there had only been four changes in the tenancy during the fifty years. Mr. Dye was not suitable for a working class trade. He had been a corporal-Major in the Life Guards. In conclusion, Mr. Haines said they had a new tenant who was willing to take the house, and who felt he could make a living there if the Magistrates would renew the licence.

Mr. H.B. Mackeson said his firm bought the house about ten years ago. The barrelage at the house was as follows: 1903, 299; 1904, 249; 1905, 231; 1906, 223; 1907, 216; 1908, 230; 1909, 216; 1910, 173. The spirit trade was as follows: 1903, 85 gallons; 1904, 55; 1905, 55; 1906, 69; 1907, 70; 1908, 92; 1909, 60, 1910, 19. The latter was owing to the Budget.

Mr. Reeve: Are we to put this falling off in trade down to the Budget?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes; in spirits.

George Arthur Hills, foreman to Mr. W. Smith, builder, said he had known the Wheatsheaf for fifteen years, and during the past eight years he had been in the habit of calling there. There was a good business during the time he visited it. He had been in the house after Mr. Dye had taken it, but not just lately. Up to Mr. Dye going into the house, he thought the business was maintained. He was willing to take on the tenancy of the house if it was renewed. He was a married man and would devote himself to the business. He thought he would be able to work up a business there. He applied for the house before it was stood back, and he would have applied for it when Mr. Hill came out of it, only he had had three months' illness. He believed there would be a living for him at the house. He had signed a provisional agreement to take it if the licence was granted.

Cross-examined. Witness said he had no experience of the licensing trade, not since he left school. (Laughter) He was born in the Lifeboat Inn, North Street. He had never heard the reason why Mr. Hill left the house. He believed he would be able to work back the old trade. He supposed it had moved a little further on. The other houses were very often crowded out.

Mr. Reeve: The people have not gone short of refreshment?

Witness: I hope not.

The Justices retired to consider their decision, and on their return into Court the Chairman said the Bench referred the case to the Compensation Authority, and in the meantime they granted a provisional licence.

Folkestone Express 22 July 1911.

East Kent Licensing.

At the East Kent Licensing Committee the licence which was referred by the Folkestone Licensing Justices was considered.

Mr. Matthew appeared for the Licensing Justices, and Mr. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) for the owners.

After hearing counsel and the evidence on behalf of the owners, the Committee decided to renew the licence of the Wheatsheaf.

Folkestone Express 5 August 1911.

Bankruptcy Court.

A sitting of this Court was held at Canterbury on Saturday before Mr. Registrar Furley. Mr. J. Osborne Morris, the Official Receiver, conducted the examinations.

Maurice Edward Dye, licensed victualler, Wheatsheaf, Folkestone (deficiency £87), said he was a pensioner from the Royal Horse Artillery, having held the rank of S. S-Major. He had also been instructor in the Earl of Chester's Yeomanry. He went to the Wheatsheaf 2½ years ago, but the business had been unsuccessful owing to his giving credit which he was unable to recover. Examination closed.

Folkestone Express 26 August 1911.

Local News.

On Wednesday at the police court the Magistrates granted a transfer of the licence of the Wheatsheaf Inn, formerly held by Mr. M.E. Dye, who has been adjudged a bankrupt, to Mr. Hills, a builder's foreman. The applicant for the transfer told the Magistrates that it was his intention to devote the whole of his time to the business.

Folkestone Express 20 January 1912.

Local News.

The Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning, when the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel again came before the Bench. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Plans for the alteration of the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street, were approved.

Folkestone Express 18 June 1932.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death which took place on Tuesday of Mrs. Jane Hills, wife of Mr. George Arthur Hills, of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, Folkestone. She was 56 years of age, and had been in ill health for a considerable time. She came to Folkestone shortly after her marriage over 30 years ago, and had been in business with her husband at the Wheatsheaf for 20 years.

Mrs. Hills was widely known locally and held in the highest esteem by those who came into contact with her. A very wide circle of friends will mourn her passing. Mrs. Hills was a very keen and enthusiastic worker for the Cheerful Sparrows. She leaves a widower, four sons and two daughters, to whom sincere sympathy is expressed in their sad bereavement.

The funeral takes place at the Hawkinge Cemetery today (Friday) at 2.30 p.m.

Folkestone Express 31 August 1935.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death of Mr. George Arthur Hills, licensee of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, Folkestone, which occurred at his residence on Monday, after several months' illness.

Mr. Hills, who was 64 years of age, had been the licence holder of the Wheatsheaf Inn nearly 24 years, and was a member of the Folkestone Branch of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, so that his death removes a familiar figure from the neighbourhood. Before that he was for many years foreman bricklayer in the employ of the late Mr. William Smith, of Folkestone. Since he took over the Wheatsheaf, Mr. Hills was asked by Mr. Smith to help with the plans and in other ways with the construction of the houses in Dawson Road, which he did. Mr. Hills was also connected with charitable work in the town, being a member of the Brotherhood of Cheerful Sparrows, and helping in various directions, as well as at the annual fete. He was a great friend of the late Mr. Alderman Forsyth.

With members of the family the sincerest sympathy is felt in their sad bereavement.

The funeral took place yesterday (Thursday) at the Folkestone Cemetery at Hawkinge.

Folkestone Express 12 October 1935.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court the following licence was transferred: The Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, Folkestone, to Mr. J.R. Burville, senior Dock checker at Folkestone Harbour, from the late Mr. G.H. Hills.

Folkestone Express 25 May 1940.

Local News.

On Wednesday Mr. Burville, the licensee of the Wheatsheaf Inn applied lor a music licence at the Folkestone Police Court.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) enquired the nature and the reason of the application, and Mr. Burville said the music licence was so that he could install a wireless set in order that the customers could hear the news.

The Chairman (Mr. L.G.A. Collins) said the Magistrates granted a licence.