Railway Bell 1890s

Folkestone Chronicle 10-1-1891

Saturday, January 3^rd: Before The Mayor, Major Penfold, Ald. Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

An extension of licence was granted to Mr. Collins, of the Railway Tavern (sic), for the following Wednesday, the occasion of the annual dinner of the railway employees.

Folkestone Express 10-1-1891

Saturday, January 3^rd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Holden, J. Fitness and S. Penfold Esqs.

Mr. Collins, landlord of the Railway Bell, was granted an extension of an hour, on the occasion of a dinner given to the railway employees.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 20-5-1891

Local News

On the arrival of the ten o`clock express from Dover at the Junction Station on Tuesday morning, the driver of the train reported that they had run over a man in the Warren. On proceeding to the spot the mangled remains of Amos Job Cooper, journalist, were found on the line about a hundred yards east of the Martello tunnel opposite the path that leads from the Warren into the deep cutting of the railway. The remains were conveyed to the Railway Bell and await an inquest to be held today.

Folkestone Visitors` List 27-5-1891

Inquest

Local pressmen conversed in subdued tones as they gathered round their allotted table in the stuffy little den yclept, Police Court on Wednesday afternoon last. Painful memories were present to the minds of one and all. One of themselves, a “forlorn and shipwrecked brother”, had gone to his last account – died, to all intents and purposes, by his own hand, and now they were met – as they had often met with him away then – to record the finish, the tragic finish, to one of the most painful life histories it has been within the writer`s experience to encounter. A simple record of how, on the morning of Whit-Tuesday, the Brussels mail ran over a man – or what was left of his original shape – was identified as Amos J. Cooper, a well known local journalist, appeared in the List last week.

It was left to the Borough Coroner, J. Minter Esq., and a jury, with Mr. J. Tunbridge as foreman, to unravel, to the best of their ability, the mystery of this awful ending to a chequered career; and, with what results may best be gathered from the evidence which follows:-

The first witness called was Mrs. Waddell, who said she identified the body as that of Mr. Cooper, but she had only got this far when the Coroner asked Dr. Yunge Bateman whether he knew deceased. The doctor replied in the affirmative, and his evidence in this point was taken in preference to Mrs. Waddell`s.

At this stage, however, the jury retired to view the body, which was lying in an outhouse at the Bell Hotel. On their return, after an interval of 15 minutes or so, Dr. Yunge Bateman was again called.

He identified the body, he said, as that of Amos J. Cooper, whose age, he should say, was about 38. He had examined the body and found injuries to the skull, one of the feet cut off, and the other one smashed. The injuries to the skull were the cause of death, and such as would be produced by being run over by a train.

The next witness called was Robert Flaherty, who said he was an engine driver in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. On the previous day he had charge of the 9.32 a.m. Brussels mail from over to Cannon Street. He left Dover at 9.32. All went well until passing the Warren Station – that would be about 9.40 – when he became aware that the engine had struck something on the near side, but what it was it was impossible to say, as they were running at a great speed. He was standing on the off side of the engine at the time, and the stones and ballast which flew up on the near side prevented his seeing anything. Fearing that something had gone wrong with the engine, he at once shut off steam and applied the automatic brake, and brought the train to a standstill from within 3 to 400 yards distant. When he had considerably reduced the speed he was enabled to look over the side of the engine, when he saw the body of a man being dragged along by the brake gear of the engine. One of his feet was gone, his leg being entangled in the brake gear of the wheel. With the assistance of the fireman, witness succeeded in disentangling the body. He then summoned a platelayer who was working in the vicinity to his assistance, and leaving him in charge of the body, took another platelayer with him on the engine, and after reporting the matter at Folkestone Junction, proceeded on his journey. In witness`s opinion death must have been instantaneous, as the deceased`s brains were scattered all over the buffer, the side of the engine, and the tender.

In reply to the Coroner, witness said the buffer would be, as near as he could say, three or four feet from the rails. There was an iron bridge for foot passengers to cross the line at the Warren Station. The Station was closed for traffic at present. The line at the point where the engine struck deceased was perfectly straight for some distance, and he could see the Warren Station quite a quarter of a mile before reaching it. Though keeping a careful watch out ahead he saw nobody on the line, or within sight, and it was a beautifully, sunshiny morning. He could not account for deceased`s presence there, and thought he must have been secreted thereabouts. (By a juryman: Deceased must have been standing up at the time he was struck.) When the train stopped, the deceased was quite nude, the engine having torn away every bit of clothing from his body.

Jesse Coleman, a platelayer, said he was at work on the morning in question, on the down line, by the Martello Tower. He saw the train turn the corner and subsequently come to a standstill, upon which he went to see what was the matter. When he got to the train he saw the deceased`s body. He then called his mate, and with his assistance brought the body to Folkestone. He saw no-one jump off the platform at the Warren Station.

Mrs. Waddell said she was the wife of Henry Waddell, a painter, living at 27, Warren Road. She knew the deceased; he lodged with her fifteen months, and last slept at her house on the Saturday before Easter. She last saw him on Sunday week at her house when he came to fetch a book he had left there. She handed him a letter addressed there from his wife, who was living at Bristol, to the effect that an order had been made for him to pay 10/- a week for the maintenance of herself and family. Deceased said he supposed they would lock him up, in which case he would get board and lodging. Months before that he had said to her husband that he would commit suicide by throwing himself in front of a train. He had been a man who drunk very heavily.

Henry Waddell said some days ago deceased had a conversation with him about committing suicide. At that time he was unemployed and destitute. Witness met him in the street, and he said “I`m down at the heel, I haven`t a friend in the world, and I intend to throw myself in front of a train unless I get someone to assist me”. This took place at the Harvey Hotel. He addressed letters to this effect to Mr. Reeves, a reporter on the Folkestone News, and to Mr. J.T. Brown, the editor of The Visitors` List. Witness talked with him and took him home to his own house. About three weeks ago deceased had said to him “Life is not worth living; I shall make off with myself”. He had been drinking very excessively for some months past.

Charles James Croucher said he was an Inspector at the Junction Station. Early on Tuesday morning it was reported to him by the Company`s watchman on the Warren that he had seen deceased on the line between the Warren Station and the Martello Tunnel about 5.20 a.m. The watchman asked deceased what he was doing along there and he replied that he was simply out for a stroll. He informed him that he was not allowed to walk on the line and told him to go away. Deceased then went away in the direction of the sea. The watchman did not see him again until he had been run over.

Mr. Minter having briefly summed up the evidence, the jury returned a verdict that “the deceased committed suicide whilst of unsound mind”.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-1-1892

Saturday, January 23^rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, E.T. Ward, and George Spurgen Esqs.

Mr. Collins asked for an extension of one hour at the Railway Bell on the 27^th inst., the occasion of the Railway employees` annual dinner.

The application was granted.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-4-1895

Local News

On Wednesday at the Borough Police Court a case of alleged selling during prohibited hours should have been heard in which Mr. Collins, of the Railway Bell, was the defendant, but, upon the application through the Magistrates` Clerk, of Mr. Hall (solicitor), who was engaged to defend, and could not possibly be present, the hearing of the case was adjourned for one week.

Folkestone Chronicle 3-5-1895

Local News

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday the hearing came up of the charge against George Collins, tenant of the Railway Bell Inn – one of Nalder and Collyer`s houses – Dover Road, for offering or exposing for sale drink on his premises during prohibited hours, on Sunday forenoon, April 14<sup>th</sup>, at 10.35 a.m. Mr. Hall (solicitor) appeared for the defence, and pleaded Not Guilty. The case had been adjourned for a week at Mr. Hall`s request. The police who prosecuted were not assisted by legal representation.

P.S. Lilley was the first witness, and said that on the date named he, in company with P.S. Swift and P.C. Johnston, watched the Railway Bell Inn, of which defendant was the landlord, from seven o`clock in the morning. At a quarter past eight he saw a postman enter in the course of his delivery, and immediately afterwards two men went in, who were well-known residents. At twenty five minutes to nine two more men entered by the yard gate, and at nine o`clock other men entered.

Mr. Hall, interposing, objected to the statement of evidence of this character, as the charge defendant had to meet – and the only charge – was that of exposing for sale or of selling certain intoxicating liquors at 10.35 a.m. on the date in question. He emphatically objected to evidence as given by the witness, and stated that in common fairness his client should have been informed that other allegations were to be brought forward against him.

Mr. Herbert (who presided, the other Magistrate on the Bench being Ald. Pledge) decided, on the other hand, that it would be better to accept the evidence generally.

Witness (continuing) said that from the commencement of his watching the house until 10.35 a.m., when he entered the premises, as many as twenty one persons had gone into the house. At that time two men entered the house by the yard entrance, they being known residents named Suckling and Tunbridge. Witness got over the gate, which was fastened by a chain on the inside, and on going into the house he saw two men in a room at the rear of the house – a compartment which he believed was used as w washhouse. Defendant came from the direction of the bar carrying a small tray, on which there were two glasses of whisky, and a jug containing water. When Collins saw the witness he placed the tray on a dresser behind the door, and on being asked what the men were doing there, he made no reply. Witness asked him who the whisky was for, when defendant made no answer until he had been asked three times, when he said it was for himself. Defendant then turned to the two men and asked what they were doing there, or what they wanted there. They made no reply. Witness took their names and addresses and left the house.

Mr. Hall asked if his cross-examination of the witness would necessarily have to be confined to the charge, or if he could deal with the whole of the evidence as it arose.

Mr. Herbert said the cross-examination would be left entirely in the hands of Mr. Hall to do as he thought best.

Witness (cross-examined) said he would rather not state where he was from 8.15 to 10.25 on the morning named.

Mr. Hall pressed for an answer, and the Bench upheld his inquiry.

Witness then said he was in a house higher up Dover Road, opposite the Inn, and almost one hundred yards away. He was not in a house in Alexandra Street. He did not live at 1, Alexandra Street. From the position he occupied he could see people going into the Inn, both at the side passage and at the front door. He could not see inside the building. The people who went in did not climb over the gate. Some of the 21 persons who entered the house during the time were bona fide travellers. He laid the information against defendant. The house was largely frequented by travellers, because there were no refreshment rooms at the Junction railway station adjoining. The men whose names he took had not been summoned.

P.S. Swift gave corroborative evidence. When he entered the house he saw Mrs. Collins and her daughter in the front of the bar, apparently making for the front door, and heard Mrs. Collins say something about the police. A man named Onslow was in the bar, and on the counter near where he was standing was a pint glass containing a little freshly-drawn ale. Witness asked Onslow what he was doing there, and he made no reply. Two other pint glasses with froth round them also stood on the counter. Onslow went out of the house, and came back directly afterwards with a portmanteau, saying that was what he had come for.

Mr. Hall`s brief cross-examination of this witness failed to elicit any further material evidence. Mr. Hall then said he would call his witnesses, and reserve his remarks until the close of the case.

George Collins, the defendant, said: I have held a publican`s licence for twenty years – eleven years at Ashford and nine years here. I pay £100 a year rent here, and it cost me £650 to take the house. I let off the yard and stables at the back. I take precautions to see that no Folkestone people are served during prohibited hours, and when there is a rush of trippers and visitors engage a man specially for that purpose. It was false – a tissue of lies – to say that 21 people entered the house before 10.35 on the day named. Twenty one persons were not served up to that time. I and my family did not come downstairs until ten minutes to nine that morning, and then we went into the bar to wait for the 9.10 train. Two or three travellers came in then, and they were served. When the boat train came three or four people also called, including a lady and gentleman who were served with breakfast. At 10.30 this couple said they wanted a man to carry their portmanteau down to the Harbour, and I went to the station and asked Mr. Croucher if he had a man who could go with it. He said “Yes, there`s Jimmy”, meaning Onslow, who came into the house, where I gave him a shilling which the people had left with me to give to him for taking the portmanteau along to the Harbour. I showed him the people for whom he had to take it. Then two or three people came in from the Canterbury train. Kate Long, my domestic servant, then told me there were two travellers from Dover who wanted two threes of whisky. Long does not serve at the bar, and I have always told her to keep the back door shut. I said I would go and see who the men were. I took the glasses in my hand thinking the men were outside, and that if they were travellers it would save me from having the journey back again. I came across the policemen, who said “What are these men doing here?” I asked “What men?” because I had not seen any men. I then stepped into the scullery and saw Tunbridge and Suckling and asked them what their business was, because I knew them, but had not seen them before on that day. I should not have served them if the police had not been there, but I should have turned them out. None of the men were served, and Onslow was not served with anything.

In answer to the Deputy Clerk: P.S. Lilley did not ask me a question three times – that is quite false. He asked me whose that whisky was, and I said “Mine”.

Kate Long, who was the next witness, said: I am a domestic servant employed by Mr. Collins, and have been engaged by him for nearly two years. On the morning in question I was downstairs in the scullery, and heard a knock at the door, which was bolted at the top. I unbolted it and saw two men outside, one of whom said they were travellers and had come from Dover. They asked for two threes of whisky. I closed the door, telling them to wait, and told Mr. Collins there were two travellers outside, when he said he would come and see them himself. I never serve in the bar, and do not know these two men at all. Mr. Collins has always told me to keep the back door bolted. One of the men was dusty and looked like a traveller. I did not admit any men at all that day.

The Bench here stopped the proceedings, saying there was a doubt in the case, and that they would give defendant the benefit of it, to which he was entitled. The case had not been distinctly proved against him. Collins was wrong in letting off a portion of the premises which were licensed, and in that way was opening the door to deceit and fraud. The Bench had no doubt that if the police had not arrived on the scene the two men would have been served with drink by Collins, whom they warned to be exceedingly careful as to his future conduct, With that caution, the case would be dismissed.

Collins thanked the Bench, and the brewers` agent promised the sub-letting should not be continued.

Folkestone Express 4-5-1895

Wednesday, May 1^st: Before W.G. Herbert and Alderman Pledge.

George Collins, landlord of the Railway Bell, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on the 14^th of April. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Hall appeared for defendant.

Sergeant Lilley said on Sunday morning, April 14^th, in company with Sergeant Swift and P.C. Johnson, he watched the Railway Bell, Dover Road, the house kept by defendant, from 7 a.m. till 10.35, and saw the postman go in and deliver letters. He came out and two men went in and stayed two or three minutes. At 8.35 two men went in by the yard gate at the side of the house. At 9 o`clock another man went in.

Here Mr. Hall raised an objection to all the evidence given, as the defendant was summoned for an offence alleged to have been committed at 10.35, but the Bench overruled the objection.

Examination continued: During the time he was watching, from seven o`clock till 10.35, twenty one men entered the house, some by the front door, and some by the yard gate. The whole of them were residents in the town – thirteen he knew by name, and the others by sight. At 10.35 three men went in, and he entered the house. The men were Tunbridge, Suckling, and Anslow. The two first went in by the yard gate, and the other by the front door. Witness got over the yard gate, and upon entering the house he saw the three men named in a room at the rear of the house. He judged it was a wash-house, opening into a kitchen or living room, through which they had to go to get to the bar. He asked what they were doing there, and neither answered. He then saw defendant in the living room, coming from the bar. He had a small tray, on which there were two glasses containing whisky, and a jug containing water. When he saw witness, he stood the tray on a dresser behind the door which separated the two rooms. He asked the landlord twice what the men were doing there, and he made no reply. He then said “Who is this whisky for?”, and defendant replied “For myself”, and then turned to the men and asked them what they were doing there. They made no reply, and after taking their names and addresses they left the house. Witness then went into the bar and saw the man Anslow, who is a railway porter, and he pointed to a bag on a chair and said ”I came in to fetch that”. On the counter there was a pint glass and two half pint glasses. The pint glass contained a small quantity of freshly-drawn ale. Defendant said “You will see that this man goes across with the bag, as I had sent for him to fetch it”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: He was in a house about 100 yds. up Dover Road. Neither of them were in 1, Alexandra Street that morning watching. From the position he was in, he could see people going in by the front door. He could not see into the house at all. The other people who went in opened the gate, and did not have to climb over it. Five went in through the front door and 16 went through the gate in the ordinary way. He gave the names of all the men. The most in the house at one time was three. When he went into the scullery the men were there. The defendant did not say “What men?” when he asked him what they were doing there. During the time he was watching, he saw about sixteen travellers going in. There was no refreshment bar at the station, and persons coming in by train were in the habit of frequenting defendant`s house. No summons had been taken out against the three men.

Sergeant Swift said he was in company with the last witness up to the time he entered the house. He corroborated Lilley`s evidence entirely up to that time. Lilley unfastened the yard gate and he passed through and entered the house by a different door to Lilley, and went straight into the bar. He saw Mrs. Collins, and, he believed, Miss Collins, in front of the bar, apparently making for the front door. He heard Mrs. Collins say “Police” and go to unbolt the front door, and she said “Come along” to Anslow, who left the house. He said “What are you doing here, Anslow?”, and he made no reply. He did not see a portmanteau at all. There was none in front of the bar. When Alsow left he was not carrying anything. He then went to the back, where Lilley was in the scullery, and his attention was called to the glasses containing whisky. They then went back to the bar, and there saw Anslow, who had returned, and he said to witness “That is what I came in for”, and pointed to a portmanteau which he was holding. Defendant said “Yes, I asked him to fetch it for me. See he goes across the yard with it”. He knew that Anslow was a railway porter.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: He did not think it surprising that Mrs. Collins should say “Here are the police”. None of the men got over the gate, but went through.

Re-examined: About five minutes before they entered the house, they had seen travellers leave by the front door.

Mr. Hall then called the defendant, who said he had held a publican`s licence for twenty years – eleven years at Ashford, and nine at the Railway Bell. It cost him £650 to go into the house. He was bound to admit travellers. It was not true that twenty people had entered from 8.15 to 10.25. They were not down until ten minutes to nine, and then they went into the bar to attend for the nine `oclock down train. Several people came in from the 9.38, and a lady and gentleman had breakfast, and made a request that he would find a man to take a portmanteau to the harbour. He saw Mr. Croucher and asked him if he had anyone to take a portmanteau. He said there was Anslow, and beckoned to him and he came and took the portmanteau. Four or five people came from the Canterbury train – one had a pint of ale, and three had glasses of bitter. His servant came to him and said there were two travellers from Dover at the back door, who wanted two threes of whisky, and he said he would go and see himself. The instruction to the girl was always to keep the door shut and not to admit anyone. When he went out with the whisky, Lilley was there and said “Collins, what are these men doing here?”. He replied “What men?”, and stepping forward saw them and asked them what they wanted. He could not have served the men. He would have turned them out. He let the stables to a man named Ward, who employed three or four men. Neither Anslow, Tunbridge or Suckling were served, Lilley only asked once who the whisky was for, and he replied it was his. The people off the Canterbury train had left only a few minutes when the police arrived, and the glasses on the counter were those in which they had their drink.

Kate Long, who had been a domestic servant in the employ of defendant for the past two years, said on Sunday, April 14^th, she was in the scullery and heard a knock at the scullery door. The door was bolted at the top; she unbolted it and opened it and she saw two men who said they were travellers, and that they had come from Dover and wanted two threes of whisky. She told them to wait and closed the door and went and told Mr. Collins there were two travellers outside, and he said he would go and see them himself. She did not serve in the bar, and did not know who the men were. Her instructions were always to keep the back door bolted on Sunday. One of the men was rather dusty. She did not admit anyone into the house at all. There was only one door at the back. She was down soon after seven o`clock and was about the house all the time, and only the two men came to the door.

The Bench gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, as in their own minds they thought he would have served the two men if the police had not been there, and they therefore dismissed the charge.

Folkestone Herald 4-5-1895

Police Court Record

Mr. George Collins, landlord of the Railway Bell Inn, Dover Road, was charged before the Borough Magistrates on Wednesday with having violated the Licensing Acts by selling intoxicating liquors at prohibited hours on Sunday, the 14^th of April. The charge was brought by the police, and Mr. Superintendent Taylor conducted the prosecution. Mr. Hall, solicitor, defended the accused. The case seemed to have excited considerable interest, the public part of the court being filled to inconvenience.

P.S. Lilley deposed that on the day named he, in company with P.S. Swift, watched the defendant`s premises. At 8.15 a.m. he saw two other men enter the house. At 8.36 he saw two men go in at the yard gate. At nine o`clock another man entered at the gate. (Mr. Hall protested against the introduction of this evidence, as the charge had reference to an alleged offence at 10.30, but the objection was overruled.) Witness, continuing, said that he watched the house until 10.38, and during the time he was there he noticed that 21 men altogether had entered the premises, some by the front door, and some by the yard gate. Thirteen of these men were known by name, and others by sight. About 10.35, after three men had gone in, the witness and P.S. Swift entered the house, the latter by the front door and witness by the gate. On entering a room at the back of the house, witness saw two men standing there, and from the room there is a passage leading to the bar. He asked them what they were doing there, but received no reply. On turning round, the witness saw the landlord coming into the room from the direction of the bar. On a small tray, which the defendant carried, there was a glass containing whisky and a jug of water. Witness knew it was whisky because he took the precaution of tasting it. The defendant, on seeing the witness, placed the tray on the dresser, and witness asked him what the men were doing there. Defendant made no reply, and witness then said “Who was this whisky for, Mr. Collins?” The question was repeated twice, and thereupon the defendant replied “It is for myself”. Defendant then asked the two men what they wanted, and they made no answer. At that moment P.S. Swift came in, and both constables proceeded to the bar. The witness stated that he then saw a man leave the house. On the counter he found a pint glass and two half pint glasses, which seemed to have contained liquor recently.

In cross-examination by Mr. Hall, the witness said that he and Swift watched the premises from a house on the other side of the road. To the best of his knowledge, sixteen of the men who entered defendants house were travellers. The parties stayed in the house from three to five minutes,, and three was the greatest number who entered the premises together. He added that as the house is situated nearest to the railway station it is much frequented by travellers.

P.S. Swift corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. When he entered the house at the front door he went straight into the bar, where he saw Mrs. and Miss Collins, and a railway porter named Anslow. Mrs. Collins went out at the front door, and witness asked the porter what he was doing there. He made no reply, and then left the house, having nothing in his hand at the time. On the counter near where he had been standing the witness found a pint glass and two half pint glasses. Witness then went to the back of the house and joined P.S. Lilley, who called his attention to the whisky. Both went to the bar afterwards, and witness saw Anslow there again, who said “This is what I came in for”, pointing to a portmanteau which he had in his hand. Defendant then remarked “Yes, that is what he came for”. In about five minutes after entering the house, the witness saw persons leave, whom he took for travellers.

This was the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr. Collins, the defendant, was then called, and examined by Mr. Hall. In reply to questions, he said that he had held a public house licence for 20 years, here and elsewhere, and that he paid £100 a year as rent. His valuation on entering this house was £650. He was in the habit of opening his house to travellers coming in by train on Sundays, but he took the precaution to have a man stationed at the door to see that no-one was admitted except persons coming by train. On this particular morning there was no-one serving in the bar except his wife and daughter. He characterised as a tissue of falsehood the statement that 21 persons had entered the house on the occasion referred to. He had gone to the bar himself at ten minutes to nine to await the arrival of a train, and two or three men came to his house. A gentleman staying at the hotel asked for a man to carry his portmanteau to the railway station, and Anslow was sent for the purpose from the station. Three or four people came in from the 10.20 train and had some whisky and ale, after which they left at once, and the glasses stood on the bar ready to be washed up. The general servant then came to him and stated that there were two travellers from Dover who wanted to be served with whisky. He replied that he would come and see who they were. He drew the whisky and took it towards the back door, but was met by P.S. Lilley, who asked him what the men were doing there. Witness, on seeing the men, asked them what their business was, and recognised one of them as a customer. Witness would not have served these men, and would have turned them out independently of the police officer being present.

Kate Lang, a servant at the hotel, deposed that she was in the scullery on the day in question; she heard a knock at the back door. On opening it she saw two men, one of whom said they were travellers from Dover, and asked for whisky. She told them to wait, and then she closed the door and went to tell Mr. Collins.

Eventually, there being a doubt in the minds of the Court, the case was dismissed.

   

Folkestone Visitors` List 8-5-1895

Police Court Jottings

A case, in which local teetotallers took a good deal of interest, was heard before Mr. Alderman Pledge and Mr. W.G. Herbert at the Police Court on Wednesday.

George Collins, landlord of the Railway Bell public house, was summoned for having committed a breach of the Licensing Act, in so far as that on the 14^th of April he sold and exposed for sale certain intoxicating liquors at a time when his licensed premises should have been closed. The defendant was represented by Mr. F. Hall, solicitor, Folkestone, and pleaded Not Guilty.

The evidence of Police Sergeant Lilley was to the effect that on the date referred to in the summons he, in company with another sergeant and police constable, watched the Railway Bell public house from seven o`clock in the morning. At a quarter past eight he saw a “postman enter in the course of his delivery”, and immediately afterwards two men went in, who were “well-known residents”. At twenty five minutes to nine two more men entered the premises by the yard gate, and at nine o`clock other men entered.

Mr. Hall, interposing, objected to evidence of this character, as the charge defendant had to meet – and the only charge – was that of exposing for sale, or of selling certain intoxicating liquors at 10.35 a.m. on the date in question. He emphatically objected to the evidence as given by the witness, and stated that, in common fairness, his client should have been informed that other allegations were to be brought forward against him.

The Chairman decided that it would be better to accept the evidence generally.

Witness (continuing) said that from the commencement of his watching the house until 10.35 a.m., when he entered the premises, as many as twenty one persons had gone on the premises. At that time two men entered the house by the yard entrance, they being known residents, named Suckling and Tunbridge. Witness got over the gate, which was fastened by a chain on the inside, and on going into the house he saw two men in a room at the rear of the premises – “a compartment which he believed was used as a washhouse”. Defendant came from the direction of the bar carrying a small tray, on which there were two glasses of whisky and a jug containing water. He knew the glasses “contained whisky because he tasted the contents”. (Laughter) When Collins saw the witness he placed the tray on a dresser behind the door, and on being asked what the men were doing there, he made no reply. Witness asked him who the whisky was for, when defendant made no answer until he had been asked several times; then he said “it was for himself”. Defendant then turned to the two men and asked them what they wanted there. They made no reply and he (witness) took their names and addresses.

Mr. Hall asked if his cross-examination of the witness would necessarily have to be confined to the charge, or if he could deal with the whole of the evidence as it arose.

Mr. Herbert said the cross-examination would be left entirely in the hands of Mr. Hall to do as he thought best.

Witness (cross-examined) said he would rather not state where he was from 8.15 to 10.25 on the morning named.

Mr. Hall pressed for an answer, and the Bench upheld his inquiry.

Witness then said he was “in a house higher up Dover Road, opposite the Inn, almost one hundred yards away”. He was not in a house in Alexandra Street. From the position he occupied he could see people going into the house, both by the side passage and at the front door. Some of the 21 persons who entered the house during that time were bona fide travellers. The house was largely frequented by travellers, for it was a matter of notoriety that there were no refreshment rooms at the Junction railway station. The men whose names he took had not been summoned.

P.S. Swift gave corroborative evidence. When he entered the house he saw Mrs. Collins and her daughter in front of the bar, apparently making for the front door, and he heard Mrs. Collins say something about the police. A man named Onslow was in the bar, and on the counter near where he was standing was a glass containing a little “freshly drawn ale”. (Laughter) It had the “bloom” on. Witness asked Onslow what he was doing there, and he made no reply. The other pint glasses with “froth” round them also stood on the counter. Onslow went out of the house, and came back directly afterwards with a portmanteau, saying that was what he had come for.

Mr. Hall`s brief cross-examination of this witness failed to elicit any further material evidence.

Mr. Hall then said he would call his witnesses, and reserve his remarks until the close of the case.

The defendant stated that he had held a licensed victuallers` licence for twenty years, having lived in the present house for nine years. He heard the statement of the police as to the number of persons who entered the house on the morning of the 14<sup>th</sup> of April. The statement was false – a tissue of lies. He nor the members of his family had not come downstairs until nine o`clock that morning, and he then went into the bar to wait for travellers of the 9.10 a.m. train. Two or three travellers entered the house from off this train, and three or four people called from off the boat train, including a lady and gentleman who had ordered breakfast. At 10.30 this party required a porter to take their luggage to the Harbour Station, and one of the servants intimated to him that there were two travellers at the door from Dover. When he came to the bar-room he found the men referred to by the police sergeant, and knowing that they were not travellers they were not served. They were admitted by the servant, who did not serve in the bar.

Kate Long, the servant referred to, stated that she undid the back door, and admitted the two men whom she thought were travellers. She then informed her master. The defendant always told her to have the back door locked.

The defendant, re-called, stated that he had sub-let the stables and yard attached to his house. Several men frequently went in there to attend to horses and carriages.

The Bench stopped the proceedings, the Chairman intimating that there was a doubt that presented itself to them, and they would give the defendant the benefit of it. The case for one thing had not been distinctly proved against him, but the defendant was wrong in letting off a portion of the premises which was licensed. Under the circumstances they would dismiss the summons, but the defendant would have to be very cautious for the future. Summons dismissed.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-5-1895

Local News

On Wednesday morning at the Borough Police Court, before Messrs. Fitness and Pursey, two men named Suckling and Tunbridge were charged with being on licensed premises, at the Railway Bell Inn, during prohibited hours. The offence was committed on Sunday, April 14^th. Defendants pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Hall, solicitor, watched the proceedings on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, brewers and owners of the premises.

P.S. Lilley gave evidence in support of the charge, and the Bench resolved to take into consideration the fact that defendants had admitted their guilt, and merely imposed a nominal penalty of 2s. 6d., with costs 10s. 9d. each.

Folkestone Herald 18-5-1895

Police Court Record

Thomas Suckling and Thomas Tunbridge were charged on Wednesday, before Mr. J. Banks and Mr. C.J. Pursey, with being found on the licensed premises of Mr. G. Collins, Dover Road, at prohibited hours on Sunday, 14^th of April.

P.S. Lilley deposed that on the day in question he watched the Railway Bell Inn, and at 10.35 saw the defendants enter. He followed them, and found the men in the scullery. One of them lived in Dover Road; the other near the hotel. He asked them what they were doing there, and they did not reply.

The defendants pleaded Guilty.

The Bench fined them 13s. 3d. each, including costs, or in default 7 days` imprisonment.

   

Folkestone Visitors` List 22-5-1895

Police Court Jottings

One way publicans often get into trouble is by persons representing themselves to be what they are not. The other week the landlord of the Railway Bell public house had to answer a summons for having allowed two men on his premises during prohibited hours, but the summons was dismissed because it was clearly proved that the men had not been served, and that they gained admission by representing themselves as travellers from Dover.

Thomas Suckling and Thomas Tunbridge, the two men then referred to, were summoned on Wednesday for having been “unlawfully” on the licensed premises of the Railway Bell on Sunday the 14^th of April. Mr. F. Hall, solicitor, Folkestone, who represented the landlord when his case was heard, watched the case in the interests of the house.

The defendants pleaded Guilty, and Sergt. Lilley briefly stated the facts.

On the forenoon of Sunday, the 14^th April, he saw a number of persons, who were bona fide travellers, entering the Railway Bell. He saw the defendants, who were known to him, enter too, and he followed them. He found them in the scullery, and when he asked them what they wanted, they made no reply.

The defendants now pleaded Guilty, and one of them alleged that he was a teetotaller, and had been so for eighteen months.

The Justices, Mr. Alderman Fitness and Mr. Pursey, did not altogether believe this, for a teetotaller who gained admission to licensed premises during prohibited hours savoured at though he had gone there to “get a drink”. But apart from this the Bench took into consideration the fact that the defendants pleaded Guilty. Fined 2. 6d., with 10s. 9d. costs in each instance.

“Costs!” echoed one of the defendants. “What is the costs for?” (Laughter) “For what you did not have” blandly replied one of the court officials, and then it was explained that the 10s. 9d. was for “court” costs, “for the privilege of appearing before the Justices”.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-8-1896

Annual Licensing Sessions

The Sessions were held on Wednesday, the Magistrates sitting being Messrs. W. Wightwick, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert.

The whole of the old licences were renewed.

The Bench suggested that in the case of the Railway Bell the yard be shut off from the house. Mr. Crouch (on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Nalder and Collyer) promised to see to it.

Folkestone Express 29-8-1896

Annual Licensing Day

The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were W. Wightwick, James Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs. The old licences were all renewed. A very large number of the publicans did not attend to receive their certificates.

In the case of the Railway Bell, the Magistrates suggested an alteration so as to shut off the yard, and prevent people getting access to the house in that way. Mr. Crouch, on behalf of the owners, promised to have the suggestion attended to.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-6-1897

Saturday, June 19^th: Before Messrs. Holden, Vaughan, Fitness, and Pledge.

George Smiles, landlord of the Railway Bell Inn, near the Junction Station, applied for an hour`s extension of time on the night of the Jubilee commemoration, owing to the number of people who had been travelling by rail.

The Superintendent opposed the request, as the people at the top of the hill would thus be able to drink until twelve o`clock. There would be no trains after 11 p.m.

The application was refused.

Folkestone Express 26-6-1897

Saturday, June 19^th: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Mr. Smiles, of the Railway Bell Inn, applied for an hour`s extension on Jubilee Day – until midnight. The applicant said it was a universal thing. The Bench declined to grant the application.

Folkestone Herald 26-6-1897

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday last – Mr. Holden presiding – the landlord of the Railway Bell, the nearest house to the Junction Station, made an application for an extension of licence on Jubilee Day from eleven until twelve.

It was remarked that there was no train after 11.

The Chairman said the Bench were all against it.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4-9-1897

Wednesday, September 1^st: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Fitness, G. Spurgen, and J. Pledge.

Albert Boxer was charged with embezzling £1, the money of his employer, Daniel Phineas Walter Jones.

The prosecutor said defendant was his carman and traveller, and had been in his employ for two years. He absented himself from his work a fortnight ago. He took out mineral waters, tobacco and cigars for delivery, received the cash, and made a daily return to witness`s clerk.

Joseph George Smiles, the landlord of the Railway Bell in Dover Road, said he was a customer of Mr. Jones. He knew the defendant, and remembered him calling on the 17^th July, when witness purchased four boxes of cigarettes. Witness had already had two boxes, so he paid £1 – the cigarettes being 3s. 4d. per box. He produced the receipt. It was marked “Paid. A. Boxer”.

James Nightingale, clerk to Mr. Jones, produced the defendant`s statement for July 17^th, and the cheque book. The counterpart of the receipt did not show that the cash was paid. Defendant said it was not paid. He had never accounted for the money.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. He had nothing to say, and no witnesses to call.

The Chairman said the Bench had tried to inflict a fine, but the case being so serious they felt they could not. He would, therefore, be imprisoned for one month with hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 4-9-1897

Police Court Report

Alfred Boxer was charged with embezzling £1, the property of his master, Mr. Daniel Phineas Walter Jones.

Mr. Jones gave evidence that the defendant was in his employ as carman and traveller. He entered his service about two years ago, and he absented himself on the 21^st August. His duties were to take out mineral waters, cigars, and tobacco, and to receive orders. It was his duty to make a daily return to witness`s clerk of his daily work. He never received the money from defendant.

Mr. Joseph George Smiles, landlord of the Railway Bell, Dover Road, gave evidence that he was a customer of Mr. Jones. He remembered defendant calling on him on the 17^th July last, and he purchased four boxes of Woodbine cigarettes. He paid him a sovereign, 13s. 4d. for the four boxes, and 6s. 8d. for two boxes he had previously bought. He produced the receipt, signed by defendant.

Mr. James Nightingale, clerk in Mr. Jones` employ, gave evidence that he received the orders taken during the day, and as to receiving defendant`s accounts on the 17^th and entering them in the day book. He produced the day book and defendant`s check book and counterfoil. He made the entry “No cash” in the day book against Mr. Smiles for the Woodbines, and the defendant told him it was not paid. The defendant had never paid or accounted for the £1 received from Mr. Smiles on the 17^th or any subsequent day.

The defendant pleaded Guilty to the charge.

Mr. P.W. Jones, as to the defendant`s character, said he would rather not say anything.

The Chairman said the Bench had been trying whether they could make a money fine, but as this was such a serious offence between servant and employer they felt it could not be done.

Defendant was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Up To Date 4-9-1897

Hall Of Justice

Wednesday, September 1^st: Before Justices Holden, Vaughan, Fitness, Spurgen, Pledge, Salter, &c.

Alfred Boxer was sentenced to a month`s hard labour for embezzlement and stealing £1 from his employer, D.P.W. Jones.

Folkestone Visitors` List 27-4-1898

Inquest

A very shocking occurrence took place on Saturday morning last, on the railway between the Folkestone Harbour and the Junction stations. A man named William Alfred Epps, a well-known local sign and fascia writer, of 9, Walton Road, was observed to be dangerously near the line by the engine driver of a luggage train which was running down from the Junction at about 10.30 a.m. to the Harbour Station. The driver immediately blew his whistle, but it appears that the man must have stepped on to the line just in front of the engine. The train was stopped as quickly as possible, and his decapitated body was found entangled between the wheels of the carriages.

The deceased`s head was found some 20 yards from the body, it being a somewhat curious fact that although cut clean off there was not a scratch or mark upon the head or face. One foot was also cut off, just above the top of the boot. The deceased, who was about 50 years of age, leaves a wife and grown-up family. He was a clever and experienced worker at his trade, and was always able to get full employment.

At the inquest, held on Monday evening at the Town Hall by the Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.), the evidence given went to prove that the deceased had been for days previous in a very despondent frame of mind. The driver of the engine deposed that, seeing a man standing close by the side of the line, he blew his whistle twice. He turned to look at his gauge, and did not see the man again until after he had found he had run over something.

Mr. James Friend deposed that he had been in the company of Epps at the Railway Bell the night before, and in the course of conversation the deceased said that he was in great trouble owing to his inability to get on with his work during the windy weather, and that he said “I have a good mind to go over the road and throw myself in front of a train”.

The Coroner, in his summing up, carefully commented on the evidence which had been given, and concluded by saying that what the jury had to duly consider was the question as to whether the unhappy occurrence was the result of an accident or if the evidence pointed to a case of suicide.

After a brief consultation the jury returned a verdict of “Suicide whilst temporarily insane”.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-4-1898

Inquest

An inquest was held on Monday evening at the Town Hall by Mr. John Minter, Borough Coroner, touching the death of William Alfred Epps.

James Friend, Coke Cottage, Tram Road, said the deceased was a sign writer, aged about 50. Witness saw him last Friday night in the Railway Bell, when he appeared upset about his work, and said he had a good mind to go across and throw himself under a train. Witness advised him not to worry, as all had trouble. He was sober. He was a quiet, inoffensive man and witness had never seen him the worse for liquor.

James Warner, Clarendon Place, Dover, engine driver on the South Eastern Railway, stated that at 10.20 on Saturday morning he was driving the engine 122 from the Junction to the Harbour. There were 16 goods trucks attached. At the crossing over the line from the Tram Road to the Folly Fields, when the train was going between six and seven miles an hour, witness saw the deceased beside the down line, some 30 yards away. Witness blew his whistle twice, and then lost sight of the man. The tender was leading and the witness could not have pulled up under 30 or 40 yards. There was nothing in deceased`s action to lead him to think he contemplated suicide. Witness felt the engine go over something and pulled up. He pulled up and got down from the engine. He then saw that the train had been pulling the body of deceased along. It was jammed between the wheel and the rail of the carriage next to the brake. The body was decapitated, and one of the men picked up the head with a fire shovel.

George Brewer, of Cowgate Hill, Dover, fireman on the South Eastern Railway, who was on the engine with the last witness, said he did not see the deceased on the line, but when the train stopped he saw the body on the rails. The head was found at the rear of the train, on the rails, by Alfred Newman. One of the feet was lying near the body in the six feet way.

The Coroner said the question for the jury was whether deceased committed suicide or if the death was accidental.

The jury returned a verdict of Suicide While Temporarily Insane.

Folkestone Up To Date 30-4-1898

Inquest

On Monday an inquest was held before the Borough Coroner (Mr. Minter), at the Town Hall, on the body of William Epps, aged 51, sign writer, Walton Road, Folkestone, who was killed on the railway line between the Junction and Harbour, near Swain`s Crossing, on the previous Saturday morning. The Junction Station Master (Mr. Croucher) appeared on behalf of the South Eastern Railway Company.

James Friend said: I have no occupation. I live at Crow Cottage, Tram Road, Folkestone. I identify the body as that of William Epps, a sign writer at Folkestone. He was about 50 years of age, and was married, I believe. I had known him for about six or seven years, and met him in the street occasionally. The last time I saw him he was worried. I last saw him on Friday night, when he said he had a good mind to go and throw himself before the train. The only reason I knew for it was that he was in trouble. He said he could not get to work. I told him that life was full of trouble for us all. I never saw him the worse for drink. He was a very quiet, inoffensive man.

James Bourner said: I am an engine driver, living in Clarendon Place. On Saturday, the 23^rd inst., I was driving the engine 122 from the Junction to the Harbour. There were 50 goods wagons attached, most of which were empty. The accident happened at a private crossing.

Mr. Croucher said the crossing was what was called an occupation crossing.

The Coroner remarked that it was a crossing with a footpath over it.

Witness (continuing): We were going between six and seven miles an hour. I saw the deceased standing close to the outside rail of the down line, not on the six foot way. If he had kept that position, the engine would have passed him clear. I blew my whistle two successive times, and then turned round to see if the steam gauge was working all right. When I turned again I lost sight of him. The tender was running before the goods engine, and I was standing on the side of the engine nearest the fields – the same side of the line as deceased was. The gate crossing is about 14 yards from the footpath crossing; not more. The deceased did not move when I blew the whistle. He still kept standing there. We could have pulled up about a distance of 30 or 40 yards away. There was not time to stop, even if we had known that he intended to throw himself before the engine. There was nothing in his action which led me to suppose that he intended to throw himself down. I felt the engine go over him, at least I knew the engine had gone over something. I was drawing the trucks down. The guard`s brake was next to the engine. I pulled up about 30 or 40 yards off. The guard put the brake on when I pulled up. I found the deceased`s body jammed in the first wheel of the carriage next the brake van. The head had been cut off the body. I had never seen the deceased before. That is all I know.

George Brewer said: I live at No. 1, Cowgate Hill, Dover. I am a fireman, and was on the engine with the last witness on Saturday, driving from the Junction to the Harbour. I heard the driver sound two whistles, one for each of two crossings. I did not see the deceased on the line. When passing one of the crossings, I felt the engine go over something, and I put the hand brake on. The train stopped as soon as it could, about 30 or 40 yards away, and I then saw the deceased`s body in the wheel of the engine. The body was headless. The head was found at the rear of the train. It was fetched by a fireman. One foot was lying near the body, in the six foot way. I did not know the deceased.

The Coroner said a man named Hopkins was said to have seen the poor fellow hanging about during the morning. He did not know whether the jury would consider it necessary to have Hopkins called. The question for the jury was to decide whether the deceased committed suicide, or his death was accidental. There might be a question whether he was deaf, and did not hear the train coming.

Mr. Friend, re-called, said he had heard since the accident that the deceased was slightly deaf, but witness did not know of it. In conversation the deceased could always hear hat was said to him.

The Coroner, proceeding with his remarks, said there did not appear to be much in the idea that the deceased was deaf, and did not hear the train coming. It was evident the accident was not the fault of the engine driver.

The jury returned a verdict to the effect that “the deceased committed suicide whilst temporarily insane”.

Folkestone Herald 30-4-1898

Inquest

On Monday evening an inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (Mr. John Minter) touching the death of William Epps. Deceased was killed by a train on Saturday morning on the railway adjoining the Tram Road. The following evidence was taken.

James Friend, of no occupation, deposed that he lived at Coke Cottage, the Tram Road, Folkestone. (The jury here adjourned to view the body. On their return the witness continued his evidence.) The deceased was a sign painter, or something of that kind. Witness considered him to be about 50 years of age. Witness was in the habit of meeting him in the streets. The last time he saw him, deceased seemed to be very much upset. He was married. He could not get to work. Witness saw him in the Railway Bell Hotel on the previous Friday night. When witness left he said he had a good mind to go across the road and throw himself under a train. He was upset and worried. Witness told him they all had troubles to put up with. He did not remember deceased making any reply. All the time witness had known him he had never seen deceased worse for drink. He was a very quiet, inoffensive man. As far as he remembered, he never heard a wrong word from him.

James Bourner, an engine driver in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, deposed that this occurred at 10.20 on the 23^rd. He was driving a train from the Junction to the Harbour. Sixteen goods wagons were attached. He was going between six and seven miles an hour. He saw the deceased about thirty yards before he got to the gate crossing. He was up alongside the down line, standing sideways. His right side was towards witness. If he had kept that position, the engine would have passed him clear. Witness blew his whistle two successive times. After he had blown the whistle he turned to see something. He was standing on the same side as deceased. When he turned his head they were just about going over the gate crossing. When he blew his whistle the deceased still kept standing. There was nothing in deceased`s action that led him to suppose he was going to throw himself down. Witness`s head was turned about two seconds. He felt the engine go over the deceased. He pulled up as quickly as he could. The engine was going backwards, and the wagons were in front of the engine. The guard`s brake was next to the engine. The deceased`s body was jammed in the first wheel of the carriage next to the brake, between the wheel and the rail. He had never seen the deceased before.

George Brewer, a fireman, of 1 Calgate Hill, Dover, deposed that he was on the engine with the last witness on Saturday. He heard the driver sound the whistles twice. There were two crossings, and he sounded for each crossing. He did not see the deceased on the line. He felt the engine go on something. The hand brake was put on, and the train stopped as soon as possible, in about between 30 and 40 yards. Wiitness got down. He saw the deceased lying under the wheel of the second vehicle from the engine. The body was headless. He did not know deceased.

The jury found that deceased committed suicide while temporarily insane.
 

Folkestone Express 21-1-1899

Saturday, January 14^th: Before The Mayor, W.Wightwick, C.J. Pursey and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. Smiles, of the Railway Bell Hotel, was granted an extension of an hour on the occasion of a dinner of the staff at the Junction Station.

Folkestone Up To Date 21-1-1899

Saturday, January 14^th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Mr. Smiles, of the Railway Bell, Dover Road, applied for an extension on the occasion of the approaching railway employee dinner, on Wednesday, January 18^th.

The Magistrates` Clerk said it was an annual application.

Mr. J. Fitness did not think it was an annual one.

The application, however, was granted.

Folkestone Express 18-3-1899

Monday, March 13^th: Before The Mayor, Colonel Westropp, J. Hoad, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs.

John Adams was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of Jessie Finn.

Jessie Finn, a labourer, said on Tuesday afternoon he went to the Railway Bell Hotel, and left a pair of new boots on a seat. He had bought them at Mr. Vickery`s. Having occasion to go out he left the parcel, and when he returned it was gone. Witness informed the police, and afterwards met the prisoner in Tontine Street with the boots in his possession. He was taken into custody.

In reply to prisoner, witness denied that he gave him the boots to carry in Dover Street.

George Fagg, a labourer, said he was in the bar at the Railway Bell Hotel on Tuesday afternoon while the two men were there. After Finn had left the bar, prisoner took a parcel and went down the street,

P.C. Prebble said he went with prosecutor to the various common lodging houses to find prisoner. They met him in Tontine Street with the boots in a paper bag under his arm. Finn gave him into custody. He was formally charged at the police station, and he replied “I did not steal them. He gave them to me to look after for him”. Prosecutor was sober. Prisoner was carrying the boots quite openly, and it was about six o`clock.

Prosecutor said he knew the prisoner, and had been working with him. In Dover Street he had given him the boots to carry while he lit his pipe.

The Bench dismissed the case.

Folkestone Herald 18-3-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday, John Adams was charged with stealing a pair of boots, value 4s. 11d., the property of Jessie Finn.

Prosecutor deposed that he was a labourer, living at the Warren. He went to the Railway Bell the previous afternoon in the bar. He had a parcel containing a pair of boots, which cost 4s. 11d. He gave it in charge of the defendant for a few minutes, and when he returned both defendant and the parcel were gone. He afterwards left the house and gave information to the police. Subsequently, in company with a constable, he met the defendant with the boots.

George Pay deposed that he saw the defendant take up the parcel and walk away.

P.C. William Prebble deposed that at 5.20 p.m. the previous afternoon, he met the defendant in Tontine Street with the boots under his arm. Prosecutor said “That is the man”. When charged at the police station with stealing the boots, he said “I did not steal them. He gave them to me to look after for him, all right”.

Finn said he had been working with defendant.

Defendant said prosecutor gave him the boots, and he took care of them. He brought the boots down the street. He thought he would perhaps see prosecutor.

The Bench discharged him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Folkestone Up To Date 18-3-1899

Wednesday, March 15^th: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad, J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, E.T. Ward, J. Stainer, W. Medhurst and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

John Adams, a labourer, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, value 4s. 11d., the property of Jesse Finn, a labourer.

The complainant said: I went to the Railway Bell yesterday afternoon about 3.30 with a parcel containing a pair of boots which I had bought from Mr. Vickery, Tontine Street. I asked the prisoner to look after the parcel for five or ten minutes while I went away, and on returning to the bar I found that the prisoner had gone.

After corroborative evidence as to the theft, P.C. William Prebble said: About 5.20 p.m. yesterday, the witness came to me in High Street. From information received, I went with him through the common lodging houses, and then back into Tontine Street, where I saw the prisoner with the boots, in a paper bag, under his arm. The witness said “This is the man. I give him into custody”. I took the prisoner into custody about 6 p.m. He was carrying the boots openly at the time.

The prisoner elected to be tried before the Magistrates, but pleaded Not Guilty, remarking that he had been asked by the witness to carry the boots for him. There had been no intention of theft.

The Court gave the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed him.