George III 1880s

Folkestone Express 14-10-1882

Saturday, October 7^th: Before R.W. Boarer and F. Boykett Esqs., Captain Crowe, General Armstrong, and Alderman Hoad.

John Gardner, a police constable in the borough force, was summoned for an assault on Amelia Lepper on the 1^st October. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Mowll appeared for the complainant and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Godfrey Lepper was charged with opening his house during prohibited hours, and Sarah Lepper with assaulting P.C. Gardner. They pleaded Not Guilty.

John Lepper, charged with resisting the police, also pleaded Not Guilty.

The whole of the cases arose out of the same circumstances, and the Bench decided to hear them together.

Amelia Lepper, the daughter of Godfrey Lepper, landlord of the George III in Fenchurch Street, said on Sunday, October 1^st she went out of the house, across the road to Miss Hart`s, a dressmaker, to fetch a dress which was being altered for her. Miss Hart asked her to get some vinegar for pickling. Her father sold vinegar, and she fetched a pint, and afterwards some more. When she got to the door, a police constable took hold of her. She thought he was a tramp from the Bricklayers` Arms. He said that he wanted her. When he pulled her, the jug fell into the street and was broken. She struggled to get away and asked him what he wanted. He said she must go with him, as a police constable wanted her. She called out to her mother and brother, who both came. Her brother threatened to strike him, and he said “I am a police constable in disguise. Don`t strike me”. He went away and fetched another constable, and when he came back Miss Hart took out the pickled cabbage and vinegar in a can, and said “This is what she brought”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I had been across about ten minutes before. I did not carry the jug under my apron. No-one came out of the house with me. There had not been two women come out of the house with jugs. Someone might have been in the house, but I should not know. I took a pint of vinegar across each time. Gardner did not say “What is in your jug?” He asked me for my name, and I said “Lepper”. I did not refuse to let him see what I had got. I did not deliberately throw the jug down and smash it. When they came back, and Miss Hart brought the vinegar, I did not hear the constable say “You are very clever to collect the vinegar after it has been spilt”. I saw mother push the constable in the road, before he wanted to search the house.

By Mr. Mowll: There were two lots of vinegar, one in the can, and the other lot was spilt.

Sarah Lepper, wife of Godfrey Lepper, said: My husband has held a license for 11 years. On Sunday morning I heard my daughter say “Here`s a tramp got hold of me”. I had the key of the bar in my pocket, and had it all the morning. When I got there I said “You dirty-looking Pikey, what are you doing with my daughter?” My son said “What are you doing with my sister?” and threatened to strike him, but he put up his hands and said that he was a police constable. The house had not been open.

By Mr. Minter: An old lady came into my house and took an empty jug in and out. An old gentleman did not come, nor an old lady, or a young lady. I don`t know how many people came, as we have a lot in on business matters. When the police constable in uniform came down, I asked him what was the matter, and he said “What is your name?”, and “Is that your daughter?” I said “What about it?” and he said “You have been serving beer”, and Miss Hart then brought out the vinegar. I did not say there was nothing the matter. I will swear that I said “That tramp has been dragging my daughter about the street”. He did not ask for admittance. I and my son did not prevent him coming in. I did not slap him in the face, but shoved him (defendant) in the head with my fist.

By Mr. Bradley: The vinegar was kept in the cellar, not in the bar.

John Godfrey Lepper, son of last witness, said: The first I heard of the case was that my mother called me, and I saw my sister lying against the post door. I threatened to strike the man who I thought was a tramp. I did not know he was a constable. From the time he left until he came back was two or three minutes.

By Mr. Minter: I found my sister lying on her side in the doorway, and my mother beside her. The constable was on the doorstep and had hold of her hand, trying to pull her up.

John Wettingstall, coal dealer, of Harvey Street, said: When I reaced Lepper`s I saw a navvy sort of man ill-treating a girl, as I thought. He had got hold of the girl round the shoulders. I heard the jug drop.

By Mr. Minter: I live not far from this house. I don`t go to Lepper`s. The girl was standing beside Hart`s door. He had his right arm round her neck. Miss Hart`s house is on the opposite side of the street. She got away from the policeman. He released her just off the kerb and he ran across and pulled her nearly down. He had hold of her round her neck at her mother`s door.

By Mr. Mowll: I have been a Good Templar for five years.

Godfrey Lepper, landlord of the George III, said: I have held a license eleven years without a complaint ever having been made against me. I was not in the house during Saturday night. The key of the bar is as a rule in my wife`s possession. We sell vinegar, which is kept in a cask.

Miss Hart was said to be ill, and the case was adjourned for a month for her attendance.

Folkestone Express 11-11-1882

Saturday, November 4^th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and M. Bell Esqs., and Alderman Banks.

Godfrey Lepper, of the George The Third, Fenchurch Street, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 1^st of October. Mrs. Lepper, his wife, and John Lepper, his son, were summoned for assaulting Police Constable John Gardner on the same day, and Gardner was summoned for assaulting Lepper`s daughter.

The case came before the Court a month ago, and was then adjourned for the attendance of a witness who was ill. Mr. Minter appeared in support of the police constable, and Mr. Mowll for Mr. Lepper and his family.

The particulars of the case will be remembered. P.C. Gardner was instructed to watch the George The Third, and he went in disguise for the purpose. Seeing Lepper`s daughter leave with what appeared to be a jug concealed under her apron he accosted her and asked what she had got, and demanding her name. She dropped the jug, which was smashed, and said it contained vinegar which she was taking over to a Miss Hart, who lived opposite. The following evidence was called in addition to that already given.

Elizabeth Hart, a single woman, living opposite to the Leppers, said: Miss Lepper came for a dress I was altering. I requested Miss Lepper to bring across a pint of vinegar. That not being sufficient, I asked her to bring me another pint. She went to get it, but I did not receive it, because the jug containing the second pint was broken on the door step. I saw a man who looked like a costermonger pull Miss Lepper back, and the jug fell.

In cross-examination the witness said she was indoors, and saw all that took place. She did not hear what was said, but she saw the policeman talking to Miss Lepper, nor did she remember saying anything to the second policeman afterwards.

This was the case against the policeman.

P.C. Gardner said by direction of the Superintendent he went on Sunday, October 1^st, to Fenchurch Street. It was about nine o`clock. He stationed himself by the Zion Chapel to watch the George The Third. He saw a woman go into the house with something under her apron. He saw her come out. She was then carrying a jug which appeared to be full. About 20 minutes later he saw a woman go in with a waterproof on. She carried something under her waterproof, but he could not say what it was. He drew closer to the house, and the saw a young woman come out and look up and down the street. She had something under her apron. He afterwards found it was Miss Lepper. He stood in front of her, told her he was a police officer, and asked her what she had under her apron. She said “Beer”. He asked her what she paid for it. She said “4d”. He asked her name. She tried to force past him, and he put his hand on her shoulder. The jug was either thrown down or dropped and broken. Some of the contents was spilt onto the front of his trousers. He put his fingers into the liquid on the pavement and tasted it. It was “malt liquor”. It was not vinegar. When he got across the road Mrs. Lepper and her son were standing at the door. He told them who he was and asked to go into the house. The son raised his fist to strike him. He did not refuse to let him go into the house. Mrs. Lepper said she did not care whether he was a policeman, or who he was, and gave him two or three slaps in the face, knocking his hat off. He went up the steps again and was pushed back, both by the son and the mother. He then went for P.C. Pay. On their return he pointed out the broken jug and asked Pay what it smelt of. He said it smelt very strong of beer. Miss Hart went out with a can and said “Here is the pint of vinegar Miss Lepper brought over”. Pay said she was very clever to gather it up after she had spilt it.

In cross-examination, witness said he said to young Lepper “Don`t hit me. I am a police officer”. Did not hear Miss Lepper say to her mother “Here, Mother, a tramp has got hold of me”.

P.C. Pay said he went with Gardner at his request to Fenchurch Street. He smelt Gardner`s trousers, and was sure they had had beer spilt on them, and the pavement smelt strongly of beer.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Bench on behalf of his clients, urging that if the Bench convicted Lepper, they would be relying more upon the sense of taste of one policeman, and the sense of smell of another, than upon the sworn testimony of four persons, one of whom, Miss Hart, had not the slightest interest in the case. It was not to be supposed that Lepper, his wife, and son and daughter had committed wilful perjury.

The Bench, after hearing Mr. Minter`s arguments on behalf of the police, rose to retire and consider their decision. Before they left the Court, Mr. Mowll said he was willing to withdraw the summons charging Gardner with assaulting Miss Lepper.

On the return of the Magistrates, the Mayor announced that they had unanimously decided to convict Lepper of having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours, and to inflict a fine of 50s. and 16s. costs, or one month`s imprisonment. They had also decided to convict Mrs. Lepper for the assault on Gardner, and she would be fined 10s. and 8s. costs, or 14 days` imprisonment. In the case of John Lepper, in consideration of his having held his hand when he was told that the man he was about to strike was a policeman, the summons would be dismissed.

Mr. Lepper gave notice of his intention to appeal against the decision.

Folkestone Express 14-7-1883

Saturday, July 7^th: Before Colonel de Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness, J. Holden and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Margaret Harrington was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Fenchurch Street, and also with breaking two panes of glass, value 15s. 6d., at the George III, on Friday, July 6^th.

Mrs. Lepper, wife of the landlord of the George III public house, Fenchurch Street, said the prisoner went to the house on the previous evening a little before five o`clock. She went to the private bar and knocked, and asked if witness was Mrs. Lepper. She then said something about her daughter-in-law and slapped her face. She then shut the window. Prisoner then went across to the Bricklayers` Arms and fetched some beer. Another woman who was with prisoner took the glass from her, and as she was going into the house again she shut the door to keep her out and prisoner then smashed the windows. She was very drunk.

Henry Lepper, a son of the last witness, corroborated.

P.C. Knowles said that on the previous afternoon he saw the prisoner outside the George III. She was very drunk and shouting and made a great noise. He advised her to go away, but she swore at him. He then locked her up, having a “terrific job” to get her to the station. It was necessary to put her on a stretcher and strap her down.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. for being drunk and disorderly, and 4s. 6d. costs, and 15s. 6d. damage to windows, and 5s. fine and 5s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 30-1-1886

Saturday, January 23^rd: Before The Mayor, F. Boykett, W.J. Jeffreason and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The licence of the George III, Fenchurch Street, was transferred from Godfrey Lepper to Edward Harris.

Folkestone News 30-1-1886

Wednesday, January 27^th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

The licence of the George the Third public house was transferred from George Lepper to James Harris.

Note:  More Bastions lists this as Henry Harris.

Folkestone Chronicle 22-5-1886

County Court

Before Judge Selfe.

Godfrey Lepper v Robert Baxter: This was an account between the plaintiff, landlord of the George the III, and builder, of Folkestone, and the defendant, Mr. Robert Baxter, Brewer, of Sandwich, for work done as a builder, and balance of beer account, amounting to more than the plaintiff`s claim.

Mr. Bannon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightwick for defendant.

The accounts put into Court were most complicated, and the case occupied upwards of three hours in hearing.

Mr. Bannon explained the accounts and items in dispute very carefully, and called Mr. Lepper, who said he kept George III, and No. 9, Queen Street, where he sold beer &c. In June, 1882, defendant`s representative, Mr. B. Coleman, called on him, and the account was then commenced, Mr. Coleman being in charge of the stores belonging to the defendant at Folkestone. He agreed to supply beer at 28s. 6d. per barrel, porter 23s. 6d., stout 48s, ale 48s., and ale 44s. The beer and porter were nett price, but a discount of 5 percent was to be allowed off the other. It was also arranged that all goods should be returned if not saleable, and the full cost price deducted. The book produced contained the account. The payment were made to Mr. Coleman, and the discounts were allowed up to May, 1883. He paid the accounts in various items from time to time, and had never returned any waste to the brewers. All the goods he returned were simply unsaleable, and were merely opened to test them and then sent back if not good. Some of these were only allowed the price of waste, and he claimed the difference on these items, and on such occasions Mr. Coleman entered them in a book. He had never returned any waste to a brewer in his life.

A great number of items under different dates were then enumerated and claimed upon, and disputed by the defendant, occupying a tedious time, which tried the patience of the Judge and all in Court.

Mr. Wightwick, for defendant, handed in an acceptance for £25 8s. 10d., which he submitted was a proof that the correctness of the account was admitted up to June 25^th, 1885.

This involved a long dispute, and after a number of accounts had been examined the Judge, in giving judgement, said that discount could only be allowed for prompt payment, or if the works had been carried out concurrently with the supply of beer, but it turned out that the work had been done when the arrears had accumulated up to £200. The plaintiff was entitled to the full price for returns, and the testimony of plaintiff was most conclusive as to the correctness as to the delivery of the goods. Making all the deductions he thought the defendant was entitled to, it reduced the claim to £9 5s. 1d., and as he held that defendant was entitled to the counter claim of £8 6s. 5d., judgement would be for the balance of 18s. 8d. in favour of plaintiff.

Folkestone Express 22-5-1886

County Court

Tuesday, May 18^th: Before Judge Selfe.

Godfrey Lepper v Robert Baxter: Claim £25 17s. 2d for beer returned, work done, &c. Mr. Bannon, of Romney, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightwick for the defendants.

Mr. Bannon said the claim arose out of some long dealings of the parties. There was an agreement made between the plaintiff and Mr. Colman, who was agent for the defendant, brewer of Sandwich, for the sale of beer at the following prices: Stout 46s. per barrel, Porter 28s. 6d., Beer 28s. 6d., Ale 48s., and another kind of Ale, 44s. Beer and Porter were to be supplied nett, and on the other beer there was to be five percent discount, and certain allowances for returns. From June 1882 up to some tome in 1885, plaintiff continued to deal with the defendant, and certain cash payments were made, and entered in a book Mr. Lepper kept for the purpose.

His Honour, interposing, said the only dispute seemed to be as to the allowances and discounts. The building account was agreed.

Mr. Wightwick said that was so.

Mr. Bannon, continuing, said the chief item in dispute was discount. In 1883 plaintiff commenced to carry out certain works for the defendants, and from that time to June or July 1885 he continued to carry out works at various houses belonging to the defendant, the total amount being £292 15s. 3d. Off that sum they made certain allowances which brought the amount down to £254 0s. 8d. In the books of defendant he had only allowed for returns his client had made as waste, and they contended they were entitled to an allowance for unsaleable liquor, for which they were to be allowed the same price as they were charged. From May up to the date of the last allowance they had purchased beer to the amount of £449 10s. 8d.

Plaintiff was called and gave evidence as to the various transactions between himself and the defendant`s traveller.

The various items in the account were carefully examined by His Honour.

Plaintiff said all the casks he returned were labelled with what they contained. He never returned any waste, but it was always unsaleable liquor. His examination occupied nearly two hours.

Benjamin Colman said he made the arrangement with plaintiff, and it was the same as that usually made with customers of Mr. Baxter.

Mr. Wightwick contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to discount because he had not paid his account monthly. He called William Hopkins, a carrier, who proved the delivery of the various goods.

His Honour remarked that the evidence of Hopkins did not agree either with that of the plaintiff or the defendant, and later on he said his books were of no value whatever.

In reply to Mr. Bannon, Hopkins said none of the entries in his book were made in his handwriting. They were made by a man in his employ.

Mr. Baxter was called, and said he had applied to plaintiff frequently for payment of his account. He allowed discount where the payments were prompt only. There was still £8 6s. 5d. due to him after making all allowances.

In reply to Mr. Bannon, defendant said he drew a bill on Mr. Lepper for £25 8s. 10d., but it was dishonoured. It was subsequently met by work which plaintiff did. He did work for him to the amount of £292 15s. 3d., and extras £65 odd. He saw by the book that discount was being allowed plaintiff, and told Colman not to allow discount when the account got large, in May 1883.

James Slaughter, clerk to defendant, said he tested every cask returned. He could not define what waste was. What plaintiff returned was waste – it was not drinkable. In many cases it was what publicans washed their glasses in. (Laughter) They only allowed discount on monthly accounts.

In reply to Mr. Bannon he said in many cases waste was thrown down the drains.

Mr. Colman was re-called and said he received money from Lepper up to October last. He did not allow discount after 1883 because the account was never settled. Discount was supposed to be given on monthly payments. He could not remember saying anything to plaintiff about discount.

In answer to Bannon he said he had allowed discount where there were running accounts.

Plaintiff was re-called and said discount was never mentioned after the first agreement.

Mr. Bannon contended that the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant, for which it was shown there were only two cash payments, was virtually a payment of the plaintiff`s account, and thereupon he was entitled to discount.

His Honour pointed out that the work was principally done in 1885. In giving judgement, he held that the allowance of discount was only a condition of payment within a reasonable time, and in that case it was shown that there were considerable arrears in respect of beer in 1884, and Mr. Baxter`s contention was the work was done in 1885 in order to outset the account. He should therefore disallow the claim for discount. After reviewing the whole evidence, the allowances, and counter claims, he gave judgement for 18s. 8d., and expressed an opinion that the case ought not to have been brought. He only allowed the expenses of Colman, who was subpoenaed.

Afterwards, on the application of Mr. Bannon, judgement was entered for the plaintiff for £9 5s. 1d., and for the defendant on his counter claim for £8 6s. 5d.

Folkestone News 22-5-1886

County Court

Tuesday, May 18^th: Before His Honour Judge Selfe.

Lepper v Baxter: Claim £25 17s. 2d. for beer returned and work done. There was a counter claim for a larger amount.

Mr. Bannon appeared for the plaintiff, and opened the case, from which it appeared that the plaintiff, a beerhouse keeper, dealt with the defendant, a brewer, and there was a dispute as to the balance of the account between them, including work done by the plaintiff for the defendant. The points were whether the items amounting to £14 9s. 7d. made the difference between the allowance which the defendant had made and the cost price of the beer charged under the beer account, and further, were they entitled to discount?

Mr. Wightwick, who appeared for the defendant, said plaintiff had disputed the delivery of certain beers, but he would call the railway officials to prove the delivery.

Godfrey Lepper said he was the plaintiff, and that he kept the George III and the Mitre Inn in Queen Street. In June, 1882, defendant`s representative, Mr. Coleman, called upon him in Queen Street. He entered into an agreement for the supply of beer, porter, &c. The prices agreed upon were: mild beer and porter 28s. 6d. per barrel net, stout at 48s., ale at 48s., ditto at 44s. less 5 percent discount. There was an agreement made that if anything was returned it was to be allowed for at the price charged. He commenced having goods from the defendant, and the book produced was his account book with Mr. Coleman. The payments mentioned in the book were made to Mr. Coleman. There were entries in that book of discount allowed. From time to time he received certain ales, commencing September, 1882. On September 13^th there was an item of beer returned, £1 0s. 0d.

Mr. Wightwick said that was allowed as waste, 10s.; the plaintiff claimed another 10s.

Plaintiff, in continuation, said he returned a barrel, and the description of it`s contents written on a card outside. He had never returned any waste in his life to any brewer.

By the Judge: The barrel was returned because the beer was not saleable.

Mr. Wightwick said he found that the amount had been allowed.

The Judge said if that were so there was no need to fight over it.

Mr. Bannon said the plaintiff`s ledger and the book supplied him did not agree.

Defendant`s bookkeeper explained several entries to the Judge, and pointed out the items in dispute.

Plaintiff was then examined at length as to the items of the account, but the evidence was of no public interest. He had never returned any waste whatever to the defendants. He never received any communication from the defendants as to his returns being waste.

After considerable discussion between the parties, His Honour asked how he was to arrive at what was returned, whether waste or not.

Mr. Wightwick said his clients did not care which way His Honour decided that point. If the other side wanted to be allowed full value the defendants would allow it to save the time of the Court, but subsequently said he would concede nothing.

The plaintiff was further examined on the details of the account. His own account against the defendants was £292 15s. 2d. for work done on their behalf, plaintiff being a builder as well as a publican. That account had never been disputed. In conclusion the correspondence between the parties was read.

Cross-examined, plaintiff said he never made any waste, and it was only slovenly publicans who did so. He had no settlement of account in July, 1885. He had never any account received. The acceptance, produced, was for £25 8s. 10d., and dated July 24^th, due October 27^th. He gave the acceptance in return for a cheque for £20 from Mr. Baxter, received at the same time, in order to enable him to complete work for him. He had no agreement for monthly payments.

Re-examined: The acceptance was sent to him through the post accompanied by the cheque of £20.

Benjamin E. Coleman said he was formerly agent for the defendant, and resided in Folkestone. He remembered calling on Lepper in 1882 to solicit orders. He agreed with him for the supply of beer at certain prices. Five percent was to be allowed on all accounts settled. Unsaleable beers were to be allowed for at cost price. The accounts were kept by him at the Stores and were now in the possession of Mr. Baxter. The day book would show all returns to the Stores. Witness had the check book, showing what went out of the Stores. He remembered plaintiff speaking about the non-delivery of some ale; it was sent to Mr. Coleman`s house, and he informed Mr. Baxter`s clerk, and told him to charge it to his account. He further remembered a kil. of stout being fetched away from plaintiff`s and sold to another house in the town.

Cross-examined: He remembered forwarding a kil. of porter from Mrs. Tyas to the plaintiff. He sent two firkins of porter from the Store to plaintiff on December 29^th. On March 27^th, 1883, he sent one firkin of porter. The check produced, dated December 27^th, only stated the delivery of one firkin of porter, but the check was not in his handwriting. On April 30^th he sent the plaintiff the kil. of porter. He did not deliver the beer himself.

This was the plaintiff`s case.

Mr. Wightwick opened the case for the defendant, and called William Hopkins, carrier, who said on November 2^nd, 1882, he delivered to Lepper two barrels.

The Judge: This makes it worse than ever.

Witness, in reply to His Honour, said the delivery book was signed by plaintiff. He gave evidence of delivery of other goods which the defendant was receiving.

Cross-examined: The book was not in his handwriting, and he did not deliver all the goods himself. He had no book in which people signed for the delivery of beer.

R. Baxter (defendant) said he was a brewer at Sandwich. He applied frequently for the payment of the account, which plaintiff got behind with. Discount was only allowed on prompt payments. At the time the cheque was sent, £25 8s. 10d. was due from Lepper, and for that amount plaintiff gave him an acceptance.

Cross-examined: He never communicated with Lepper direct as to the discount not being allowed, but he entrusted Coleman to tell Lepper that he could not allow discount unless the accounts were paid promptly.

James Slaughter, clerk in the employ of the defendant: He tried all the casks of returns as they came, and according to the contents said he made the allowance. He had allowed the plaintiff accordingly.

Cross-examined: He tested the returns by tasting.

Mr. Coleman, re-called by His Honour, said he ceased to be employed by the defendant on October 30^th last.

By Mr. Bannon: He never told Lepper he should not allow any more discount after a certain date.

Plaintiff, re-called by Mr. Bannon, said he was never told by Mr. Coleman that discount would not be allowed him.

Mr. Bannon addressed the court for the plaintiff.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said he could not conceive any agreement being made to allow discount on an account which extended one, two, or three years. He was, therefore, against the plaintiff on that part of his claim. The work done was not concurrent with the supply of beer, for, in fact, it was nearly all ordered when the plaintiff was very considerably in arrears. In reference to the other items, he held that the evidence of Hopkins totally failed to prove the delivery of the goods, which the plaintiff denied receiving. The same remark applied to the goods sent to him or sent from the Stores. His Honour then went through the other items of the claim and counterbalance, and in the end gave judgement for the plaintiff for £9 5s. 1d. on his claim, as against the £8 6s. 5d. claimed by the defendant, leaving a balance of 18s. 8d. to come to the plaintiff.

Folkestone Express 18-8-1888

Advertisement

To Let, George III, Folkestone, a fully licensed house in populous district; free for spirits, good brewers, incoming about £125. Apply to Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, Auctioneers and Valuers, Market Square, Dover.

Folkestone Express 29-9-1888

Advertisement

By Order of the Trustees of the Will of Elizabeth Cattaneo, deceased

Auction Sale of all that fully licensed freehold public house known by the sign of the George The Third, situate in Little Fenchurch Street, in a most populated district.

Banks and Son will sell by Auction at the Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, on Wednesday, October 17^th, 1888, at seven o`clock in the evening.

Lot 1: All that fully licensed freehold public house, known by the sign of the George The Third, situate in Little Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, brick built with tile roof, two yards, and W.C. in the rear.

Containing in Basement – Two cellars

Ground Floor – Public and private bars, parlour, tap room, kitchen and scullery

First Floor – Large club room and two bedrooms

Second Floor – Four bedrooms

Let on a repairing lease to Mr. A. Leney for a term of 14 years, from the 25^th December, 1885, at the annual rent of £30, payable quarterly.

Particulars and conditions of sale may be had seven days before the day of the sale of the Auctioneers, 78, Sandgate Road, and of H.B. Bradley, Solicitor, 52, Sandgate Road, Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 20-10-1888

Local News

Messrs. Banks and Son sold by auction at the Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, on Wednesday last the George The Third Inn, Fenchurch Street, for £500.

Folkestone Chronicle 15-12-1888

Monday, December 10^th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks, J. Brooke and . Boykett Esqs.

Frederick Webb, described as a plumber, and giving as his address Sussex Gardens, Devonport, was charged with stealing a coat, a walking stick, a pipe, and other articles, the property of George E. Peat, value £2 10s.

George Edward Peat, a grocer, of 11, Dover Street, said he went to the George The Third public house about a quarter to nine on Sunday night. He went into the bar parlour and hung his coat and stick behind the bar parlour door. When he returned he missed his coat and stick. When he left there were six persons in the room, and prisoner was one of them. In consequence of information received, he went that morning to Shorncliffe Station and saw prisoner on the platform. He had with him a black bag, a basket, a bundle tied in a white handkerchief, and an umbrella. P.C. Bailey spoke to prisoner, and he showed him the contents of the handkerchief. Bailey asked prisoner to go with him to the police station, and they all three returned together. The bag was unlocked, and inside was the coat produced, which he identified as his property. There were a pipe and other articles in the pockets.

P.C. Bailey said he saw the prisoner on the up platform at Shorncliffe Station. He asked if he would mind him looking into his parcel. He made no reply, but handed him the handkerchief and the basket. He examined the contents, and prisoner asked him if he were satisfied. He replied “Yes”, but he should like to look into the black bag. Prisoner refused to allow him to do so, but said he would go to the police station. He charged prisoner with stealing the property and he said “All right. I`ll go to the station with you”. On the way to the station, prisoner threw the bag on to the road and said “Now look at it yourself”. Witness replied “I have no keys”. Prisoner replied “Nor have I”, but afterwards handed over the keys produced. At the police station the bag was opened, and the coat produced was found in it. There was a pipe and a tobacco pouch in the pockets. Prisoner was charged by Sergeant Pay, and said “All right”.

Prisoner said he went with others to the public house and stayed an hour. The bar was full of people. They gradually went away, until only four were left. He went out, followed by his brother-in-law. His wife was inside. His wife called out “Fred, someone has left their coat and stick in here”. He did not go inside. His brother-in-law said “We might as well have them as leave them here. Someone else will have them if we don`t”. His wife came out with the coat, and his brother-in-law with the stick. They waited outside ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and nobody came. They went up Dover Street. His wife took the coat indoors, and his brother-in-law went home. He and his wife went down the street again, and outside the public house they saw a policeman and three or four young men. His wife said “Good God. It`s about that coat. I`ll go back and fetch it”. She did not know what to do, but said “If I go and fetch it, they`ll have me locked up perhaps for stealing it”. She was frightened and said “We`re going to Ashford tomorrow. We`ll take it with us and send it back by rail to the landlord of the public house”. At six o`clock she started with the walking stick to send back with the bag, saying she would be back in time to catch the first train. He had his breakfast and started for Shorncliffe. He went there because he did not want to wait an hour at the Junction. He did not see his wife, who must have gone on by the train.

Prisoner was sentenced to a month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Express 15-12-1888

Monday, December 10^th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks, J. Brooke, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Frederick Webb, described as a plumber, and giving as his address Sussex Gardens, Devonport, was charged with stealing a coat, a walking stick, a pipe, and other articles, the property of George E. Peat.

George Edward Peat, a grocer, in business at 11, Dover Street, said he went to the George The Third public house about a quarter to nine on Sunday night. He went into the bar parlour. He hung his coat and stick behind the bar parlour door. Shortly after, he had occasion to leave the parlour, and returned about ten minutes to ten, and missed his coat and stick. When he left there were six persons in the room, and prisoner was one of them. When he returned the room was empty. In consequence of information received he went that morning to Shorncliffe Station, and saw prisoner on the platform. He had with him a black bag, a basket, a bundle tied in a white handkerchief, and an umbrella. P.C. Bailey spoke to prisoner, and he showed him the contents of the handkerchief. Bailey asked prisoner to go with him to the police station, and they all three returned together. The bag was unlocked, and inside was the coat produced, which he identified as his property. There were a pipe and other articles in the pockets. The value of the articles was about 50s.

P.C. Bailey said he went with prosecutor to Shorncliffe Station, and there saw the prisoner on the up platform. He asked prisoner if he would mind him looking into his parcel. He made no reply, but handed him the handkerchief and the basket. He examined the contents, and prisoner asked him if he was satisfied. He replied “Yes”, but he should like to look into the black bag. Prisoner refused to allow him to do so, but said he would go to the police station. He charged prisoner with stealing the property, and he said “All right. I`ll go to the station with you”. On the way to the station prisoner threw the bag on to the road and said “Now look at it yourself”. Witness replied “I have no keys”. Prisoner said “Nor have I”, but afterwards handed over the keys produced. At the police station the bag was opened and the coat produced was found in it. There was a pipe and a tobacco pouch in the pockets. Prisoner was charged by Sergeant Pay, and said “All right”.

Prisoner at first pleaded Guilty to stealing the coat, but said he was Guilty of having it in his possession. He subsequently withdrew his plea, and said he went with others to the public house and stayed an hour. The bar was full of people. They gradually went away until only four were left. He went out, followed by his brother-in-law, and his wife was inside. His wife called out “Fred, someone has left their stick and coat in here”. He did not go inside. His brother-in-law said “We might as well have them as leave them here. Someone else will have them if we don`t”. His wife came out with the coat, and his brother-in-law with the stick. They waited outside ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and nobody came. They then went up Dover Street. His wife took the coat indoors and his brother-in-law went home. He and his wife went down the street again, and outside the public house they saw a policeman and three or four young men. His wife said “Good God. It`s about that coat. I`ll go back and fetch it”. She did not know what to do, but said “If I go and fetch it, they`ll have me locked up, perhaps, for stealing it”. She was frightened, and said “We`re going to Ashford tomorrow. We`ll take it with us and send it back by rail to the landlord of the public house”. At six o`clock she started with the walking stick to send back with the bag, saying she would be back in time to catch the first train. He had his breakfast and started for Shorncliffe. He went there because he did not want to wait an hour at the Junction. He did not see his wife, who must have gone on by the train.

Mr. Bradley told the prisoner he did quite right in pleading Guilty, because assuming his statement to be true, he was an accessory both before and after, and therefore Guilty of stealing.

Prisoner was sentenced to a month`s hard labour.