Guildhall Hotel/Tavern 1890s

Folkestone Chronicle 11-10-1890

Saturday, October 4^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, Major Penfold, J. Fitness, E.T. Ward and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Frederick Arthur Bing was summoned for being drunk whilst in charge of a horse and cart on the 27^th ult., and pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Gardner stated that he saw the defendant come out of the Guildhall Tavern about ten minutes past three on the day in question. He got up into a cart which was standing outside, but as he was drunk and unfit to be in charge of a horse and cart witness took him into custody.

There were several previous convictions against the defendant, who was now fined 10s. and 6s. costs.

Folkestone Express 13-2-1892

Saturday, February 6^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the Town Hall, on the occasion of a fancy dress ball on the 11^th February. Granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 13-8-1892

Monday, August 8^th: Before Mr. J. Fitness, Aldermen Pledge and Dunk.

Three privates in the West Surrey Regiment, named Edward Anwyl, William Davis, and William Bruce, were charged, with others not in custody, of assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliams and John Winfelder.

Guilliams said he was a Dutch waiter, and on Saturday evening from 10 o`clock till 10.45 he was in the Guildhall Vaults with John Winfelder and others. There were some soldiers there, and witness “stood treat” and remained with them in the bar about ten minutes. They left together and went to the East Kent Arms just before closing time, and he and his his friends treated the soldiers again. They left there at closing time and went up Sandgate Road as far as Christ Church Road, where they stood talking for a time. He and Winfelder accompanied them along Shorncliffe Road. He walked arm-in-arm with one of the soldiers, and after he had gone some distance he missed his friend and looked back to see what had become of him, but could not see him. About six or seven soldiers were with him then. Just at that moment one of the soldiers got hold of his watch chain. He was wearing a gold double-cased keyless watch and a gold Albert chain with twisted links. He requested him to let go, but he would not. The soldier called “Help” to the other soldiers. They were close behind and came running up. The Scotch soldier put his hand inside of his waistcoat, and must have stolen his silk handkerchief and pocket book. He also said “You had better walk on. Your friend will be with you in a minute”. They had a struggle for a minute, the soldiers got hold of his arms, he got free, and ran away towards the town. He missed his watch and chain, pocket book, letter case, a silk handkerchief, his stick and hat. He shouted to his friend, and after a time saw him coming out of a field. He was very excited, had his tie unfastened, no collar on, and his clothes were dirty. He told witness what had happened and they went together to the police station. On Sunday morning they went with Sergeant Swift to Shorncliffe Camp. He saw the stick produced at the Camp – it was the one he had on Saturday night. He saw no more of his property. The value of the watch and chain was £13. He could not identify any of the prisoners as those who assaulted him.

John Winfelder, also a foreign waiter, said that when he was in Shorncliffe Road one of the soldiers he was with tried to get his hand into his trousers pocket. Four or five others came up and knocked him down in the cornfield. They held him down by the arms and legs and took everything he had about him – about 15s. or 20s. in money, a silver watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe, and a stick. He was not sure as to the men. The man Anwyl was one of the two who walked with him arm-in-arm. On Sunday they went to the Camp, and witness identified the stick produced as his property. The watch and chain were worth about £1. In reply to the Court he said he first saw Anwyl in Christ Church Road.

Anwyl said it was correct that he was one of the soldiers who walked with witness up Shorncliffe Road.

William Stanley, caretaker of the Recreation Room, Provisional Battalion, said he lent Davis and Bruce 1s. 6d. on the two sticks, and subsequently handed them to the colour sergeant.

Sergeant Swift said the robbery was reported to him at 1.30 on Sunday morning. The men had been drinking and were not sober. Neither of them had a hat on, and they were excited. He went to a field in Shorncliffe Road, near Leigh House. He found a Glengarry cap of the West Surrey Regiment and a linen cuff. When the men were arrested, Bruce said “I have got myself into this through selling that stick”. Davis had on him 6s. 10½., and the others about 18d. each.

Supt Taylor asked for a remand until Saturday, and it was granted.

Folkestone Express 13-8-1892

Monday, August 8^th: Before Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, and J. Fitness Esq.

Edward Anwyl, William Davis, and William Bruce, privates in the West Surrey Regiment, three smart looking soldiers, were charged with being concerned with others, not in custody, with assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliam and another.

Charles Guilliam said he was a Dutch waiter. On Saturday evening from ten o`clock till a quarter to eleven he was in the Guildhall Vaults with John Winfelder and others, drinking together. They were in a bar at the back of the house. They left and returned to the house, entering another bar. There were some soldiers there, and witness “stood treat” and remained with them in the bar about ten minutes. They left together and went to the East Kent Arms just before closing time, and he and his friend treated the soldiers again. There were four or five of them. They left at closing time and went up Sandgate Road as far as Christ Church Road, where they stood talking for a time. Some of his friends left him there and he remained with Winfelder and some soldiers – altogether there were 14 or 15 soldiers – and they wanted some more to drink. He thought they said they could get it at the canteen. He and Winfelder accompanied them along Shorncliffe Road. He could not say he was quite sober – he was a little the worse for drink, but remembered clearly what took place. He walked down arm-in-arm with one of the soldiers, and after he had gone some distance he missed his friend and looked back to see what had become of him, but could not see him. About six or seven soldiers were with him then. A soldier in Scotch uniform came running up to him. Just at that moment one of the other soldiers got hold of his watch chain. He was wearing a gold double-cased keyless watch and a gold Albert chain with twisted links. He requested the soldier to let go, but he would not. He said he had better give it to him till he went back – it was not safe to wear it in the company he was in. He requested the soldier again to leave off, and pushed him away. He called “Help” to the other soldiers. They were close behind, and came running up. The Scotch soldier put his hand inside of his waistcoat, and must have stolen his silk handkerchief and pocket book. He also said “You had better walk on. Your friend will be with you in a minute”. They had a struggle for a minute, the soldiers got hold of his arms, he got free, and ran away towards the town. He missed his watch and chain, pocket book, letter case, a silk handkerchief, his stick and hat. He shouted to his friend, and after a time saw him coming out of a field. He was very excited, had his tie unfastened, no collar on, and his clothes were dirty. He told witness what had happened, and they went together to the police station. On Sunday morning they went with Sergeant Swift to Shorncliffe Camp. A number of men were paraded before them, but they could not identify the men who had assaulted him. He saw the stick produced at the Camp – it was the one he had on Saturday night. He saw no more of his property. The value of the watch and chain was £13. He could not identify any of the prisoners as those who assaulted him.

John Winfelder, also a foreign waiter, said when he was in Shroncliffe Road one of the soldiers he was with tried to get his hand into his trousers pocket. Four or five others came up and knocked him down in a cornfield They held him down by the arms and legs, and took everything he had about him – about 15s. or 20s. in money, a silver watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe and a stick. He cried out for help, and they threatened to kill him. He was not sure as to the men. He also lost a cuff. The man Anwyl was one of the two who walked with him arm-in-arm. He was not sure whether he was one of the men who pushed him in the field, but he supposed he was there. They left him after they had taken everything. He called for Guilliam, who came along a few minutes after, and they went together to the police station. On Sunday they went to the Camp, and witness picked Anwyl out. He identified the stick produced as his property. His watch and chain were worth about £1. He was not quite sober.

By Anwyl: You were not one of the men I saw in the East Kent Arms.

In reply to the Court, he said he first saw Anwyl in Christ Church Road.

Anwyl said it was correct that he was one of the soldiers who walked with witness up Shorncliffe Road.

William Child, a private in the West Surrey Regiment, said he saw the two stick produced, one in the possession of Davis, at 6.30 on Sunday morning. He asked witness the value of the Malacca cane. He said he exchanged his regimental cane for them. Bruce brought the acacia stick and asked what it was worth. He took it from behind his cot.

William Stanley, caretaker of the Recreation Room, Provisional Battalion, said he lent Davis and Bruce 1s. 6d. on the two sticks, and subsequently handed them to the colour sergeant.

Thomas Roblon, colour sergeant in the West Surrey Regiment, said he heard of the robbery about 10.30 on Sunday morning, and received the stick from the last witness. The three prisoners slept in the same barrack room.

Sergeant Swift said the robbery was reported to him at 1.30 on Sunday morning. The men had been drinking and were not sober. Neither of them had a hat on, and they were excited. He went to a field in Shorncliffe Road, near Leigh House. He found a Glengarry cap of the West Surrey Regiment, and a linen cuff. When the men were arrested Bruce said “I have got myself into this through selling that stick”. Davis had on him 6s. 10½d., and the others about 18d. each.

Supt Taylor asked for a remand till Saturday, and it was granted.

Folkestone Herald 13-8-1892

Police Court Jottings

Three smart young fellows of the West Surrey Regiment, whose collars were adorned with a little brass representation of the Sphinx with the word “Egypt” underneath, were brought up in custody on Monday, before Mr. Fitness and Alds. Pledge and Dunk, charged with an offence which, if proved against them, and should they have to take their trial before a judge of the same disposition of either Sir H. Hawkins or Sir C. Stephen will probably result in their acquaintance with the lash – highway robbery with violence. They were named respectively Wm. Bruce, Edwd. Anwyl, and Wm. Davis.

It appeared, according to the voluminous evidence which was most painstakingly recorded by the Deputy Magistrates` Clerk. On Saturday evening, about half past ten, a couple of Dutch waiters at an hotel in Folkestone, who gave the names of Chas. Guilliams and John Jas. Winfelder, met a number of soldiers in a public house, whence they adjourned to another, at each of which they treated them. On their leaving the second at “closing time” they walked up the Sandgate Road, and from thence towards the Cheriton Road; the soldiers, who were afterwards joined by some seven or eight others, accompanying them arm-in-arm, for, as they admitted in the course of their examination, they were the worse for drink. After they had gone some way on the road, some of the soldiers asked them to come further on, as they knew where they could get more drink. This invitation they ill-advisedly accepted, but after proceeding but a short way, Guilliams and his brother waiter found themselves hustled into a bean field, where they were knocked down and robbed of their watches and chains, and what money they had about them, together with their walking sticks, their pocket handkerchiefs, and their hats. The former managed to get away from his assailants and ran off, afterwards meeting his companion. They then went together to the police station and gave information of the outrage, and the case was put into the hands of P.S. Swift, who accompanied them to the scene of the tussle, where the Sergeant found, about ten yards from the highway, in the field, a Glengarry cap belonging to a private of the West Surrey Regiment. This was about two on Sunday morning. At nine the same morning the Sergeant accompanied the prosecutors to the Shorncliffe Camp, when some thirty men were paraded before them, and Winfelder identified Anwyl as one of the soldiers who had taken part in the robbery, but Guilliams was unable to pick out either of his assailants.

It was, however, proved by Wm. Stanley, a caretaker at the recreation room of the Provisional Battalion at the Camp, that Davis and Bruce each pledged with him a stick for 1s. 6d., which the two prosecutors now identified as their property which had been taken from them.

When apprehended by Sergt. Swift, the only one of the three who made any reply to the charge was Bruce, who said “I have got myself into this by selling that stick”. When searched Bruce had on him 1s. 7d., Anwyl 1s. 6½d,. and Davis 6s. 10½d.

Guilliams put the value of his watch and chain at £13 – they were of gold. Winfelder estimated his watch and chain at about a sovereign, while he had also been robbed of between 15s. and 20s. in money.

The three prisoners, who had conducted themselves very coolly throughout the Magisterial proceeding, said they were not guilty, Anwyl remarking “I most emphatically say that I am not guilty”.

At the conclusion of the case Mr. Supt. Taylor said he should ask for a remand in order to trace the stolen property, and this was granted until Saturday.

Sandgate Visitors` List 13-8-1892

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Monday three privates in the West Surrey Regiment, named Edward Anwyl, William Davis, and William Bruce, were remanded on a charge of being concerned with others not in custody, with assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliams and another on the previous Saturday evening. The prosecutor, who is a Dutch waiter, and another foreigner, named John Winfelder, met several soldiers in the Guildhall Vaults, Folkestone, and treated them. They left the house together and went into the East Kent Arms, just before closing time, where they again stood treat. They afterwards proceeded with the soldiers up Sandgate Road towards the Camp, and accompanied them along the Shorncliffe Road. Both were a little the worse for drink. They were afterwards assaulted by the soldiers, and robbed of their watches and money. The soldiers made off, and the prosecutor and his companion went to the police station and informed the police. P.S. Swift went to the spot, near Leigh House, where the assault was committed, and found a Glengarry cap of the West Surrey Regiment. Prisoners were arrested at the Camp on Sunday. Only Anwyl was recognised, but the sticks of prosecutor and his companion were found in the possession of the other two prisoners.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20-8-1892

Saturday, August 13^th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, Councillor Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

William Bruce, William Davis, and Edward Anwyl, three well-built soldiers, belonging to the West Surrey Regiment, were brought up on remand, and further charged with assaulting and robbing two Dutch waiters, named Charles Guilliams and John Winfelder on the night of the 6^th inst.

It will be remembered that the case came before the Bench on the 8^th inst., when the prosecutors deposed that they had been robbed of a gold double-cased keyless watch, gold Albert chain, pocket book, letter case, silk handkerchief, sticks, hats, 15s. in money, silver watch and chain, cigarette case, and pipe.

Frederick Harris, a lance corporal in the same regiment, now deposed that the defendants passed the quarter guard together at three minutes past twelve on the Saturday night, and went into quarters. He knew the men personally.

Bruce stated that he came into Folkestone on the evening of the 6^th inst. with his comrades in the dock, and after drinking with them at the George Hotel, he left them and went to the Alhambra, Sandgate, where he stayed till closing time; after that he returned to barracks. He was not accompanied by the other defendants. With regard to the stick, he found that outside hut number 23 early on Sunday morning, and he carried it away and hid it behind his own cot.

Anwyl stated that he was in Folkestone until closing time. As he was returning to the Camp he overtook a group of soldiers with whom were the two prosecutors. He addressed the latter in Dutch and they replied. Shortly after he bid them “good night” and went into the Camp. He had neither handled nor seen the missing property.

Davis also averred that he had had nothing to do with the robbery.

The Bench stated that they had decided that the case should go before a jury for trial, and the prisoners would therefore be committed for trial.

The men were removed in custody.

Folkestone Express 20-8-1892

Saturday, August 13^th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

William Brice, Edward Anwyl, and William Davis were charged on remand with assaulting and robbing two waiters.

Frederick Harris, a lance corporal in the West Surrey Regiment, was called, and said he was on duty with the quarter guard on Saturday night and saw the three prisoners go into Camp together at three minutes past twelve. They went up to the guard. No other soldiers were with them. They passed the guard and went into quarters.

All three prisoners made long statements of their proceedings on the night in question. Brice denied all connection with the matter or that he was in the company of the other prisoners, and appealed to the Bench to ask them the question.

Anwyl said he left the hut early in the morning of Sunday and found the walking stick.

Davis said he exchanged his regimental cane with a Scotch soldier for the stick in order that the latter might pass the guard, and next morning pawned it for 1s. 6d.

The prisoners were committed for trial at the Sessions.

Sandgate Visitors` List 20-8-1892

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday three privates in the West Surrey Regiment, named Edward Anwyl, William Bruce, and William Davis were committed for trial on the charge of assaulting and robbing two waiters in the Shorncliffe Road on the night of the 6^th inst.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22-10-1892

Quarter Sessions

Monday 17^th October: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

William Bruce, Edward Anwyl, and William Davis, all privates in the West Kent Regiment, were charged with stealing from the person of John Winfelder one watch and chain, one cigarette case, one pipe, one stick, and the sum of 15s. in money on the 8^th August.

Each of the prisoners pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

Mr. Matthews appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Tassell appeared for the defendant Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles defended the remaining two men at the request of the Learned Recorder.

The evidence, as given at the two hearings before the Bench, was repeated.

John Winfelder, prosecutor, said on the night in question he was drinking until closing time at the East Kent Arms, with Guilliam and some soldiers. All left together, and went in the direction of Shorncliffe Road. As they were walking together, a Scotch soldier tried to thrust his hand into witness`s pocket, but he prevented him from doing so. The Scotch soldier then left witness and joined the other party, walking in front with Guilliam. Subsequently a gang of the soldiers got witness into a field alongside the Shorncliffe Road, knocked him down, and robbed him of everything he possessed. The next day he went to the Camp with a police sergeant, and identified Anwyl as one of the party by whom he was attacked.

In the course of cross-examination by Mr. Tassell, he said he did not say, before the Bench, that “he saw Anwyl in the field”, although the remark was on the depositions. He said “he supposed he was with him”. He could not swear to any of the prisoners.

By the Recorder: He told them he identified Anwyl as walking with him, and the Scotch soldier.

Was Anwyl with him when he tried to put his hand into his (witness`s) pocket? – Yes.

What did Anwyl do? – He did not do anything.

Charles Guilliam, another waiter, deposed to accompanying the previous witness in his drinking campaign that evening. He did not witness the assault and robbery, but he saw Winfelder coming out of a field looking very much disturbed and excited.

Private Childs, of the West Kent Regiment, said on the Sunday morning he was shown a Malacca stick (produced) by Davis, who asked him the value of it. He told witness he had taken the stick in exchange for his regimental stick.

William Stanley, the Caretaker of the Recreation Room of the Provisional Battalion deposed to lending prisoner Davis 1s. 6d. on the stick until the following day.

Sergeant Swift said the prosecutors came to him at the Police Station on the night of the assault, and told him what had happened; they were somewhat excited, and under the influence of drink. With the men he went to the scene of the struggle, and there found a Glengarry cap belonging to the West Kent Regiment. During the Sunday morning they went to the Camp, and Winfelder identified Anwyl as one of those who had taken part in the assault.

The jury wished to know if the three prisoners were wearing their caps when they returned to the Camp.

An answer was returned, by Lance Corporal Harris, in the affirmative.

Mr. Tassell made an able speech on behalf on Anwyl, and in the course of his summing up, the Learned Recorder said Mr. Tassel had put forward his case in a clear manner. He had made a very able defence that was worthy of the best traditions of the bar.

The Recorder also admitted that there was hardly any evidence against Bruce, but the facts against Davis were of a very important description. He then pointed out that the latter had not shown how he came by the possession of the stick, and in affairs of this nature it was held that the recent possession of stolen property was evidence that either the person stole it, or he knew who did commit the theft.

Lieut. Geo. Williams gave the defendant Bruce an excellent character.

The issue was then left in the hands of the Petty Jury, and after deliberating together for a short time they found a verdict of Not Guilty against each of the prisoners.

The Court then adjourned for a short interval.

On re-assembling the three prisoners were again placed in the dock, and this time charged withsteal;ing from the person of Charles Guilliams one watch and chain, one letter case, one pocket handkerchief, one stick, and one hat, on 8^th August, 1892.

Mr. Mavrojain appeared to prosecute. Mr. Tassell defended Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles the others.

In the second case Charles Guilliams said he was now living in London, at No. 12, Stamford Street. He detailed what took place on the 8^th August, as already described in the previous case, to which he added that his watch and chain, and pocket book, silk handkerchief, stick and hat were taken away from him in the course of a wrestle with five or six soldiers.

John Winfelder and William Childs gave evidence. The latter stated that Bruce produced a Malacca stick on the Sunday morning in his barrack hut. He drew it from behind his cot, and asked witness the value of it. He replied “One and sixpence”.

In summing up, the Learned Recorder said he thought it was right that the jury should acquit Anwyl, and also Davis, but he again commented very strongly on the fact that Bruce was found in the possession of a part of the stolen property, and he had failed to give any reasonable explanation as to how he had come by the same.

The Recorder having summed up, the jury expressed a desire to retire to consider their verdict.

Mr. Harrison (to the Recorder): There is no room, sir, for the jury to go to.

The Recorder (to the jury): I can`t help it, gentlemen. It is the fault of the Borough. I consider it is a perfect scandal and a disgrace to a town like Folkestone. I have raised my voice over and over again, and I can`t help it, gentlemen. If you don`t take the matter in your own hands, I can`t do anything.

Mr. Major (a juror): Put us in the cells! (Laughter)

It was eventually decided to lock the jury in the Reception Room at the Police Station.

After an absence of ten minutes the jury returned, and found a verdict of Not Guilty against all the prisoners.

Folkestone Express 22-10-1892

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 17^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Edward Anwyl, William Bruce, and William Davis were indicted for stealing from the person of John Winfelder a watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe, a stick, and 15s. in money.

There was another charge of stealing from the person of Charles Guilliams, but this was dealt with separately.

Mr. Matthews prosecuted. Mr. Tassel defended Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles, by direction of the Recorder, defended Bruce and Davis.

John Winfelder, one of the prosecutors, said he was a waiter. On the 6^th August (Saturday night) he was with Guilliams in the East Kent Arms. There were some soldiers there, and they left at closing time and walked up the Shorncliffe Road. When they left they had some conversation with the soldiers. They were talking “some nonsense”, and asked witness to have another drink. He said he did not mind, and they went off to get another drink. Guilliams was in front. Witness was behind with two soldiers. One was a Scotch Guard, and the other a “red”. The Scotch soldier tried to get his hand in witness`s pocket, and afterwards ran to Guilliams, and some other soldiers came up from behind, knocked him down, and robbed him of his watch, stick, money, cigarette case and handkerchief. He called out twice to Guilliams for help. He identified Anwyl as the man who was walking with him with one of the Scotch soldiers, but was not sure he was in the field. None of the soldiers stayed in the road. When he met Guilliams they both went to the police station together. Next day they went together to the Camp, and he identified Anwyl, picking him out from about 30 men. He was not drunk when the offence was committed, but he had been drinking.

By Mr. Tassell: I was not drunk and not sober. I know quite well what I did. We left the West Cliff about ten o`clock. We went first to the Guildhall and had a drink, and stayed there some time. At a quarter to eleven I and Guilliams went out and went in again. We did not then stand drinks to the soldiers. Then we went to the East Kent Arms. I can swear I was not drunk, but not just as sober as I am now. The place where the robbery took place was about ten minutes` walk from the West Cliff Hotel. I did not say before the Magistrates that I saw Anwyl in the field. I said I supposed so. (The evidence was read, in which he said “I saw him in the field when I was down”.) I did not say that. The nonsense we were talking was about soldiers. I cannot remember anything Anwyl did. I could not identify any of the Scotch soldiers. Anwyl was not in the Guildhall Vaults with us.

By Mr. Bowles: Neither Bruce nor Davis were in the Guildhall with us. We stood drinks to several soldiers in the East Kent Arms. I did not see Bruce or Davis there. I identified Anwyl as being with me when walking down Shorncliffe Road, but did not see him in the field, nor do I identify Bruce or Davis as having been in the field.

By The Recorder: Anwyl was with me when the Scotch soldier tried to put his hand in my pocket. I only said to him “Leave off!”. Anwyl did not do anything.

Charles Guilliams was called, and Mr. Matthews asked the Recorder whether he should examine him.

The Recorder did not see anything material in his evidence affecting the case of Winfelder, except that he bore out a part of the statements.

Witness was then sworn, and corroborated up to a certain point Winfelder`s evidence. Winfelder, he said, was very excited and very dirty after he came out of the field.

By Mr. Tassell: I went with Winfelder in his “little round”. I was not quite sober. I have not been able to identify any single soldier.

Wm. Childs, private in the West Surrey Regiment, said he went on the 8^th August to a room, when Davis was in the barracks. Davis showed him the stick produced and asked him the value of it, and he told him it was worth 18d. or 2s. He said he exchanged his regimental stick for it.

By Mr. Bowles: After he asked him the value of the stick he laid it down by the side of his bed.

Wm. Stanley, caretaker of the recreation room of the Provisional Battalion, said on the 8^th August he saw Davis at eight o`clock in the morning. He asked him to lend him 18d. on the stick till next day. He said it was his own stick that he had given him in exchange.

By Mr. Bowles: It is not an uncommon thing to lend money just before pay day.

Sergeant Swift said the prosecutors were very excited, and under the influence of drink, when they went to the police station on the 8^th of August. He went with them to a field in Shorncliffe Road, and there found a Glengarry cap, a cuff, and some links. The same morning they all went to the Camp together, and Winfelder picked out Anwyl, who was charged with robbing Winfelder. He replied “I never laid a finger on him”. When Davis was charged with being concerned in the assault and robbery he made no reply. Bruce and Anwyl were searched. They only had 1s. 6½d. and 1s. 8d. on them.

By Mr. Bowles: Bruce and Davis were not identified. Sergeant Roblow told me they were in the guardroom.

Frederick Harris, lance corporal in the West Surrey Regiment, said the three prisoners entered the Camp together at three minutes past twelve on the 8^th August.

By Mr. Tassell: They all arrived about the same time. They were due in at twelve.

By Mr. Bowles: There may have been 20 others come in at the same time.

Prisoners` statements were put in and read.

Mr. Matthews contended that the jury would condider that the men were guilty at any rate of taking part in the robbery.

The Recorder asked what the evidence against Bruce was.

Mr. Matthews said they were out together.

Mr. Bowles emphasised the Recorder`s view.

Mr. Price, a juryman, asked if the cap found in the field could be identified as belonging to either of the prisoners.

The Colour Sergeant was re-called, and said he did not know who the cap belonged to. A man might have two or three. There was no number on the cap, which had been cut down. They had tried to find out who it belonged to, and could not. No Glengarry caps were missing among the men in the guardroom.

Mr. Price: Did the three men return with their caps on?

Harris was re-called, and said they did.

Mr. Tassell said he was extremely obliged to the jury for the manner in which they had brought out the facts of the cap. He then addressed the jury on behalf of Anwyl, and said if it had not been for the fact that he was picked out by Winfelder there would not have been a scrap of evidence against him, and he urged that it was a mistake altogether, and there was no value whatever in the identification. He also referred to the fact that Winfelder, two hours and a half after the public houses were shut up was still, according to Sergeant Swift`s evidence, under the influence of drink. He remembered very little, except the identification, which was quite valueless. Even if he did see him, his evidence did not connect Anwyl in any way into the robbery, and from the very first moment he had told one consistent story.

Mr. Bowles addressed the jury on behalf of Bruce, first contending there was no evidence against him. In dealing with the charge against Davis and his dealing with the stick, he urged that his explanation was a very reasonable one, namely that he exchanged his regimental cane for it.

The Recorder said of course one was not inclined to have very much sympathy with people like the prosecutors, going about on a Saturday night spending their wages in public houses. But still the jury had a duty to perform. He scanned the evidence, and said in regard to Anwyl he had lost nothing at the hands of his counsel, and that he had been defended in a manner worthy of the best traditions of the bar, and he congratulated him on the able defence he had made. The evidence against Bruce, he said, was very slight indeed, but in the case of Davis, he said there was evidence of a very important nature. The possession of articles recently stolen had been held to be strong evidence of a guilty knowledge, and Davis was found within a few hours of the stick being stolen trying to dispose of it, and when charged by Swift with stealing a watch and chain, and a walking stick, he made no reply. It was undoubtedly a deplorable state of things that two men in a state of semi-drunkenness should be set upon by soldiers in such a manner, but it was for the jury to say whether either of the men were guilty of stealing or receiving the property stolen.

George Willes, Lieutenant of the 3^rd Royal Berkshire Regiment, said Bruce bore a good character in the regiment.

The jury asked to be allowed to retire, and the Recorder was about to adjourn the Court for half an hour, when the jury consulted in the box for a moment, and gave a verdict of Not Guilty.

The Recorder thought the other indictment ought to be proceeded with.

After the adjournment the prisoners were indicted for assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliams. Mr. Mavro-Jain prosecuted, and Mr. Tassell and Mr. Bowles defended the prisoners as in the first case.

Charles Guilliams gave evidence. He said he was out of employment, and lived at 112, Stanford Street, London.

The evidence was practically the same as in the first case.

At the close of the case, the prosecuting counsel said the evidence against Anwyl was very slight. Against Bruce it was stronger, because he was found dealing with a stolen stick, and it was held that that constituted at any rate a knowledge that it was stolen property.

Mr. Tassell submitted that there was no evidence against Anwyl at all, but the Recorder declined to withdraw the case from the jury. Mr. Tassell then said it was especially hard that Anwyl should have to undergo a second trial, when there was absolutely no evidence against him whatever. He had told a simple, straightforward tale, which one jury believed, and acquitted him, and he asked that jury to do the same.

Mr. Bowles contended there was not a single bit of evidence against Davis, and, as regarded Bruce and the stick, the story he told as to finding it was perfectly probable. It might be a foolish thing to do, but it was not an act that ought to convict him of being connected with the robbery.

The Recorder then summed up. He said the evidence as to Anwyl and Davis was of a flimsy character, and he thought that those two should be acquitted. But because one jury acquitted Bruce, it was not to say that another should do so. There was evidence against him of a very cogent nature. Judges had said, and he had said over and over again that when people were found in possession of goods recently stolen, it was stong evidence that they either stole them, or knew them to be stolen, and in such a case the onus was shifted – it was for him to show that he came by them honestly. He summed up strongly against Bruce, chiefly on the ground of the inconsistency of the statements he made. He added further, that if people picked up property and dealt with it it was as much larceny as anything else.

The jury retired, and on their return into Court gave a verdict of acquittal in the case of all three prisoners.

Folkestone Herald 22-10-1892

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 17^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

William Bruce, 26, Edward Anwyl, 25, and William Davis, 25, three soldiers of the West Surrey Battalion, were charged with stealing from the person of John Winfelder a watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe and stick, and 15s.; also wit stealing from Charles Guilliams a watch and chain, a letter case, a pocket handkerchief, a stick and hat, on the same date, each robbery being accompanied with violence.

Mr. Matthew prosecuted in the first case, and Mr. Mavrojani in the second. Mr. A.J. Tassell (instructed by Mr. R.M. Mercer, of Canterbury) defended Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles, at the request of the Recorder, defended the other two.

On the 8^th of August the prosecutors had been drinking at various public houses standing treat to soldiers. On leaving they were accompanied by the prisoners and others. They were then in a condition which Mr. Tassell described as “squiffy”, but upon the Recorder expressing his ignorance of the word, he substituted the expression “muddled”. After going some distance on the Shorncliffe Road they were knocked down and robbed by the soldiers. The evidence as to the prisoners having taken part in the robbery was not very clear, but they were afterwards found dealing with the sticks.

In summing up, alluding to Anwyl`s case, the Recorder said he had lost nothing by the way in which he had been defended. His Counsel (Mr. Tassell) had put forward the defence in an able and clear manner, worthy of the best traditions of the Bar, and he congratulated him upon it.

Lieut. Willes, 3d Royal Berkshire, gave Bruce a good character.

The jury found the prisoners Not Guilty in the first case.

The second charge was heard before a fresh jury. The Recorder, in summing up, said he thought it right to advise them that they should acquit Anwyl and Davis. He dissented from the proposition that because one jury had acquitted a man a second should do the same, and in the case of Bruce he thought there were cogent circumstances in the case against him.

The jury, however, eventually followed the example of their predecessors in the box and acquitted all three prisoners.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-11-1892

Wednesday, November 23^rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. H.W. Poole, J. Fitness and E.T. Ward.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Tavern applied for a licence to serve at Carlo Maestrani`s Restaurant on Monday next, the occasion of a dinner. He asked that the licence might be extended to 12 o`clock.

Councillor Holden: Eleven o`clock is late enough. It is late enough for the Mayor`s Dinner and it is late enough for you.

Mr. Tunbridge said he was instructed to ask for the licence to extend to 12 o`clock.

Mr. Fitness asked him who gave him instructions.

Mr. Tunbridge replied “The dinner committee”.

Mr. Fitness: Oh! I shall vote for 11 o`clock.

The licence was granted on the understanding that the applicant would not draw after 11 o`clock.

Folkestone Express 26-11-1892

Wednesday, November 23^rd: Before The Mayor, Captain Carter, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, J. Fitness, E. Ward, and J. Holden Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence until twelve o`clock for the carnival dinner to be held on Monday at Maestrani`s Restaurant. Granted until eleven o`clock, Mr. Holden remarking that eleven o`clock was late enough for a Mayor`s Dinner, and it was late enough for a carnival.

Folkestone Express 3-12-1892

Wednesday, November 30^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the Tradesmen`s Dinner at Maestrani`s Restaurant, from six until eleven next Tuesday. Granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-3-1893

Saturday, February 25^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge, Sherwood, and Dunk, Councillors Penfold, Holden and Spurgen, and Mr. J. Fitness.

Edward Murray, a respectably-attired young man, was charged with being drunk in the Market Place on the 19^th ult.

Sergeant Harman deposed that shortly after ten o`clock on Sunday the 19<sup>th</sup> ult., he found defendant lying on his back at the bottom of the steps, near Messrs. Hyland and Goble`s premises, in a helpless state of drunkenness. Witness and Sergeant Swift got the defendant into the station, where he vomited very much. They considered it advisable to call in Dr. Bateman, and did so, with the result that this gentleman confirmed the opinion of the sergeants that the defendant was drunk. Murray was detained until the morning, and then discharged.

Defendant said he was not drunk. He had been ill for a fortnight with influenza, and on Sunday evening, at the request of a pal, they adjourned to the Guildhall Tavern, where defendant had a small modicum of rum. After closing time he was going home in an orderly manner, but he fell down and hit his head on the steps at the bottom of the Market Place.

The Chairman said there was no doubt the defendant was drunk – a disgraceful thing for a young man in his position. Fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Visitors` List 31-5-1893

Police Court Jottings

One of the beauties of grandmotherly legislation was shown when on Saturday Mr. James Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Tavern, made an application to the Bench (The Mayor, Alderman Herbert C.C., Colonel De Crespigny, Messrs. Poole, Wightwick, and Fitness) for an occasional licence to sell at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening on the occasion of a smoking concert to be given to the Yeomanry.

The Clerk pointed out that according to the Act of Parliament the licence could not be granted for later than ten o`clock unless it was the occasion of a public ball or dinner.

Col. De Crespigny recommended that they call it a ball! The Mayor suggested they might give the men bread and cheese and call it a dinner. The Clerk declined to ask the Magistrates to infringe the Act of Parliament, and as Mr. Tunbridge said up to ten would “not be worth having”, our brave defenders will have to be content with a “dry pipe” on Wednesday.

Folkestone Express 3-6-1893

Wednesday, May 31^st: Before The Mayor, W. Wightwick and C. Pursey Esqs.

Mr. James Tunbridge renewed his application for an occasional licence for the Yeomanry smoking concert, which was granted, until ten o`clock.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-12-1895

Local News

The application of Mr. Tunbridge, Guildhall Vaults, for a temporary licence to supply liquors at the Carnival dinner was granted, the hours being  from 6 to 11 o`clock.

Folkestone Express 7-12-1895

Saturday, November 30^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell spirits at Mr. Maestrani`s Restaurant on the occasion of the Carnival Dinner on Tuesday.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-1-1896

Monday, January 13^th: Before The Mayor, and Messrs. Banks and Wightwick.

Mr. Tunbridge of the Guildhall Vaults was granted an occasional licence on the occasion of a dinner at Maestrani`s Restaurant on Wednesday.

Folkestone Express 18-1-1896

Monday, January 13^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence to sell at the Central Cafe Restaurant on Wednesday. Granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-2-1896

Saturday, February 22^nd: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold, and T.J. Vaughan.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for the Tradesmen`s Dinner at Maestrani`s Restaurant on Wednesday.

Folkestone Express 29-2-1896

Saturday, February 22^nd: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence to sell at Maestrani`s Central Restaurant on the occasion of the Tradesmen`s Dinner.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30-5-1896

Saturday, May 23^rd : Before Messrs. J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, J. Fitness and J. Pledge.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence to serve at the Town Hall for the Yeomanry smoking concert. This was granted.

Folkestone Express 30-5-1896

Wednesday, May 27^th: Before The Mayor, C.J. Pursey, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, and J. Brooke Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the smoking concert at the Town Hall on Thursday. Granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12-12-1896

Wednesday, December 9^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Fitness, and General Gwyn.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence for a smoking concert at the Town Hall on Friday.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-2-1897

Saturday, February 20^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Holden.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell at the annual Foresters` Dinner at Maestrani`s Restaurant.

Folkestone Express 27-2-1897

Saturday, February 20^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Spurgen, and J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to supply liquors at Maestrani`s Restaurant on the occasion of the Foresters` Dinner.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8-5-1897

Wednesday, May 5^th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, and General Gwyn.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell at Maestrani`s Restaurant on the occasion of the Football Smoking Concert on Monday.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-12-1897

Saturday, December 4^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, J. Holden, and J. Hoad.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for the gardeners` dinner at Maestrani`s Restaurant on Tuesday.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-2-1898

Wednesday, February 9^th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for the Licensed Victuallers` dinner at Maestrani`s Restaurant on Thursday until 12 (midnight).

Folkestone Chronicle 19-2-1898

Monday, February 14^th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for the Football Smoker at Maestrani`s Restaurant on Thursday.

Folkestone Herald 27-8-1898

Local News

The Guildhall Vaults, next the Town Hall, held on lease from Lord Radnor, was sold on Thursday for £5,500 by Mr. Loftus Banks.

Sandgate Weekly News 27-8-1898

Local News

On Thursday the Guildhall Tavern, in Guildhall Street, Folkestone, was offered for sale at the Queen`s Hotel by Mr. Loftus Banks, and realised £5,000.

 

Folkestone Programme 29-8-1898

Notes

The leasehold public house near the Town Hall, known as the Guildhall Vaults, was sold on Thursday afternoon by public auction for the substantial sum of £5,900. Forty five years of the leasehold have yet to expire, whilst the ground rent is only £10 per annum.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-10-1898

Tuesday, October 25^th: Before The Mayor, T.J. Vaughan, J. Hoad, and J. Pledge.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence for the football smoking concert on Wednesday at Maestrani`s Restaurant.

Folkestone Up To Date 6-5-1899

Saturday, April 29^th: Before J. Banks, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lt. Col. Hamilton.

Mr. J. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an extension on account of the smoking concert for the benefit of Mr. W.R. Light, at the Town Hall on the following Monday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10-6-1899

Local News

Mr. James Tunbridge was at Monday`s Police Court granted a special licence for the supply of refreshments at the Yeomanry Ball at the Town Hall on Tuesday evening.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-6-1899

Local News

Mr. Tunbridge has been granted an occasional licence for the cricket field for Saturdays.

Folkestone Express 17-6-1899

Wednesday, June 14^th: Before J. Hoad, W. Wightwick, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.,

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell at the cricket field on Saturday.

Folkestone Up To Date 15-7-1899

Wednesday, July 12^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, and W. Medhurst Esqs.

On the application of Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, an application for an occasional licence in connection with a cricket match was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 19-7-1899

Wednesday, July 12^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, and W. Medhurst Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell liquors at a cricket match.

Folkestone Chronicle 22-7-1899

Monday, July 17^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and Messrs. Pursey, Wightwick, and Cunningham.

Mr. James Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell refreshments at cricket matches on Wednesday and Friday.

Folkestone Express 29-7-1899

Wednesday, July 26^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge, Col. Hamilton, and C.J. Pursey Esq.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell on the cricket field during cricket week.

Folkestone Herald 29-7-1899

Folkestone Police Court

Mr. James Tunbridge asked for an occasional licence to sell liquors on the Plain during the Cricket week. Granted.

 

Folkestone Express 9-9-1899

Saturday, September 2^nd: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell at a cricket match.