Holbein`s Visitors` List 18-3-1891
Wednesday,
March 11th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, and
W.G. Herbert Esq.
Henry Smith,
of the Packet Boat Inn, was fined 5s. and 9s. costs for having his dog
unmuzzled in the Tram Road on the 6th March.
P.C. Nash
proved the case.
Folkestone Chronicle 13-8-1892
Saturday,
August 6th: Before Messrs. J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Holden, W.G.
Boykett, and Alderman Pledge.
Mrs. Ada Jane
Smith, of the Packet Inn, was charged with knowingly having in her possession
2¼ lbs. of goods, the same being uncustomed goods. The defendant pleaded Not
Guilty.
Mr. Rolt,
chief officer of Customs at Folkestone, stated that from information he
received he caused the house of the defendant to be searched, and in a chest of
drawers in one of the bedrooms the officers found 2¼ lbs. of cigars, upon which
duty had not been paid.
Charles S.
Jones, a Customs officer, said he went to the Packet Boat Inn with a writ
granted by the Court of Exchequer and searched the house. He found seven boxes
of cigars, each containing 25, in a chest of drawers in a bedroom. The weight
was 2¼ lb.
Mr. Bradley
asked what there was to distinguish uncustomed goods from customed goods.
Witness
replied they were foreign cigars, and the onus of proof lay with the defendant.
He spoke to defendant, who first said she did not know anything about them, and
then that it was her son`s room. Her son was a second engineer on board one of
the steamers.
The single
value duty was said to be £1 13s. 9d.
Defendant
said she knew nothing about the cigars. The officers had been everywhere over
the house, and those cigars were found in her son`s room. Her son had his own
room, and he had the cigars, she supposed, for his own use. He told her he had
been putting them by for a long time, to get dry.
Mr. Bradley
said she could give evidence if she pleased. She was then sworn and repeated
her statement on oath. She added that the servant attended to the bedroom.
The Bench
asked how many cigars an engineer could bring over.
Mr. Rolt said
he would be allowed a small quantity for use on board ship, but by the Customs
Act he was prohibited from removing a single cigar from the ship without paying
duty.
Mr. Bradley
said the point for the Magistrates to decide was whether the defendant
knowingly allowed the cigars to be there.
The Bench
said the charge was not made out to their satisfaction, and they therefore
dismissed it.
Mr. Bradley:
Was Mrs. Smith taken into custody? – Yes.
Mr. Bradley:
What was the reason of that? It was a rather harsh thing to do. Here is a respectable
woman, living in the town, taken into custody on this trumpery charge. Why was
she not allowed to remain, and be summoned?
It seems to me a most harsh proceeding.
Mr. Rolt: We
knew nothing of her.
Mr. Boykett:
Very harsh.
Supt. Taylor
said she was only in custody ten minutes.
Mr. Bradley:
The indignity was the same. Why, for Heaven`s sake, was she arrested on the
trumpery charge? Here is a respectable inhabitant of the town, and well known,
taken into custody. She was not going to run away.
The Chairman:
It was very harsh.
Supt. Taylor:
What is to be done with the cigars?
Mr. Rolt: We
keep those on behalf of the Crown.
Mr. Fitness:
Have the Bench no power over it?
Mr. Rolt:No,
sir.
Folkestone Express 13-8-1892
Saturday,
August 6th: Before J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Clark, J. Holden and F.
Boykett Esqs.
Mary Ann
Smith was charged with having knowingly in her house 2¼ lbs. of cigars, the
same being uncustomed goods.
Mr. Rolt,
Customs Officer, said he caused Mrs. Smith`s house to be searched, and in a
chest of drawers they found 2¼ lbs. of cigars which had not paid duty.
Charles S.
Jones said he went to the Packet Boat Inn with a writ granted by the Court of
Exchequer, and searched the house, and found seven boxes of cigars in a chest
of drawers in a bedroom. The weight was 2¼ lbs.
Mr. Bradley
asked what there was to distinguish the cigars.
Witness said
they were foreign cigars, and the onus of proof laid with the defendant. He
spoke to defendant, who first said she did not know anything about them, and
then that it was her son`s room. The son is a second engineer on board one of
the steamers.
The single
value and duty was said to be £1 13s. 9d.
Defendant
said she knew nothing about the cigars. The officers had been everywhere over
the house, and those cigars were found in her son`s room. Her son had his own
room, and he had the cigars, she supposed, for his own use. He told her he had
been keeping them a long time to get dry.
Mr. Bradley
said she could give evidence if she pleased. She was then sworn and repeated
her statement on oath. She added that the servant attended to the bedroom.
Mr. Bradley
asked how many cigars an engineer could bring over.
The officer
said he would be allowed a small quantity for use on board ship, but by the
Customs Act he was prohibited from removing a single cigar without paying duty.
Mr. Bradley
said the point for the Magistrates to decide was whether the defendant
knowingly allowed the cigars to be there.
The Bench
said the charge was not made out to their satisfaction, and dismissed it.
Mr. Bradley
asked: Was Mrs. Smith taken into custody? – Yes.
What was the
reason of that? It was a rather harsh thing to do. Here is a respectable woman,
living in the town, taken into custody on this trumpery charge. Why was she not
allowed to remain and be summoned? It seems to me a most harsh proceeding.
Mr. Boykett:
Very harsh.
Supt. Taylor
said she was only in custody ten minutes.
Mr. Bradley:
The indignity was the same. Why, for Heaven`s sake, was she arrested on the
trumpery charge? Here is a respectable inhabitant of the town,, and well known,
taken into custody. She was not going to run away.
The Chairman:
It was very harsh.
Supt. Taylor:
What is to be done with the cigars?
Mr. Rolt: We
keep those on behalf of the Crown.
Mr. Holden:
Have the Bench no power over it?
Mr. Bradley:
No, sir.
Folkestone Chronicle 20-8-1892
Saturday,
August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, Councillor
Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.
Henry Smith,
an engineer of one of the Channel steamers, was charged with being concerned in
harbouring and concealing uncustomed goods, viz., 2 lb. 4 oz. of cigars on the
5th inst. The defendant pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Minter
appeared on behalf of the prosecutors, the Honourable Board of Customs, and he
called Mr. C.L. Jones, who deposed to finding the cigars in a chest of drawers
in defendant`s bedroom at the Packet Boat Inn as reported in our last issue. He
also stated that the single value and duty of the cigars was £1 13s. 9d.
Mr. Minter
said he contended that the penalty as prescribed by the law was that the single
value and duty should be trebled, but the Magistrates` Clerk held that it was
only the value that should be trebled, and not the duty.
Mr. Andrews
pointed out that that was immaterial in this case as the Bench had the power of
fining a defendant the single value and duty ony in cases where the value was
under £20.
Mr. Jones
said the value of the cigars was 10s. per lb., and the duty 5s. per lb.
The defendant
said he kept the cigars for his own use. He thought he was justified in doing
what he had done.
The Bench
fined the defendant £1 13s. 9d., the value of the cigars, and 11s. 6d. costs.
Folkestone Express 20-8-1892
Saturday,
August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden
and J. Fitness Esqs.
Henry Smith
was summoned for being concerned in harbouring uncustomed goods – 2 lb. 4 oz.
of foreign cigars. The defendant is the son of Mrs. Smith, who was on the
previous Saturday charged with a similar offence and dismissed.
Mr. Minter
appeared for the Customs authorities. He said at the outset that attention had
been called to the remarks that were made at the hearing of the charge against
Mrs. Smith by the Clerk to the Magistrates, when the officers were out of Court
searching for a witness in another case which was coming before the Bench. The
consequence was they had no opportunity of answering the remark, but he was
quite sure the Bench would allow him to make an explanation. He read the report
of the proceedings which appeared in this journal, and then said he must take
exception to the observations made by the Clerk to the Magistrates that it was
a trumpery charge. It was a very serious charge if it had been proved, but the
Bench did not feel that it was proved, and the Customs at once submitted to
their judgement. At the same time it was a very serious charge, and not a
trumpery one. The Customs had two ways of dealing with it, either by bringing
the parties at once before the Magistrates, or by issuing a summons. He thought
it almost went without saying that the Customs, in the discharge of their
duties, never wished to act in a harsh manner, and under the exceptional
circumstances which he was going to tell them, they would see there was no
pretence for saying there was any hardship, and that what was done was to
accommodate the lady herself. He rather wondered she did not state what
actually took place. When the officers found those cigars, to which a young
fellow, a son of Mrs. Smith, had pleaded guilty to having in his bedroom in his
mother`s house, it was the imperative duty of the Customs officers to charge
someone with the offence with which they, in the first instance, charged Mrs.
Smith – that of harbouring those cigars on her premises. They would have been
guilty of neglect of duty if they had not directed proceedings to have the
matter enquired into. The lady was in a very hysterical condition when the
things were found. He did not wish to trouble the Bench with her observations.
It was for her to show she did not know they were there. The officer explained
to her what must be done. If he had been her own son he could not have acted in
a kinder manner. He explained to her what he should have to do. He did what Mr.
Bradley said he should have done. He told her he would have to issue a summons
against her and she would have to appear before the Magistrates. Her reply was
“Can`t you get rid of this matter without that? Can`t you have it settled at
once?” The officer as kindly as possible said the only way in which she could
have it settled was by technically submitting to an arrest, by going to the
police station, and signing a police bond to appear on the morrow. She said she
would rather do that than wait for a summons. The lady walked up to the police
station herself – not in custody – technically in custody if they liked, and
waited till the officer and the Superintendent of Police came up. She signed
the bail bond and walked home, and was much obliged to the officers for having
done what they could in order that the charge might be disposed of next day.
Then, when it came on the next morning, somehow or other, it got into the mind
of Mr. Bradley, that she had been there and then arrested and dragged up
through the streets. The officers would have been perfectly justified in doing
it. They intended to summon her in the ordinary way. He thought after that
explanation they would say nobody had been guilty of harsh or unfeeling
conduct. The officers, on the other hand, did everything they could for the lady
in order to facilitate the hearing.
Alderman
Sherwood: Then there is an end of it.
Alderman
Pledge: Just consider for a moment. This lady, in giving evidence, said she had
no idea they were there. They were in her son`s bedroom, and she knew nothing about
them.
Mr. Minter:
And you believed her and dismissed the case. We don`t complain. E say that the
officers searching and seizing these contraband goods, it was their duty to
summon everybody in the house in order that the Magistrates should have judicial
knowledge of it.
The
Magistrates then proceeded to discuss the matter.
Mr. Minter
said he was instructed not to press harshly, but there was the Act, under which
the Bench must adjudicate, and which decided what the defendant must pay. As he
had said before, the game was not worth the candle.
Mr. Rolt, the
Customs officer, said the single value and duty was £1 13s. 9d.
Mr. Minter
said there was some difference between himself and the Magistrates` Clerk as to
what fines were payable. He contended that the single value and duty should be
trebled. Their Clerk did not agree with him; he said the value should be
trebled, and single duty.
The
Magistrates` Clerk said the question would hardly arise in that case. It was
the first offence, and they would hardly press for a heavy penalty.
Mr. Minter
said he was not pressing, but there was the penalty under the Act.
The
Magistrates` Clerk read the Section, from which it appeared that the
Magistrates had discretion, where the amount of value was under £20, to inflict
not less than single value and duty.
Defendant
said he had the cigars entirely for his own use, and he thought he was doing no
harm.
Mr. Minter
asked for costs, and for his own costs for appearing.
The
Magistrates` Clerk said it appeared that his object in appearing was mainly to
make an explanation.
The Bench
imposed a penalty of £1 13s. 9d. single value and duty, and 11s. 6d. costs.
Folkestone Herald 20-8-1892
Police Court
Jottings
In some of
our London contemporaries there recently appeared a sensational paragraph
headed “Harsh Doings In Folkestone”. It related to the case of a Mrs. Smith,
who was charged before the Bench with being in possession of, or, in legal
phraseology, “harbouring” contraband tobacco, in the shape of 2 lbs. 4 oz. of foreign
cigars that had not paid the requisite tribute to the Customs.
The case
against her was dismissed, it being shown that she was an innocent party,
inasmuch as the cigars were the property of her son, who had left them in his
bedroom unknown to her.
During the
hearing of the case the Magistrates` Clerk, whose indignation seemed to have
been somewhat strongly aroused, took occasion to advert in forcible terms upon
the harsh usage to which the defendant was put in, having been, as was alleged,
taken into custody, and marched a prisoner to the police station, instead of
being summoned in the usual way. Hence the uncomplimentary heading to the
report of the case in the London papers.
After all,
though, it seems to have been a case of “much ado about nothing”, for when
Henry Smith, the son, was, at the following court, charged before Aldermen
Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, and Messrs. Fitness and Holden with the offence,
the doyen of the legal profession who attend our courts, Mr. Minter, who
represented the Customs, put a very different complexion upon the matter.
Mrs. Smith
was not taken into custody in the ordinary sense of the term, although perhaps
strictly speaking she was; that is, she surrendered herself to expedite
matters. When the Custom House officer made the discovery of the unduty-paid
goods, Mrs. Smith, as perhaps was only natural, became slightly hysterical, and
wanted to have the affair settled at once, and to avoid the delay of waiting
for a summons. The officer, who, said Mr. Minter, could not have treated her
more kindly if he had been her son, pointed out to her that the only way in
which that could be done was by his taking her into custody, and her going to
the police station to sign a bond that she would appear on the following morning.
To this she was only too glad to consent, and Mrs. Smith walked up, in her own
company only, to the station, there entered into the required surety, and
returned home. The Magistrates Clerk also alluded to the case as a “trumpery”
one. This Mr. Minter protested against, as if it had been proved it would have
been a very serious one.
Henry Smith
pleaded Guilty, and the Bench imposed a fine of £1 13s. 9d., the single value
and duty, and 11s. 6d. costs.
Folkestone Express
9-9-1899
Wednesday, September 6th: Before Capt. W. Carter,
J. Hoad, G. Spurgen, J. Holden, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.
An application was made on behalf of Albert Newman for
authority to sell at the Packet Boat Inn. Granted.
On
Wednesday, Mr. Albert Thomas Newman had his authority renewed for the Packet
Boat
Folkestone Herald
16-9-1899
Folkestone Police Court
Folkestone Herald
28-10-1899
Folkestone Police Court
On Wednesday the Packet Boat was transferred from Mary Smith
to Albert Thomas Newman.
No comments:
Post a Comment