Clarendon Hotel 1870s

Folkestone Chronicle 24-8-1872

Tuesday, August 20^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and T. Caister Esqs.

William Hudson Mowle, lodging house keeper, 4, Priory Gardens, was brought up in custody, charged with being drunk and riotous in Tontine Street on the 20^th instant, and pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

P.C. Ovenden said that about a quarter to one o`clock he was in High Street. He heard a smashing of glass at the window of the Clarendon Hotel, and he went to see what was the matter. Defendant was in the house drunk, and he was asked to eject him. Afterwards he saw defendant in the street, with a crowd around him, helloing and shouting. He was very drunk, and he cautioned him before taking him in custody. Defendant addressed the Bench, denying the charge, but he was fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 24-8-1872

Tuesday, August 20^th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Tolputt Esqs.

William Mowl, a lodging house keeper, was brought up in custody on a charge of being drunk and riotous on Tuesday morning.

Prisoner, on being asked to plead, said he was not riotous, and was not much worse or better for drink.

P.C. Ovenden said he was on duty in Harbour Street at a quarter to one o`clock that morning when he heard a smashing of glass. He went to the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street and found it was there. His attention was called to prisoner, and he was requested to turn him out of the hotel, which he did. Prisoner was drunk. Shortly afterwards he found prisoner shouting and making a noise in the street, with a crowd of about fifty persons round him. He advised him to go home, but he would not, and he took him into custody. He had cautioned prisoner several times about getting drunk.

Prisoner, who appeared in Court without his coat, his trousers slit from top to bottom, and his hat crushed, said he went into the Clarendon and someone tore his coat off, and the landlord would not let him come out. He ordered a bottle of ginger beer, and brandy was put into it without his orders. He told the landlord his name and address, and said he would pay for the drink. He intended to alter his conduct in future.

Mr. Caister said he had admonished prisoner several times.

Fined 10s and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days. Taken below, but the money was afterwards paid.

Kentish Gazette 25-2-1873 

On Thursday at the Police Court Mary Bean, a married woman, was charged with having stolen a glass, the property of William Warman, Providence Inn. The prisoner was seen on Wednesday, by the servant, to leave the bar hurriedly, and after her departure five glasses were missed. P.C. Smith afterwards apprehended her with two glasses under her apron. Prisoner`s husband subsequently gave up a glass to the police, which he said was not his. The prisoner admitted having taken one glass, but said she only took one. The other was her own.

Mr. Bateman, the chairman, told the prisoner that he had known her some years and always believed her to be an honest woman, but the case had been clearly proved against her. Considering it was her first offence, the Bench would deal leniently with her. She would be committed to Dover Gaol for 21 days.

Folkestone Express 24-5-1873

Notice

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869

In the County Court of Kent, holden at Canterbury

In the matter of proceeding for liquidation by an agreement or composition with creditors instituted by Margaret Daniel, of the Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, Kent, widow, hotel keeper.

A dividend is intended to be declared in the above matter.

Creditors who have not proved their debts by the 7^th day of June, 1873, will be excluded.

JOHN MINTER,

Folkestone,

Creditor for the Trustees.

Folkestone Express 9-8-1873

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869

In the County Court of Kent, holden at Canterbury

A First Dividend of One Shilling and Sixpence in the Pound has been declared in the matter of a special resolution for liquidation by arrangement of the affairs of Margaret Daniel, of the Clarendon hotel, Folkestone, Kent, hotel keeper, and will be paid by me at the offices of Mr. John Minter, Solicitor, Folkestone, on or after the eighth day of August, 1873.

Dated this first day of August, 1873.

JNO. B. TOLPUTT,

Trustee.

Kentish Gazette 19-8-1873 

Liquidation Case:  Margaret Daniel, hotel-keeper, Folkestone, Kent; a first dividend of 1s. 6d. in the £ may now be received on application to Mr. J. Minter, solicitor.

Folkestone Express 27-12-1873

Wednesday, December 24^th: Before The Mayor and J. Tolputt Esq.

Ellen Hill was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street.

Prisoner, on being called to plead, said: I was not drunk. I was only skylarking.

P.C. Keeler said he saw prisoner and some men and prostitutes come out of the Clarendon Hotel about twelve o`clock on Tuesday night. They stood talking in the street some time, and he desired them to disperse. Prisoner was drunk and he told her to get away two or three times, and as she refused and made use of bad language he locked her up.

Superintendent Wilshere said he saw the prisoner on the steps of the Eagle public house about a quarter before nine on Wednesday night. She was drunk and had her arms round a sailor`s neck and was kissing him. He told her to go away, which she did.

Prisoner said: I was not tight, but only skylarking. I had a glass or two on account of a young friend going to be married next day.

Fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days` hard labour.

As prisoner was being removed she turned to the Bench and said “I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year”.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-2-1874

Saturday, February 7^th: Before J. Kelcey, J. Hoad, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Michael Hart, landlord of the Clarendon Hotel, and William Johnstone, and Susan, his wife, were charged with wilful and corrupt perjury.

Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Froggart, Argyle Street, defended the prisoners.

Mr. Minter stated the case, the facts of which briefly are, that Mr. Goldstein, who carries on business as a dealer in curiosities, in High Street, married Mrs. Bertha Rapport, who carried on the business before, and had dealings with Nathan Wolf Jacobson of London; but Goldstein denies that he had any dealings with Jacobson, except on one occasion. After marriage there was a disturbance at Goldstein`s shop, in consequence of Mrs. Jacobson asking for an account she alleged was due to her – but according to law a husband is not liable  for debts contracted by his wife before marriage. A writ for £394 was issued in October, on a judgement given in the Court Of Common Pleas. The writ was stated to be served by John Slater, which is denied, and Michael Hart made an affidavit that Slater had served the writ. This is the perjury he is charged with.

Mr. Henry Hussey, clerk in the Court Of Common Pleas, proved the filing of the affidavits.

In consequence of Mr. Wightwick, before whom the affidavits were sworn, being out of town, the case was adjourned.

Folkestone Chronicle 21-2-1874

Saturday, February 14^th: Before R.W. Boarer, J. Hoad, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Michael Hart, Clarendon Hotel, was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain affidavit made before W. Wightwick Esq., the Commissioner for taking oaths.

Mr. Minter for the prosecution, and Mr. E. Froggart, Argyle Street, London, for the defence.

Mr. Wightwick deposed: I am a solicitor, practicing in Folkestone, and also a Commissioner for taking oaths in all courts. The affidavit produced was taken before me by Michael Hart, the defendant, on the 20^th October, 1872, and signed by me. I duly administered the oath. The caveat administered is in my writing.

By/ Mr. Froggart: I was consulted in September last by a Mrs. Levi and Mrs. Johnson respecting an assault. I believe it was on the 24^th September.

Mr. Froggart was proceeding to cross-examine Mr. Wightwick when Mr. Minter said: I submit that any information Mr. Wightwick may have received can have no reference to the case of perjury.

Mr. Froggart: I have a right to bring out any material facts. I have a greater latitude than Mr. Minter.

The Bench, by the advice of their clerk, allowed the objection.

Mr. Froggart: I want to show that the writ had been served. The writ was issued on September 19^th.

Mr. Minter: I am surprised that Mr. Froggart should want to, what I must call, impose on the Bench.

Mr. Froggart: I am entitled to show by cross-examination that the writ had come to Goldstein`s knowledge. Upon what principle the clerk has decided I do not know. I am proceeding according to all practice. I shall put it in another form.

Cross-examination resumed: I saw two females, I think Mrs. Levi and Mrs. Johnson, and they instructed me with regard to an assault. I believe I took down memoranda in shorthand, but I have not kept them. They may be destroyed. I have not searched for them.

Mr. Froggart: There having been a document which has been destroyed, I have a right to take collateral evidence of the contents of the document.

Mr. Wightwick: I decline to give any information as to the contents of the document.

Mr. Froggart: I should ask the Bench to compel Mr. Wightwick to answer my questions, because probably his clients do not object, and Mr. Wightwick is not privileged. Mr. Froggart then quoted the law as regards secondary evidence, and contended that he was entitled to prove what were the contents of the document which was said to be lost or destroyed.

Mr. Wightwick: I ought to say for my own protection that it is possible that the document is not destroyed, although it is probable that it is. It was merely a memoranda of the assault.

Mr. Boarer: Our clerk has decided that the objection must be allowed, and we do not see any reason to differ from him.

The Clerk: I advise that the memorandum would not be admissible.

Cross-examination resumed: I attended on the summons for assault being heard; I think Goldstein and his wife were present. I did not say that proceedings against them had been taken by Jacobson; I heard that there was a dispute, and that there were likely to be proceedings. I am in some doubt as to whether they told me that proceedings had been taken.

Mr. Froggart: That is what I wanted to start with.

By Mr. Minter: Mrs. Jacobson said in court that she had been to Mr. Goldstein`s to claim the goods of her husband.

Mr. Froggart: The evidence was taken down in writing, and that would be better than parole evidence; it should be read right through.

Mr. Minter: I have not the slightest objection to the notes being read.

Mr. Froggart: I will not trouble you to do so.

All witnesses were here ordered out of court.

Joseph Goldstein deposed: I carry on business at 34, High Street, as Jeweller and Dealer in Curiosities. On the 22^nd September last my shop was closed all day, it being the Jewish New Year`s Day. Two men were at work in the shop making alterations, which necessitated the removal of the stock from the window. I was not on that day served with a copy of a writ at the suit of Nathan Wolf Jacobson, by a man named Joseph Slater, or any other person. At the time I was under a summons for an assault on Rose Levi and Mrs. Jacobson, the summonses to be heard on the 24<sup>th</sup> September. On Tuesday, 23<sup>rd</sup> September, I got up a little before 8 o`clock. The workmen were there. After they had done I began to clean the shop, and put the china in the window, and was occupied in doing so until seven in the evening, when I went upstairs to clean myself, and at 8 o`clock I came up to the Town Hall to a Japanese entertainment, and was there until nearly ten o`clock, when I went home in company with my wife and her sister, and went to bed shortly afterwards. I never called upon Michael Hart, the defendant, and never went to his house in my life; I have never been in the Clarendon Hotel. I did not know such a person as Michael Hart on the 23^rd September last. I have never spoken to Michael Hart in my life. I did not say to him on the 23^rd September “I have come about the business”. I did not say to him I was partly related to Jacobson. I never mentioned the assault case and say to him “I am sorry I lost my temper, and am willing to make any recompense”. He did not ask me how much money I owed Jacobson. I did not show him the copy of a writ, because I had none. I did not say I would agree to pay £10 or £12 per month. I never spoke to defendant in my life. I never saw him in the Court Of Common Pleas.

Mr. Froggart: I object to any evidence of anything which took place anterior to the 23^rd September. All Mr. Minter has to do is to negative the allegation contained in the affidavit.

Mr. Minter: I am bound to do it by two witnesses, or by circumstances which would corroborate what defendant has sworn, and should use it as corroboration, defendant having sworn prosecutor offered to pay £10 or £12 per month.

Mr. Froggart: I say you have no right to do so. If you are going to give evidence of what took place in the Court Of Common Pleas, you must produce the whole of the evidence as it was taken down in writing.

Mr. Minter: I will pass over that.

Examination resumed: About the 5^th or 6^th October last I went on my journey to different towns in England, and whilst at Exeter –

Mr. Froggart: This cannot be evidence against defendant, if he was not present.

Mr. Minter: I am not going to ask as to any conversation, but to show that in consequence of a communication prosecutor came home and found the Sheriff`s Officer in possession. I want to show that no writ was served on the 22^nd September. It is not likely that prosecutor would have left his business if there had.

Mr. Froggart: I submit that this is not evidence against defendant.

The Clerk: I don`t think there can be any objection to it.

Examination resumed: I was at Exeter on the 11^th October last, when a communication I received induced me to return to Folkestone, and I got home on the 13^th and found a Sheriff`s Officer in possession of my house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Froggart: I first came to England in November, 1871, from Cologne, where I was traveller for Peter Arnold Moom, wine merchant. I left for a change. I lived at 7, Duke`s Place, Aldgate, for about two months. I purchase my goods at different houses. I had about 300 thalers when I came to England. I travelled about Portsmouth and Southampton with jewellery, and came to Folkestone in June, 1872. I first lodged at the Chequers, Seagate Street. I went to Brighton, on and off, about six months. I never was a glazier in my life. Was married to Mrs. Rapport on the 24<sup>th</sup> July, 1873, at the Register Office, Whitechapel, and have got the marriage certificate; am a Jew and my wife is a Jewess. Never got into difficulties. Was never served with a writ, and don`t know what such a thing is, as I never saw one. Never employed a solicitor before Mr. Minter; did not consult a solicitor as to what property Mrs. Rapport had. Did not see Johnston on the 22^nd September. I was in the shop. It is about ten feet across to Johnson`s. Did not see any goods delivered at Johnson`s on the 23^rd September; was not out of my wife`s sight all day; had my slippers on all day. It would take two or three minutes to go from my house to defendant`s. Did not know defendant`s house before. Had no conversation with Mrs. Jacobson, when she was alive, before she was in my shop. She never told me who defendant was. Will swear positively I never nodded to defendant when he passed. Mrs. Jacobson and Mrs. Levi annoyed me in my shop. My wife owed money to Jacobson. I did not tell the Sheriff`s Officer I would pay £10 or £12 per month; did not tell Alexander Bain so. Was not in Alexander Bain`s presence at the Clarendon Hotel on the 23<sup>rd</sup> September. He and a woman came to my shop to beg about six weeks before that day. Have no ill feeling towards Johnson, although our shops are in opposition. Mr. Rittish, of Dean Street, Soho, came to my shop before the Sheriff`s Officer came in and said he had heard that Jacobson was suing me for money I owed him. He went to Johnson`s when he left me. He told me he had heard I had been served with a writ at the instance of Jacobson, and I told him it was not true. It was just before I should have had the writ. He told me I should have an execution in my house. I believe the execution came about a week after – about the 12^th October. I made a claim on the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company for delay of goods and loss of time. The claim was £18 and I received £7 5s. My wife made a claim of £9 on the South Eastern Railway six or eight months ago, but did not get anything. The company did not refuse to pay because it was a fraudulent claim.

Bertha Goldstein, prosecutor`s wife, corroborated, and said she was not served with a copy of a writ on the 22^nd September.

In cross-examination she said she received a letter from a person named Davis, saying that her former husband, Rapport, died in Sydney, Australia. On the 22^nd September, she and her sister went to hear the band play about three in the afternoon, and came home about a quarter past five, and found her husband at home. Her husband was not out of her sight all day on the 23^rd of September. Mr. Rittish told her about a fortnight before the execution came that he had received a letter from Johnson, stating that they had been served with a writ. Had never seen a writ, and should not know one if she saw it. A claim she made on the South Eastern Railway for £4 10s. was not paid, on account of the package not being insured. Claimed £4 10s. of Mr. Attwood for china broken by his fowls; received £3.

Esther Hockenstein, sister to prosecutor`s wife, corroborated the two last witnesses in several particulars.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Alexander Bain said he lived at Belvedere House, Sandgate, and was a professional musician. He was in defendant`s bar one evening in September last, and to the best of his belief he saw prosecutor come in and speak to defendant, who went out of the bar into the passage to him, and they went into the coffee room together, where they remained a few minutes. It was in the early part of the evening.

Witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Minter as to his antecedents, and caused some amusement by his manner of answering the questions put to him. He adhered to his statement that he saw prosecutor in the Clarendon Hotel between tea and supper time, and was about three feet from him.

The Court was cleared, and on the re-admission of the public some of the depositions were read over to and signed by the witnesses, it being understood that the case would be sent for trial, but the whole of the proceedings, including a charge of perjury against William Johnson, and Susan, his wife, were adjourned to the forthcoming Saturday, it being stated that the second case would take a very long time.

Folkestone Express 21-2-1874

Saturday, February 14^th: Before R.W. Boarer, J. Hoad and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Michael Hart, Clarendon Hotel, was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain affidavit made before W. Wightwick Esq., the Commissioner for taking Oaths.

Mr. Minter for the prosecution, and Mr. E. Froggart, Argyle Street, London, for the defence.

Mr. Wightwick deposed: I am a solicitor, practicing in Folkestone, and also a Commissioner for taking oaths in all Courts. The affidavit produced was taken before me by Michael Hart, the defendant, on the 25^th October, 1873, and signed by me. I duly administered the oath. The jurat is in my writing.

By Mr. Froggart: I was consulted in September last by Mrs. Levi and Mrs. Johnson, respecting an assault. I believe it was the 24^th September.

Mr. Froggart was proceeding to cross-examine Mr. Wightwick, when Mr. Minter said: I submit that any information Mr. Wightwick may have received can have no reference to the case of perjury.

Mr. Froggart: I have a right to bring out any material facts; I have a greater latitude than Mr. Minter.

The Bench, by the advice of the Clerk, allowed the objection.

Mr. Froggart: I want to show that the writ had been served. The writ was issued on September 19^th.

Mr. Minter: I am surprised that Mr. Froggart should want to, what I must call, impose, on the Bench. If it is of any importance he should call Mrs. Levi.

Mr. Froggart: I am entitled to show by cross-examination that the writ had come to Goldstein`s knowledhe, upon what principle the Clerk has decided I do not know. I am proceeding according to all practice. I shall put it in another form.

Cross-examination resumed: I saw two females – I think Mrs. Levi and Mrs. Johnson – and they instructed me with regard to an assault. I believe I took down memoranda in shorthand, but I have not kept them; they may be destroyed. I have not searched for them.

Mr. Froggart: There having been a document which has been destroyed, I have a right to take collateral evidence of the contents of that document.

Mr. Wightwick: I decline to give any information as to the contents of the document.

Mr. Froggart: I should ask the Bench to compel Mr. Wightwick to answer my question, because probably his clients do not object, and Mr. Wightwick is not privileged. Mr Froggart then quoted the law as regards secondary evidence, and contended that he was entitled to prove what were the contents of the document which was said to be lost or destroyed.

Mr. Wightwick: I ought to say for my own protection that it is possible that the document is not destroyed, although it is probable that it is. It was merely a memorandum of the assault.

Mr. Boarer: Our Clerk has decided that the objection must be allowed, and we do not see any reason to differ from him.

The Clerk: I advise that the memoranda would not be admissible.

Cross-examination resumed: I attended on the summons for assault being heard; I think Goldstein and his wife were present. I did not say that proceedings had been taken against them by Jacobson; I heard that there was a dispute and that there were likely to be proceedings. I am in some doubt as to whether they told me that proceedings had been taken.

Mr. Froggart: That is what I wanted to start with.

By Mr. Minter: Mrs. Jacobson said in Court that she had been to Goldstein`s to claim the goods belonging to her husband.

Mr. Froggart: The evidence was taken down in writing, and that would be better than parole evidence; it should be read right through.

Mr. Minter: I have not the slightest objection to the notes being read.

Mr. Froggart: I will not trouble you to do so.

All witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Joseph Goldstein deposed: I carry on business at 34, High Street, as jeweller and dealer in curiosities. On the 22^nd September last my shop was closed all day, it being the Jewish New Year`s Day. Two men were at work in the shop making alterations, which necessitated the removal of the stock from the window. I was not on that day served with a copy of the writ, at the suit of Nathan Wolf Jacobson, by a man named Joseph Slater or any other person. I do not know such a person as Joseph Slater. At that time I was under a summons for an assault on Rose Levi and Mrs. Jacobson, and took out a cross-summons against Rose Levi for assault; also Mrs Jacobson, the summonses to be heard on the 24<sup>th</sup> September. On Tuesday, 23<sup>rd</sup> September, I got up a little before 8 o`clock. The workmen were there. After they had done I began to clean the shop and put the china in the window, and was occupied doing so until seven in the evening, when I went upstairs to clean myself, and at 8 o`clock I came up to the Town Hall to a Japanese entertainment, and was there until nearly ten o`clock, when I went home in company with my wife and her sister, and went to bed shortly afterwards. I never called upon Michael Hart, the defendant, and never went to his house in my life. I have never been in the Clarendon Hotel. I did not know such a person as Michael Hart on the 23^rd September last. I have never spoken to Michael Hart in my life. I did not say to him on the 23^rd September “I have come about that business”. I did not say I was partly related to Jacobson. I never mentioned the assault case and say to him “I am sorry I lost my temper, and am willing to make any recompense”. He did not ask me how much I owed Jacobson. I did not show him a copy of a writ, because I had none. I did not say I would agree to pay £10 or £12 per month. I never spoke to defendant in my life. I never saw him in the Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Froggart: I object to any evidence of anything which took place anterior to the 23^rd September. All Mr. Minter has to do is negative the allegation contained in the affidavit.

Mr. Minter: I am bound to do it by two witnesses, or by circumstances which would corroborate what defendant has sworn, and should use it as corroboration, defendant having sworn prosecutor offered to pay £10 or £12 per month.

Mr. Froggart: I say you have no right to do so. If you are going to give evidence of what took place in the Court of Common Pleas you must produce the whole of the evidence as it was taken down in writing.

Mr. Minter: I will pass over that.

Examination resumed: About the 5^th or 6^th October last I went on my journey to different towns in England, and whilst at Exeter –

Mr. Froggart: This cannot be evidence against defendant if he was not present.

Mr. Minter: I am not going to ask as to any conversation, but to show that in consequence of a communication, prosecutor came home and found a Sheriff`s Officer in possession. I want to show that no writ was served on the 22^nd September. It is not likely that prosecutor would have left his business if there had.

Mr. Froggart: I submit that this is not evidence against defendant.

The Clerk: I don`t think there can be any objection to it.

Examination resumed: I was at Exeter on the 11^th October last when a communication I received induced me to return to Folkestone, and I got home on the 13^th and found the Sheriff`s Officer in possession of my house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Froggart: I first came to England in November, 1871, from Cologne, where I was traveller for Pater Arnold Moom, wine merchant; I left for a change. I lived at 7, Duke`s Place, Aldgate, about two months. I purchase my goods at different houses. I had about 300 thalers when I came to England. I travelled about Portsmouth and Southampton with jewellery, and came to Folkestone in June, 1872. I first lodged at the Chequers, Seagate Street. I went to Brighton, on and off, about six months. I never was a glazier in my life. Was married to Mrs. Rapport on the 24<sup>th</sup> July, 1873, at the Register Office, Whitechapel, and have got the marriage certificate; am a Jew, and my wife is a Jewess. Never got into difficulties. Was never served with a writ, and don`t know what such a thing is, as I never saw one. Never employed a solicitor before Mr. Minter; did not consult a solicitor as to what property Mrs. Rapport had. Did not see Johnson on the 22^nd September. I was in the shop; it is about ten feet across to Johnson`s. Did not see any goods delivered at Johnson`s on the 23^rd September; was not out of my wife`s sight all day. It would take two or three minutes to go from my house to defendant`s; did not know defendant`s house before. Had no conversation with Mrs. Jacobson when she was alive before she came into my shop; she never told me who defendant was. Will swear positively I never nodded to defendant when he passed. Mrs. Jacobson and Mrs. Levi annoyed me in my shop. My wife owed money to Jacobson. I did not tell the Sheriff`s Officer I would pay £10 or £12 per month; did not tell Alexander Bain so. Was not in Alexander Bain`s presence at the Clarendon Hotel on the 23<sup>rd</sup> September. He and a woman came to my shop to beg about six weeks before that day. Have no ill feeling towards Johnson, although our shops are in opposition. Mr. Rittish, of Dean Street, Soho, came to my shop before the Sheriff`s Officer came in, and said he had heard that Jacobson was suing me for money I owed him; he went to Johnson`s when he left me. He told me he had heard I had been served with a writ at the instance of Jacobson, and I told him it was not true. It was just before I should have had the writ. He told me I should have an execution in my house; I believe the execution came the week after – about the 12^th October. I made a claim on the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company for delay of goods and loss of time; the claim was £18, and I received £7 5s. My wife made a claim of £9 on the South Eastern railway six or eight months ago, but did not get anything. The Company did not refuse to pay because it was a fraudulent claim.

Bertha Goldstein, prosecutor`s wife, corroborated, and said she was not served with a copy of a writ on the 22^nd September.

In cross-examination she said she received a letter from a person named Davis, saying that her former husband, Rapport, died in Sydney, Australia. On the 2^nd September she and her sister went to hear the band play about three in the afternoon, and came home about a quarter past five and found her husband at home. Her husband was not out of her sight all day on the 23^rd September. Mr. Rittish told her a fortnight before the execution came that he had received a letter from Johnson stating that they had been served with a writ. Had never seen a writ, and should not know one if she saw it. A claim she made on the South Eastern Railway for £4 10s. was not paid on account of package not being insured. Claimed £4 10s. of Mr. Attwood for china broken by his fowls; received £3.

Esther Hockenstein, sister to prosecutor`s wife, corroborated the last two witnesses in several particulars.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Froggart, having addressed the Bench, called Alexander Bain, who said he lived at Belvedere House, Sandgate, and was a professional musician. He was in defendant`s bar one evening in September last, and, to the best of his belief, saw prosecutor come in and speak to defendant, who went out of the bar into the hotel passage to him, and they went into the coffee room together, where they remained a few minutes. It was in the early part of the evening.

Witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Minter as to his antecedents, and caused some amusement by his manner of answering the questions put to him. He adhered to his statement that he saw prosecutor in the Clarendon Hotel between tea and supper time, and was about three feet from him.

The Court was cleared, and on the re-admission of the public some of the depositions were read over to and signed by the witnesses, it being understood that the case would be sent for trial; but the whole of the proceedings, including a charge against William Johnson and Susan, his wife, were adjourned to the following Saturday, it being stated that the second case would take a very long time.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-2-1874

Saturday, February 21^st: Before J. Kelcey, R.W. Boarer and J. Hoad Esqs.

Michael Hart, landlord of the Clarendon Hotel, was called up on remand, charged with committing wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain affidavit, made before Mr. Wightwick.

The depositions having been read over of the evidence given at the last hearing of the case, the defendant was fully committed for trial at the next Assizes, bail being accepted, himself in £50, and two other sureties of £35 each.

Joseph Johnson, curiosity dealer, of High Street, and his wife, Susan, were then charged with committing wilful and corrupt perjury in certain affidavits they had made.

Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Froggart, of Argyll Street, London, defended.

Mr. Minter explained the facts of the case, and said he should clearly prove that Mr. Johnson and his wife, who swore that they saw writs served on the defendant, had committed serious perjury. This was a case that should be dealt with most seriously, because nothing could be a greater injury to a man than to have a false affidavit sworn against him. There was no doubt that Johnson, who kept a shop, and the same kind of business as Goldstein, had an animus against his client, and hoped to get rid of him by swearing in that false manner. The man Slater, who alleged he had served the writs, would most likely be brought up for perjury, and he would carefully cross-examine him when he came into the box.

The first witness called was Henry Hussey, clerk to the Court Of Common Pleas, who produced the affidavits.

Mr. Wightwick deposed as to having taken the affidavits.

Joseph Goldstein, sworn, said: I carry on business at 35, High Street, Folkestone, as a jeweller and china dealer. On the 22^nd of September last I arose about half past seven. It was the Jewish New Year`s Day. My shop was shut. There was a person named Lepper, a carpenter, working in my shop. I went into my shop about 8 o`clock, and was there the whole day until 7 o`clock, excepting dinner time at noon, and tea time at half past 5 o`clock. I went upstairs to my meals. There is only one entrance to my shop, and that is through the shop door. When I left my shop in the evening, I went upstairs. My wife and sister-in-law were there. They were there also when I went to dinner and tea. After 8 o`clock we all left and went to the Town Hall, to the entertainment given by the hand bell ringers. We came home again at 10 o`clock. I do not know John Slater. He, nor anybody else, served me with a writ on the 22^nd of September. On that day I did not come to my door and open the copies of writs, and look at them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Froggart: Lepper came at 8 o`clock, and he went out at 12 o`clock. He returned again at 1 o`clock. I shut the shop doors so that it was closed during that time, so that when Lepper came back he had to ring. He was making a table, a door, and a window. The shop shutter were closed the whole time, and he worked by the light from the door. I never had any transaction with Jacobson. (Evidence read that witness purchased a clock for £12.) My wife purchased it. I have never given any cheque in favour of Jacobson.

John Huson Lepper, sworn, said: I live in Dover Street, Folkestone, and am a carpenter. Up to the 23^rd of September last I was in the employ of Mr. J. Bowley. On the 22^nd of September I went to Goldstein`s place to work. It was the day of the Hand Bell Ringers entertainment at the Town Hall. I was ticket collector there. I went to Goldstein`s shop at eight, and continued there until twelve. I left and then returned at one; I left at half past five, and returned at six, and worked until seven. Goldstein was in the shop the whole time. No-one came in the shop; if they had I should have seen them. I left at seven o`clock, and saw Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein at the Town Hall in the evening; I showed them to their seats.

Cross-examined by Mr. Froggart: I am in Mr. Saunders` employ. I left Mr. Bowley because of the slackness of trade, and because I refused to do some work. I fix the day because of the Hand Bell Ringers. I was spoken to about this subject by Mr. Minter on October 18^th. I was doing a long table and shelves. I worked by the light of the door. I will not swear that Goldstein did not go to the door; I did not see him. I did not see Mr. Johnson, or any goods delivered there.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: The shop is very small, and the door is at the end of it. If any stranger had come in I should have seen him. No-one came in whilst I was there.

Mrs. Goldstein, sworn, said: I am wife of Mr. Goldstein. On the 22^nd of September I dined in the room over the shop between twelve and one; knew there was a man working downstairs. My husband was upstairs to dinner, and he came between fix and six to tea, and at eight o`clock he took me to an entertainment at the Town Hall. (Witness gave some further evidence corroborating her husband`s statements).

Cross-examined by Mr. Froggart: In the Jewish law, my marriage with Rapport is illegal. I was married eight years ago. Rapport is in Australia; I was told by a man, Davidson, that he was dead. Do not know where he lives. I purchased a clock of Jacobson for £12, for which I paid him by cheque.

Esther Hawkenstein, substantiating much of the evidence of the previous witnesses, was not cross-examined.

Mr. Froggart, in defence, said that he intended to call evidence that would quite rebut the statements that had been made. He would prove that the writ was served. How could Lepper tell when the shutters on the shop were up who was talking to Goldstein at the door, or whether anyone served him with a writ? If he was minding his work he could not know of such a trifling transaction as whether Goldstein during the day had or had not met anybody. Mr. Hart would produce a letter which would plainly show that Mrs. Goldstein did tell him that she would pat £10 a month, for Mr. Hart wrote to that effect to Mr. Jacobson. He submitted to the bench the advisability of not sending this miserable case for trial, as it arose out of nothing else but miserable personal spite and jealousy.

John Slater said: I live at 34, Union Street, Middlesex Hospital Road. In the month of September last I had to bring some goods from Jacobson to Johnson. The bill produced is dated 20^th September, when I saw Johnson and gave him the goods and the bill. I had two writs against Goldstein and Rapport. I did not know Goldstein then. I saw Johnson at the Prince Albert, and from there I went to Goldstein`s shop in High Street. The shutters were shut up, but the door was open. I saw Goldstein in the shop, smoking a cigar, and a man at work on a shop board. Lepper was the man. I spoke to Goldstein and said “Here are two writs at the suit of Mr. Jacobson”. He called “Bertha” twice. I then went straight down the street to the Prince Albert.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I gave the two copies of writs to Mr. Goldstein. He called “Bertha”, but I did not wait to see whether she came; I left the shop. Mr. Jacobson gave me the writs to serve. I have been in his employ for eight years as a foreman cabinet maker. I also act as a packer. I did some work seven months ago. I knew I was to serve writs, and I made an affidavit afterwards. The affidavit is not false when it says I served Mr. Goldstein with a writ, because Mr. Goldstein called “Bertha”. About a quarter to five I believe I saw Mrs. Goldstein go into the shop. Her sister was with her. When I came into the shop she was going upstairs. I went two or three feet in the shop. I did not see her sister then. I walked out of the shop without waiting to see her come back. I came from Dover by the four o`clock train, and went to the Prince Albert Inn. I waited there till half past four o`clock. I sent the landlord of the inn for Johnson to recognise Mr. Goldstein. Johnson did not point out Goldstein to me on Saturday. I did not serve the writs on Saturday because it was half past six o`clock. I did not wish to see Mrs. Rapport, because I thought she would bias me. When we came to the Prince Albert, Johnson, myself, and the landlord had a glass of ale each. I never saw Johnson before there. I never lost sight of Johnson after we left the Prince Albert.

Re-examined by Mr. Froggart: Johnson went on first when we left the Prince Albert. He went into his shop, then came out and met me, and pointed out Goldstein.

Examined by the Bench: What I meant by bias towards Mrs. Rapport, was that I thought she would try to get me to compromise the matter.

Mr. Boarer: I don`t understand you.

Mr. Froggart: I am afraid he has used a word he does not understand. (Laughter)

Mr. Boarer: Perhaps so.

Mr. Snelling, landlord of the Prince Albert, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

John Surrey, bill poster, was the next witness called by Mr. Froggart.

Surrey: Beg pardon, sir, but why have you called me?

Mr. Froggart: To give evidence

Surrey: Don`t know whether you are aware of it, but Mr. Goldstein has called me to give evidence for him. (Laughter)

Mr. Froggart: Oh! Then I don`t want to have anything to do with you. (Laughter)

Mr. Minter: Then I will

Surrey`s evidence went to prove that Mrs Goldstein, on the afternoon of the 22^nd of September was in West Cliff Gardens, some time between two and five, when the band was playing, but he being unable to fix any definite time, his evidence was of no importance.

Michael Hart, landlord of the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, said that he had seen Goldstein previously to the 22^nd of September. He came to his house on the 23^rd instant between 7 and 8 o`clock in the evening. He said “I am come about that business of Jacobson. I am sorry I lost my temper the other day. Will you arrange it between me and Jacobson?”. He (witness) said “What will you offer him?”. Goldstein replied “I will pay £10 or £12 a month, and pay the expenses up to that time”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I was examined in reference to Goldstein v Jacobson in the Court Of Common Pleas. I there swore that Goldstein proposed to pay £10 or £12 a week, but it was a mistake on my part, which I was not allowed to correct. I never spoke to Goldstein until he came to my hotel. I should think it was between 7 and 8 o`clock. The Johnsons have come to my place frequently.

Mr. Minter: I suppose you have talked about the case many times?

Hart: Of course we have. Would not you? Goodness me! There was nothing else to talk about. (Laughter)

Mr. Froggart: I believe you have no interest in Goldstein?

Hart (excitedly): I have not a farthing interest in it. I have not a half-farthing,  a quarter of a farthing, or the millionth fraction of a farthing`s worth of interest in the case. (Laughter) I have had nothing but worry, bother, and torments since I have been connected with it. I have lost time, peace, money, and everything else over it.

Mr. Minter: Have you? Well, we shall see.

This was the case.

Mr. Minter said they did not intend to proceed against Mrs. Johnson, because she was acting under the control of her husband.

The court was then cleared, and after about half an hour had elapsed, re-opened.

The Chairman announced that the Bench had decided to commit Johnson to the Assizes for wilful and corrupt perjury.

Bail was accepted.

Folkestone Express 28-2-1874

Saturday, February 21^st: Before R.W. Boarer, J. Hoad, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

The charge against Michael Hart for having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain affidavit made before W. Wightwick Esq., a Commissioner for taking oaths in the Court of Common Pleas and all other Courts, which was adjourned from the previous Saturday, was resumed at this sitting.

Before the commencement of the proceedings, Mr. Minter, who appeared for the prosecutor, stated that he had received a telegram from Mr. Froggart, who was engaged for the defence, stating that he could not arrive in Folkestone before twelve o`clock; under these circumstances the case against Johnson and his wife could go on, and the Bench could give Mr. Froggart an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses on his arrival, but he (Mr. Minter) would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Bench.

The charge against Hart was then completed, the depositions being read over, and defendant having been duly cautioned, he said “I say I am not guilty. I do not wish to call any witnesses except Alexander Bain, whose depositions I wish to be sent with the others”.

Defendant was then formally committed for trial at the Assizes, the prosecutor and witnesses being each and severally bound over in the sum of £40 to appear at the Assizes.

Defendant then applied to be admitted to bail, to which Mr. Minter made no objection.

The Bench fixed the amount of bail at £50 for the defendant, and two others in £25 each, or one in £50.

Defendant: As all my worldly goods are in Folkestone, would not my own bail do? I should have to sent to London for bail. There are only those with whom I deal in Folkestone that I could ask, and I should not like to have to do that. Mr. Froggart said my own bail would be taken.

The Clerk: The Bench did not say so.

The Bench said they had considered the question of bail on the previous occasion, and could not alter their decision.

Joseph Johnson, dealer in works of art, 47, High Street, and Susan, his wife, were then charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain affidavit made by them.

Johnson produced a telegram from Mr. Froggart, saying that he could not arrive until twelve o`clock, in which he made no objection to the cases going on.

Mr. Minter remarked that he had also received a telegram from Mr. Froggart to proceed with the cases.

Mr. Kelcey remarked that the defendants could not lose anything by such a course being adopted.

Mr. Minter said he would at once submit to an adjournment if the Bench thought it necessary.

It was then decided to go on with the cases, all witnesses being ordered to leave the Court.

Mr. Minter then opened the case by saying that it was a charge against Joseph Johnson of committing wilful perjury on the 20^th October, 1873, in an affidavit made in the case of Jacobson v Rapport and Goldstein. The affidavit was made on the same day and was in reference to the same case as that to which the defendant in the previous case referred, and therefore he did not think it necessary that he should go into all the particular circumstances of the case. The affidavit was made with a view to convince the Judge in the Court of Common Pleas that copies of a writ had been served on Goldstein and his wife; but if the writs had been served, was it likely, he would ask, that Goldstein would have gone away from home immediately afterwards, and have left an execution to be put into his house in his absence? He would reming the Bench that defendant was in the same trade as Goldstein, and he did not hesitate to say that the inference to be drawn was that there was a case of perjury and gross conspiracy in order that a rival in trade might be got rid of, and defendant made a false affidavit, knowing at the time it was false. There was no doubt that a conspiracy was entered into, as he should show that a communication was made by defendant to a London dealer to the effect that Goldstein was in trouble, no doubt with a view to getting him to come down upon him and then bring a crush upon him. The affidavit stated that Johnson knew one John Slater, of 7, Charlotte Place, Good Street, London, in the employ of Jacobson, and that Slater served copies of the writs. The affidavit was to the following effect; that Slater called at defendant`s on Saturday, 20<sup>th</sup> September, and delivered some china, and informed him that he had to deliver a writ on Goldstein, and asked Johnson to point him out, as he did not know him. The affidavit went on to say that Johnson met Slater in High Street on Monday, 22<sup>nd</sup> September, he (Slater) having at the time the copies of the writs in his hand and that they walked down High Street together; that Johnson saw Goldstein standing at his shop door and he told Slater it was him, and that Goldstein turned round and went into his shop. Slater thn crossed the road and handed to Goldstein, who was just inside his shop door, copies of the writs. The assignment of perjury was that Johnson swore he saw Slater deliver the writs to Goldstein. As to whether Johnson and Slater went down High Street together he did not care; the material point was whether Slater went into Goldstein`s shop and delivered copies of the writs to him. The affidavit went on to say that Goldstein took the copies of the writs, looked at them, and then called out “Bertha”, and Slater went away. Mr. Mintr then went on to say that he would call attention to what Slater must have sworn before the judgement against Goldstein was signed in the Court of Common Pleas. He must have sworn that he formally served copies of the writs on Joseph and Bertha Goldstein, and the inference was that he had committed perjury by putting on the files of the Court an affidavit that he had served copies of the writs. It happened, in the interests of justice, that the day on which Slater alleged that he served the writs was a Jewish holiday, and Goldstein`s shop was closed, and a carpenter was at work in the shop the whole of the day except the dinner and tea hours, and he should be able to show from his evidence that the affidavit was an entire fabrication when it stated that Johnson saw Slater go into Goldstein`s shop and serve him with copies of the writs, and the question of whether Mrs. Goldstein was served or not did not come into the case. He should show by the evidence of Goldstein and Lepper, the carpenter, that no writs were served. No hour was mentioned as to when the writs were served, and the question arose why Slater did not serve the writs on the Saturday, as he was in Folkestone on that day, and why should they have a man all the way from London, when the writs might have been served by a solicitor in Folkestone? In consequence of no hour being named it became necessary to account for every hour of Goldstein`s time on the 22^nd September, which he could do from seven in the morning to ten at night. Slater had chosen to enter into a communication with Lepper to try to get him to recognise him, but fortunately they would be able to prove that Slater was never at the place. It might be said that Goldstein was an interested witness, and that for his own protection he had taken those proceedings, but that ought not to affect his credibility. He had taken proceedings against a gross conspiracy, and there was no medium course in the matter. If Johnson had simply said that Slater had told him he had served the writs, the case would have been different, but he went beyond that and said “I saw the writs served” and went into details. The writs were issued on the 19^th September, and as it was known that the claim would be defended, and that other proceedings would come on, they got a witness to say he saw the writ served. The Bench were asked to believe that Goldstein took the writs, and quietly went away from home soon after and allowed a judgement to go against him. His friend, Mr. Froggart, had made an observation that it was to be hoped that the Borough would not be put to the expense of sending the case to Maidstone, but he was quite sure that such a consideration would not enter into the minds of the Magistrates.

Mr. Henry Hussey, Clerk in the Court of Common Pleas produced the affidavit filed by Slater on the 2^nd October; also one filed by defendant on the 20^th October.

Mr. Wightwick produced the affidavit sworn before him by defendant on the 20^th October, and signed in his presence.

Joseph Goldstein, the prosecutor, was then sworn, and deposed: I am a jeweller and china dealer, carrying on business at 34, High Street, in this town. On Monday, 22^nd September last i rose about half past seven. It was the Jewish New Year, and therefore a holiday, and my shop was shut. I had a person named John Hewson Lepper at work in my shop; he came a little after ten in the morning. I went into the shop at eight o`clock, and was there until evening, except when I went upstairs to dinner and tea at twelve and half past five.

(Mr. Froggart came into Court at this stage of the proceedings)

Examination continued: I had to go through a door at the back of the shop to go upstairs, there being only one entrance into the house through the shop. I went upstairs at seven in the evening. My wife and sister-in-law were upstairs. At eight o`clock we all came to the Town Hall to hear the Bell Ringers, and went home a little after ten. I do not know John Slater, and neither he nor any other person served a writ on me on the 22^nd September last. I did not come down into my shop on that day and open copies of writs and look at them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Froggart: Lepper came a little after ten and went out at twelve and returned at one; I was upstairs during that time. I shut the shop door when I went upstairs, so that it was closed from twelve to one o`clock, and I had not opened it before Lepper came back. He was making a table and a shelf and altering the window in the kitchen. The shop shutters were up the whole of the time. He worked by the light that came from the door being open. I am not quite sure whether the gas was lighted in the evening. I did not know Jacobson until he brought a clock on the 20^th August. My wife paid for it. I never gave him a cheque in my life.

John Hewson Lepper deposed: I am a carpenter, living at 29, Dover Street. I was in the employ of Mr. John Bowley, builder, on the 23^rd September; know th day because the Handbell Ringers were here, and I was ticket collector for them in the evening at the Town Hall. I went to Goldstein`s shop in the morning, and continued working there until twelve o`clock, when I went to dinner, and returned at one; left again at half past five and returned at six and worked till seven. Goldstein was in the shop the whole of the time I was there. During the time I was there, no person came into the shop; if there had been anyone I should have seen him. I showed Goldstein, his wife, and a young lady to their seats in the Town Hall at eight in the evening.

By Mr. Froggart: I work for Mr. Saunders now and entered his employ last Monday. I went to work for Mr. Holdem previously. I left Mr. Bowley`s service because he wanted me to go with a horse and cart; left on my own accord; he did not discharge me. I was first spoken to about this case on the 18^th October when Mr. Minter spoke to me about it. There might have been one shutter down when I was at work; I did not have the gas lit. Goldstein worked with me in the shop; did not notice him going to the door; did not hear him call “Bertha”, but will not swear he did not. I did not go to the door at all.

Re-examined: The shop is a little more than half the size of the Police Court; the door is at one end of the shop. If any stranger had come in I must have seen him. I am sure no person came into the shop during the time I was there. I am quite sure.

Bertha Goldstein, prosecutor`s wife, deposed: On Monday, 22<sup>nd</sup> September, we dined upstairs between twelve and one. A man was working in the shop and my husband came upstairs to dinner. We had tea between five and six o`clock. He came upstairs again a little before eight in the evening, and I and my sister went with him to an entertainment at the Town Hall, and returned home a little after ten, and then went to bed. During the time my husband was in the shop he was not served with any papers or writs.

By Mr. Froggart: I was married to Rapport by the Jewish law in London about eight years ago, and afterwards found that the marriage was illegal, and was married in my maiden name to Goldstein. A man named Davis informed me that Rapport was dead; I do not know his address. On the 22^nd September I was in the front room upstairs nearly all day; did not look out of the window; did not see Mr. and Mrs. Johnson that day. Purchased a clock of Jacobson for £12 15s. He came to the shop and I gave him a cheque for the amount in my own name. The cheque was honoured and returned to me. I had then changed my banking account into the name of my husband, but was entitled to writ cheques as well as my husband.

Esther Falkenstein deposed: I live with Goldstein and was on the premises on the 22^nd September, and saw him on that day at twelve o`clock, and at tea about half past five. He got up about seven in the morning, or a little after. I saw Lepper leave about twelve and Goldstein went down and fastened the door. He went to the Town Hall about eight and returned a little after ten. During the time Goldstein was in my company he was not served with a writ, or any paper, and no-one came into the shop.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Froggart, in addressing the Bench for the defence, said the case was different from that of Hart`s. He should disprove entirely what the witnesses had sworn. With the exception of Lepper they were three prejudiced witnesses. As for Lepper`s evidence, it did not go for very much. He was at work in the shop, and Goldstein might have gone to the door, and might have gone outside. Lepper was attending to his work, so that much reliance could not be placed on his evidence, and nothing would have been easier than for Slater to have given Goldstein the copies of the writs without Lepper seeing him. No doubt Goldstein`s object originally was to prevent Johnson from proceeding with the action. He trusted that after the Bench had heard the evidence for the defence they would not put the Borough, defendant, and everybody else to the expense of a trial. Slater would swear that he served copies of the writs, and Michael Hart would swear that Goldstein showed him copies of the writs

He then called John Slater, who said: I am a foreman cabinet maker, living at 24, Union Street, Middlesex. In the month of September last I had some goods to bring to Johnson from Jacobson; I believe it was on the 20^th September. I saw Johnson on that day. I had two writs with me against Joseph Goldstein and Bertha Rapport; did not know Goldstein before then. On the 22^nd I saw Johnson at the Prince Albert Inn, and went from there to Goldstein`s, which is opposite Johnson`s. Goldstein`s shutters were up; saw Goldstein just inside the shop door. The witness Lepper was at work there. I saw Goldstein standing there, and said to him “I have two writs at the suit of Jacobson” and gave Goldstein the two writs and he called “Bertha” twice.

By Mr. Minter: I did not wait to see if Mrs. Goldstein came downstairs. Mr. Jacobson gave me the writs to serve. I am in his employ and have been eight years foreman cabinet maker. Jacobson does cabinet making and employs cabinet makers; I also acted as packer in the shop; did some cabinet work about seven months ago. I made an affidavit of the service of the writs; did not serve Goldstein`s wife with a writ. He called “Bertha”. The affidavit I made is not false. I saw her go in, but did not give the writ into her hand; it was before five o`clock. I left Dover about four o`clock, and when I got to Folkestone I went to the inn; it might be about a quarter to five. I saw Mrs. Goldstein coming down the street and her sister with her. She was going upstairs when I went in; I saw her go up. I went two or three feet into the shop; did not see her sister at that time; saw Mrs. Goldstein go upstairs as I gave the writs to Goldstein; did not wait till she came back. When I got to the Prince Albert I sent the landlord to fetch Johnson; the landlord came back first; sent for Johnson to recognise Goldstein. He did not point him out on Saturday. Did not serve the writs on Saturday, because it was half past six. The shop was open and I saw Goldstein there; did not see his wife. Johnson told me it was Goldstein. I sent for Johnson because I did not want to see Mrs. Rapport, because the shop was shut, being a holiday. I expected to be biased by Mrs. Rapport; I was afraid she would bias me. (On Mr. Minter asking witness what he meant by being biased, he explained, with some hesitancy, that he thought, as she knew him, she would ask him to intercede with Jacobson for her).

William James Snelling, Prince Albert Inn, said: The last witness, Slater, was stopping at my house on the 20^th September, and on the 22^nd he was at my house. He came in the afternoon and asked me to send for Johnson, and Johnson came a few minutes after I came back. I heard Slater say he had come down to serve a writ and saw him show the writ to Johnson, and he showed me the writ on Sunday morning. I have no interest in giving evidence.

By Mr. Minter: Johnson asked me if I would come here today if I was wanted. I know it was the 20^th September, because it was Dover Election on Monday. There was £390 written on the writ Slater showed me on Sunday.

John Surrey, bill poster, was then called, but before he gave his evidence he said he had been asked to give his evidence on behalf of Goldstein.

Mr. Froggart: I am glad you have said so.

By Mr. Minter: I saw Mrs. Goldstein in West Cliff Gardens when the band was playing on the 22^nd September. I cannot say whether it was from two to four or three to five. I was surprised to see Mrs. Goldstein there.

By Mr. Froggart: A young lady was with her. I would not swear I saw Mrs. Goldstein there.

Michael Hart, Clarendon Hotel, deposed: I know Goldstein and his wife by sight; had seen him several times previous to the 23^rd September; up to that time we had only nodded. On the 23^rd September he came to my house between seven and eight o`clock in the evening and said “I have come about that business of Jacobson`s. I am sorry I lost my temper the other day. Don`t you think you can arrange matters between Jacobson and me?” Those might not have been his exact words, but they were to that effect. I said “Suppose I do write to Jacobson, what amount are you prepared to offer him?” He replied “I will give £10 or £12 per month, and pay all expenses up to this time”. He then showed me what appeared to be two copies of writs and said “You see these; I don`t want to be turned out of my house and home in consequence of these”. In consequence of what he said, I wrote that letter (referring to one in Mr. Froggart`s hand)

Mr. Minter objected, and said if any person had received the letter the envelope ought to be produced, or the letter could not be evidence.

Mr. Froggart: It is necessary to prove that Hart wrote the letter, and he is the proper person to prove it. He has the right to swear that he wrote it. It is only a fact.

The Clerk: Are you going to call Jacobson to prove that he received it?

Mr. Froggart: It is addressed to W. Jacobson.

Mr. Minter: I object to such evidence.

The Clerk: It would be premature if you do not prove it has been received. If it was not sent it might be written for a purpose. I advise the Bench to exclude it.

Examination resumed: I did write a letter in consequence of the interview with Goldstein. I was examined in the Court of Common Pleas in the case Jacobson v Goldstein, and swore that Goldstein had promised to pay £10 or £12 a week, which was a mistake on my part, and I was not allowed to correct it. At the time Goldstein called on me there was an assault case to come on next day, but I was too busy to come to hear it. I never spoke to Goldstein before he came to the hotel to me. I am not sure about the hour at which he called, but, to the best of my recollection it was between seven and eight in the evening. I have spoken to Johnson about the case. He may have been in my house twice a week since, and we have talked about the case.

By Mr. Froggart: It is not a farthing or a millionth part of one interest to me, but has been a great amount of worry and trouble to me.

Defendant was then formally committed for trial at the Assizes.

Mr. Froggart asked the Bench to take defendant`s own recognisance, but they declined to alter their decision, and required the defendant to be bound in his own recognisance of £50 and two in £25 or one in £50.

The Bench then adjourned to three o`clock, at which hour bail was accepted and the prosecutor and witnesses bound over.

The charge against Mrs. Johnson was withdrawn.

Southeastern Gazette 28-2-1874

Local News

The charges of wilful and corrupt perjury against Michael Hart, Clarendon Hotel, and Joseph Johnson, (dealer in works of art), and Susan his wife, have caused considerable excitement in the town, in consequence of the exceedingly contradictory nature of the evidence. After several adjournments Hart and Johnson have been committed for trial at the assizes, bail to the amount of £100 in each case being accepted. The case against Mrs. Johnson was withdrawn. On the one hand a man named John Slater swears positively that he served copies of writs on Joseph Goldstein, and Michael Hart swore that Goldstein showed him copies of the writs, and asked him to intercede for him with the person who issued the writs. An innkeeper with whom Slater stayed stated that he saw copies of two writs in Slater’s hand the day before they were alleged to have been served. On the other hand Goldstein and his wife swear that they have never been served with the writs, so that there is hard swearing on both sides, and the result of the trials at the assizes is looked forward to with great interest.

Kentish Gazette 3-3-1874 

The charges of wilful and corrupt penury against Michael Hart, Clarendon Hotel, and Joseph Johnson, dealer in works of art, and Susan, his wife, have caused con­siderable excitement in the town, in consequence of the exceedingly contradictory nature of the evidence. After several adjournments Hart and Johnson have been committed for trial at the assizes, bail to the amount of £100 in each case being accepted. The case against Mrs. Johnson was withdrawn. On the one hand a man named John Slater swears positively that he served copies of writs on Joseph Goldstein, and Michael Hart swore that Goldstein showed him copies of the writs, and asked him to intercede for him with the person who issued the writs. An inn­keeper with whom Slater stayed stated that he saw copies of two writs in Slater’s hand the day before they were alleged to have been served. On the other hand Goldstein and his wife swear that they have never been served with the writs, so that there is hard swearing on both sides, and the result of the trials at the assizes is looked forward to with great interest.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-3-1874

Kent Spring Assizes

Michael Hart, of the Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, surrendered to his bail to answer a charge of having committed wilful perjury at Folkestone on October 20^th, 1873. Mr. Dering appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Willoughby defended the prisoner.

The facts of this complicated case have already been published. The following additional evidence was called.

William Swain, beer and eating house keeper, Tontine Street, Folkestone, next door to the Clarendon, deposed that in the latter part Sept. last year he saw Hart and Goldstein in conversation together at the door of Hart`s hotel. He saw them on two occasions, each occasion within a day or two of the other. Once it was about 11 in the morning; on the other occasion it was in the evening. Witness was subpoenaed in consequence of having talked of the matter in his house, after the proceedings before the magistrates. He said that Goldstein was a false speaking man, for having said he had not been to the Clarendon, as he had seen him there.

John Surrey, Grace Hill, Folkestone, said he was outside Goldstein`s house in the month of September, posting the bills for the sale under the execution on Goldstein`s house. Goldstein told him he must not post the bills as “it would be settled”. He told witness he had received some papers, and if witness wished to know anything more, Mr. Minter was his solicitor, and witness had better go and see him. Witness did post the bills.

William James Snelling, landlord of the Prince Albert, Folkestone, deposed that Slater came to his house and slept there on Saturday, Sept. 20^th. On the Monday there was an election at Dover, which made witness remember the day, and Slater, who had been over to Dover came back between 4 and 5 in the afternoon and asked him to send for Mr. Johnson. Witness went himself for Mr. Johnson. He knew the purpose for which Slater wanted Johnson, as Slater showed him the writs when breakfasting on Sunday morning.

Maurice Jacobson, son of Mr. Jacobson, by whom the writ was issued, proved the receipt of a letter from Hart on Sept. 24^th. Hart was his mother-in-law`s uncle. (Laughter) The letter was produced and witness swore that it was in the prisoner`s handwriting. The envelope was destroyed, but the witness said it was directed to his father, and opened by him, he having authority to open his father`s letters in his absence. It was their practice never to keep envelopes.

Mr. Dering raised an objection to the reception of the letter in evidence, but the learned Judge held that it was admissible.

The letter was accordingly read. It was dated from the Clarendon Hotel, Sept. 23^rd, signed “Michael Hart” and addressed to Mr. William Jacobstein. It`s purport was as follows “Dear Sir, Goldstein, of High Street, has called on me and says he is very sorry for his behaviour to your wife. He says, if you are willing to accept £10 per month, he would pay all expenses and deal with you as usual. He asked me to use my good offices with you, as I know you”.

His Lordship: What do you say to that letter, Mr. Dering?

Mr. Dering: I had not seen it, My Lord.

His Lordship: That letter confirms the prisoner`s affidavit completely. As I understand, when this case was before the magistrates, there seems to have been some notion that the letter was not receivable as evidence, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is receivable.

Mr. Dering: My Lord, that ketter coming at the last moment has taken me by surprise, and we have had no means of testing it`s genuineness. Of course, assuming it to be genuine, it would be impossible for the jury to return a verdict of guilty. The natural inference would be that it is genuine. But we are dealing with a question in which the prisoner, Johnson, Slater, and others are alleged to have been guilty of perjury, and it is only consistent that they should fabricate a letter to support it.

Mr. Harper, solicitor, was recalled, to state what he knew respecting this letter. He said it had been among the papers ever since the proceedings had been pending. After he drew up the prisoner`s affidavit he went to Mr. Jacobson and asked him for it, as it would be necessary to produce it to the magistrates at Folkestone. Jacobson then gave him the letter.

His Lordship: The letter, I see, is written on the Clarendon Hotel paper.

Mr. Dering: I am entirely in your Lordship`s hands. If your Lordship thinks the case should not go on, I accept your Lordship`s view.

His Lordship: I cannot help saying there was a strong case on the part of the prisoner before this letter was produced, but now this letter is convincing. This letter is the very letter he says he wrote.

The Foreman Of The Jury: This letter completely upsets the prosecution.

His Lordship: I think it does.

A verdict of Not Guilty was then returned.

Joseph Johnson was next placed at the bar, and the charge of wilful perjury against him formally read over.

His Lordship: I suppose you do not offer any evidence in this case, Mr. Dering?

Mr. Dering: No, My Lord.

A formal verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly returned in this case also.

Note: Swain was licensee of the Duke Of Edinburgh

Folkestone Express 14-3-1874

Assizes

The charges of perjury against Michael Hart and Joseph Johnson came on for hearing at the Kent Assizes on Thursday.

Mr. Dering appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Willoughby for the defence.

Having recently published the evidence in these columns it is unnecessary to repeat it. The following additional evidence was given:

Maurice Jacobson, son of Mr. Jacobson, by whom the writ was issued, proved the receipt of a letter from Hart on September 24^th. Hart was his mother-in-law`s uncle (laughter). The letter was produced, and witness swore it was in the prisoner`s handwriting. The envelope was destroyed, but witness said it was directed to his father and opened by him, he having authority to open his father`s letters in his absence. It was their practice never to keep envelopes.

Mr. Dering raised an objection to the reception of the letter in evidence, but the learned Judge held that it was admissible.

The letter was accordingly read. It was dated from the Clarendon Hotel, Sept. 23, 1873, signed “Michael Hart”, and addressed to William Jacobson. It`s purport was as follows: “Dear Sir, Goldstein, of High Street, has called on me and says he is very sorry for his behaviour to your wife. He says if you are willing to accept £10 per month, he would pay it honourably, and also, if you accept this he will pay all expenses and deal with you as usual. He asked me to use my good offices with you, as I know you”.

His Lordship: What do you say to that letter, Mr. Dering?

Mr. Dering: I had not seen it, my Lord.

His Lordship: That letter confirms the prisoner`s affidavit completely. As I understand, when this case was before the Magistrates there seems to have been some notion that the letter was not receivable as evidence, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is receivable.

Mr. Dering: My Lord, that letter coming at the last moment has taken me by surprise, and we have had no means of testing the genuineness. Of course, assuming it to be genuine, it would be impossible for the jury to return a verdict of Guilty. The natural inference would be that it is genuine. But we are dealing with a question in which the prisoners Johnson, Slater, and others, are alleged to have been guilty of perjury, and it is only consistent that they should fabricate a letter to support it.

His Lordship: The letter, I see, is written on Clarendon Hotel paper.

Mr. Dering: I am entirely in your Lordship`s hands. If your Lordship thinks the case should not go on, I accept your Lordship`s view.

His Lordship: I cannot help saying there was a strong case on the part of the prisoner before this letter was produced, but now this letter is convincing.

The Foreman of the Jury: The letter completely upsets the prosecution.

His Lordship: I think it does.

A verdict of Not Guilty was then returned.

Joseph Johnson was next placed at the bar, and the charge of wilful perjury against him formally read over.

His Lordship: I suppose you do not offer any evidence in this case, Mr. Dering?

Mr. Dering: No, my Lord.

A formal verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly returned in this case also.

Southeastern Gazette 14-3-1874

Local News

Kent Assizes

Michael Hart was indicted for committing wilful and corrupt perjury, at Folkestone, on the 20^th October, and Joseph Johnson was oharged with a similar offence at the same time and place. The case of Michael Hart was the one first tried. Mr. Dering, with whom was Mr. Dean, prosecuted, and Mr. Willoughby defended.

The hearing of the case occupied' the greater part of the day, and eventually, by direction of the learned judge, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

A similar verdict was returned in the case of Joseph Johnson. An extended report of the trial will appear in our next issue.

Southeastern Gazette 16-3-1874

Local News

Kent Assizes

Michael Hart was indicted for committing wilful and corrupt perjury, at Folkestone, on the 20th October, and Joseph Johnson was charged with a similar offence at the same time and place. The case of Michael Hart was the one first tried. Mr. Dering, with whom was Mr. Dean, prosecuted, and Mr. Willoughby defended.

In his opening address to the jury, Mr. Dering said that the prosecutor was a German Jew, and in the month of July, 1872, he married his present wife, Bertha Rapport, who had kept a shop in Folkestone for the sale of old china. The person from whom she was in the habit of buying the greater portion of her things was a man named Jacobson, a dealer in old china. At that time the prosecutor’s wife could get no detailed account of what she owed him from Mr. Jacobson, but knew it to amount to about £40. About a month after the marriage Jacobson went down to Folkestone, and called upon Goldstein and his wife and delivered a bill for £400. On the 12th September Jacobson’s wife and his mother-in-law went to the shop of Goldstein and demanded payment of the debt, at the same time taking some of the articles from the shop. Goldstein came up at the time and summarily ejected the two women from his shop. Summonses were taken out by both parties and were heard before the magistrates on the 24th September, each case being dismissed. In October the prosecutor left on some business for Exeter. When there he received a telegram which occasioned him to hasten back to Folkestone. On arriving home he found a sheriff’s officer in possession, and his goods were sold up. The prosecutor would say he never had a writ served on him. The case was taken before a judge in chambers, who said that looking at the contradictory affidavits and at all the circumstances of the case, the writ was served.

  

The following evidence was then called for the prosecution:—

  

William Hussey, examined by Mr. Dering, deposed: I am a clerk in the office of the Master of the Rolls, and produce an affidavit.

Mr. Wightwick deposed: This affidavit was sworn before me on the 20th Oct., by the prisoner Michael Hart. I administered the oath to him. 

 

 Joseph Goldstein, examined by Mr. Dering, deposed: I carry on business as a jeweller and china dealer in the High Street, Folkestone. In July last I married my present wife, who had been carrying on the business previously. I. was aware that in the course of business my wife had dealings with Jacobson, but did not know the amount of the account. In August I saw Jacobson at my house, when a claim was made upon my wife, but he did not mention the amount in my presence. On the 12th September I found Mrs. Jacobson and her mother in my shop. A dispute was going on between them and my wife, and I put the two women out of the house. I summoned them for assault and they took out a cross summons. I remember the 22nd September, which is a day of religious ceremony with us, and my shop was closed. A carpenter came at eight and remained till five in the evening, and I was in the shop with him the whole time. No one served me with a copy of a writ on that day. On the 23rd Sept. I did not visit Michael Hart and was never there in my life. I deny that I said what is attributed to me in the affidavit. At eight o’clock on the evening of the 23rd September I went to an entertainment. I had been engaged all day in putting my shop to rights after the alterations. My wife and my sister were with me at the entertainment. I had not been out of my house before that day. On the 24th the summonses were heard and dismissed. On the 4th or 5th October I went on a journey to Exeter on business. Before I went I consulted with my solicitor, and it was arranged that if proceedings were taken against me in my absence Mr. Minter would act on my behalf. While at Exeter I received a telegram requiring my return home. I at once went home, and then found the sheriff’s officer in my house. I instructed my solicitor to act on my behalf. Up to the 19th September no written account of the money due to Jacobson had been received by me. Everything was sold by the sheriff’s officer, the amount realised being £280.

Cross-examined: I have only carried on business in Folkestone since July last. Previous to that I was there occasionally. The prisoner occupies the Clarendon Hotel, which is a very fine looking place. When Mr. Jacobson and Mrs. Levi came into my shop they demanded payment of a bill. Mrs. Jacobson said the shop belonged to her. She did not say that my wife owed her £390.

Mrs. Bertha Goldstein deposed: I was married to the prosecutor in July last, previous to which I was in business on my own account. I was in the habit of buying things of Mr. Jacobson, with whom I had a sort of open account, there generally being a small balance against me. In August he said I owed him about £300. I had never before then received a written account from him. I told him his claim was absurd. I did not know the exact amount I owed him, but thought it was between £40 and £50. I then asked him for a proper account, with all the items, and said anything I really owed him I would pay. He said when he went home he would see about it so that he should make no mistake. I manage the buying and selling business. The remainder of Mrs. Goldstein’s evidence was merely a corroboration of her husband’s.

Cross-examined: I was not a widow when I married Goldstein. I had been married to Rapport, but I found out the marriage was illegal. To the best of my belief Rapport is dead. He died, I believe, four or five months before I married Goldstein. I have no certificate of his death, but that does not matter. A man named Davis, of Sydney, wrote to me informing me of Rapport’s death.

Esther Falkenstein, sister to the last witness, deposed: On the 22nd September I was with my sister all day, and went out with her at three o’clock in the afternoon, returning shortly after five o’clock. After five o’clock Goldstein came upstairs to have his tea, and remained till six or a little after. On the following day my sister and her husband were in the shop all day till between seven and eight. Then they went to an entertainment, and I went with them.

John Lepper deposed: I was engaged in putting up some shelves in Mr. Goldstein’s shop on the 22nd Sept. At twelve I went to dinner, returned at one o’clock, and continued there till half-past five. During the whole of that time no one served Mr. Goldstein with a paper.

The perjury complained of was an affidavit of the prisoner in which he said that on the 23rd September Mr. Goldstein came to him and showed him two copies of writs which had been served upon him at the instance of Mr. Jacobson. As he (Hart) was a relation of Jacobson’s, Goldstein, he said, asked him to use his influence with Jacobson so that he (the prosecutor) should be allowed to pay the debt by instalments.

Mr. Willoughby’s defence, was, of course, that the writs were served by a man named Slater and shown to one Johnson by him.

The learned counsel then shadowed forth the facts of the case, which will be found in the following evidence:—

John Slater deposed: I am in the service of Mr, Jacobson and have been so for eight years. I know Mr. Johnson, of Folkestone, a china dealer. In Sept. last I had some goods to deliver to Mr. Johnson for which I received 15s. on account.

In reply to gome questions by his Lordship, as to the time he signed the invoice delivered with the goods, the witness became confused and said “You’re upsetting me.”

Examination continued: I had two writs with me with instructions to serve them upon Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein. I had never served writs before. At about a quarter to five on the following Monday I went to Goldstein’s. I found the shutters up, but the door was open and I went two or three feet into the shop, where I saw a carpenter at work. Mr. Goldstein was there also. The carpenter was on his knees. I gave the writs to Mr. Goldstein and said that they were at the suit of Mr. Jacobson. Both writs were open. Goldstein said nothing to me, but called “Bertha” and I then left.

By Mr. Dering—I heard the affidavit read and signed it. (The affidavit declares that the writ was served on Bertha Rapport). That must have been a mistake.

Mr. Dering: A mistake, eh?

Witness : Yes.

Cross-examination continued: Jacobson told me to write on the original writ produced, that copies of it were served on “Joseph Goldstein and Bertha Rapport, or Goldstein.” I had three writs, now I come to recollect. I avoided seeing Mrs. Goldstein, as Mrs. Jacobson told me not to have anything to say to her.

Joseph Johnson, china dealer, High Street, Folkestone, deposed: My house is exactly opposite Mr. Goldstein’s. On Saturday, September 20th, I received some goods from the last witness, together with the invoice produced. I paid Slater 15s. on account, and the balance on Monday. He showed me two copies of a writ, and asked me about the Goldsteins. On the next Monday evening I saw Slater give the writs to Goldstein. They were folded, but Goldstein unfolded them.

Mrs. Susan Johnson deposed: On the 20th September Slater brought some china for my husband’s shop, and also showed me two writs. On the Monday afternoon I saw Slater deliver two pieces of paper, which I believed to be writs, to Mr. Goldstein.

Alexander Bain deposed: I know the Clarendon Hotel, and was in there at the latter end of September. The prosecutor was in there and I saw him speaking to the prisoner’s wife, and also speaking with the prisoner.

Cross-examined: To the best of my belief it was Goldstein I saw. The prisoner first spoke to me about giving evidence. He told me I had seen Goldstein there, and unless I came to give evidence he would subpoena me. (The manner of this witness was very' singular while giving evidence).

William Swain, keeper of a beer-house, deposed: I know Mr. Hart and also Mr. Goldstein. I have seen them in conversation just outside the Clarendon Hotel.

John Surrey deposed: I remember having some conversation with Goldstein outside his house, sometime in September. Goldstein said I must not post the bills referring to the writ of execution about the town, as there would be a settlement.

William James Snelling, keeper of a beer-house, deposed: Slater came to my house in September and stayed there during the Saturday night. He showed me two copies of writs.

Maurice Jacobson, son of the Mr. Jacobson referred to in this case, deposed to receiving a letter from Hart, the prisoner, immediately after the writs were served, in which he stated substantially what was subsequently said in his affidavit.

His Lordship: Then this seems to put an end to the case, subject to any objection you can raise, Mr. Dering.

Mr. Dering: This matter has come upon us with surprise.

His Lordship: Certainly.

Mr. Dering: And we have no means of testing its genuineness. You see it has no envelope.

Mr. Harper, clerk to the prisoner’s solicitor, was here called, and deposed: This letter has been among the papers since about a week after I drew up the prisoner’s affidavit. I received it from Mr. Jacobson.

Mr. Dering said he should place himself in the hands of his Lordship.

The Learned Judge: There was a strong case for the defendant before we saw that letter, but now it seems to end the matter.

The jury then returned a formal verdict of Not Guilty, and a similar course was adopted with regard to Joseph Johnson.

Kentish Gazette 17-3-1874 

Kent Assizes, Thursday, before Mr. Justice Lush:

Michael Hart was indicted with committing wilful and corrupt perjury, at Folkestone, on the 20^th October, and Joseph Johnson was charged with a similar offence at the same time and place.

The case of Michael Hart was the one first tried. Mr. Dering, with whom was Mr. Dean, prosecuted, and Mr. Willoughby defended.

The hearing of the case occupied the greater part of the day, and eventually, by direction of the learned judge, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

A similar verdict was returned in the case of Joseph Johnson. 

Folkestone Express 20-3-1875

Wednesday, March 17^th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and W. Bateman Esqs.

The license of the Clarendon Hotel was transferred from Michael Hart to Charles Albinus Ross.

Folkestone Express 19-6-1875

Wednesday, June 16^th: Before R.W. Boarer, Col. De Crespigny and J. Tolputt Esq.

The license of the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, was transferred from Michael Hart to Charles Albenos Ross, who, it appeared from his testimonials, had previously been a merchant in Bombay.

Folkestone Express 26-1-1878

Local News

On the 18^th inst. the new proprietor of the Clarendon Hotel (Mr. Wilton) gave a dinner to his friends, when upwards of twenty gentlemen assembled, and a very agreeable meeting it was. The dinner was excellent, and all passed off with the utmost conviviality. It is satisfactory to see the Clarendon Hotel return to it`s original form, one of the most respectable houses in the town, through the able management of the present proprietor.

Folkestone Express 11-10-1879

Wednesday, October 8^th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., General Cannon, Captain Crowe, and M. Bell Esq.

John Newman was charged with being drunk and begging in South Street on October 6^th.

P.C. Hogben said on Monday evening he was sent for to the Clarendon Hotel, and from what he was told he went along South Street, and saw the prisoner go into the Victoria and hand his cap round to the people in the bar, and from there he went to the Paris Hotel bar and asked for coppers to pay his lodgings. Witness took him into custody. On the way to the station prisoner was very violent.

He was sentenced to fourteen days` for begging and to a further term of seven days` for being drunk, in default of paying a fine of 5s. and costs.