Packet Boat (2), Radnor Street c1846 - 1935

Packet Boat, c1910. Credit John Hall

Licensees

James Cock 1846 1851

Richard Boorn 1851 1857 Also Alma Tavern 1855-64

John Boorn 1857 1861 Later Wonder Tavern

Richard Boorn 1861 1868
John Fagg 1868 c1869

Robert Smith 1869 1878

Mary Smith 1878 1899

Albert Newman 1899 1904

Thomas Goldsmith 1904 1910

Maurice Deverson 1910 1911

Andrew Goodall 1911 1918

Frederick Kennett 1918 1921

John Twigg 1921 1926 To East Cliff Tavern

Ernest Ellen 1926 1933

John Sirret 1933 1935
Geoffrey Ernest Roden 1935 1935

Folkestone Chronicle 19-12-1857

Wednesday December 16^th:- Before R. W. Boarer esq., and G. Kennicott esq.

Special Sessions for transferring licences.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Richard Boorn, to John Boorn.

Southeastern Gazette 22-12-1857

Wednesday: Before R.W. Boarer and G. Kennicott Esqs.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Richard Boorn to John Boorn

Kentish Gazette 22-12-1857 

At the special sessions for transferring licences on Wednesday, the license of the Packet Boat was transferred from Richard Boorn to John Boorn

Southeastern Gazette 1-3-1859

Wednesday: Before the Mayor, W. Major and J. Tolputt, Esqs.

Jacob Morrick, a German, and servant to Capt. Clark, of 100 Regt., at Shorncliffe, was charged with stealing £5 12s. 6d. from his master’s desk in one of the huts.

Prisoner was taken in the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, by P.C. Ovenden, and the whole of the money was found on him.

Three months’ hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23-3-1861

County Court

Friday March 22^nd:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Richard Boorn, an insolvent, appeared to pass his first examination, supported by Mr. Bedford. He was opposed by Mr. John Minter, on behalf of Mr. George Conley, for a debt of £16 11s. 9d. Insolvent was examined by Mr. Minter, who failed to elicit that he had any effects. Debts £225. He passed his first examination.

Note: Boorn had been landlord of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street 1851-57. Strangely, it seems that he carries on with the Alma, Cheriton Road (1855-64) and returns to the Packet Boat (1861-69) despite this insolvency

Folkestone Observer 23-3-1861

County Court

Friday March 22^nd:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Insolvent Case

Richard Boorn came up for his first examination. Mr. Bedford appeared in support, and Mr. Minter for Mr. George Conley, who was entered for £16 11s. 9d. Insolvent had keot an inn in Radnor Street, but his uncle dying and leaving him a legacy of £1,500, he had paid £991 19s. 8d. to old creditors, and bought the schooner Mary for £500, afterwards selling her for £110. The present total amount of debts was £255 17s. 0 1/2d; no assets. He had been for the last four years out of business. The insolvent passed.

Note: Boorn had been landlord of the Packet Boat, Radnor Street. Also listed at Alma, Cheriton Road.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-4-1861

County Court

Wednesday April 24^th:- Before Charles Harwood Esq., Judge.

Richard Boorn. This insolvent came up for his final examination. Mr. Minter withdrew his opposition upon His Honour allowing the insolvent to amend his schedule, by inserting a reversionary interest he was entitled to; which having been done, he passed.

Note: Boorn had interests in both the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, and the Alma, Cheriton Road.

Folkestone Chronicle 9-8-1862 

Birth: On Tuesday, August 5^th, at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, the wife of Mr. John Boorn, of a son

Folkestone Chronicle 12-11-1864

On Thursday evening Mr. John Boorn of the Packet Boat Inn invited a few friends to a quiet little supper to celebrate the launch of a new lugger he has just finished, and the first he has finished since he entered into the business of a boat builder. The vessel was launched in the afternoon of the same day, and was named the Blair Athol. It is to be hoped that she will be as successful in her trips as her namesake, the celebrated racehorse. The lugger is a very nice one and from her lines appears to combine speed with strength.

Folkestone Observer 22-7-1865

Tuesday July 18^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N.

George Mercer, charged with being drunk and riotous in Beach Street, pleaded Guilty.

To a second charge of assaulting P.C. Swain, he pleaded Not Guilty.

P,C, Swain was on duty last evening in the lower part of the town about half past nine o`clock, when his attention was drawn to a number of people making a disturbance at the farther end of Radnor Street. He went there, and found the prisoner and another man fighting. Prisoner had all his clothes off, except his trousers. His shirt was off. He was drunk. Witness took the prisoner into custody. On the way to the Station he tried to escape. Witness kept his hold, and brought him to the station. Witness could not see the other man. It was dark and he was hustled away by the people.

Prisoner said he went into the Royal George last evening to have some beer, and a man wanted to fight him. He left there, and went along to the Packet Boat, where the man followed him and wanted him again to fight, but he refused. The man then wanted him to fight for a sovereign. He (prisoner) came out to go away, but the man came to him and began to fight, when, of course, he was almost compelled to fight. He did not resist the police, but in coming up the street his foot slipped, and he fell down.

The bench fined him 1s. for each of the two offences, with costs, 10s. in all, or imprisonment for seven days.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-7-1865

County Court

Friday July 28^th:- Before C. Harwood

Alfred Rayment v John Boorn – Claim for £20 10s for liquor supplied to defendant, a publican in Radnor Street. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant and stated that his client had a perfect answer to the claim. The case was adjourned to prove delivery and sale of goods by plaintiff`s partner.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-8-1865

County Court

Friday August 25^th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Spurrier & Rayment v J. Boorn – This was an action which had been adjourned from the last court, to recover a sum of £20 14s for goods sold.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and said the defendant would admit having received all the goods charged in plaintiff`s bill, but defendant said he had paid for some of them, and to save time he asked Mr. Hellensberg to point out what portion of the bill defendant had paid.

Mr. Hellensberg said he could not do so.

Mr. Minter asked this witness whether defendant was not charged in this bill for some bottles which he had returned.

Mr. Hellensberg said not to his knowledge.

His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, to be paid forthwith, with costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-10-1865

County Court

Friday October 13^th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

John Boorn v Alfred Rayment – This was a claim for £4 6s 6d for spirits. Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff.

The defendant at first said that he did not dispute the claim, but pleaded that it was constructed under a partnership, and said that the plaintiff owed him a good deal larger sum of money than he had sued him for.

Plaintiff, having said he was landlord of the Packet Boat public house, and was in partnership with defendant as a builder and owner of fishing boats, but never with respect to the public house. He sold the goods charged in the account to the defendant, and delivered some of them himself, and sent the others. He did not claim the money before, because he owed defendant money, but after defendant sued him at the last court he made out the bill.

Defendant said the partnership between them commenced in January, 1864. Never took any money for the sale of spirits. Plaintiff kept the house and he kept the books. Had advanced money to plaintiff and others on account of the house. Defendant was examined at length by His Honour as to the partnership, and defendant said it could be proved by an entry in the books.

The cash book, day book, and ledger were put in and examined by His Honour for evidence of the partnership, and two entries for sums entered in the defendant`s name for spirits and beer, to the amount of £109, were found.

Defendant, cross-examined by Mr. Minter, said he agreed with the plaintiff as to the partnership about January 1864. He was to have half of the profits arising out of the public house business. Before the partnership agreement was made, the plaintiff was greatly embarrassed, and he offered to find the money to pay off the old debts, on condition that the whole concern – the boat building, fishery, and public house – should be thrown into one partnership. He kept the books, but there had never been any division of profits.

The case came to an end in a rather singular manner. Mr. Minter pressed the defendant closely in cross-examination, and Mr. Harrison, the deputy registrar of the court, appealed to His Honour to protect the defendant, who had no legal adviser, and said that defendant had been advised by him in the course he had taken, and he was sorry that his position compelled him to remain silent in a case which he could explain in a few words.

Plaintiff`s attorney said that Mr. Harrison, holding the position he did, had no right to try to influence His Honour in his decision, and withdrew the case.

After this His Honour asked a question, when Mr. Minter contended that as the case, having been withdrawn, was out of court, the plaintiff was not bound to answer.

His Honour then struck the case out, and Mr. Minter, upon this, took a non-suit, stating that it was his intention to carry the case into another court.

Kentish Gazette 17-10-1865

Folkestone County Court: The usual monthly sitting of this Court was held on Friday, at the Town-hall, before Charles Harwood, Esq., Judge.

John Boorn v Alfred Rayment: This was a claim of £4 6s. 6d. for spirits. Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff.

The defendant at first said that he did not dispute the claim, but pleaded that it was constructed under a partner­ship, and said that plaintiff owed him a good deal larger sum of money than he had sued him for.

Plaintiff having said he was landlord of the Packet Boat public house, and was in partnership with defendant as a builder and owner of fishing boats, but never with respect to the public house. He sold the goods charged in the account to the defendant, and delivered some of them himself, and sent the others. He did not claim the money before, because he owed defendant money, but after de­fendant sued him at the last court, he made out his bill.

Defendant said the partnership between them commenced in January, 1864. Never took any money for the sale of spirits. Plaintiff kept the house and he kept the books. Had advanced money to plaintiff and others on account of the house. Defendant was examined at length by His Honour as to the partnership, and defendant said it could be proved by an entry in the books.

The cash-book, day-book, and ledger were put in and examined by His Honour for evidence of the partnership, and two entries for sums entered in the defendant’s name for spirits and beer, to the amount of £109 were found.

Defendant, cross-examined by Mr. Minter, said he agreed with the plaintiff as to the partnership about January, 1864. He was to have half of the profits arising out of the public house business. Before the partnership agree­ment was made, the plaintiff war greatly embarrassed, and he offered to find the money to pay off the old debts, on condition that the whole concern - the boat building, fishery, and public house - should be thrown into one partnership. He kept the books, but there had never been any division of profits.

The case came to an end in rather a singular manner. Mr. Minter pressed the defendant closely in cross-examina­tion, and Mr. Harrison, the deputy registrar of the Court, appealed to His Honour to protect the defendant, who had no legal adviser, and said that defendant had been advised by him in the course he had taken, and he was sorry that his position compelled him to remain silent in a case which he could explain in a few words.

Plaintiff’s attorney, said that Mr. Harrison, holding the position he did, had no right to try to influence His Honour in his decision, and withdrew the case.

After this His Honour asked a question, when Mr. Minter contended that as the case, having been with­drawn, was out of court, the plaintiff was not bound to answer.

His Honour then struck the case out, and Mr. Minter, upon this, took a non-suit, stating that it was his intention to carry the case into another court.

Folkestone Observer 21-10-1865

County Court

Friday October 13^th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

John Boorn v Alfred Rayment

This was a claim for £4 4s 6d for spirits. Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff.

Defendant, in answer to His Honour, admitted to having had the things, but stated that plaintiff owed him a great deal more - £154 odd, borrowed money – and he wanted to claim a set off. His Honour told him he should have entered a cross-action, upon which he immediately disputed his liability.

Mr. Minter remarked that last court the defendant entered an action against the present plaintiff, and he (defendant), it appeared, now claimed the benefit of a partnership.

Plaintiff was then sworn, and said: I am landlord of the Packet Boat Inn. The defendant was in partnership with me as a boatbuilder and as a fishing boat proprietor, but he never had anything to do with the Packet Boat Inn. The goods, with the exception of one gallon of whisky and one bottle of brandy which were delivered at the Camp by defendant`s orders, were deliverd at his house, some of them by me, and some by my servant. Defendant offered to keep my books for me as he said I was a bad book-keeper. He took them home with him for that purpose, and put his name opposite the goods entered which he had received. I did not sue him before as I owed him money, but last court day he sued me without previously sending in a bill, and I then sent in my account.

Defendant admitted that he had had the things, but pleaded a partnership in the Inn trade, and produced the day book, which he stated was a general partnership account. He (defendant) had made out bills, but they had never had any bill-heads; he thought the bills were made out as a company. He had advanced money to plaintiff himself and also to others on account of the house, but had never had any settlement of account. The public house was carried on in plaintiff`s own name.

His Honour, on turning to the cover of the day book, remarked that it was endorsed as a partnership concern, and asked whose writing it was.

Mr Minter said that of the defendant, who had always kept the books, and tried to wriggle himself into a partnership, but they repudiated it.

His Honour mentioned two entries for spirits and beer he saw in the book, amounting to £109, had on account of the house, and which appeared to have been paid by the defendant. He asked if it was so?

Defendant said it was; he had paid several bills, and had also given plaintiff cheques to pay the rent of the public house.

His Honour then asked the defendant if he would deliberately swear that he was a partner with plaintiff in the Packet Boat Inn?

Defendant answered in the affirmative, and stated they were in partnership about a year and a half.

Mr. Harrison, the Deputy Registrar, remarked that he could explain the whole of the case in a few words, but unfortunately from the position which he held his mouth was sealed.

His Honour said the books appeared to intimate a partnership. At all events it was clear that defendant had advanced money to the brewers and others to the tune of £109.

Mr. Minter then cross-examined the defendant, who said he entered into partnership with plaintiff about January, 1864. He could not say the day, neither could he tax his memory with regard to what was said, but he could remember he was to have half the profits. Plaintiff was in difficulties, and he offered to assist him in paying his debts, for which purpose he advanced £300. Witness paid all debts that were applied for, and it was then agreed that it should be a general partnership concern. He was and he was not at that present time in partnership with plaintiff, for he had given him notice to dissolve partnership. He could not say that he said one word in that notice about the Packet Boat Inn, and he could not say he was a partner as the thing stood. He gave plaintiff no personal notice.

Mr. Harrison here asked His Honour to protect the defendant, who was without a legal advisor, when Mr. Minter said “If you don`t know what decency is, Mr. Harrison, I must teach you. It is very improper for a Registrar to attempt to influence the decision of the court”.

His Honour remarked that Mr. Minter was very rude to him, as he was speaking to Mr. Harrison.

Mr. Minter begged His Honour`s pardon; he did not intend to be rude to him personally.

His Honour again said it was rude, and he should be inclined to dismiss the case if it was repeated.

Mr. Minter then said he should withdraw the case from the court at once, and ordered his client out of court.

His Honour told plaintiff to stay, and was about to put a question to him when Mr. Minter said plaintiff was not bound to answer as the case was out of court. He had the power to withdraw the case, and he did so, with the intention of taking it to another court.

The case was then struck out.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-10-1865

Notice

In Chancery

Between Alfred Rayment, Plaintiff, and John Whittingham Boorn, Defendant

I, the undersigned, Alfred Rayment, hereby give notice that an injunction was on the 25^th day of October inst. awarded by the High Court of Chancery, to restrain the defendant, John Whittingham Boorn, of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, his servants and agents, from further interfering or intermeddling with any of the joint or common partnership property of myself and the said John Whittingham Boorn, without my concurrence. And I further give notice that the said John Whittingham Boorn has no authority or power to sell, deal with, or dispose of such property, or to receive any monies now due, or which may hereafter become due in respect of the said partnership property, but that all such monies may be paid to Mr. George Brickman, of the Sandgate Road, Folkestone, Auctioneer, who is directed to receive such monies, and to hold the same for all parties interested, and not to part with such monies unless under the order of the Court of Chancery.

And I give further notice that the partnership property consists of the Fishing Boats – Harold, No. 55; Alexandra, No. 64; Sea Gull, No. 52; Packet Boat or Margaret Ann, No. 63; Industry, No. 61; Blair Athol, No. 65; Castor, No. 31; Mary Jane, No. 13; Spratter, Grace, No. 43; Elizabeth, No. 10. Hall`s Punt, and a Pleasure Skiff, and the Nets, Gear and Tackling belonging thereto. The debts due. A Horse and Cart used in conveying fish. The Public House in Radnor Street, known as the Packet Boat, and the Goodwill and Licences, and Stock in Trade, and the household furniture and effects therein. A Refreshment Booth. Two Freehold Houses in the rear of the Packet Boat Inn, and the rents thereof. The Piece of Land opposite the Packet Boat, and all the Workshops, Fittings, Timber, Tools, and Materials thereon, and certain Timber and other Materials on ground near Dover Street.

And lastly, I again give notice that on the 12^th day of July, 1865, the partnership which up to that time subsisted between myself and the said John Whittingham Boorn was dissolved.

Dated this 27^th day of October, 1865,

Alfred Rayment.

We confirm this notice,

Brockman and Harrison, Solicitors, Folkestone.

Kentish Gazette 2-10-1866

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone, on Saturday morning, before J. Minter, Esq., and a respectable jury, on the body of Geo. T. Vve, aged 18, the son of a publican in thetown, who was found hanging in the forecastle of the Lord Warden, one of the steamships belonging to the South Eastern Railway Company.

The following evidence was adduced:—Wm. Laurence Earnshaw, superintendent of workshops for the South Eastern Railway Company at Folkestone, identified the body as being that of George Thomas Vye, who was a shipwright apprentice in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. He had been in the service about three and a half years. I saw deceased at ten minutes past one on Friday, the 28^th instant, in my office at the work­shops. He came to receive his pay. Mr. Lyall paid him 7s. 6d., his wages, and took his signature. He then left, and had to come to work in the afternoon at two o’clock,

Mr Silvester Eastes, a surgeon practising at Folkestone, said the body presented the usual appearance of death by hanging - face pale and livid, pupil of the eye much dilated.

Thos. Grayling said: I am a shipwright in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Co. On Friday, the 28^th inst., a little after two o’clock I went on board the Lord Warden steamship to work. I went down the forecastle to see about some bolts and saw the deceased hanging to the beam. I called Robert Poole to my assistance. The handkerchief now produced was tied round deceased's neck and hung on to a hammock hook The flooring was taken up, and his | feet were hanging about two inches clear of the beam. We lifted him up and unhooked him, and the handkerchief came slack round deceased's neck as soon as we did so. We then took the body up into the workshop and the men commenced rubbing him. I found the piece of paper now produced on the locker with a wooden wedge to keep it in its place. [Written in pencil on the paper was, “To who­ever finds me. I have hung myself, it is my mother’s doings. All I have to say is, May the Lord pardon me my wicked doings, and take me in Heaven with Him this day.” His waistcoat, slop, and cap were laid close to his feet on a beam. I have never seen anything strange in deceased’s conduct.

John Vve said: I am a publican. The deceased is my son. He came home to dinner on Friday about one o’clock, and had his dinner. I was in the tap room and deceased came in. The evening before deceased told his mother he was going to the races. She told him he had better be looking after his business, and in the morning I called him to my bedside, and told him he should not go to the races. When in the tap room yester­day 1 said, “George, I’ve a word or two to say to you.” I said, “You’re a lad now 18 years of age, and not being forward in your business, It would be much better for you to attend to your work than to want to go and sec these little sports. You should not lose half an hour in your business until you get well accomplished in your trade." I then said, “You can do as you please.” His mother said, “George, we have more trouble with you than all the rest, and if you don’t alter I shall acquaint your grandfather." He took his slop and jacket off the table, and said as he went out, “It will be some time before I come in again."

Deceased was 17 years and 11 months old.

The Coroner summed up, and told the jury it was for firm to decide whether it was a case of felo de se or temporary insanity. After a consultation the jury returned a verdict that deceased hung himself while in a state of temporary insanity. One of the jurymen told the Coroner that he did not coin­cide with the verdict. In his opinion it was a clear case of felo de se.The Coroner said he must give the eleven jury­men credit for honesty, and record the verdict as given.

Folkestone Observer 5-10-1866

Coroner`s Inquest

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat inn on Saturday, by John Minter Esq., coroner, on the body of George Thomas Vye, who had hung himself in the Lord Warden steamboat, lying on the slip under repair. The jury, having inspected the body and place at which it was found, returned to the inn and heard the following evidence.

William L. Earnshaw, superintendent of the Company`s workshops, identified the body as that of George Thomas Vye, who was a shipwright apprentice in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. He had been in their employment about three years and a half. Saw him yesterday about ten minutes past one in witness`s office in the shop. He was there to receive his weekly pay. Mr. Lyall paid him the money, 7s 6d, and witness took his signature. He then left. He had come to work again in the afternoon at two o`clock. If he had wanted a holiday he should have asked witness. He did not ask. About five minutes past two, saw two of the men running from the yard, and enquiring the cause, witness was told that George had hung himself in the forecastle of the Lord Warden. Went there immediately. Thomas Grayland had taken him down from where he was hanging and was passing him on deck. When they got up there Richard Cullen gave witness the paper produced.

“To whoever finds me – I have hung myself. It is my mother`s doing. All I have to say is may the Lord pardon me my wicked doing, and take me in Heaven to him this day”.

Had never observed anything the matter with him before. He was a good buy, like the generality of boys. Had occasion to speak to him sometimes, but he never resented it.

Silvester Eastes, surgeon, said yesterday afternoon, at half past two o`clock, a man named Jenkins came to his surgery and told him a lad had hung himself at the Company`s workshops. He immediately drove down, and on one of the benches in the Company`s shop saw the body of deceased. Some of the men were chafing the limbs. They had loosened the ligature. On examining the body he found it presented the usual appearance of death caused by hanging – face pale, pupil of eye much dilated. There was a mark round the neck where the handkerchief had been tied. The body was warm, the limbs getting very cool. The action of the hear and lungs had entirely ceased, and deceased was dead. He opened the external jugular vein; there were a few drops of blood only escaped.

Thomas Grayland, a shipwright in the employ of the South Eastern railway Company, said that on Friday, a little after two, he was on board the Lord Warden steamship at work. Had occasion to go down to the forecastle to see about some bolts and the timber they were putting in, and saw the body hanging to the beam. Called Mr. Poole to his assistance. Deceased was hanging to a hammock hook. The necktie produced was tied round his neck and round the hammock hook. It was the necktie he usually wore. His feet were hanging clear of the beams about two inches. The flooring in the forecastle was taken up. Lifted deceased up and unhooked the handkerchief. On laying him down on the locker, some water ran out of his mouth. On unhooking the upper part of the necktie it became slack around deceased`s neck, and the necktie was not therefore removed. Took the body into the workshop and the men commenced rubbing him. Found the paper produced by Mr. Earnshaw on a temporary locker about four feet from the body, with a wooden wedge to keep it in it`s place. Deceased`s slop, waistcoat, and cap were laid on a beam close to his feet. Had known him since a lad. Had never seen anything strange in his conduct. He was a very good boy. The soda bottle produced now was near his clothes.

Frederick Gower, riveter, in the employ of the South eastern Railway Company, went to the Company`s workshops on Friday afternoon at half past one. Went down into the cabin of the Lord Warden to his work. About twenty minutes to two deceased came down and commenced moving a piece of board. He caught sight of witness, and then took a ginger beer bottle from the bench. Thought deceased was moving the boarding for the purpose of going down below, and when he saw witness he took the bottle as an excuse and went on deck. Did not speak to him. Known deceased two or three months, but had seen nothing strange in his conduct.

John Vye, publican, said deceased was his son. Saw him yesterday. He came home at one and had his dinner. Witness was lying down in the tap room. Deceased came in and sat down on witness`s usual seat, and witness said to him – “George” – (the witness was here overcome by his emotion and obliged to pause for some time). The evening before, deceased told his mother he was going to the races. She told him she thought he had better be looking after his business. His mother got up first, and as witness had hurt his back the day before he continued longer than usual in bed and called deceased to him and told him he should not go to the races. After dinner witness said to him “George, I have a word or two to say to you. You are now a lad 18 years of age, and not very forward in your business. It would be much better for you to attend to your work than want to go to all these little spurts that there are. You should not lose half an hour in your business until you get well accomplished in your trade, and then you can do as you please”. He made no reply. His mother then said “George, we have more trouble with you than with all the rest, and if you don`t alter it we shall acquaint your grandfather with your goings on”. He got up directly afterwards, and took up his slop from the table and went out of the door saying “It will be some time before you see me again”. Witness and his wife thought no more of it than they had thought of other occasions. If he were playing with other children he would say just the same, but nothing had ever come of it. Deceased would be eighteen the 18^th of next month. If the paper produced was in his handwriting it was very badly done.

The Coroner then told the jury that that was all the evidence necessary to be produced. It was for them to say whether deceased killed himself knowing what he was doing or whether deceased killed himself in a fit of temporary insanity not knowing what he was doing. He was eighteen years of age and the law says he was of the age of discretion. The witnesses all said that they had never seen anything strange in his conduct. It would seem from the evidence of the father that it was in consequence of what his mother had said to him that he committed the act. It would be for the jury to draw their own conclusions. Those of them who had seen the place that the body was found would know that there must have been some contrivance to accomplish the act, and the paper produced, Mr. Earnshaw said, was in deceased`s handwriting. It was for the jury to take all the circumstances into consideration and to give their verdict, in which twelve of them must be agreed.

Mr. W. Pope, a juryman, said the paper had clearly been written by the deceased with a carpenter`s pencil on a bench as he passed through the Company`s shop on his way to the Lord Warden. He thought the verdict should be that he killed himself. He did not see how, having regard to the oath that had been taken, any other verdict could be given.

The Coroner said Mr. Pope must give the other jurors credit for being guided by as correct judgement as himself. The law said twelve jurors must agree, and as twelve of the jury agreed to a verdict of temporary insanity he must accept that verdict.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-10-1866

Coroner`s Inquest

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone, on Saturday morning, before J. Minter Esq. and a respectable jury, on the body of George Thomas Vye, aged 18, the son of a publican in the town, who was found hanging in the forecastle of the Lord Warden, one of the steamships belonging to the South Eastern Railway Company. The following evidence was adduced:-

William Lawrence Earnshaw said: I am superintendent of the workshops for the South Eastern Railway Company at Folkestone. I identify the body as being that of Thomas Vye, who was a shipwright apprentice in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. He had been in the service about three and a half years. I saw the deceased about ten minutes past one on Friday, the 28^th ult., in the office at my workshops. He came to receive his pay. Mr. Lyall paid him 7s 6d, his wages, and I took his signature. If he had wanted a holiday, he ought to have asked. He did not ask. About five minutes past two o`clock the same afternoon I saw two men running from the yard. I enquired the cause, and they said George had hung himself in the forecastle of the Lord Warden. I then proceeded there, and Thomas Grayling had just taken deceased down, and on passing him on deck Richard Cullen gave me the paper produced. I have never seen anything strange in deceased`s conduct. A surgeon was sent for immediately. The paper produced is, I believe, in deceased`s handwriting.

Silvester Eastes said: I am a surgeon, practicing at Folkestone. Yesterday afternoon, at half past two o`clock, a man named Jenkins came to my surgery, and told me that a lad had hung himself at the Company`s shop. I saw the body of deceased. Some of the men were chafing the limbs. They had loosened the ligature. On examining the body I found it presented the usual appearance of death caused by hanging – face pale, pupil of eye much dilated. There was a mark round the neck where the handkerchief had been tied. The body was warm, the limbs getting very cool. The action of the heart and lungs had entirely ceased. I opened the external jugular vein; there were a few drops of blood only escaped.

Thomas Grayling said: I am a shipwright in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. On Friday, the 28^th ultimo, a little before two o`clock, I went on board the Lord Warden steamship to work. I went down the forecastle to see about some bolts and saw the deceased hanging to the beam. I called Robert Poole to my assistance. The handkerchief now produced was tied round the deceased`s neck and hung on to a hammock hook. The flooring was taken up and his feet were hanging about two inches clear of the beam. We lifted him up and the handkerchief came slack round the deceased`s neck as soon as we unhooked him. We then took the body up into the workshop and the men commenced rubbing him. I found the piece of paper now produced on the locker with a wooden wedge to keep it in it`s place. (Written in pencil on the paper was: “To whoever finds me. I have hung myself. It is my mother`s doings. All I have to say is, may the Lord pardon me my wicked doings, and take me in Heaven with him this day”.) His waistcoat, slop, and cap were laid close to his feet on a beam. I have never seen anything strange in deceased`s conduct.

Frederick Gower said: I am a riveter in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. On Wednesday I went to the Company`s workshops at half past one o`clock. Went into the after-cabin to my work. Whilst there, about ten minutes after I had gone down, the deceased came down and commenced moving a piece of board, and caught sight of me, and then took a ginger beer bottle as an excuse. He seemed to me as if he intended getting under the flooring. Deceased then went on deck. I have not known the deceased more than three months. I have not seen anything strange in his conduct.

John Vye said: I am a publican. The deceased is my son. He came home to dinner on Friday about one o`clock, and had his dinner. I was in the tap room and deceased came in. The evening before deceased told his mother he was going to the races. She told him he had better be looking after his business, and in the morning I called him to my bedside and told him he should not go to the races. When in the tap room yesterday I said “George, I`ve a word or two to say to you”. I said “You`re a lad now eighteen years of age, and not being forward in your business it would be much better for you to attend to your work than to want to go and see these little sports that are”. I said “You should not lose half an hour in your business until you get well accomplished in your trade”. I then said “You can do as you please”. His mother said “George, we have more trouble with you than all the rest, and if you don`t alter, I shall acquaint your grandfather”.  He took his slop and jacket off the table, and said as he went out “It will be some time before I come in again”. Deceased was seventeen years and eleven months old.

The Coroner summed up and told the jury it was for them to decide whether it was a case of felo de se, or temporary insanity. After a consultation the jury returned a verdict that deceased hung himself while in a state of temporary insanity.

Mr. Pope, one of the jury, said he did not agree with the verdict, as in his opinion it was a case of felo de se. He asked the Coroner to read over the oath which the jury had taken at the commencement of the inquiry.

The Coroner told Mr. Pope he must give the eleven jurymen credit for honesty and record their verdict as they had given it.

Folkestone Observer 12-10-1866

Court of Bankruptcy, London.

5th October 1866 before Mr. Registrar Murray

Re. J.W. Boorn

The bankrupt, John Wittingham Boorn, is described as of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, Kent, innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, in Folkestone aforesaid, as boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights, and general dealers, at Folkestone aforesaid. His numerous unsecured creditors reside at Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, and Folkestone, in this county. This was a first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees.

Mr. John Clark (Nicholls & Clark), 9, Cooks Court, Lincolns Inn, filed the bankrupt`s petition on the 18^th of last month, and obtained for him protection from arrest.

The total amount of the bankrupt`s indebtedness is £1,517 12s, of which £857 12s is due to unsecured creditors.

The creditors holding security are thus described viz.: Mr. George Beer, Canterbury, Kent, brewer, £180, “holds title deeds of a piece of land in Radnor Street, Folkestone, Kent, of the estimated value of £200”.

Mr. John Minter, Grace Hill, Folkestone, solicitor, “holds secured mortgage upon the above land; also a mortgage on the lease of the Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone, which property will not realise more than sufficient to pay these creditors”.

Mr. James Pledge, auctioneer, £150, “holds bill of sale on all my household furniture and effects, to secure this amount, which he has seized and taken possession. Estimated value about £180”.

At this sitting no creditors attended to prove, and accept the office of trade assignee, and the court fixed the day of 30^th day of November next, at 12 o`clock, for the bankrupt to appear before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn, for the purpose of passing his examination and applying for his order of discharge.

Renewed protection from arrest having been granted the bankrupt until the next sitting (which is also for the proof of debts), the proceedings terminated.

Folkestone Chronicle 13-10-1866

Court Of Bankruptcy, London, Oct. 5^th.

(Before Mr. Registrar Murray)

Re. J.W. Boorn

The bankrupt, John Wittingham Boorn, is described as of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, Innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, in Folkestone aforesaid, as Boat Owners, Boat Builders, Shipwrights, and General Dealers, at Folkestone aforesaid. His numerous unsecured creditors reside at Ashford, Canterbury, Dover and Folkestone, in this County. This was a first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees.

Mr. John Clark (Nicholls and Clark), 9, Cook`s Court, Lincoln`s Inn, filed the bankrupt`s petition on the 18^th of last month, and obtained for him protection from arrest.

The total amount of the bankrupt`s indebtedness is £1517 12s., of which £857 12s. is due to unsecured creditors.

The creditors holding security are thus described, viz: Mr. George Beer, Canterbury, Kent, Brewer, £180 “holds title deeds to a piece of land in Radnor Street, Folkestone, Kent, of the estimated value of £200”, Mr. John Minter, Grace Hill, Folkestone, Solicitor, “holds second mortgage on the above land. Also a mortgage on the lease of the Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone, which property will not realise more than sufficient to pay those creditors”, Mr. James Pledge, Leas, Folkestone, Auctioneer, £150, “holds bill of sale on all my household furniture and effects, to secure this amount under which he has seized and taken possession – estimated value about £180”.

At this sitting no creditor attended to prove or accept the office of trade assignee, and the court fixed the 30^th of November next, at twelve o`clock, for the bankrupt to appear before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn, for the purpose of passing his examination, and applying for his order of discharge.

Renewed protection from arrest having been granted the bankrupt until the next sitting (which is also for the proof of debts) the proceedings terminated.

Folkestone Chronicle 10-11-1866

Tuesday November 6^th:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

John Whittingham Boorn was charged with having on the 5^th September, 1865, obtained the sum of £60 from James Pledge, with intent to defraud him of the same.

Mr. Fox appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Towne for the defence.

James Pledge, auctioneer and estate agent, deposed that in September, 1865, defendant applied to him to advance some money on a bill of sale of his goods, at the Packet Boat Inn, and for that purpose witness made an inventory of them. Defendant stated that the bar fittings cost him £60. Witness asked if a partition belonged to him. Defendant replied “No, I think not. I think that belongs to the freehold. The mahogany shelving and plate rack belong to me, but I am not so sure about the partition”. On the strength of that witness advanced £60 as a first instalment, and did not discover that the fittings did not belong to defendant till Mr. Beer, the landlord, distrained for rent about a month ago.

Samuel Pilcher, clerk to Mr. Minter, deposed to seeing defendant execute the bill of sale produced, on the 10^th September, 1863.

Thomas Thurston, clerk and valuer to Mr. George Beer, of Canterbury, deposed to making an inventory and valuation of the house, trade fittings, fixtures, and stoves in September, 1863, and afterwards paying defendant for them by cheque.

In answer to Mr. Towne: It was understood at the time that Boorn might re-purchase the same for £40.

By Mr. Fox: The defendant has never paid the £40.

George Beer, brewer, of Canterbury, deposed that he purchased the trade fittings and fixtures of defendant in September, 1863, and he had not sold or parted with them since.

For the defence, John Minter, solicitor, who drew up the bill of sale, and George Brickman, auctioneer, who sold the goods were called, but the bench decided that a prima facie case had not been made out and dismissed the charge.

Folkestone Observer 10-11-1866

Monday November 5^th:- Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer and James Tolputt Esqs.

Charge of obtaining money under false pretences

John William Boorn was charged with obtaining the sum of £60 of Mr. James Pledge on false pretences.

Mr. Fox, Dover, appeared for the prosecutor, Mr. Towne, Margate for the defendant.

Mr. Fox opened the case by remarking that he appeared on the part of Mr. James Pledge to presecute the defendant on the charge under section 68 of the Larceny Act for having obtained under false pretences, on the 5^th of September last year, the sum of £50, with attempt to defraud. The short facts of the case are these: It would appear from his instructions that the defendant, requiring an advance of money, went to the prosecutor and made a representation to him that the fittings of the bar of a public house, which was then tenanted by defendant, were his property, and on the faith of the representation Mr. Pledge consented to advance him this sum of money. An inventory was taken by Mr. Pledge in the presence of defendant, and which, he contended, was sufficient evidence of the representation that the fittings in the bar were his property.

James Pledge, auctioneer, residing in Folkestone, said: In the year 1865 I knew the defendant. He was then living at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, in Folkestone. On September 5^th, 1865 defendant made an application to me for an advance of money on a bill of sale. I consented to advance it. I went down to the defendant`s house to make an inventory and saw the defendant there. When I went into the house Mr. Boorn was standing in the bar, and in order to induce me to advance the money, Mr. Boorn said to me “Mr. Pledge, this bar alone cost me £60 to fit up”. I was then in the bar of the defendant`s house. The defendant then stood at the bar and called the things over to me as I wrote them down in my book. I produce the book in which I made the entries at that time, and there are the entries I then made, commencing “John William Boorn, 6-pull beer engine” and the other items down in the book. I took the whole of the bar first, till we came to the partition, when I said “Boorn, does that partition belong to you?”. He said “No, I think not. I think that belongs to the freehold”. He said then “The mahogany shelving and the glass rack belong to me, but I am not so certain about the partition”. I completed the inventory. I will not say that it was on the same day that I paid the money, but that transaction was all within a day or two. The first instalment was £60. I was induced to make that advance of £60 on the bill of sale on the bar fittings of the public house on the fact that they were the property of the defendant. I first ascertained that the bar fittings were not the property of the defendant about a month ago, when the landlord put in a distress for rent. A bill of sale was given to me after I had advanced the £60. (The bill of sale was here put in).

Cross examined by Mr. Towne: I know nothing about Mr. Boorn being in partnership with Mr. Rayment. I know nothing about it. I saw an advertisement some time ago that the partnership between Mr. Boorn and Mr. Rayment was dissolved. I knew nothing about it at the time of this transaction. In September 1865 Mr. Boorn was a publican. He had a herring shop besides, I believe. He was a general dealer. I knew that at the time. That business was carried on within two or three doors of his public house. I knew nothing of his fishing business. I knew nothing at that time about his being connected in fishing boats, general dealing &c., with Mr. Rayment. I did not go to Mr. Boorn. I knew about the intended sale of Mr. Boorn`s effects in the partnership affair. Mr. Boorn told me he was going to sell out by-and-by, and then I should be paid my money. I only advanced my money on those terms. I did not go to Mr. Boorn to solicit the sale by auction. Mr. Boorn did not offer to give me security on all his partnership property. Mr. Minter prepared the bill of sale. I gave Mr. Minter instructions to prepare it. I did not tell Mr. Minter that Mr. Boorn had offered to give over to me his interest in the partnership property. I had no security, only what is contained in that bill of sale. I might not have had other security if I had liked. I would not have had security on the boats and fishing business. It was never offered to me. I know that Mr. Boorn`s partnership property has been sold since I had the bill of sale. It did not concern me at all, and I made no note of it. I don`t know what the value of Mr. Boorn`s property was since I had this bill of sale. I know nothing about it. Well, I won`t know, then, if you like; have it your own way. There is other money advanced besides this £60. So far as I can remember I have described all that took place on the occasion of this money being advanced. The first occasion on which I learnt that the bar fittings were not Mr. Boorn`s property was about a month ago. I gave instructions to my plumber the same day the sale was to remove the beer engine, and in the evening a man was in possession again. I said “Who has put him in?”. He said “The landlord”. And so he came away again. Since then I have been in no communication with Mr. Boorn for the arrangement of this debt. I have had no conversation with Mr. Boorn since I made this discovery; I was too disgusted with him. I know Mr. Goddard, a barber. I have not said that if Mr. Goddard would be guarantee in this matter I would say nothing about it. When the execution was put in I said if Mr. Goddard would pay out the man, and if he had not any money, I would take his acceptance, so that Mr. Boorn might carry his house on, and the things might not be disturbed. That was about six weeks ago. I had no opportunity to change my mind; his friends would not come forward. Mr. Goddard would not pay the rent, nor give his acceptance. For the things that were left, Mr. Boorn`s friends offered me a sovereign, as an insult. I have also a tent, which I had some difficulties in tracing, and at last only got it by threatening to have the parties up. I would take £10 for it, and that is a long way off £50. I would sell it to you for £10, if you like to buy it.

Samuel Pilcher said: I am clerk to Mr. Minter, and was so in September, 1865. I was present when the deed (bill of sale) was executed, on the day it bears date, the 16^th September. I saw John William Boorn sign, seal, and deliver the deed. The signature is in his handwriting. The signature of the attestation “Samuel Pilcher” is in my handwriting. The signature to the receipt on the back for £150 is also in the defendant`s handwriting and attested by me.

Cross-examined – I have known the defendant some considerable time. I don`t remember the value of the herring business and the boat effects. I believe Boorn was in partnership with Rayment, and the stock was sold some little time back, since the bill of sale. To my recollection I have not heard what the stock produced. I don`t know whether it was a valuable stock. Mr. Brickman sold it. He is in court, I believe. I know nothing about the stock at the time of the bill of sale being given; I only attested the bill of sale.

Re-examined – I was not present at the sale.

___ Thurston said: I am clerk and valuer to Mr. George Beer, at Canterbury. In the year 1863 I received directions to value the fittings in defendant`s house from him to Mr. Beer. The valuation was made on the 17^th of September, 1863. I produce my valuation book, which comprises an inventory of the things that were the subject of the valuation. The house and trade fittings and fixtures; the bar fittings, the stove fittings, and, in fact, I believe all the fittings in the house. I supplied Mr. Pledge with a copy of them. (Mr. Pledge: About a month ago.) The defendant was afterwards paid for those fittings by me with a cheque I received from Mr. Beer. The sign of the house was The Packet Boat Inn.

Cross examined _ The house is open now, and is being carried on by Boorn. He has been carrying on the house from the time I speak of down to the present time.

George Beer said: I am a brewer, carrying on business at Canterbury. In September, 1863, I purchased by valuation the trade fittings of the defendant, in a public house in Folkestone, known as “The Packet Boat”. I have not since that purchase sold, or parted with, any of those  fittings or fixtures. From September 1863 to the present time they have been my property.

Cross-examined – What I have had to do with these fittings was done through my clerk, Mr. Thurston. I have personally had nothing to do with these fittings.

Thurston re-called – At the time I made the arrangement that I spoke of about these fixtures it was distinctly understood that Boor might have them back at any time by payment of the £40.

Re-examined – The defendant never paid the £40 12s 6d that was advanced.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Towne then said it had fallen upon him to give an answer to the charge brought against Mr. Boorn. He really believed that the charge brought would answer itself. It seemed to him that it was a very great pity that Mr. Pledge had not had more control over himself than to endeavour to bring forward such a charge as he had. He must say that as they travelled through the world they lived and learnt, and saw a great deal of human nature. He thought that it would appear to the bench that it was a very extraordinary proceeding, taking Mr. Pledge`s statement, for he says that since he found out what he has found out he has endeavoured to get his money another way. If some Mr. Goddard had stepped forward to give some bill by which the distress could have been paid out he was quite at liberty to let this go on, and they would never have heard that charge. Now he said it was most disgraceful of Mr. Pledge. Having found out this charge a month ago and tried to get his money by other means, he came into this court and tried to get an indictment for false pretences. He did not think Mr. Pledge came with very clean hands, or very modest countenance, to the bench. After that he thought it was quite open to Mr. Boorn, through him (Mr. Towne), to point out the effect of the proceeding. Mr. Pledge`s object had been to get a friend to come forward and pay the money at the last moment, and if the case should go further, he would hope to get his money before it came to trial. He (Mr. Towne) did not think the bench would assist him. It was a very shallow case, and he would never get the ship into port. Mr. Pledge gave his evidence, and he (Mr. Towne) had not heard any false pretence in the case, none at all. He must make one observation. The bench saw, when he was endeavouring to elicit a little bit of candid information from Mr. Pledge, Mr. Pledge would not wait for his question – “Oh, no, I know nothing about that”. As the law stood at present, Mr. Pledge had the means of sharping his own statement. The time might come probably when Mr. Boorn`s mouth would be opened. Mr. Boorn would give a very different statement. He (Mr. Towne) asked Mr. Pledge if he had gone to Mr. Boorn; Oh, no, he would not condescend to go to Mr. Boorn; Mr. Boorn came to him. Mr. Boorn could not contradict that, but he (Mr. Towne) knew as a fact that a greater untruth was never uttered. Then they had heard Mr. Pledge say that at the time he lent the money he knew nothing about the partnership, but at last he was obliged to admit that there was a partner, Mr. Rayment. That was very uncandid. He was afraid that as far as Mr. Pledge`s evidence was concerned it placed him in a difficulty as to answering that part of the case about his not knowing Mr. Boorn had a partner. He understood from Mr. Pledge`s own evidence that Mr. Minter was the solicitor who had this business in hand. He saw Mr. Minter before him, and he could not help asking Mr. Minter what he knew about the bill of sale, and so far as he (Mr. Towne) was informed he would have a very different tale. But whether Mr. Boorn went to Mr. Pledge, or Mr. Pledge to him, he described exactly the situation he was in, and informed Mr. Pledge that if he would let him have a sum of money there was a very good sale coming on and he should have it, and with the expectation of having that sale, and with that expectation alone, Mr. Pledge agreed to let him have some money to help him out of his difficulties, to pay his rent. The sale would include the partnership property, and Mr. Pledge was to have the sale of the property. That was, Mr. Pledge was informed distinctly that he had a right to half the partnership property, and that he was willing to give a security upon the partnership property, and upon the house, and that he went away with the full understanding that he might pick and choose whatever security he liked, but under Mr. Minter`s advice he would have nothing to do with the partnership property; and he might have had security to £300 if he had chosen to take it, but he chose to take it in the form before them. If he (Mr. Towne) satisfied the bench that he might have security of £300, that was an answer to Mr. Pledge that Mr. Boorn did not intend to defraud, which was the very essence of the complaint. Did Mr. Boorn intend to defraud Pledge at the time that he had the £60 he spoke of? He could not have intended to defraud if he had the £300 – and he might have had the £300 security if he liked. He must call Mr. Minter to prove that, however reluctant Mr. Minter might be to give evidence. Then there could have been no intention to defraud. Mr. Pledge lent his money upon the bill of sale, having his eye to his own business, having an eye to the sale that was coming off. He (Mr. Towne) might have taken a shorter way with the case by saying it was a case that the law would not take. Mr. Fox could not succeed. Mr. Pledge said he lent the money upon the bill of sale, then what does the bill of sale say? It says Mr. Boorn assigns over all the estate of him, the said John Boorn therein. Of course he assigns over all the estate and interest therein. And then Mr. Boorn goes on to covenant that he has a good title. Well then, if Mr. Boorn has not a good title, Pledge must bring his action upon the bill of sale. There is a case where a person sold to the prosecutor his reversionary interest, and the prosecutor took an assignment of it; and it appeared that he had previously had some money of another; and being indicted for obtaining money on false pretences, the judge held that he could not be properly convicted. The judge went on to say that if a man sells the house and has had a title to it, he always says he has a good title to it; and if it turns out that he has no house at all, is he to be indicted for obtaining money on false pretences? Well, in this case Mr. Pledge has bought some bar fittings, and he also takes covenant that if Mr. Boorn has no right to sell then he has to take his action upon it. Then what evidence is there at all that Mr. Boorn had no right to sell these things, which, as Mr. Pledge puts it, is the head and front of the offence? From the evidence it is quite the contrary. It is shown that these fittings were the property of Mr. Boorn, taht he had had them for several years, and they were his property. How is it shown that they were not his property? To transfer these goods it requires a document such as the bill of sale. They are in fact Mr. Pledge`s property. There was no delivery. After Mr. Beer had given his money for the goods it required a document such as the bill of sale. Mr. Boorn had no doubt an honest right to tell Mr. Pledge that the bar fittings were his. As the sale was imminent, of course Mr. Boorn would naturally deal with all the property about the house, and consider them as his own, and when Mr. Pledge should be called on to take this large sale then Mr. Boorn would have a settlement with Mr. Beer and nobody would have had a word of complaint whatever. In point of law – and he had referred to a case which shows it – upon an indictment a charge of false pretence will not lie; and in point of fact the property never has been assigned to Mr. Beer at all; and in point of truth Mr. Pledge never lent his money on the pretences he says. He should call evidence to show that Mr. Pledge need never have had security on the fittings of the Packet Boat, but that he might have had £300 worth of property as his security.

John Minter said: I prepared the bill of sale. Before preparing it I saw Mr. Pledge. I know Mr. Boorn. I knew that Mr. Boorn had other property besides what is mentioned in the schedule, partnership property. Mr. Pledge called upon me and said that Boorn had made application to him for advance of money on a bill of sale, and had offered as a security the whole of the fishing boats, boat builder`s shop, and the effects of the Packet Boat. He said he was willing to make the advance provided that the anticipated sale of all the effects could be guaranteed to him. I told him that I could not guarantee the sale, inasmuch as Mr. Rayment would have quite as much right to appoint the auctioneer as Mr. Boorn, and I told him that he had better take his security upon the effects in the Packet Boat, because Rayment and Boor were disputing about the partnership accounts. He subsequently called upon me, and said he was satisfied with the Packet Boat effects, and instructed me to prepare the bill of sale, which I did. Undoubtedly I might have had an assignment of Boorn`s share in the partnership effects if I had liked. Mr. Pledge distinctly told me that his object in advancing the money was to have the sale. Mr. Pledge informed me at my office since the landlord claimed the fixtures. Boorn and Pledge met at my office for the purpose of seeing how Pledge`s claim could be paid. Some very angry words took place between them. Pledge asserted that Boorn had told him that the fixtures belonged to him and Boorn as stoutly denied that he had said so. Pledge then stated that he was willing to wait a month or so for the payment of the amount of his bill of sale, abd would pay out the distress for rent which was then in, provided that Boorn could obtain a guarantee from his brother-in-law Mr. Goddard for the payment of the then-accruing quarter`s rent, and the license fees which were then also becoming due for the house, so as to keep it open, and if Boorn failed to produce the money in the course of a month or so Mr. Pledge was then to realise upon his security by valuation, Boorn agreeing to give up possession. They then left, and both parties were to see me the next morning, Boorn to say whether he could get the guarantee, and Pledge to come to close the business. I saw Mr. Pledge the next morning and told him Mr. Goddard was willing to give the required guarantee, the he said he had altered his mind and would let the sale go on under the distress for rent. After the sale was over, Pledge called on me and said that the large booth which was included in his bill of sale had not been sold, and was not on the premises. He wished me to ascertain from Boorn where it was, and to say that he requested to have it delivered to him. I saw Boorn, and he said it had been let to somebody at Cheriton for the races. He would get it back, and Pledge should have it. A day or two afterwards Mr. Pledge told me that he had got it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fox – Some of these conversations took place in September, and some at a later period. I think that the sale took place on the 3^rd of October, or the 4^th; whichever it was I saw Mr. Pledge in the morning at half past nine and the sale took place in the afternoon. The concersation did not take place before the sale.

Re-examined – The bills came out in the morning at nine o`clock, and the sale took place in the afternoon, and the things were squandered and sacrificed. They had been held over under the distress for rent beyond the five days, while Mr. Pledge and Mr. Boorn were negotiating as to what was to be done with the property.

George Brickman said – I am an auctioneer. I sold the partnership effects of Rayment and Boorn about six weeks ago. The boat property realised about £450. I am not subpoenaed here today, and therefore I am not come prepared. The bar fittings I believe had belonged to the landlord last year. The sale of the furniture was under distress for rent. We held over. There was a bill out one day, and the goods were sold the next. They were sold at a very fair price for an auction sale. Every means were used to give publicity and the sale was very fair.

Cross-examined – After the sale, on the same day, I left this notice (produced by Mr. Fox) that the furniture, bar fittings &c., were the property of Mr. Beer. I always understood that. I put in an execution a year ago and had a notice that the fixtures were the property of the landlord. I left this notice in the house after the sale. I did not sell these things. I left it on behalf of my employer, who was Mr. Beer. I had several conversations with Mr. Pledge. I am not aware that I had any conversation with him about the fixtures. I have always understood that the fixtures belonged to the landlord, and so have all parties.

Re-examined – It is more than twelve months since that I have known that the fixtures belonged to the landlord. Mr. Pledge paid out the execution twelve months ago. I have no doubt the fixtures came up in conversation then. It must have been brought to his attention then, as Mr. Beer claimed those fixtures. I knew it.

Mr. Fox – By permission of the bench I may ask you whether you ever yourself stated to Mr. Pledge, before the sale of the 4^th of October, whether the bar fittings and fixtures belonged to Mr. Beer or anyone else?

Mr. Brickman: I knew it must, and before I took a bill of sale I should have enquired who the fittings belonged to.

Mr. Towne – I have no more witnesses. This is the answer I have to give this case.

After a brief pause the court was cleared, and the magistrates remained in consultation more than half an hour.

On the re-opening of the court the Mayor said – The bench came to the conclusion that a prima facie has not been proved to their satisfaction. Therefore the case is dismissed.

*** We are desired by the prosecutor in this case to state that though the amount in question before the court was only £60, advances had been made to the defendant, under the bill of sale, amounting in all to £120 10s.

Folkestone Observer 8-12-1866

Court Of Bankruptcy, London

Friday 30^th November before Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, D.C.L., Commisioner

Re. J. W. Boorn

This was an examination sitting and application for order of discharge under the bankruptcy of John Whittingham Boorn, described as “of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, innkeeper, and formerly in partnership with Alfred Rayment, of Folkestone, aforesaid, as boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights, and general dealers, at Folkestone, aforesaid”.

Mr. W.E. Sykes, solicitor, 46, Moorgate Street, represented the official assignee.

The bankrupt`s separate “statement of accounts” was thus summed up, viz. –

Dr                                                                                             £      s     d

To creditors unsecured                                                                 302   10   0

To ditto holding security                                                               400     0   0

                                                                        Total                702   10    0

Cr

By property in the hands of creditors                                              225      0    0

Deficiency                                                                                 477     10    0

                                                                        Total                702     10    0

The partnership accounts disclose the following results, viz. –

Dr

To creditors unsecured                                                                735    10     0

Cr

By deficiency                                                                            735     10     0

The bankrupt stated his expenditure to have been £120 per annum for the two years prior to his bankruptcy. His unsecured creditors chiefly reside at Folkestone and Canterbury, and the creditors holding security are thus described, viz. –

Mr. George Beer, Canterbury, Kent, brewer, “holds title deeds and a piece of land in Radnor Street, Folkestone, Kent, of the estimated value of £200”.

Mr. John Minter, Grace Hill, Folkestone, £150 “holds second mortgage on land mortgaged to Mr. G. Beer, also a mortgage on the lease of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, which will realise more than sufficient to pay these creditors”.

Mr. Sykes said that in this case he should require further accounts, as the bankrupt had made over all his property to a Mr. Pledge and his brother.

Mr. R. Griffiths, who supported the bankrupt, stated that there had been a quarrel between the partners, and the bankrupt`s partner had filed a bill in chancery against him, but he (Mr. Griffiths) was afraid he could not resist successfully the application of Mr. Sykes.

The court then ordered the bankrupt to file a cash, goods, and deficiency account for eight months prior to the date of the adjudication, and adjourned the sitting until the 18^th of January next, at two o`clock, with renewed protection from arrest to the bankrupt.

Folkestone Observer 2-2-1867

Court Of Bankruptcy, London

Monday 28^th January: Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn

Re. J. W. Boorn

This was an adjourned examination sitting and application for order of discharge, under the bankruptcy of John Whittingham Boorn, described as “of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, of Folkestone aforesaid, as boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights and general dealers, at Folkestone aforesaid”.

Mr. W.W. Aldridge, solicitor, Moorgate Street, represented the official assignee.

The bankrupt petitioned the court on the 18^th of September last and obtained protection from arrest. He attributes his failure to the following causes, viz: Insufficiency of my profits to meet my expenses caused by my partner Alfred Rayment having filed a bill in the High Court of Chancery against me. On the 18^th of November the bankrupt applied to pass his examination upon accounts showing debts £785 10s., and deficiency £785 10s.  He was then ordered to file a cash and goods account for 12 months previous to his bankruptcy, and a deficiency account, and the sitting was adjourned for that purpose, and to enable Mr. Aldridge to make enquiries into a bill of sale executed by the bankrupt shortly before petitioning the court.

Upon the case now being called on, the bankrupt did not appear, whereupon the court ordered an adjournment sine die and of course left him without further protection.

Southeastern Gazette 5-2-1867

Local News

Court of Bankruptcy, London. Monday: Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.

Re. J.W. Boorn: This was an adjourned examination sitting and application for order of discharge, under the bankruptcy of John Whittingham Boorn, described as “of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, in the county of Kent, innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, of Folkestone aforesaid, boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights, and general dealers, of Folkestone aforesaid”.

Mr. W.W. Aldridge, solicitor, Moorgate Street, represented the official assignee.

On the 30^th of November the bankrupt applied to pass his examination upon accounts showing debts of £735 10s., and deficiency of £735 10s. He was then ordered to file a cash and goods account for 12 months previous to his bankruptcy, and a deficiency account, and the sitting was adjourned for that purpose, and to enable Mr. Aldridge to make enquiries into a bill of sale executed by the bankrupt shortly before petitioning the Court. Upon the case now being called on, the bankrupt did not appear, whereupon the Court ordered an adjournment sine die, and of course left him without further protection.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16-3-1867

Court Of Bankruptcy, London. March 8^th

Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn

Re. J.W. Boorn

The Packet Boat Inn, Folkestone. This was an adjourned examination sitting and application for order of discharge under the bankruptcy of John Whittingham Boorn, described as of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, innkeeper, and for some time in partnership with Alfred Rayment, of Folkestone, aforesaid, as boat owners, boat builders, shipwrights, and general dealers, at Folkestone.

Mr. W.W. Aldridge, solicitor, 46, Moorgate Street, represented the official assignee, and Mr. R. Griffiths appeared as counsel for the bankrupt, whose creditors reside at Ashford, Folkestone, Dover and Maidstone in this county.

The bankrupt had been ordered to file a cash account from the 13^th of September, 1865, to the date of his bankruptcy in September, 1866, and was adjourned until the 18^th of January last for that purpose. On the latter day he did not attend the court, and, no-one appearing on his behalf, the sitting was adjourned sine die, and he now came up at his own expense.

The cash account for twelve months shows a total of receipts and payments (including £108 2s. for housekeeping expenses) of £457 9s., and after hearing the respective advocates, the learned commissioners passed the bankrupt`s examination upon the following statements of accounts, viz.

Partnership Statement Of Accounts

                                                                                                                        £     s     d

Dr. - To creditors unsecured                                                                                735  10    0

Cr. - By Deficiency                                                                                             735  10    0

Private Statement Of Accounts

Dr. – To creditors unsecured                                                                               302   10   0

        To ditto holding security                                                                            400     0   0

        Total                                                                                                      702   10   0

Cr. – By property in the hands of creditors                                                             225     0   0

        By Deficiency                                                                                            477   10   0

        Total                                                                                                       702   10   0

The bankrupt stated his expenditure to have been £120 per annum for the past two years.

The creditors holding security are as follow, viz.

Mr. George Beer, Canterbury, Brewer, £180, holds security valued at £200

Mr. John Minter, Folkestone, Solicitor, holds lease of the Packet Boat Inn, of no value

Mr. James Pledge, Leas, Folkestone, Auctioneer, holds bill of sale on bankrupt`s furniture for securing £120, - value of security, £25

The bankrupt, having sworn to the truth of his accounts, was granted an unconditional order of discharge, and the sitting terminated.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-3-1867

Editorial

The Fatal Accident At The Harbour

On reading the evidence given at the Inquest, our readers will doubtless wonder at two circumstances at least, that appear on the face of it. It is usual in cases of accident for the jury to go and view the place where it happened, and when singular facts are elicited, to enquire if the persons connected with the accident were sober. Neither of these usual requirements were even suggested. If the jury had gone to view the place where the deceased fell, they would probably have suggested that some barrier should be placed across the top of the steps to secure other persons from a similar accident.

Then again, when they learned that the first witness had actually walked over the side of the boat into the water on the opposite side to that of the pier, and then that the deceased, who well knew the place, had fallen down instead of going up from the landing (although, as the coroner suggested, she may have been so flurried by the other accident, that she did not know which way she went), the jury ought decidedly to have enquired whether the whole party had been drinking or not. If they had not, there was certainly something remarkable about it. Here are two women on board the Prince Ernest – against the harbour regulations – ostensibly for the purpose of scrubbing out the cabin. At seve o`clock, or a little before, when it is not quite dark, one of the women falls overboard; the other goes ashore without waiting to see if her friend is safe or not, and falling, is killed; while her friend, although hearing the boy call out “Here`s mother killed” makes the best of her way home.

As for the husband of the unfortunate woman, Baker, great must be his regret that his disobedience to orders was the cause of the death of his wife, as, doubtless but for that, he would have seen her safe to the pier. At the same time, however, great praise must be given him for his gallant conduct in jumping into the water to rescue Mrs. Grant.

We should hope after this that more care will be exercised by the officials whose duty it is to see that the company`s regulations are not infringed.

Coroner`s Inquest

An inquest on the body of the unfortunate woman, Ann Baker, was held at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, on Thursday last, before John Minter Esq., borough coroner.

Capt. Mortleman attended to watch the case on behalf of the South Eastern railway Company.

The Jury having been to view the body, the first witness called was:

Sarah Grant, wife of Henry Grant, fisherman, Radnor Street, who deposed that at about seven o`clock on Wednesday evening she was with the deceased on board the Prince Ernest, then lying alongside the middle berth in the harbour. They had been to scrub the steward`s cabin out: the vessel was afloat. The husband of deceased was on board, and after the cabin had been scrubbed out, witness went on deck, leaving deceased and her husband below. As she was going along the deck she fell overboard through the gangway, which was open. She was got out of the water on to the deck again, and heard the deceased on the landing, making a noise, as though hurt. She did not see deceased, but went home.

William Baker, husband of the deceased, seaman on board the South Eastern Railway Company`s steamer Prince Ernest said he and the steward were on board on the evening of Wednesday. He was in charge of the ship. He sent for his wife to bring his tea, and when she came with it, she offered to scrub out the steward`s cabin. His boy, aged fourteen, was scrubbing the deck. Mrs. Grant went on deck first, after the cabin was scrubbed out, and when he came up he heard something splashing in the water, and Mrs. Grant calling “Baker”. He jumped off the sponson into the harbour, and caught hold of her. Another man named Fleet pulled alongside in a boat, and the got her on to the landing. Witness was leading her up the steps, and heard his son call out “Here`s mother killed”, and told Mrs. Grant to go home, as she could do no good. He went down the landing, and saw his wife lying at the bottom of the second flight of stairs, not in the water. She was hardly alive. She was taken home on a chair.

James Brown, steward of the Prince Ernest, was on board the steamer on Wednesday evening, and saw the women cleaning his cabin. After Mrs. Grant fell overboard, on the port side, he held her up with a boat hook, until Baker rescued her. Mrs. Baker was at this time on the foredeck, waiting to go on shore, which was communicated with by means of a plank of 16 in. wide. He saw her safe off the plank on to the landing, and left her, for which she thanked him. About a minute after, as he was going down to the cabin, he heard the boy call out “My mother`s killed herself”. He ran ashore and found deceased at the foot of the ladder, doubled up. The distance she fell was about nine feet: the steps were not slippery. She must have made a mistake, turned the wrong way, and fallen down instead of going up on to the pier.

W. Bateman Esq., surgeon, was called about nine o`clock on Wednesday evening to see deceased, whom he found lying on a sofa, with a great deal of blood about her. She was dead, but no-one seemed to be aware of it, as he was called to see her “on account of her having hurt her head”. On examination he found no external wound, but a great deal of bleeding from the left ear and a fracture on the left part of the parietal bone, extending from the vertex down to the ear, and he had no doubt that there was an extensive fracture at the base of the skull, from the quantity of blood exuded from the ear. Death was therefore doubtless cause by fracture of the skull, and would be almost immediate.

Captain Mortleman stated that if Baker had not disobeyed his orders the accident could not have happened, as no woman is allowed aboard at night, and nor person belonging to the crew, or any other, is allowed there without first hailing the ship; and the man in charge has then to bring a light to show the way. Baker was well aware of this and ought to have carried out his instructions.

The coroner summed up, remarking that it was a great pity the regulations of the company had not been carried out, and suggested it was caused by Mrs. Grant falling overboard, that having agitated Mrs. Baker so that she did not know which way she turned.

The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

Folkestone Observer 30-3-1867

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat Inn on Thursday, before J. Minter Esq., on the body of Ann Baker, who met with her death under the circumstances detailed in the following evidence.

Sarah Grant deposed: I am the wife of Henry Grant, a fisherman. I went last night with the deceased on board the Prince Ernest steamer to scrub out the cabin. After we had finished scrubbing I went on board for the purpose of going on shore and I went to what I thought was the gangway, and fell overboard into the harbour. William Baker, the husband of the deceased, jumped overboard into the water and caught hold of me, and he and some other person got me into the landing. Whilst going up the steps I heard Baker`s son call out that his mother was dead. Baker sent me home.

William Baker deposed: I am a seaman on board the boat The Prince Ernest, and deceased was my wife. Yesterday evening she came on board with Mrs. Grant. I was about scrubbing out the cabin. My wife and Mrs. Grant offered to do it. They scrubbed out the cabin and after asking whether there was any other scrubbing to be done, Mrs. Grant said Goodnight, and went up the companion to go on deck. I followed, and my wife was following me. Directly I got on deck I heard a splash, and Mrs. Grant calling out “Baker”. The cries came from the water, and I jumped overboard and caught hold of Mrs. Grant. Some other man then brought a punt and I got in and helped Mrs. Grant in, and then onto the landing. Whilst going up the landing, I heard my boy call out “Oh! Here`s mother killed”. I told Mrs. Grant to go home, and went down the steps, and at the bottom I found my wife lying dead.

James Brown deposed: I am steward on board the Prince Ernest. Last evening I saw Mrs. Grant come on deck and disappear suddenly. I got a boat hook and, finding her in the water, I hooked hold of her clothes. Baker at the same time jumped overboard and caught hold of her. A man named Fleet pulled a punt to the spot, and she was got onto the landing. I then turned and saw deceased, who was going on shore. I said “Let me hold you across this plank”, and I did so and left her safely on the landing. She thanked me and said goodnight. I then went to my cabin, but I immediately heard Baker`s boy call out “Mr. Brown, my mother has killed herself”. I immediately went on to the landing and saw deceased lying at the bottom of the steps, doubled up. I believe she was quite dead. I believe the deceased mistook her way and turned to the right instead of the left: if she had turned to the left she would have gone upstairs, but turning to the left she fell downstairs, a distance of 10 or 11 feet.

William Bateman deposed: I am a surgeon practicing at Folkestone. I was sent for last evening to see a woman who had cut her head. I went to thje deceased`s residence. I found her lying in the lower room on a sofa, with a great deal of blood about her. Upon looking at her head, I found that deceased was dead, and I have no doubt that death was instantaneous. There was no external wound, but a great deal of bleeding from the left ear. There was a fracture at the posterior part of the left parietal bone, extending from the vertix down to the ear. I have no doubt there was an extensive fracture at the base of the skull.

The Coroner enquired if Baker`s son was in attendance, and upon being sent for he stated that he saw Mr. Brown help his mother on shore, that he did not see his mother fall, but heard her fall, and then called out.

Capt. Mortleman said that he attended on behalf of the South Eastern Company, and wished to explain that if the Company`s orders had been obeyed the unfortunate accident would not have occurred. The orders were that no women were to be allowed on board after dark, and that no-one should be allowed to come on board without first hailing the ship, and then a light would be shown to enable a person to come on board in safety, and a light would also be shown on leaving. Baker was perfectly aware of the orders, and he had not ought to have had his wife on board.

The Coroner summed up and the jury immediately returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

Southeastern Gazette 2-4-1867

Inquest

On Wednesday evening a fatal accident happened on the south side of the S.E.R. Company’s Harbour. It appears that a seaman, named William Baker, was left in charge of the Prince Ernest, cargo boat, and the steward, Mr. Brown, was also on board. Baker’s wife and a woman named Sarah Grant had be«n scrubbing out the steward’s cabin, and on leaving a go ashore Mrs. Grant walked off the boat into the water, and while Mr. Brown and Baker were getting her out Mrs. Baker went ashore and fell down one of the flights of steps on the bottom landing, where she was picked up dead.

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, on Thursday, before J. Minter, Esq., when Capt. Mortleman attended on behalf of the Company. The medical evidence showed that deceased died from from fracture of the skull, and a verdict of “Accidental death” was returned. 

Kentish Gazette 2-4-1867

On Wednesday evening, about seven o’clock, an accident that might have been attended with fatal consequences to two lives occurred at the south side of the S.E.R. Co.’s harbour. It appears that a sea­man named William Baker was left in charge of the “Prince Ernest," cargo boat, and the steward, Mr. Brown, was also on board. Baker’s wife and a woman named Sarah Grant had been scrubbing out the steward’s cabin, and on leaving to go ashore Mrs. Grant walked off the boat into the water, and while Mr. Brown and Baker were get­ting her out of it Mrs. Baker went ashore and fell down one of the flights of steps on to the bottom landing, where she was picked up dead.

An inquest was held at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, on Thursday, before J. Minter, Esq., and a jury, with J. E. Cripps, Esq., foreman, when the above facts having been elicited, and Mr. Bateman, who was called in to see the deceased, having stated that in his opinion death resulted from fracture of the skull, a verdict of Accidental Death was returned.

Capt. Mortleman attended for the S. E.R. Company, and stated that no woman was allowed on board any of the company’s boats after dusk; and no person was allowed to land or embark without first hailing the ship, and having a light brought by the person in charge. Thus, if the husband of deceased had not acted in disobedience of his instructions, the acci­dent could not have happened. 

Folkestone Observer 11-7-1868

Wednesday, July 8^th: Before Captain Kennicott and James Tolputt Esq.

This being a Special Sessions for granting Alehouse Licenses, &c., the following business was transacted.

The license of the Packet Boat Inn was transferred from Mr. J. Boorn to Mr. J. Fagg.

Note: More Bastions lists Richard Boorn at this time, and has no mention of Fagg.

Folkestone Express 11-7-1868

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

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

The following business was conducted:

John Fagg, of the Packet Boat, for transfer of license from John Boorn – Granted.

Note: Fagg is not listed in More Bastions, and it also lists Richard Boorn as being there in 1868

Folkestone Chronicle 27-2-1869

Wednesday, February 23^rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

License of the following house was transferred at a special sessions: The Packet Boat to Robert Smith

Folkestone Observer 27-2-1869

Tuesday, February 23^rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Robert Smith applied for a transfer of the license to sell excisable liquors at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street. Granted.

Folkestone Express 27-2-1869

Wednesday, February 24^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Transfer of License

Packet Boat Inn – Robert Smith applied for transfer of license in this house. Granted

Southeastern Gazette 1-3-1869

Transfer of Licence.—The following licence was applied for on Wednesday and granted :—R. Smith, for the Packet Boat Inn

Kentish Gazette 2-3-1869 

The following license was applied for on Wednesday and granted: R. Smith, for the Packet Boat Inn

Southeastern Gazette 29-3-1869

County Court

This Court was held on Monday, at the Town Hall, before W. C. Scott, Esq., Judge.

J. W. Boorn, a bankrupt, came up for his last examination, Mr. Minter supported the application.

Mr. Banks opposed; but his account had not been properly proved before the official assignee.

Mr. Minter said the court levied a distress on the goods of the bankrupt, and they realised £267, and after paying the rent and the broker there remained a balance of £27, which he would pay into court. 

Folkestone Chronicle 24-4-1869

County Court

Monday, April 19^th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Equity

Geo. Beer v John Minter and George John Graham: This was a suit in which Mr. Walter Furley (Callaway and Furley), of Canterbury, appeared on behalf of Mr. Beer. He said that Mr. Graham was the official assignee of John Boorn, who was bankrupt in 1866, and who had just previously executed a mortgage to Mr. Minter on a piece of freehold land in Radnor Street. There was no dispute as to the value of the land – about £150 – and Mr. Graham had written to say that he claimed no interest in the property.

A decretal order referring the matter to the registrar of the court was made, and this concluded the business of the court.