 |
| Former Bricklayers` Arms, c1928, on left. Credit Folkestone Library |
Robert Winch 1852
Dover Chronicle
28-5-1842
Dover Police, yesterday: James Austen, a tall, raw-boned urchin, about 18, was charged with carrying, conveying, and concealing, on Wednesday last, 3½ gallons of foreign brandy, contrary to the statute. He pleaded Not Guilty. By the testimony of James Wittingstall it appeared that the defendant was seen carrying a trunk, which he (witness) immediately traced and found it in the Romney mail cart while it was standing in Bench Street, previous to it starting for the west. On taking the trunk from the mail cart and opening it witness found it to contain six bladders of brandy. Defendant seemed surprised at the discovery, and said the trunk was left at Mr. Rayner`s (his master`s) house, and said that Mr. Rayner had told him to take it to the mail. Defendant said he did not know what the trunk contained, and he (witness) thought he did not seem to know.
The trunk was addressed to “Mr. Collins, to be left at Mr. Pope`s, Bricklayers Arms, Folkestone”, but the direction was altogether ficticious. Witness did not see defendant put the box into the mail, but could swear the box seized was the one he saw defendant carrying.
The defendant`s master, Mr. Rayner, was examined as a witness, and admitted that he directed Austen to take the box to the mail, but denied having any knowledge of its contents.
The case was dismissed, defendant being (it was believed) ignorant of what the box contained.
Dover Telegraph 28-5-1842
Dover
Police, Friday.
James Austen, charged with an offence against the Excise. James Whittingstall, a drop boatman in the Excise, said: On Tuesday morning, about half past five, I saw Austen carrying a trunk in Beach Street, when he turned a corner leading to Rayner`s stable. I followed and opened the fore part of the Romney mail cart, which was standing in the yard, where I found the trunk, which I examined and found therein six bladders, containing about four gallons of spirits of brandy. Austen was there when I examined the trunk. I asked him where he brought it from, and he replied a man left it at his master`s (Mr. Rayner`s) house the night previous, about nine o`clock, and that his master told him to take it to the mail cart, which he did, and put it in the cart.
By Mr. Kennett: When I went to search I asked what the trunk contained, and Austen said he did not know. He offered no resistance, and was very civil.
Mr. Bayford produced the direction on the box, which was addressed “To Mrs. Collins, to be left at the Bricklayers Arms, Folkestone”. He had since made enquiries, and found out the address was fictitious. He knew the handwriting very well, as he had seen it on many previous occasions.
Mr. Cotton, Collector of H.M. Customs, said he considered, after this evidence, the information for illegally carrying was fully sustained, although he felt satisfied that the defendant was unacquainted with the contents of the trunk, which would be represented to the Board of Customs.
Mr. Rayner was then called and said: The trunk was left at my house that morning about 5 o`clock by some man who called out “Rayner, I`ve got a box for you to take to Folkestone”. I told him to leave it in the passage, and when I came down I told Austen to take it to the yard.
By Mr. Kennett: I do not believe Austen knew the contents, nor did I, so help me God.
The
Bench, after a consultation, dismissed the case, believing the defendant had no
knowledge of the contents of the trunk.
Dover Chronicle
13-1-1844
The annual meeting of the Folkestone £10 Burial Society was held on Thursday evening at the Bricklayers Arms, Fancy Street; Mr. Viney, President, in the chair. We are sorry to say but few of the members attended. The abstract of the Treasurer`s accounts is very flattering – all demands paid, and £13 in hand; in addition to which we would notice that during the past year, of upwards of 500 members, the deaths have been but six – a remarkable proof of the health of the members.
Canterbury Weekly Journal 26-4-1845
An inquest was held on Monday last at the Bricklayer`s Arms, Fancy Street, before J.J. Bond Esq., Coroner, and a respectable jury, on the body of Thomas Dorrell, who died on the previous day in consequence of an accident. The jury found “That the deceased`s death had been accidentally caused by concussion of the brain, falling from a height to the ground”.
Maidstone Gazette 22-4-1845, Dover Telegraph 26-4-1845
On Monday last an inquest was held at the Bricklayers Arms, Fancy Street, before J.J. Bond Esq., and a respectable jury, on the body of Thomas Dorrell, who died on the previous day in consequence of an accident by falling from the new works into the harbour. The jury found “That the deceased`s death had been accidentally caused by concussion of the brain, falling a height from the ground”.
Kentish Mercury
26-4-1845
On Monday last an inquest was held at the Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, before J.J. Bond Esq., Coroner, and a respectable jury, on the body of Thomas Dorrell, who died on the previous day, in consequence of an accident as reported in our paper of last week. The jury found “that the deceased`s death had been occasioned by concussion of the brain, falling from a height to the ground”
Note: There was no Folkestone news reported in the previous week`s paper.
Canterbury Journal
9-9-1848
Court of Bankruptcy, Sept. 4: Re. Richards, Folkestone.
This was the first meeting for the proof of debts and choice of assignees under the of Thomas Richards, of Mill Lane, Folkestone, brewer, &c. Mr. Bower, of Chancery Lane, agent for Mr. Hart, of Folkestone, attended as solicitor to the fiat, which was issued on the 16th of August last, upon the petition of Mr. John Isaac Pope, of Folkestone, builder, a creditor for £77 17s.
It appeared that the bankrupt packed up his furniture and property on the 16th of August last, and was assisted by G. Fynn, a labouring man, to remove it to the railway for London, when the present summary mode of taking possession of it was adopted by Mr. Pope, the petitioning creditor.
After the admission of several proofs, Mr. Pope was chosen assignee, and accepted the choice, and further proceedings were adjourned until the 13th October next, on which day the bankrupt must come up to pass his last examination.
Protection was granted the bankrupt in the interim.
Viaduct Brewery, most likely Mill Bay.
Dover Telegraph
21-10-1848, Canterbury Weekly Journal 28-10-1848
Court of Bankruptcy: Re. Richards, Folkestone.
The
bankrupt, Thomas Richards, of Mill Lane, Folkestone, Kent, brewer and beer
seller, came up on Friday, as that day had been fixed for him to pass his last
examination
Mr. Bower, of Chancery Lane, agent for Mr. Hart, of Folkestone, solicitor, attended on behalf of the trade assignee, Mr. J.I. Pope, of Fancy Street, Folkestone, builder, whose debt is £77 17s.
It appeared that the bankrupt was not prepared with his accounts and had not filed any balance sheet, and the Court, with the consent of the assignees, adjourned his examination until the 17th November next. The debts proved at this meeting were about £340.
Dover Telegraph 2-6-1849, Kentish Gazette, Maidstone Gazette, Maidstone Journal 5-6-1849
Auction Extract:
Canterbury: Important sale of the extensive brewery of Messrs. Flint, including thirty old-established inns and public houses. Mr. V.J. Collier has received instructions to sell by auction, at the Fountain Hotel, Canterbury, on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 26th and 27th of June, at twelve o`clock each day (in consequence of the death of the senior acting Partner and the retirement of the surviving Partners), the valuable property known as Messrs. Flint`s Brewery, in Stour Street, Canterbury, and the inns, public houses, and other valuable property connected therewith
The second day`s sale, on Wednesday, 27th
June, will comprise the following property:
Lot 46 – The Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, near the harbour, Folkestone – Freehold
Lot 47 – The Bricklayers` Arms, Fancy Street, Folkestone - Freehold
The Public Houses are for the most part in the occupation of unexceptionable tenants, and the majority of them are doing trades, both in beer and spirits, considerably above the average run of country houses, (none of them here been beer-shops; they are old licensed houses, with connections of long standing, thereby affording ample security for the permanence of the trade.) The premises generally are in a superior state of repair.
Particulars and plans (price 1s. Each) may be had of Messrs. Furleys & Mercer Solicitors, Canterbury; at the Fountain Hotel; and of Mr. V. J. Collier, 3, Moorgate Street, London.
Canterbury Journal 30-6-1849
The sale of the extensive premises of Messrs. Flint, brewers, of this city, took place on Tuesday and Wednesday at the Fountain Hotel. The competition for most of the lots was very keen. The following is a statement of the result.
Lord Nelson, Folkestone, £360, Mr. Ash: Bricklayers Arms, not sold.
Kentish Gazette 3-7-1849
Messrs. Flint`s Property: The sale of the extensive property of Messrs. Flint, brewers, Stour Street, Canterbury, took place on Tuesday and Wednesday, at the Royal Fountain Hotel, under the able administration of Mr. V.J. Collier. The sale room was crowded by respectable company, and the competition for most of the lots was very keen. At the close the auctioneer received many compliments for the gentlemanly and straightforward manner in which he conducted the business throughout. The following is a statement of the result:
Second day`s sale:
Lot 46 Lord Nelson, Folkestone £300 Mr. Ash
Lot 47 Bricklayers` Arms, Folkestone Not sold
Dover Chronicle
11-5-1850
Dover Petty Sessions, Monday, before the Mayor, and C.B. Wilkins and W. Cocke Esqs.
George Marley, a joiner, residing at Folkestone, was brought up on suspicion of being concerned in stealing a cigar case, value 1s., from the Fountain Inn, Market Place, Dover.
Mr. Henry Church, prosecutor, stated that on the day previous four young men came into his house and called for refreshment, with which they were supplied. The cigar case was then in the room. The parties stopped about ten minutes, and soon after they had left he missed the case. He gave information to the police, and the parties (who, it appeared, had remained in the town about an hour or two afterwards) were traced to the railway terminus, from which they started for Folkestone, only a few minutes before the police arrived there in search of them. This morning Marley, one of the party, came to the prosecutor`s house with the case, which he wished to deliver up, but prosecutor, having informed the police of the affair, considered no compromise could be made, and refused to receive the box. A policeman being called in, the box was given to him, and Marley was taken into custody.
Marley, on being called upon for a reply to the charge, said that he, with three others, visited the Fountain to obtain refreshment on their arrival from Folkestone. They remained there about 10 minutes, during which one of the party, named Hutchings, took the cigar case from the mantel but, being immediately remonstrated with for meddling with other people`s property, he replaced it, where he (Marley) supposed it was remaining when they left the house. In one hour afterwards, Hutchings (who must have retaken it unseen by any of the party) produced it from his pocket. Marley adverted to the impropriety of Hutchings`s conduct, and advised that they should all return to the Fountain, and by having more refreshment endeavour during the time that would elapse to replace the abstracted article, without awakening any unpleasant suspicion in the mind of the landlord. The suggestion, however, was not attended to, and it was hinted that it would be better to destroy the case. To this Marley would not consent, and proposed that they should adjourn to some house in the vicinity of the terminus and, after packing it up, forward it to the owner. Hutchings dissented, saying the case must either be destroyed or taken from Dover. They left, by rail, for Folkestone, and there, between 9 and 10 o`clock, Hutchings delivered the box to Marley, to forward it to Dover, as he himself should not have an opportunity of doing so, in consequence of having to go to work at Newington, some five miles from Folkestone. Marley took the case, and on Monday morning, fearing that to retain too long possession of it might place him in an awkward position, he hired a fly, at an expense of 8s., to convey him to Dover, where he arrived at an early hour, and immediately proceeded to the Fountain, when his interview resulted as stated by the prosecutor.
The Bench were disposed to credit the statement of Marley, but decided on adjourning the case till next day, in order to have the other parties brought from Folkestone.
Tuesday, before C.B. Wilkins and W. Cocke Esqs.
George Marley, James Hutchings, John Welch and Jas. Williams, the parties connected with the cigar case brought before the Bench on Monday appeared today. Hutchings (whose friends reside at Deal) stated that he found the box in his possession when he returned to Folkestone, but as he was intoxicated he had no recollection of taking it from the Fountain. The others said they were innocent of the transaction, through which they had been much inconvenienced.
Welch said that he himself kept a public house at Folkestone, and if a case of this kind had taken place there he should not have taken any notice of it had anyone returned the missing article, as Marley had done in the present instance.
The Bench remarked that it would seem as if the innocent had been hardly dealt with, but the steps taken had been considered necessary. Those who had no part in taking away the box ought to have seen that it was returned before leaving the town, as they were aware of it being in Hutchings`s possession. They hoped the inconvenience to which they had been put would operate as a caution as to whom they associated with in future.
After a full explanation had taken place, Mr. Church declined to press the charge.
As Hutchings consented to pay the whole of the expenses incurred, the case was not further proceeded with, the Magistrates reminding him that he had escaped being committed for trial.
Dover Telegraph
11-5-1850
Dover Petty Sessions, Monday, before the Mayor, and C.B. Wilkins and W. Cocke Esqs.
George Marley, a joiner, residing at Folkestone, was brought up on suspicion of being a party to the stealing a cigar case, value 1s., from a room in the Fountain Inn, Market Place, Dover.
Mr. Henry Church, prosecutor, stated that on the previous day four young men came into his house and called for some refreshment, with which they were supplied. The cigar case was then in the room. The parties stopped about ten minutes, and almost immediately after they were gone the case was missed, of which information was given to the police, and the parties (who appeared to have remained in Dover nearly two hours after the transaction) were ultimately traced to the railway station, from which they had taken their departure for Folkestone, but a few minutes before the arrival at the Dover station of the police in search of them. This morning Marley, one of the four, came to the Fountain with the box in his possession, which he wished to deliver up, but as witness had already put the affair into the hands of the police, he considered no compromise could take place, and declined receiving the box. A police officer after attended, by whom the box and Marley were taken into custody.
Marley, on being called for a statement in reply to the charge, said that, as observed by Mr. Church, he, with three others, visited the Fountain to obtain refreshment, having previously just from Folkestone. They stayed at the inn about 10 minutes, during which one of the party, whom he had heard called Hutchings, took the case from the mantel, remarking at the time that “it was a very handy concern” &c. Some remonstrance in reference to meddling with other people`s property induced Hutchings to replace the case on the mantel, where Marley supposed it was remaining when they left the house, and for an hour afterwards, when Hutchings, who unseen by any of the others had again taken it from the mantel, produced it from his pocket. Marley adverted to the impropriety of Hutchings`s conduct, and advised that all return to the Fountain, and by having more refreshment endeavour during the time that would elapse to replace the abstracted article, without awakening any unpleasant suspicion in the mind of the landlord. Either from fear or shame, or some other cause, the suggestion was not attended to, and it was hinted that it would be better to destroy the case. To this Marley would not consent, and proposed adjournment to some house in the vicinity of the terminus, where the case might be packed in paper, and forthwith forwarded to its owner. Hutchings dissented to the proposition, saying the case must either be destroyed or taken from Dover. The party then proceeded by railway for Folkestone, and there, between 9 and 10 o`clock, Hutchings delivered the case to Marley, to forward it to Dover, as he himself should not have an opportunity of returning it, in consequence of having to go to work at Newington, some 5 miles from Folkestone.
Marley took the case, and on Monday morning, fearing that to retain too long possession might place him in a rather awkward position, he specially hired a fly, at an expense of 8s., to carry him to Dover, where he arrived at an early hour, and immediately proceeded to the Fountain, when his interview resulted as detailed in the evidence of the prosecutor.
The Bench were disposed to credit the statements of Marley, but as they were unsupported by confirmatory evidence, it was considered necessary for the ends of justice that the other parties should be brought forward, and Marley was subsequently liberated on bail till Tuesday, Sergeant Back and Police Constable Pine being in the interim despatched to Folkestone for the attendance of the other three, who in the course of the day were brought to Dover, and safely lodged in the police station overnight, to brood over the unpleasant and discreditable position into which three guiltless men had been placed by the disreputable praksa of a fourth.
Tuesday, before C.B. Wilkins and W. Cocke Esqs.
George Marley, James Hutchings, John Welch and James Williams, the parties connected with the cigar case brought before the Magistrates on Monday appeared before the Bench today. Hutchings admitted that he found the box in his possession when he returned to Folkestone, but being intoxicated he was hardly conscious of having taken it from the Fountain. The others said they were unconscious of the transaction, and through it had been put to great inconvenience.
Welch remarked that he himself kept a public house at Folkestone, and if a similar case had occurred there he should have looked over it had anyone returned the missing article, as Marley had done in the present instance.
The Bench observed that it would seem as if the innocent had been hardly dealt with, but the steps taken had been necessary and proper. Those who had no part in taking away the box ought to have persisted in it being returned ere they left Dover, as they were aware, before their return to Folkestone, of its being in the possession of Hutchings. It was to be hoped that the inconvenience to which they had been put would operate as a caution with respect to whom they associated with for the future.
After a full explanation had taken place, Mr. Church declined to press the charge, and Hutchings consenting to pay the expenses incurred by the Police in going to Folkestone, &c., the case was no further proceeded with, the Magistrates reminding the only offender that he had narrowly escaped being committed for trial.
We have since heard that Hutchings has agreed to refund the disbursements by Marley on Monday. As the whole were involved in disgrace by Hutchings, he certainly could not do less than pay the expenses throughout.
Maidstone Gazette
18-2-1851
Petty Sessions; Before R. Hart Esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, W. Bateman, W. Major, T. Golder and J. Bateman Esqs.
There were six publicans charged by the police with serving beer, &c., contrary to the law. Mr. R.T. Brockman appeared for the Watch Committee; Mr. Delasaux (Canterbury) for several of the defendants.
James Hall, Old Marquis of Granby, was charged on the information of police constable Collins with serving beer before the hour of half past twelve o`clock p.m., on Sunday, the 2nd instant. Police constable Collins having proved the case, the Mayor addressed the defendant, telling him that the only object of the magistrates was to keep the town in an orderly and proper manner. The magistrates or the police were not actuated by any ill-feeling towards him or anyone else in his business, but they felt that the law had been disregarded, and that it was necessary now for all parties that the public houses should not now do as they had done; the Bench taking all circumstances into consideration, would mitigate the penalty to 1s. and costs.
Note: The name “Old” Marquis of Granby suggests that this was the house in the High Street. However, at the time of the 1851 Census, he was in Radnor Street at what was the Ship, the name of which was crossed out and Marquis of Granby overwritten. Also, the Post Office Directory for 1851, information for which would most likely have been compiled in 1850, has him at the Marquis of Granby in Radnor Street. I feel, therefore, that this report refers to the Marquis of Granby, Radnor Street.
John Welch, Bricklayers Arms, for a similar offence, was fined 1s. and costs.
Margaret Harrison, Lord Nelson, was similarly fined.
The case against William Burvill, Carrier`s Arms beer shop, was dismissed, for want of sufficient evidence.
William Vigor, Rose Inn, for a similar offence, was fined 1s. and costs.
Maidstone Gazette 10-6-1851
Advertisement: Folkestone, to be let and entered on immediately, an excellent public house in the above improving town; the rent is low, and more than made by lodgers/ Fixtures, &c., to be taken at a valuation.
Apply at the Bricklayers Arms, Fancy Street, Folkestone.
Notes: Date for Welch is at variance with More Bastions, and no record of Winch.
Canterbury Journal 9-10-1858
At the sitting of the Magistrates on Wednesday, the following licenses were transferred: The Bellevue Tavern, from William Hills to Charles Griggs; The Princess Royal, South Street, from William Tumber to Edward Sturges; and the Duke of York, Sandgate, from William Wood to Richard Graves Wood. The license of George Kennett, Bricklayers Arms, Fancy Street, was refused. John Dent, of London, applied for a license for the London Stores, wine and spirit vaults, Bail Street, was refused, he having failed to comply with the requirements of the Bench, in producing a certificate of character from where he last resided.
Canterbury Weekly
Journal 6-8-1864, East Kent Times 12-8-1864
The following letter was received a day or two ago by Mr. Ladd, news agent, of Canterbury:
July 29 1864
Sir, I have lost my wife from Folkestone. I am verrey poor and I am prswaded to send to you in hopese you will try and advertise for hear name is Elizabeth Macken. I live at Mr. Broely, Fancey Street, at the Bricklairs Armns, Folkestone, Kent. Sir, I have a gentleman will looke in your newspaper for me. I remain your humble servant, Charles Macken, Folkestone.
Kentish Gazette
24-4-1866
Petty Sessions, Saturday: Before R.W. Boarer Esq.
A
Frenchman who gave the name Louis Francois, and described himself as a waiter,
was brought up in custody from Elham Union, where he had been lying ill from
the effects of a drunken debauch on the previous Sunday, and charged with
having stolen from a bedroom at the Red Lion public house, at Hythe, a purse
containing four sovereigns, two half sovereigns, some silver, and a hair brush,
the property of John Brooks.
Prosecutor
said he had a horse and cart and sold vegetables and fish for a living. He
lodged at the Red Lion public house at Hythe. Knew the prisoner, who had also
lodged there for about a week, and occupied a separate bed in the same room as
himself. Last saw him there on Saturday night, when he was waiting on the
customers in the smoke room. Went to bed about ten o`clock that night, and put
his purse containing the money above-mentioned under his pillow, under his
head. There was about 18s or 19s. in silver in the purse. Did not see the
prisoner in the room at all that night. On Sunday morning, about six o`clock,
missed the purse and money from under the pillow. The prisoner was not then in
bed, but the bed had been slept on by someone. Gave information to the police
of his loss. Had not seen the purse since. The prisoner was often in the room
when he went to bed, and must have seen where he put his purse. On Sunday
morning P.C. Smith, of the Folkestone force, showed him a hair brush, which he
identified as his property by the letters and marks on the handle.
Police
constable Smith (6) said he received information of the robbery on Sunday
morning, and proceeded to the Junction Station, where he found the prisoner
fast asleep on the platform. He roused him up and found that he was in a
beastly state of drunkenness, and took him into custody. On searching him at
the police station found on him the hair brush produced and £1 2s. 8½d. in
silver and copper money. The booking clerk at the station handed him over a
half sovereign which the prisoner had dropped. (Witness stated that Mr. Willes,
the station master, told him that the prisoner was at the station soon after
four o`clock in the morning, and asked for a ticket for London, which was
refused by the booking clerk, as the prisoner was drunk and unfit to travel by
train.)
The
evidence was read over and interpreted to the prisoner, who replied that he
knew nothing about it, neither did he understand why he was in that position.
Sufficient evidence having been taken to justify his detention, the prisoner was then taken to Hythe, for trial there.
At the Magistrates` Clerk`s office, Hythe, yesterday (Monday), before W. Rayner Esq., Louis Francois was again brought up, and committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the borough.
Kentish Express 28-4-1866
Police
Court, Saturday: Before R.W. Boarer Esq.
A
Frenchman, who gave the name of Louis Francois, and described himself as a
waiter, was brought up in custody from Elham Union, where he had been lying ill
from the effects of a drunken debauch on the previous Sunday, and charged with
having stolen from a bedroom at the Red Lion public house, at Hythe, a purse
containing four sovereigns, two half sovereigns, some silver, and a hair brush,
the property of John Brooks.
Prosecutor
said he had a horse and cart and sold vegetables and fish for a living. He
lodged at the Red Lion public house at Hythe. Knew the prisoner, who also
lodged there for about a week, and occupied a separate bed in the same room as
himself. Last saw him there on Saturday night, when he was waiting on the
customers in the smoking room. Went to bed about ten o`clock that night, and
put his purse containing the money above-mentioned under his pillow, under his
bed. There was about 18s or 19s. in silver in the purse. Did not see the
prisoner in the room at all that night. On Sunday morning, about six o`clock,
missed the purse and money from under the pillow. The prisoner was not then in
bed, but the bed had been slept on by someone. Gave information to the police
of his loss. Had not seen the purse since. The prisoner was often in the room
when he went to bed, and must have seen where he put his purse. On Sunday
morning P.C. Smith, of the Folkestone force, showed him a hair brush, which he
identified as his property by the letters and marks on the handle.
P.C.
Smith (8) said he received information of the robbery on Sunday morning, and
proceeded to the Junction Station, where he found the prisoner fast asleep on
the platform. He roused him up and found that he was in a beastly state of
drunkenness, and took him into custody. On searching him at the police station
found on him the hair brush produced and £1 2s. 8½d. in silver and copper
money. The booking clerk at the station handed him over a half sovereign which
the prisoner had dropped. (Witness stated that Mr. Willes, the station master,
told him that the prisoner was at the station soon after four o`clock in the
morning, and asked for a ticket for London, which was refused by the booking
clerk, as the prisoner was drunk and unfit to travel by train.)
The
evidence was read over and interpreted to the prisoner, who replied that he
knew nothing about it, neither did he understand why he was in that position.
Sufficient
evidence having been taken to justify his detention, the prisoner was then
taken to Hythe, for trial there.
Dover Chronicle 18-8-1866
Police
Court. Wednesday, August 15th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J.
Tolputt Esq.
On
Monday last whilst some cottagers living at Stanford, near Hythe, were out
harvesting, their place of abode was broken into, and a large quantity of
wearing apparel and miscellaneous articles stolen. Information was given to
Superintendent English, and descriptions of the missing property were
circulated throughout the county, which resulted in the capture of two
Frenchmen in the borough of Folkestone, and the recovery of a quantity of the
stolen property. The prisoners were lodged in the station house, where they gave
the names of Henri Bertrand and Charles Soisson. They had with them fencing
foils, masks, and tickets for an entertainment, and we understand that they
have been at Sandgate doing the Davenport Brothers business with an occasional
deviation into housebreaking when the exchequer got low. The following evidence
against them was taken:
Police
constable Ingram Swain said: In consequence of information received that there
had been a robbery from a house at Stanford, of wearing apparel, I went to the
Bricklayers Arms, in Fancy Street, where I found Mary Brasanier, and took from
her a black cloth coat which answered the description given of one which had
been stolen. I brought her to the police station where she gave a description
of a man who she said had given her the coat to sell for him. From what she
told me I went in search of the man and found the tall prisoner (Bertrand)
under the Radnor Street arches, took him into custody, lodged him in the police
station, and went in search of the prisoner Soisson and another man not in
custody. I found Soisson on the down platform at the Junction station. I found
the large bundle produced in the waiting room. It contains a print dress, two
white napkins, five nightdresses, one flannel shirt, five clean pillowcases, a chemise
marked S.W., another marked E.W., another marked J.S., and three not marked,
eight shirts, three sheets, one white slop, one tablecloth, two window blinds,
one pair of braces. On searching Bertrand I found on him a razor and case
produced. I brought Soisson to the station house, and on searching him found a
penknife and a pair of razors and cases, which he said were not his property.
He could speak English.
Mr. Ollivier, sworn, translated the evidence into the French language. The prisoners declined to question the witness, and said it was for them to answer and not to ask questions, according to the French criminal law, which is the reverse of ours in this respect.
Mary Brasonier, wife of Eugene Brasonier, picture frame maker, said: I lodge at the Oddfellows Arms. Folkestone. Yesterday, between 11 and 12 o`clock in the morning, I went to the Bricklayers Arms for 6s. About half past 10 that morning I saw the tall prisoner, Bertrand, whom I know very well by sight, outside the Bricklayers Arms, in company with a little man I did not know. The little man had a coat which he handed to Bertrand, who gave it into my hands. The black cloth coat produced is the same. He said I was to sell it for 6s. He spoke in broken English, and I understood by what he said that I was to sell the coat. I went to the Bricklayers Arms and offered the coat to the landlady for 6s. In about ten minutes after a constable came in and took me into custody, and I told him how I came by the coat.
Lydia
Strover said: I am the wife of Henry Strover, carpenter, and live in Tontine
Street, Folkestone. My father`s name is Jacob Wratten, and he is a labourer
living at Stanford, near Hythe. I have been shown some clothes by P.C. Swain
this morning and identified a black coat belonging to my father. I know it
because it has been turned. I should say it is worth 10s. I know nothing of the
two prisoners. I can also identify a chemise marked E.W., the initials of my
mother, Elizabeth Wratten. Another marked J.S. belongs to my sister, Jane
Swinyard. A third marked S.W. belongs to my sister, Susan Wratten. Witness also
identified 5 nightdresses, 3 sheets, a blouse, two window blinds, and a
coloured bag full of caps and lace belonging to her mother, a pair of
spectacles and case belonging to her father, and a razor and case found on
Soisson together with a small penknife belonging to her mother.
The case was then adjourned till four o`clock in the afternoon, but as no further evidence was forthcoming the prisoners were remanded to Hythe.
Kentish Express 18-8-1866
On
Tuesday last a shameful robbery was committed at the cottage of a labourer
named Wratten. Wratten`s cottage is a lone one, and is situate between
Newingreen and Sellinge, at a place called “Benham`s watering”, where there is
a large piece of water almost level with the road. The family were out on
Tuesday at harvest work, and when they left home the doors and windows were
fastened up. On returning in the evening it was found that a piece of wood had
been cut out of the back door, by which means two bolts had been removed – a
wooden bar with staples and an iron bolt with staples. An entrance having been
thus effected, the house was completely ransacked, the wearing apparel of
Wratten and his wife, their sheets, some pork in a tub, and everything worth
taking that was portable having been stolen. The depredators searched every
place in which they thought it likely money would be kept, even to the clock
case and an old teapot in which sundry small articles were kept. Some
suspicious looking characters were seen lurking about the house during the day.
It is a somewhat singular fact that the house next to this on the road to Hythe
was broken into last year, and the house beyond that one the year before, so
that it would seem the thieves are taking these dwellings in turn. Two
Frenchmen were brought before Thomas Denne Esq., at Hythe, on Thursday, on
suspicion of being concerned in the burglary, and remanded. They were
apprehended at Folkestone with a large portion of the stolen property in their possession.
Hythe County Police, Thursday: Before Thomas Denne Esq.
Henri Bertrand and Charles Soissom were brought up on remand from the Folkestone police court, charged with stealing one pair of dark drab trousers, one pair of black cloth ditto, one black frock coat, one black scarf shawl, three pair cotton sheets, five night jackets, two window curtains, nine women`s day caps, eight white shirts, six chemises, one flannel shirt, four pillow slips, one white linen pocket handkerchief, one check muslin ditto, one white slop, three women`s night caps, pair braces, one figured linen table cloth, one silver pencil case, two napkins, one towel, one pair spectacles and case, one razor and case, and one penknife, the property of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford.
The magistrates further remanded them till Saturday.
Kentish Gazette 21-8-1866
On Tuesday last a shameful robbery was committed at the cottage of a labourer named Wratten. Wratten`s cottage is a lone one, and is situate between Newingreen and Sellindge, at a place called “Benham`s Watering," where there is a large piece of water almost level with the road. The family were out on Tuesday at harvest work and when they left home the doors and windows were fastened up. On returning in the evening, it was found that a piece of wood had been cut out of the back door, by which means two bolts bad been removed - a wooden bar with staples, and an iron bolt with staples. An entrance having been thus effected, the house was completely ransacked, the wearing apparel of Wratten and his wife, their sheets, some pork in a tub, and everything worth taking that was portable having been stolen. The depredators searched every place in which they thought it likely monev might be kept, even to the clock case and an oldd teapot in which sundry small articles were kept. Some suspicious-looking characters were seen lurking about the house during tie dav. It is a somewhat singular fact that the house next to this on the road to Hythe was broken into last year, and the house beyond that one the year before, so it would seem the thieves are taking these dwellings in turn.
Two Frenchmen named Henri Bartrand and Charles Soissoin, were brought before Thomes Denne Esq., at the County Sessions Hall, at Hythe, on Thursday. On suspicion of being concerned in the burglary, and remanded till Saturday, when they were again brought up charged with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Jacob Wratten, a labourer, living at Stanford, and stealing therefrom two pairs of trousers, one coat, one shawl, three pairs of sheets, two window curtains, nine caps, eight shirts, six chemises, a quantity of pocket handkerchiefs, table cloths, silver pencil case, pair of spectacles and various other articles. M. Ollivier, of Folkestone, was sworn to interpret.
Prosecutor stated that he and his wife had born out at work all day, and on their return to their cottage, between seven and eight o'clock in the evening, found that it had been broken open. The back door had been forced open and everything was lying about in confusion. They missed very many things and now identified several of those produced.
On the 14th inst. Police constable Swain, of the Folkestone Borough Police, received information of the robbery, and went to the Bricklayer's Arms, Fancy Street, Folkestone; he there saw a woman named Mary Braconier, and took from her a black coat, one of those lost. From what she told him he went in search of the prisoners and found Soissoin at the Radnor Arches, Radnor Street. He took him into custody and then went in search of Bertrand, and found him at the Junction Railway Station, and a bundle was in the waiting room. He (Swain) opened it and found it to contain many of the articles stolen. He asked Bertrand it the bundle was his, and he replied “No.”
Mary Braconier stated that she was lodging at Folkestone, and knew the prisoner Soissoin. About half-past ten o’clock in the morning of the 14th inst., she saw Soissoin and a man not in custody outside the Oddfellows Arms. Soissoin gave her a coat to sell for six shillings. She took it to the Bricklayers Arms and offered it to the landlady there. After she had been there about ten minutes the constable came in and took possession of it.
Frederick Spicer, assistant to Mr Hart, of Folkestone, pawnbroker, proved that on Wednesday evening Soissoin offered him the coat produced, and also a pair of spectacles.
The Magistrate discharged the prisoner Bertrand, but committed Soissoin for trial at the next East Kent Quarter Sessions.
Southeastern Gazette 21-8-1866
At
the Sessions Hall, on Saturday last, before T. Denne Esq., Henri Bartrand and
Charles Soisson, Frenchmen, were brought up on remand, charged with breaking
into the house of Jacob Wratten, Stanford, on the 13th inst., and
stealing a quantity of wearing apparel, linen, &c.
It appeared from the evidence that the prosecutor and his wife left their cottage in the morning to go harvesting, and on their return in the evening they found that the back door had been forced, the drawers, boxes and cupboards ransacked, and all their clothes and linen carried off.
The two prisoners were taken at the Folkestone railway station, and in the waiting room was found a bundle containing part of the stolen property, which both prisoners disowned. A missing coat was found on an English woman, who was married to a Frenchman; she said she received the coat from another Frenchman, not in custody, to sell. A pawnbroker`s assistant at Folkestone identified Soisson as offering to pledge a coat, which was part of the property.
Soisson
made no defence, and was committed for trial. It was shown that Bertrand was
ill in bed at Sandgate on the day of the robbery, and as nothing was found in
his possession, although he was a companion of Soisson, he was discharged.
Canterbury Weekly
Journal, Dover Chronicle 25-8-1866
On
Tuesday last a shameful robbery was committed at the cottage of a labourer
named Wratten. Wratten`s cottage is a lone one, and is situate between
Newingreen and Sellinge, at a place called “Benham`s watering”, where there is
a large piece of water almost level with the road. The family were out on
Tuesday at harvest work, and when they left home the doors and windows were
fastened up. On returning in the evening it was found that a piece of wood had
been cut out of the back door, by which means two bolts had been removed – a
wooden bar with staples and an iron bolt with staples. An entrance having been
thus effected, the house was completely ransacked, the wearing apparel of Wratten
and his wife, their sheets, some pork in a tub, and everything worth taking
that was portable having been stolen. The depredators searched every place in
which they thought it likely money would be kept, even to the clock case and an
old teapot in which sundry small articles were kept. Some suspicious looking
characters were seen lurking about the house during the day. It is a somewhat
singular fact that the house next to this on the road to Hythe was broken into
last year, and the house beyond that one the year before, so that it would seem
the thieves are taking these dwellings in turn. Two Frenchmen, named Henri
Bertrand and Charles Soission, were brought before Thomas Denne Esq., at the
County Sessions Hall, at Hythe, on Thursday, on suspicion of being concerned in
the burglary, and remanded till Saturday, when they were again brought up
charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house of Jacob Wratten, a
labourer, living at Stanford, and stealing therefrom two pairs of trousers, one
coat, one shawl, three pairs of sheets, two window curtains, nine caps, eight
shirts, six chemises, a quantity of pocket handkerchiefs, table cloths, silver
pencil case, pair of spectacles, and various other articles.
M. Ollivier, of Folkestone, was sworn to interpret.
Prosecutor stated that he and his wife had been out at work all day, and on their return to their cottage, between seven and eight o`clock in the evening, found it had been broken open. The back door had been forced open and everything was lying about in confusion. They missed many things, and now identified several of those produced.
On
the 14th inst. Police constable Swain, of the Folkestone Borough
Police, received information of the robbery, and went to the Bricklayers Arms,
Fancy Street, Folkestone; he there saw a woman named Mary Braconier, and took
from her a black coat, one of those lost. From what she told him he went in
search of the prisoners, and found Soission at the Radnor Arches, Radnor
Street. He took him into custody and then went in search of Bertrand, and found
him at the Junction Railway Station, and a bundle was in the waiting room, and
he (Swain) opened it and found it to contain many of the articles stolen. He
asked Bertrand if the bundle was his, and he replied “No.”
Mary
Braconier stated that she was lodging at Folkestone and knew the prisoner
Soission. About half past ten o`clock in the morning of the 14th
inst. Soission and a man not in custody outside the Oddfellows Arms. Soission
gave her a coat to sell for six shillings. She took it to the Bricklayers Arms
and offered it to the landlady there. After she had been there about ten
minutes the constable came in and took possession of it.
Frederick Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, of Folkestone, pawnbroker, proved that on Wednesday evening Soission offered him the coat produced, and also a pair of spectacles.
The Magistrate discharged the prisoner Bertrand, but committed Soission for trial at the next East Kent Quarter Sessions.
Dover Chronicle 25-8-1866
On Tuesday last a shameful robbery was committed at the cottage of a labourer named Wratten. Wratten`s cottage is a lone one, and is situate between Newingreen and Sellinge, at a place called “Benham`s watering”, where there is a large piece of water almost level with the road. The family were out on Tuesday at harvest work, and when they left home the doors and windows were fastened up. On returning in the evening it was found that a piece of wood had been cut out of the back door, by which means two bolts had been removed – a wooden bar with staples and an iron bolt with staples. An entrance having been thus effected, the house was completely ransacked, the wearing apparel of Wratten and his wife, their sheets, some pork in a tub, and everything worth taking that was portable having been stolen. The depredators searched every place in which they thought it likely money would be kept, even to the clock case and an old teapot in which sundry small articles were kept. Some suspicious looking characters were seen lurking about the house during the day. It is a somewhat singular fact that the house next to this on the road to Hythe was broken into last year, and the house beyond that one the year before, so that it would seem the thieves are taking these dwellings in turn. Two Frenchmen, named Henri Bertrand and Charles Soission, were brought before Thomas Denne Esq., at the County Sessions Hall, at Hythe, on Thursday, on suspicion of being concerned in the burglary, and remanded till Saturday, when they were again brought up charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house of Jacob Wratten, a labourer, living at Stanford, and stealing therefrom two pairs of trousers, one coat, one shawl, three pairs of sheets, two window curtains, nine caps, eight shirts, six chemises, a quantity of pocket handkerchiefs, table cloths, silver pencil case, pair of spectacles, and various other articles.
M.
Ollivier, of Folkestone, was sworn to interpret.
Prosecutor stated that he and his wife had been out at work all day, and on their return to their cottage, between seven and eight o`clock in the evening, found it had been broken open. The back door had been forced open and everything was lying about in confusion. They missed many things, and now identified several of those produced.
On
the 14th inst. Police constable Swain, of the Folkestone Borough
Police, received information of the robbery, and went to the Bricklayers Arms,
Fancy Street, Folkestone; he there saw a woman named Mary Braconier, and took
from her a black coat, one of those lost. From what she told him he went in
search of the prisoners, and found Soission at the Radnor Arches, Radnor
Street. He took him into custody and then went in search of Bertrand, and found
him at the Junction Railway Station, and a bundle was in the waiting room, and
he (Swain) opened it and found it to contain many of the articles stolen. He
asked Bertrand if the bundle was his, and he replied “No.”
Mary
Braconier stated that she was lodging at Folkestone and knew the prisoner
Soission. About half past ten o`clock in the morning of the 14th
inst. Soission and a man not in custody outside the Oddfellows Arms. Soission
gave her a coat to sell for six shillings. She took it to the Bricklayers Arms
and offered it to the landlady there. After she had been there about ten
minutes the constable came in and took possession of it.
Frederick Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, of Folkestone, pawnbroker, proved that on Wednesday evening Soission offered him the coat produced, and also a pair of spectacles.
The Magistrate discharged the prisoner Bertrand, but committed Soission for trial at the next East Kent Quarter Sessions.
Faversham Mercury 25-8-1866
On
Tuesday last a shameful robbery was committed at the cottage of a labourer
named Wratten. Wratten`s cottage is a lone one, and is situate between
Newingreen and Sellinge, at a place called “Benham`s watering”, where there is
a large piece of water almost level with the road. The family were out on
Tuesday at harvest work, and when they left home the doors and windows were
fastened up. On returning in the evening it was found that a piece of wood had
been cut out of the back door, by which means two bolts had been removed – a
wooden bar with staples and an iron bolt with staples. An entrance having been
thus effected, the house was completely ransacked, the wearing apparel of
Wratten and his wife, their sheets, some pork in a tub, and everything worth
taking that was portable having been stolen. The depredators searched every
place in which they thought it likely money would be kept, even to the clock
case and an old teapot in which sundry small articles were kept. Some
suspicious looking characters were seen lurking about the house during the day.
It is a somewhat singular fact that the house next to this on the road to Hythe
was broken into last year, and the house beyond that one the year before, so
that it would seem the thieves are taking these dwellings in turn. Two
Frenchmen, named Henri Bertrand and Charles Soission, were brought before
Thomas Denne Esq., at the County Sessions Hall, at Hythe, on Thursday, on
suspicion of being concerned in the burglary, and remanded till Saturday, when
they were again brought up charged with breaking and entering the dwelling
house of Jacob Wratten, a labourer, living at Stanford, and stealing therefrom
two pairs of trousers, one coat, one shawl, three pairs of sheets, two window
curtains, nine caps, eight shirts, six chemises, a quantity of pocket
handkerchiefs, table cloths, silver pencil case, pair of spectacles, and
various other articles.
M.
Ollivier, of Folkestone, was sworn to interpret.
Prosecutor
stated that he and his wife had been out at work all day, and on their return
to their cottage, between seven and eight o`clock in the evening, found it had
been broken open. The back door had been forced open and everything was lying
about in confusion. They missed many things, and now identified several of
those produced.
On
the 14th inst. Police constable Swain, of the Folkestone Borough
Police, received information of the robbery, and went to the Bricklayers Arms,
Fancy Street, Folkestone; he there saw a woman named Mary Braconier, and took
from her a black coat, one of those lost. From what she told him he went in
search of the prisoners, and found Soission at the Radnor Arches, Radnor
Street. He took him into custody and then went in search of Bertrand, and found
him at the Junction Railway Station, and a bundle was in the waiting room, and
he (Swain) opened it and found it to contain many of the articles stolen. He
asked Bertrand if the bundle was his, and he replied “No.”
Mary
Braconier stated that she was lodging at Folkestone and knew the prisoner
Soission. About half past ten o`clock in the morning of the 14th
inst. Soission and a man not in custody outside the Oddfellows Arms. Soission
gave her a coat to sell for six shillings. She took it to the Bricklayers Arms
and offered it to the landlady there. After she had been there about ten
minutes the constable came in and took possession of it.
Frederick Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, of Folkestone, pawnbroker, proved that on Wednesday evening Soission offered him the coat produced, and also a pair of spectacles.
The Magistrate discharged the prisoner Bertrand, but committed Soission for trial at the next East Kent Quarter Sessions.
Kentish Express 25-8-1866
Hythe County Police Court, Saturday: Before Thomas Denne Esq.
Henri
Bertrand and Charles Soissons, two Frenchmen, were brought up on remand,
charged with stealing from the dwelling house of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford, a
quantity of things, including wearing apparel, linen table cloth, window
curtains, pencil case, razor, and other articles, on the 13th
instant. Mr. Olivier, of Folkestone, attended as interpreter.
When
the prisoners were apprehended at Folkestone, they had with them fencing foils,
masks, and tickets for an entertainment, and they have been exhibiting at
Sandgate and other places, with an occasional deviation into housebreaking when
the exchequer got low.
The following evidence was taken at Folkestone on Wednesday, before Captain Kennicott:
Police Constable Ingram Swain said: In consequence of information received that there had been a robbery from a house at Stanford, of wearing apparel, I went to the Bricklayers Arms, in Fancy Street, where I found Mary Braconier, and took from her a black cloth coats which matched the description given of one which had been stolen. I brought her to the police station where she gave me a description of a man who she said had given her the coat to sell for him. From what she told me I went in search of the man, and found the tall prisoner (Bertrand) under the Radnor Street arches, took him into custody, lodged him in the police station, and went in search of the prisoner Soissons and another man not in custody. I found Soissons on the down platform at the Junction station. I found the large bundle produced in the waiting room. It contains a print dress, two white napkins, five night dresses, one flannel shirt, five clean pillow cases, a chemise marked S.W., another marked E.W., another marked J.S., and three not marked, eight shirts, three sheets, one white slop, one tablecloth, two window blinds, one pair of braces. On searching Bertrand I found on him a razor and case produced. I brought Soissons to the station house, and on searching him found a penknife and a pair of razors and cases, which he said were not his property. He could speak English.
Mr. Olivier, sworn, interpreted the evidence into the French language. The prisoners declined to question the witness, and said that it was for them to answer and not to ask questions, according to the French criminal law, which is the reverse of ours in this respect.
Mary Braconier, wife of Eugene Braconier, picture frame maker, said: I lodge at the Oddfellows Arms, Folkestone. Yesterday, between 11 and 12 o`clock in the morning, I went to the Bricklayers Arms for 6s. About half past 10 that morning I saw the tall prisoner, Bertrand, whom I know very well by sight, outside the Bricklayers Arms, in company with a little man I did not know. The little man had a coat, which he handed to Bertrand, who gave it into my hands. The black cloth coat produced is the same. He said I was to sell it for 6s. He spoke in broken English, and I understood by what he said I was to sell the coat. I went to the Bricklayers Arms and offered the coat to the landlady for 6s. In about ten minutes after a constable came in and took me into custody, and I told him how I came by the coat.
Lydia Strover said: I am the wife of Henry Strover, carpenter, and live in Tontine Street, Folkestone. My father`s name is Jacob Wratten, and he is a labourer living at Stanford, near Hythe. I have been shown some clothes by P.C. Swain this morning and identified a black coat belonging to my father. I know it because it has been turned. I should say it is worth 10s. I know nothing of the two prisoners. I can also identify a chemise marked E.W., the initials of my mother, Elizabeth Wratten. Another marked J.S. belongs to my sister, Jane Swinyard. A third marked S.W. belongs to my sister, Susan Wratten. Witness also identified 5 nightdresses, 3 sheets, a blouse, two window blinds, and a coloured bag full of caps and lace belonging to her mother, a pair of spectacles and case belonging to her father, and a razor and case found on Soissons, together with a small penknife belonging to her mother.
In addition to the evidence taken at the Folkestone Police Court, the following additional evidence was now given:
Lydia Strover said that what she had stated at Folkestone was correct, except as to the penknife, which was not her father`s.
By the prisoner Soissons (interpreted): Is the towel your fathers?
No.
Then why did you say it was?
It resembled one like my father`s.
Jacob Wratten, of Stanford, labourer, deposed that on the 13th of August, between 7 and 8 o`clock in the evening, on his return from work, he found his house had been broken open. The back door had been burst open and everything in the place was lying about in confusion. A great many things were gone. The two pairs of trousers now produced he identified as his property, and he believed the razor and spectacles were also his, but he did not like to swear to them. When he left the house in the morning his wife was there.
Elizabeth
Wratten, wife of the last witness, said that she left their cottage about 8
o`clock on the morning of the 13th inst., and locked it up. On
returning with her husband in the evening it was found as he had described it.
She missed many things. She identified a handkerchief and other articles
produced as belonging to her husband. The spectacle case was her property, but
she could not swear to the spectacles. The towel did not belong to her. All the
things were safe in the house when she left in the morning.
Frederick Spicer, an assistant to Mr. Hart, pawnbroker, Folkestone, said that on the previous Wednesday evening he took in the two pairs of trousers produced. The prisoner Soissons offered the coat produced and a pair of spectacles the same evening, but it was neither of the prisoners who left the trousers.
The prisoner Soissons put in a written defence in French, of which the following is a translated copy: To the magistrate, I have the honour of humbly submitting my defence to the accusation which has been borne against me. The objects which I was in possession of had been delivered to me on Tuesday morning, by my companion, in the presence of the woman Braconier, to whom I had confided them. I had not seen him since the day before. He was with a travelling musician who was to set off, as he said, at four o`clock in the evening, by the Boulogne boat. It was then that he left me, and I remained waiting for the answer about the things I had entrusted the woman with. I was then apprehended by the policeman. I was with the husband of the woman Braconier. He told me to follow him, which I did. I declare I was completely ignorant of what the bundle contained, or whence it came, which was seized at the railway. My position, then, arises from having been for a few moments only in possession of property which I knew nothing about. On Monday I went several times to the lodging to enquire about the health of our companion, who was ill. The last time I went there was at half past four in the afternoon. He then told me he was better. Meanwhile I proceeded to Folkestone, and it was there I saw Mons. Braconier, and I slept at his lodging. Thus Your Honour will see that I was connected with this unfortunate transaction very innocently. I rely, then, on your justice, and await with calmness of mind your decision in my case.”
The magistrate committed the prisoner Soissons for trial at the East Kent Quarter Sessions. Bertrand was discharged.
The companion alluded to by Soissons in his defence is an accomplice in the robbery who has succeeded in eluding the vigilance of the police. He has been traced to Portsmouth, but nothing has since been heard of him.
Dover Chronicle 13-10-1866
Police Court, Wednesday, Oct. 10th: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.
John Bromley was summoned by Mary Ann Venner for having made use of obscene language towards her on Saturday last. Mr. J. Minter appeared for the defendant.
Mary Ann Venner, wife of Thomas Venner, said she lived opposite the defendant`s shop in Fancy Street. On Saturday morning, about a quarter to seven o`clock, she was out of doors shaking her carpets, when she saw defendant outside his shop, but did not speak to him. Defendant called her a ----. Well, never mind what he called her. She simply told him to keep himself quiet, and not hurt himself, or he would make himself ill, adding that he had become a laughing stock already, after which she went in and shut the door.
In reply to Mr. Minter complainant denied having made use of obscene language herself, and did not say she would make defendant pay for it.
Mary Elizabeth Fetherbe, a neighbour, corroborated this statement, with a little variation in the obscene language. In answer to Mr. Minter she admitted she was bound over to keep the peace towards defendant.
Charlotte
Sachre, another neighbour, said she heard all that passed. Mrs. Venner talked
through her window downstairs at defendant, who sat in his shop. She heard Mrs.
Venner say “Go in, John Bromley,” but did not hear Mrs. Venner say anything
about fighting defendant, or hear her make use of improper language.
Harriett
Mercer was also called, and gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Minter addressed the Bench for the defence, and explained that defendant was continually subjected to annoyance and abuse from his neighbours because he kept himself respectable.
He called Henry Walsh, who said he was a labourer, and lodged at the Bricklayers Arms, Fancy Street. Between 6 and 7 on Saturday morning he saw Mrs. Mercer and Mrs. Venner there, and heard them speak to Bromley, who was inside his shop. Mrs. Venner wanted him to come out into the street and fight, and called him bad names. In the evening he saw Mrs. Mercer sitting on a door step opposite defendant`s shop and she said she could sit there all night. There was a constant disturbance in the street.
The
parties then changed places, and Mrs. Venner was charged with having used
obscene language at the same time and place.
John Bromley said on Saturday morning he was in his shop when Mrs. Venner came across the road with Mrs. Mercer, stood in front of his shop, called him bad names, made use of obscene language, and challenged him there and then to come out and fight if he was a man. He declined the invitation and kept plying his awl, but the women kept on for more than half an hour, and when they were tired went away. He neither did or said anything to provoke them, but sat still all the time and never got off his seat.
The court was cleared and the magistrates deliberated. On the re-admission of the public the Mayor said they had decided on dismissing both charges.
Kentish Express 13-10-1866
Police Court, Wednesday: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.
John Bromley, shoemaker, of Fancy Street, was summoned by Mary Ann Venner for having made use of obscene language towards her on Saturday last. Mr. J. Minter appeared for the defendant.
Mary
Ann Venner, wife of Thos. Venner, said she lived opposite the defendant`s shop
in Fancy Street. On Saturday morning, about a quarter to seven o`clock, she was
out of doors shaking her carpets, when she saw defendant outside his shop, but
did not speak to him. Defendant called her a ----. Well, never mind what he
called her. She simply told him to keep himself quiet, and not hurt himself, or
he would make himself ill, adding that he had become a laughing stock already,
after which she went in and shut the door.
In
reply to Mr. Minter complainant denied having made use of obscene language
herself, and said did not say she would make defendant pay for it.
Mary
Elizabeth Fetherbe, a neighbour, corroborated this statement, with a little
variation in the obscene language. In answer to Mr. Minter she admitted she was
bound over to keep the peace towards defendant.
Charlotte
Sacre, another neighbour, said she heard all that passed. Mrs. Venner talked
through her window downstairs at defendant, who sat in his shop. She heard Mrs.
Venner say “Go in, John Bromley,” but did not hear Mrs. Venner say anything
about fighting defendant, or hear her make use of improper language.
Harriett
Mercer was also called, and gave corroborative evidence.
Mr.
Minter addressed the Bench for the defence, and explained that defendant was
continually subjected to annoyance and abuse from his neighbours because he
kept himself respectable.
He called Henry Walsh, who said he was a labourer, and lodged at the Bricklayers Arms, in Fancy Street, Folkestone. Between six and seven o`clock on Saturday morning he saw Mrs. Mercer and Mrs. Venner there, and heard them speak to Bromley, who was inside his shop. Mrs. Venner wanted him to come out into the street and fight, and called him bad names. In the evening he saw Mrs. Mercer sitting on a door step opposite defendant`s shop and she said she should sit there all night. There was a constant disturbance in the street.
The parties then changed places, and Mrs. Venner was charged with having used obscene language at the same time and place.
John Bromley said on Saturday morning he was in his shop when Mrs. Venner came across the road with Mrs. Mercer, stood in front of his shop, called him bad names, made use of obscene language, and challenged him then and there to come out and fight if he was a man. He declined the invitation and kept on plying his awl, but the women kept on for more than half an hour, and when they were tired went away. He neither said nor did anything to provoke them, but sat still all the time and never got off his seat.
Dover Express
19-10-1866
East
Kent Quarter Sessions, Tuesday last: Second Court, before T.S. Clarke Esq.
Charles Soissom, 45, shoemaker, was indicted for stealing in a dwelling house two pairs of trousers, one handkerchief, and other articles, value about £5, the property of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford, on the 13th August.
The accused is a Frenchman, and as he represented that he could not speak nor understand English, an interpreter was engaged to assist in conducting the trial.
Prosecutor
and his wife gave evidence as to their leaving their house on the morning of
the 12th of August between the hours of seven and eight, and on
their return in the evening found that it had been broken open and the articles
above-named and described stolen therefrom, most of which were produced and
identified by them, consisting of shirts, chemises, sheets, and other linen, a
coat, two pairs of trousers, a razor and case, a pair of spectacles, and a
pocket handkerchief.
William
Fright, station master at the Westenhanger railway station, stated that on the
day named in the indictment he saw the prisoner, in company with another man of
short stature, coming from the direction of prosecutor`s house at about half
past two o`clock in the afternoon; each had a large-sized bundle, and the
passed on the road leading to Canterbury.
Joseph
Clapson, a police constable, saw the prisoner and another man, much shorter
than the prisoner, each with bundles, pass near Seabrook at about half past four o`clock on the same
day.
Frederick Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, pawnbroker, at Folkestone, identified the prisoner as the person who brought the coat (now produced) to his master`s shop at about seven o`clock the same evening and wanted to pledge it, but witness declined taking it in.
Ingram
Swain, a police officer of Folkestone, went in search of the parties suspected
of the robbery, and found a Frenchwoman, the wife of an itinerant picture
seller, attempting to effect the sale of the coat in question for 6s. Witness
took possession of the coat and afterwards took the prisoner at the bar in
custody on the charge of having stolen it, and on searching him found the
razor, the spectacles, and a new pocket handkerchief, partly hemmed, in his
pocket. The razor and spectacle cases were sworn to by the prosecutor and his
wife, but they declined swearing to either the razor or spectacles, though they
were both like those that had been stolen from their house. With respect to the
handkerchief, Mrs. Wratten clearly identified it; she said she had partly
hemmed it and placed it in her cotton box with the needle in it, and in that
state it was found in the prisoner`s possession. The Constable further stated
that having ascertained that some bundles had been left at the railway station,
he went there, and found nearly all the articles of linen, &c., now
produced, with the exception of the coat and the two pairs of trousers, which
had been pledged by the short man that had been seen in the prisoner`s company,
but who had absconded.
These were the main features of the evidence, and the prisoner being called upon for his defence told a long and very tedious story, but with considerable method, denying that he was near Westenhanger, but said he did carry a bundle in the evening for a woman, who gave him a small quantity of writing paper for his trouble; that he was asked to pledge the coat by the person described as the “short man,” and who gave him the razor, the spectacles, and the handkerchief.
Neither the Court nor the jury believed his tale, and he was found guilty.
Prisoner was then charged with having been convicted at Maidstone in December, 1864, of passing counterfeit coin, and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with hard labour. This he denied, and said he had never been in Maidstone in his life; but he was fully identified as the person so convicted, and the court sentenced him to five years penal servitude. He was described by the police authorities as one of a gang of foreigners that have been giving the police much trouble for some time past, some of whom are now in custody at Maidstone; one of them, it is believed, will prove to have been his companion in the depredations for which he is convicted. It was very evident by his attention that he was well aware of all that was said in court, and was several times told that the Bench was well satisfied that he understood and could speak the English language if he thought proper to do so.
On Wednesday he was again called that his sentence might be altered. The Chairman addressing him said “Do you understand English?” to which he very readily replied, amidst considerable laughter, “Oh, no, sir.” A gentleman in Court then explained to him in French that his sentence would be altered from five years penal servitude to seven years penal servitude, the previous convictions proved against him not allowing of a shorter term than the latter period.
About five o`clock on Friday, as the van of Mr. Bailey, of Elham, was standing opposite the Gun beershop, with Mr. Bailey and two others seated in it, a hoop trundled by a boy ran between the horse`s legs, and the horse immediately bolted. Mr. Bailey pulled up hard, but the reins broke in his hands, and the vehicle ran against the kerb and turned over, catching Bailey underneath, the horse at the same time clearing itself from the traces. Mrs. Elliott, of the Gun beershop, obtained assistance, and conveyed Bailey into her house. Mr. Bateman at once attended, and finding Bailey`s ribs broken, sent him to the Dispensary.
Canterbury Weekly
Journal 20-10-1866
East Kent Quarter Sessions, Tuesday: Second Court, before T.S. Clarke Esq.
Charles Soission, 45, shoemaker, was indicted for stealing in a dwelling house two pairs of trousers, one handkerchief, and other articles, value about £5, the property of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford, on the 12th August, 1866. Mr. Biron prosecuted, and prisoner defended himself.
The accused is a Frenchman, and as he represented that he could not speak nor understand English, an interpreter was engaged to assist in conducting the trial. Prisoner, on being informed that if he wished the jury might be composed of half foreigners, intimated that he had no desire of availing himself of that privilege.
Prosecutor
and his wife gave evidence as to their leaving their house on the morning of
the 12th of August between the hours of seven and eight, and on
their return in the evening found that it had been broken open and the articles
above-named and described stolen therefrom, most of which were produced and
identified by them, consisting of shirts, chemises, sheets, and other linen, a
coat, two pair of trousers, a razor and case, a pair of spectacles, and a
pocket handkerchief.
William Fright, station master at the Westenhanger railway station, stated that on the day named in the indictment he saw the prisoner, in company with another man of short stature, coming from the direction of prosecutor`s house at about half past two o`clock in the afternoon; each had a large-sized bundle, and they passed on the road leading to Canterbury.
Joseph Clapson, a police constable, saw the prisoner and another man, much shorter than the prisoner, each with bundles, pass near Seabrook at about half past four o`clock on the same day.
Frederick
Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, pawnbroker, at Folkestone, identified the
prisoner as the person who brought the coat (now produced) to his master`s shop
at about 7 o`clock the same evening and wanted to pledge it, but witness
declined taking it in.
Ingram Swain, a police officer of Folkestone, from information received respecting the robbery, went in search of the parties suspected, and found a Frenchwoman, the wife of an itinerant picture seller, attempting to effect the sale of the coat in question for 6s. Witness took possession of the coat and afterwards took the prisoner at the bar in custody on the charge of having stolen it, and on searching him found the razor, the spectacles, and a new pocket handkerchief, partly hemmed, in his pocket. The razor and spectacle cases were sworn to by the prosecutor and his wife, but they declined swearing to either the razor or spectacles, though they were both like those that had been stolen from their house. With respect to the handkerchief, Mrs. Wratten clearly identified it; she said she had partly hemmed it and placed it in her cotton box with the needle in it, and in that state it was found in the prisoner`s possession. The constable further stated that having ascertained that some bundles had been left at the railway station, he went there, and found nearly all the articles of linen, &c., now produced, with the exception of the coat and the two pair of trousers, which had been pledged by the short man that had been seen in the prisoner`s company, but who had absconded.
These
were the main features of the evidence, and the prisoner being called upon for
his defence told a long and very tedious story, but with considerable method,
denying that he was near Westenhanger, but said he did carry a bundle in the
evening for a woman, who gave him a small quantity of writing paper for his
trouble; that he was asked to pledge the coat by the person described as the
“short man,” and who gave him the razor, the spectacles, and the handkerchief.
Neither the Court nor the jury believed his tale, and he was found guilty.
Wednesday: The Sessions were resumed in the first Court this morning, before the Chairman, Sir Brook Bridges, Bart., M.P.
Charles Soission, the Frenchman convicted in the Second Court on Tuesday of felony, was again called that his sentence might be altered, The prisoner on Tuesday gave a great deal of trouble by persisting that he did not understand English, which it was very evident was false. The Chairman now addressing him said “Do you understand English?” to which he very readily replied, amidst considerable laughter, “Oh, no, sir.” A gentleman then in Court explained to him in French that his sentence would be altered from five years penal servitude to seven years penal servitude, the previous convictions proved against him not allowing of a shorter term than the latter period.
Dover Chronicle
20-10-1866
East Kent Quarter Sessions, Tuesday, Second Court: Before T.S. Clarke Esq.
Charles
Soissom, 45, shoemaker, was indicted for stealing in a dwelling house two pairs
of trousers, one handkerchief, and other articles, value about £5, the property
of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford, on the 12th August, 1866. Mr. Biron
prosecuted, and the prisoner defended himself.
The
accused is a Frenchman, and as he represented that he could not speak nor
understand English, an interpreter was engaged to assist in conducting the
trial. Prisoner, on being informed that if he wished the jury might be composed
of half foreigners, intimated that he had no desire of availing himself of that
privilege.
Prosecutor
and his wife gave evidence as to their leaving their house on the morning of
the 12th of August between the hours of seven and eight, and on
their return in the evening found that it had been broken open and the articles
above-named and described stolen therefrom, most of which were produced and
identified by them, consisting of shirts, chemises, sheets, and other linen, a
coat, two pair of trousers, a razor and case, a pair of spectacles, and a
pocket handkerchief.
William Fright, station master at the Westenhanger railway station, stated that on the day named in the indictment he saw the prisoner, in company with another man of short stature, coming from the direction of prosecutor`s house at about half past two o`clock in the afternoon; each had a large-sized bundle, and the passed on the road leading to Canterbury.
Joseph Clapson, a police constable, saw the prisoner and another man, much shorter than the prisoner, each with bundles, pass near Seabrook at about half past four o`clock on the same day.
Frederick Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, pawnbroker, at Folkestone, identified the prisoner as the person who brought the coat (now produced) to his master`s shop at about 7 o`clock the same evening and wanted to pledge it, but witness declined taking it in.
Ingram Swain, a police officer of Folkestone, from information received respecting the robbery, went in search of the parties suspected, and found a Frenchwoman, the wife of an itinerant picture seller, attempting to effect the sale of the coat in question for 6s. Witness took possession of the coat and afterwards took the prisoner at the bar in custody on the charge of having stolen it, and on searching him found the razor, the spectacles, and a new pocket handkerchief, partly hemmed, in his pocket. The razor and spectacle cases were sworn to by the prosecutor and his wife, but they declined swearing to either the razor or spectacles, though they were both like those that had been stolen from their house. With respect to the handkerchief, Mrs. Wratten clearly identified it; she said she had partly hemmed it and placed it in her cotton box with the needle in it, and in that state it was found in the prisoner`s possession. The Constable further stated that having ascertained that some bundles had been left at the railway station, he went there, and found nearly all the articles of linen, &c., now produced, with the exception of the coat and the two pair of trousers, which had been pledged by the short man that had been seen in the prisoner`s company, but who had absconded.
These were the main features of the evidence, and the prisoner being called upon for his defence told a long and very tedious story, but with considerable method, denying that he was near Westenhanger, but said he did carry a bundle in the evening for a woman, who gave him a small quantity of writing paper for his trouble; that he was asked to pledge the coat by the person described as the “short man,” and who gave him the razor, the spectacles, and the handkerchief.
Neither the Court nor the jury believed his tale, and he was found guilty.
Wednesday:
The Sessions were resumed in the first Court this morning, before the Chairman,
Sir Brook Bridges, Bart., M.P.
Charles Soissom, the Frenchman convicted in the Second Court on Tuesday of felony, was again called that his sentence might be altered, The prisoner on Tuesday gave a great deal of trouble by persisting that he did not understand English, which it was very evident was false. The Chairman now addressing him said “Do you understand English?” to which he very readily replied, amidst considerable laughter, “Oh, no, sir.” A gentleman then in Court explained to him in French that his sentence would be altered from five years penal servitude to seven years penal servitude, the previous convictions proved against him not allowing of a shorter term than the latter period.
Faversham Mercury 20-10-1866
East Kent Quarter Sessions, Tuesday: Second Court, before T.S. Clarke Esq.
Charles Soission, 45, shoemaker, was indicted for stealing in a dwelling house two pairs of trousers, one handkerchief, and other articles, value about £5, the property of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford, on the 12th August, 1866. Mr. Biron prosecuted, and prisoner defended himself.
The accused is a Frenchman, and as he represented that he could not speak nor understand English, an interpreter was engaged to assist in conducting the trial. Prisoner, on being informed that if he wished the jury might be composed of half foreigners, intimated that he had no desire of availing himself of that privilege.
Prosecutor
and his wife gave evidence as to their leaving their house on the morning of
the 12th of August between the hours of seven and eight, and on
their return in the evening found that it had been broken open and the articles
above-named and described stolen therefrom, most of which were produced and
identified by them, consisting of shirts, chemises, sheets, and other linen, a
coat, two pair of trousers, a razor and case, a pair of spectacles, and a
pocket handkerchief.
William
Fright, station master at the Westenhanger railway station, stated that on the
day named in the indictment he saw the prisoner, in company with another man of
short stature, coming from the direction of prosecutor`s house at about half
past two o`clock in the afternoon; each had a large-sized bundle, and the
passed on the road leading to Canterbury.
Joseph
Clapson, a police constable, saw the prisoner and another man, much shorter
than the prisoner, each with bundles, pass near Seabrook at about half past four o`clock on the same
day.
Frederick
Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, pawnbroker, at Folkestone, identified the
prisoner as the person who brought the coat (now produced) to his master`s shop
at about 7 o`clock the same evening and wanted to pledge it, but witness
declined taking it in.
Ingram
Swain, a police officer of Folkestone, from information received respecting the
robbery, went in search of the parties suspected, and found a Frenchwoman, the
wife of an itinerant picture seller, attempting to effect the sale of the coat
in question for 6s. Witness took possession of the coat and afterwards took the
prisoner at the bar in custody on the charge of having stolen it, and on
searching him found the razor, the spectacles, and a new pocket handkerchief,
partly hemmed, in his pocket. The razor and spectacle cases were sworn to by
the prosecutor and his wife, but they declined swearing to either the razor or
spectacles, though they were both like those that had been stolen from their
house. With respect to the handkerchief, Mrs. Wratten clearly identified it;
she said she had partly hemmed it and placed it in her cotton box with the
needle in it, and in that state it was found in the prisoner`s possession. The
Constable further stated that having ascertained that some bundles had been
left at the railway station, he went there, and found nearly all the articles
of linen, &c., now produced, with the exception of the coat and the two
pair of trousers, which had been pledged by the short man that had been seen in
the prisoner`s company, but who had absconded.
These
were the main features of the evidence, and the prisoner being called upon for
his defence told a long and very tedious story, but with considerable method,
denying that he was near Westenhanger, but said he did carry a bundle in the
evening for a woman, who gave him a small quantity of writing paper for his
trouble; that he was asked to pledge the coat by the person described as the
“short man,” and who gave him the razor, the spectacles, and the handkerchief.
Neither the Court nor the jury believed his tale, and he was found guilty.
Wednesday: The Sessions were resumed in the first Court this morning, before the Chairman, Sir Brook Bridges, Bart., M.P.
Charles
Soission, the Frenchman convicted in the Second Court on Tuesday of felony, was
again called that his sentence might be altered, The prisoner on Tuesday gave a
great deal of trouble by persisting that he did not understand English, which
it was very evident was false. The Chairman now addressing him said “Do you
understand English?” to which he very readily replied, amidst considerable
laughter, “Oh, no, sir.” A gentleman then in Court explained to him in French
that his sentence would be altered from five years penal servitude to seven
years penal servitude, the previous convictions proved against him not allowing
of a shorter term than the latter period.
Kentish Express 20-10-1866
East
Kent Quarter Sessions, Tuesday: Second Court, before T.S. Clarke Esq.
Charles
Soissom, 45, shoemaker, was indicted for stealing in a dwelling house two pairs
of trousers, one handkerchief, and other articles, value about £5, the property
of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford, on the 13th August, 1866. Mr. Biron
prosecuted, and prisoner defended himself.
The
accused is a Frenchman, and as he represented that he could not speak nor
understand English, an interpreter was engaged to assist in conducting the
trial.
Prosecutor
and his wife gave evidence as to their leaving their house on the morning of
the 12th of August between the hours of seven and eight, and on
their return in the evening found that it had been broken open and the articles
above-named and described stolen therefrom, most of which were produced and
identified by them, consisting of shirts, chemises, sheets, and other linen, a
coat, two pair of trousers, a razor and case, a pair of spectacles, and a
pocket handkerchief.
William Fright, station master at the Westenhanger railway station, stated that on the day named in the indictment he saw the prisoner, in company with another man of short stature, coming from the direction of prosecutor`s house at about half past two o`clock in the afternoon; each had a large-sized bundle, and the passed on the road leading to Canterbury.
Joseph
Clapson, a police constable, saw the prisoner and another man, much shorter
than the prisoner, each with bundles, pass near Seabrook at about half past four o`clock on the same
day.
Frederick
Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, pawnbroker, at Folkestone, identified the
prisoner as the person who brought the coat (now produced) to his master`s shop
at about seven o`clock the same evening and wanted to pledge it, but witness
declined taking it in.
Ingram Swain, a police officer of Folkestone, went in search of the parties suspected of the robbery, and found a Frenchwoman, the wife of an itinerant picture seller, attempting to effect the sale of the coat in question for 6s. Witness took possession of the coat and afterwards took the prisoner at the bar in custody on the charge of having stolen it, and on searching him found the razor, the spectacles, and a new pocket handkerchief, partly hemmed, in his pocket. The razor and spectacle cases were sworn to by the prosecutor and his wife, but they declined swearing to either the razor or spectacles, though they were both like those that had been stolen from their house. With respect to the handkerchief, Mrs. Wratten clearly identified it; she said she had partly hemmed it and placed it in her cotton box with the needle in it, and in that state it was found in the prisoner`s possession. The Constable further stated that having ascertained that some bundles had been left at the railway station, he went there, and found nearly all the articles of linen, &c., now produced, with the exception of the coat and the two pairs of trousers, which had been pledged by the short man that had been seen in the prisoner`s company, but who had absconded.
These
were the main features of the evidence, and the prisoner being called upon for
his defence told a long and very tedious story, but with considerable method,
denying that he was near Westenhanger, but said he did carry a bundle in the
evening for a woman, who gave him a small quantity of writing paper for his
trouble; that he was asked to pledge the coat by the person described as the
“short man,” and who gave him the razor, the spectacles, and the handkerchief.
Neither
the Court nor the jury believed his tale, and he was found guilty.
Prisoner
was then charged with having been convicted at Maidstone in December, 1864, of
passing counterfeit coin, and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with hard
labour. This he denied, and said he was never in Maidstone in his life; but he
was fully identified as the person so convicted, and the court sentenced him to
five years penal servitude. He was described by the police authorities as one
of a gang of foreigners that have been giving the police much trouble for some
time past, some of whom are now in custody at Maidstone; one of them, it is
believed, will prove to have been his companion in the depredations for which
he is convicted. It was very evident by his attention to the proceedings that
he was well aware of all that was said in court, and was several times told
that the Bench was well satisfied that he understood and could speak the
English language if he thought proper to do so.
On Wednesday he was again called that his sentence might be altered. The Chairman addressing him said “Do you understand English?” to which he very readily replied, amidst considerable laughter, “Oh, no, sir.” A gentleman in Court then explained to him in French that his sentence would be altered from five years penal servitude to seven years penal servitude, the previous convictions proved against him not allowing of a shorter term than the latter period.
Maidstone Journal
22-10-1866
East Kent Quarter Sessions, Tuesday: Second Court, before T.S. Clarke Esq.
Charles
Soissom, 45, shoemaker, was indicted for stealing in a dwelling house two pairs
of trousers, one handkerchief, and other articles, value about £5, the property
of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford, on the 13th August, 1866. Mr. Biron
prosecuted, and prisoner defended himself.
The
accused is a Frenchman, and as he represented that he could not speak nor
understand English, an interpreter was engaged to assist in conducting the
trial. Prisoner, on being informed that if he wished the jury might be composed
of half foreigners, intimated that he had no desire of availing himself of that
privilege.
He
was found guilty and he was then charged with having been convicted at
Maidstone, in December, 1864, of passing counterfeit coin, and sentenced to 18
months imprisonment with hard labour. This he denied, and said he was never in
Maidstone in his life, but he was fully identified as the person so convicted,
and the court sentenced him to five years penal servitude. He was described by
the police authorities as one of a gang of foreigners that have been giving the
police much trouble for some time past, some of whom are now in custody at
Maidstone.
Kentish Gazette
23-10-1866
East
Kent Quarter Sessions, Tuesday: Second Court, before T.S. Clarke Esq.
Charles
Soissons, 45, shoemaker, was indicted for stealing in a dwelling house two
pairs of trousers, one handkerchief, and other articles, value about £5, the property
of Jacob Wratten, at Stanford, on the 13th August, 1866. Mr. Biron
prosecuted, and prisoner defended himself.
The
accused is a Frenchman, and as he represented that he could not speak nor
understand English, an interpreter was engaged to assist in conducting the
trial. Prisoner, on being informed that if he wished the jury might be composed
of half foreigners, intimated that he had no desire of availing himself of that
privilege.
Prosecutor
and his wife gave evidence as to their leaving their house on the morning of
the 12th of August between the hours of seven and eight, and on
their return in the evening found that it had been broken open and the articles
above-named and described stolen therefrom, most of which were produced and
identified by them, consisting of shirts, chemises, sheets, and other linen, a
coat, two pair of trousers, a razor and case, a pair of spectacles, and a
pocket handkerchief.
William
Fright, station master at the Westenhanger railway station, stated that on the
day named in the indictment he saw the prisoner, in company with another man of
short stature, coming from the direction of prosecutor`s house at about half
past two o`clock in the afternoon; each had a large-sized bundle, and they
passed on the road leading to Canterbury.
Joseph
Clapson, a police constable, saw the prisoner and another man, much shorter
than the prisoner, each with bundles, pass near Seabrook at about half past four o`clock on the same
day.
Frederick
Spicer, assistant to Mr. Hart, pawnbroker, at Folkestone, identified the
prisoner as the person who brought the coat (now produced) to his master`s shop
at about seven o`clock the same evening and wanted to pledge it, but witness
declined taking it in.
Ingram
Swain, a police officer of Folkestone, from information received respecting the
robbery, went in search of the parties suspected, and found a Frenchwoman, the
wife of an itinerant picture seller, attempting to effect the sale of the coat
in question for 6s. Witness took possession of the coat and afterwards took the
prisoner at the bar in custody on the charge of having stolen it, and on
searching him found the razor, the spectacles, and a new pocket handkerchief,
partly hemmed, in his pocket. The razor and spectacle cases were sworn to by
the prosecutor and his wife, but they declined swearing to either the razor or
spectacles, though they were both like those that had been stolen from their
house. With respect to the handkerchief, Mrs. Wratten clearly identified it;
she said she had partly hemmed it and placed it in her cotton box with the
needle in it, and in that state it was found in the prisoner`s possession. The
constable further stated that having ascertained that some bundles had been
left at the railway station, he went there, and found nearly all the articles
of linen, &c., now produced, with the exception of the coat and the two
pair of trousers, which had been pledged by the short man that had been seen in
the prisoner`s company, but who had absconded.
These were the main features of the evidence, and the prisoner being called upon for his defence told a long and very tedious story, but with considerable method, denying that he was near Westenhanger, but said he did carry a bundle in the evening for a woman, who gave him a small quantity of writing paper for his trouble; that he was asked to pledge the coat by the person described as the “short man,” and who gave him the razor, the spectacles, and the handkerchief.
Neither the Court nor the jury believed his tale, and he was found guilty.
Prisoner was then charged with having been convicted at Maidstone in December, 1864, of passing counterfeit coin, and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with hard labour. This he denied, and said he was never in Maidstone in his life; but he was fully identified as the person so convicted, and the court sentenced him to five years penal servitude. He was described by the police authorities as one of a gang of foreigners that have been giving the police much trouble for some time past, some of whom are now in custody at Maidstone; one of them, it is believed, will prove to have been his companion in the depredations for which he is convicted. It was very evident by his attention to the proceedings that he was well aware of all that was said in court, and was several times told that the Bench was well satisfied that he understood and could speak the English language if he thought proper to do so.
Wednesday, Oct 17: Before Sir Brook Bridges, Bart., M.P.
Charles
Soissom, the Frenchman convicted in the Second Court on Tuesday of felony, was
again called that his sentence might be altered, The prisoner on Tuesday gave a
great deal of trouble by persisting that he did not understand English, which
it was very evident was false. A gentleman in Court, at the request of the
Chairman, explained to him in French that his sentence would be altered from
five years penal servitude to seven years penal servitude, the previous
convictions proved against him not allowing of a shorter term than the latter
period.
Southeastern Gazette
23-10-1866
East
Kent Quarter Sessions, Tuesday: Second Court, before T.S. Clarke Esq.
Charles
Soissom, a Frenchman, for stealing, in a dwelling house, two pairs of trousers,
one handkerchief, and other articles, value £5, the property of Jacob Wratten,
at Stanford, on the 13th August. Mr. Biron prosecuted.
The case occupied the attention of the court a considerable time, in consequence of the whole of the evidence against the prisoner having to be interpreted to him, but the facts lay within a very small compass.
The
prosecutor and his wife left their home early on the morning of the 13th
August, and on returning in the evening found that the place had been entered,
and the property mentioned in the indictment, with other articles, removed. Information
was given to the police, and this led to the apprehension of the prisoner. It
seems that at about half past two on the day of the robbery, the station master
at Westenhanger saw the prisoner and another man, each carrying a bundle, pass
on the road to Canterbury. The prisoner was next found at Folkestone, where he
offered to pledge a coat forming part of the property he was now charged with
stealing. The pawnbroker, however, declined to take in the article. On being
apprehended the next morning a pocket handkerchief, a razor, and a pair of
spectacles, all of which the prosecutor and his wife identified as having
belonged to him, were found in his pockets.
The prisoner made a long defence, the gist of which was that he received the goods from another party.
The
jury found him guilty, and a previous conviction having been proved, he was
sentenced to five years penal servitude.
Wednesday: Before Sir Brook Bridges, Bart., M.P.
Charles Soissom, the Frenchman convicted in the second court on Tuesday of felony, was again called up, that his sentence might be altered from five years penal servitude to seven years, the previous convictions proved against him not allowing of a shorter term that the latter.
Dover Chronicle 12-12-1866
Police Court, Saturday: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and Messrs. Tolputt and Leith
Jasper Weston appeared to answer a charge, preferred by Anthony Payer, of having on the 20th July last stolen from his house a quantity of wearing apparel, furniture, &c., value from two to three pounds. Mr. J. Minter was engaged for the prosecution, and Messrs. Brockman and Harrison for the defence.
Mr.
Minter, in opening the case, said he was engaged by Anthony Payer to prosecute
defendant Jasper Weston, upon a charge of stealing during the present year from
the residence of his client, No. 5, Eaton Place, Mill Lane, the property
produced. There was also a large quantity of other property stolen at the same
time, which they were endeavouring to trace. It was not necessary to mention
that Mr. and Mrs. Payer might have had some unhappy discussion together. In
consequence of the conduct of defendant, who was residing next door, to Mrs.
Payer, Mr. Payer charged defendant with being too familiar with his
(plaintiff`s) wife, and the result was that on the 20th July Mrs.
Payer left her home during the absence of her husband. On his return he found
the house stripped of a great deal of furniture, a portion of which was now
produced. In consequence of the conduct of the defendant towards Mrs. Payer,
Mr. Payer naturally thought that defendant had something to do with the affair.
Accordingly he saw defendant and charged him there and then, saying “You have
decoyed my wife away from me, and you have robbed me of the property which has
been taken from my house.” All the answer he obtained was a shrug of the shoulders.
He (defendant) neither admitted nor denied it. He (Mr. Minter) thought that was
an important fact, because they would presently see that Mrs. Payer and the
goods were found in defendant`s house. Mr. Payer engaged watches, and set
himself to discover where his wife was residing, but from the 20th
July up to the 19th November he was unable to do so. On the later
day, however, he (Mr. Minter) would tell the magistrates, this to show that
defendant was acting in concert with Mrs. Payer, and that he was cognisant of
what he was doing. On the 19th Nov. then two men were watching
outside defendant`s house, in London Street, Mrs. Payer was seen to enter a
bedroom, with a lighted candle, the blind being partly drawn up, and arrange
her hair by the help of a looking glass. Defendant was shortly afterwards seen
to follow her into the same bedroom. About eight o`clock he came out
accompanied by Mrs. Payer. They were seen to go down Dover Street, under the
archway on to the Canterbury Road, and to turn into some fields there, after
which and about eleven o`clock they were seen to enter defendant`s house. He
(Mr. Minter) apprehended that when he proved to the magistrates these facts,
and also that the good were found in his (defendant`s) possession, there could
be no doubt in their mind but that defendant had been acting in concert with
Mrs. Payer, and that he was the stealer of the goods.
The
first witness called was Anthony Payer, who said: I am a nurseryman, living at
No. 5, Eaton Place, Mill Lane. Defendant, Weston, lived at No, 4. In
consequence of having, previous to 20th July last, caught defendant
and my wife together in the garden and other places, I complained to defendant
of this fact. On the 20th July I left my house at about two o`clock
in the afternoon. When I went away the articles produced were on my premises. I
returned at about five. The articles produced were not there then, the house
was stripped. All the best of the goods taken I have never found, these things
are only the rubbish. I saw defendant the same evening. I said to him “You have
decoyed my wife away and stripped my house.” He shrugged his shoulders and made
no reply. On the 19th November, at about seven in the evening, I was
in London Street. Two other men named Harry Welch and George Westerman were
with me. I was in Mr. Martin`s garden opposite No. 16, where Jasper Weston
lives. Whilst waiting there I saw my wife go up the stairs of his house with a
candle in her hand. She turned into a bedroom, the window of which looks into
the street. She came towards the window, put the candle on a table, and stroked
her hair down by a glass. While she was doing that I saw Jasper Weston go up
the stairs and into the room where she was. I could see him going up the stairs
by a staircase window which looks into the street. The blind was partly drawn
up and I could see all that was going on in the room About eight o`clock Jasper
Weston and my wife came out of the front door. I followed them up Dover Street,
then under the left arch, and I lost sight of them when they turned into some
fields on the Canterbury Road. I then returned to London Street. The two men
were in London Street when I returned. I saw defendant and my wife return
together in company at eleven o`clock that evening. I accompanied the police to
No. 16, London Street, yesterday, where I found my wife in the back room on the
first floor. It looked like a sitting room. The door of the room in which we
found my wife was locked. When we got in we found the articles produced. The
following is a list of the articles
found there and which are all my property:- Carpet, small feather bed and
bolster, three sacks, two counterpanes, basket full of wearing apparel, one
shirt which I was in the habit of wearing, five pieces of damask cloth, one
portmanteau containing a quantity of bed furniture, two metal teapots, one
metal coffee pot, one tin steamer and one tin flowerpot, one tin candlestick,
one snuffer tray, one tin footbath, one paraffin oil lamp, one clothes line,
one large bible, one jug, one table, two boxes, one cane-seated chair, one
oilskin table cover, one damask tablecloth, one piece of stair carpet, one
brush handle, one carving knife and fork and six small knives, one cotton
sheet, one pillow case, one canvas towel, two waistcoats, one bolster case. The
things were in various parts of Weston`s house. One window of the room was wide
open when we got in. There were five or six cups and saucers filled with tea on
the table. There was only Mrs. Payer in the room. It was easy to get out of the
open window. I should estimate the value of the goods in court at from two to
three pounds. The value of all the property stolen from my house on the 20th
July is worth from fifty to sixty pounds. After I had charged Weston with
stealing the things on the 20th July I watched his house at No. 4,
Eaton Place, Mill Lane. I saw Weston and his son come out about nine o`clock.
Jasper Weston had a bundle in his hand, the wrapper of which I recognised as my
property. He went down Mill Lane. The son came up Rendezvous Street with a
large carpet bag, full, and as much as he could carry. I followed him round the
Bayle, where I lost sight of him, but I saw him go back into his father`s house
with the bag in his hand.
Henry
Welch was the next witness called. He said: I am in Mr. Peel`s employ at the
Bricklayers Arms. I accompanied Mr. Payer to watch London Street, No. 16. He
went about half past six in the evening. We placed ourselves in a garden
opposite the house. He went up some steps to get onto a bank in the garden. After
we had been there about half an hour, I saw Mrs. Payer come into the bedroom
which looks into the street. I know Mrs. Payer and have done so for some time.
I saw a man in the bedroom with Mrs. Payer, but I don`t know who he was. About
half past seven or thereabouts I saw Mrs. Payer and the man come out of the
house.
Cross-examined by the defendant: I heard the clock strike eleven o`clock exactly as they went into the house. The blinds were drawn up sufficiently for me to see all that passed in the bedroom. I am quite positive it was Mrs. Payer. I did not know the man who was there.
John Reynolds, being sworn, said: I am a police constable in the Folkestone force. I went with Mr. Payer to No. 16, London Street, at about half past three yesterday afternoon. I found Mrs. Payer on the first floor, and I found the articles produced in different parts of the house and took possession of them.
Mr. Minter then applied for a remand. He said the greater and most valuable portion of the goods were yet undiscovered. As he was instructed that a clue had been obtained to their whereabouts, he wished for a remand and a further search warrant, that they might be able to prosecute their enquiries.
Bail was then accepted, defendant in £20, and Charles Payer, of No. 5 Eaton Place, in £20, and the case was remanded till this day.
Dover Express 14-12-1866
Police Court, Saturday: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.
Jasper
Weston, photographer, of Guildhall Street and London Street, Folkestone, was
charged with being concerned in stealing on the 25th July last, a
quantity of furniture, wearing apparel, &c., the property of Anthony Payer,
nurseryman, of 5, Eaton Place, Mill Lane. Mr. Minter appeared for complainant,
and Mr. Whiting, from the office of Messrs. Brockman and Harrison, for the
prisoner.
Mr.
Minter gave a resume of the facts, which will all be found in the evidence, and
said that after he had produced his witnesses he should ask for a remand – to
enable him to obtain further evidence.
He
called the prosecutor, Anthony Payer, who being sworn said: I live at No. 5,
Eaton Place, in the borough of Folkestone. The defendant Weston did live next
door to me, at No. 4, but has now removed to 16, London Street. Previous to 25th
July last I had accused him of having connection with my wife. On that day I
left home at two o`clock in the afternoon, and at that time the goods now
produced were in the house. I returned home at five o`clock, and found my wife
not there, and the house stripped. The articles produced, with a quantity of
more valuable furniture, were taken at the time. I saw the defendant the same
evening, and said “You have decoyed my wife away and stripped my house; and got
my boys to help you.” He made no reply, but only laughed. I did not see my wife
after until November. On the 19th November I was in London Street,
about seven o`clock in the evening. Henry Welsh and George Weston were with me.
We were in Mr. Martin`s garden, in London Street, watching No. 16, which we
were exactly opposite. The defendant lives at No. 16. While waiting there I saw
my wife go upstairs with a candle in her hand. She turned into a bedroom on the
left hand side with a window looking on the street. She came to the window and
put the candle on the dressing table. I saw her arranging her hair at the
glass. The blind of the window was raised about 18 inches. While she was there
I saw defendant go upstairs and into the same room. They remained there about
half an hour. About eight o`clock I saw defendant and my wife come out of the
house together, and followed them up Dover Road, through the left arch of the
railway and into the Canterbury Road, where they turned into some fields and I
lost sight of them. I then returned to London Street and waited for them. The two
men went with me, and returned with me. Defendant and my wife returned home at
11 o`clock, to the house. I accompanied the police yesterday to 16, London
Street, and there I found my wife in a sitting room on the first floor, at the
back of the house. The door of the room was locked, and I could not get in for
some time. In the house I found the articles produced. Witness enumerated the
articles. The more valuable articles are not yet found. These things were in
various parts of the house, and they are all my property. When I got into the
room where my wife was there was no-one else there, but on the table were five
cups, a basin, and six saucers, filled with tea, as though others had been
there. One of the windows was wide open, and it would be very easy to step out
of it over the area. I value the articles produced at from £2 to £3. The total
value of the articles stolen is not less than from £50 to £60. On the 25th
July, after charging defendant with stealing my goods, I watched his house, and
at nine o`clock in the evening I saw the defendant and his son, each with a
bundle under his arm, come out. The wrapper of defendant`s bundle I recognised
as my property. He went down Mill Lane, and the son, who carried a large carpet
bag, went up the lane. I followed him along Rendezvous Street and on to the
Bayle, where he caught sight of me, and turning back took the bag home with him
again.
Cross-examined:
I believe my wife left me through the bad persuasion of the defendant, and I
gave her no reason for going. There is some dispute about the ownership of the
property where I live. I never ill-treated or threatened to ill-treat my wife,
but we have had words.
Mr.
Minter said he had no objection to go into family disputes, but he thought it
would be only making the case more intricate.
Henry Welsh, employed at the Bricklayers Arms, under Mr. Peel, said he went with Mr. Payer and another man on the 19th November to watch No. 16, London Street. They went into a garden there, just opposite the house, and saw Mrs. Payer, whom he knew well, go into a bedroom and arrange her hair. The blind was raised a little. Directly after some man whom he did not know came into the same room and remained some time. Afterwards the same man and Mrs. Payer came out of the house and went up the Canterbury Road. They returned to the house at 11 o`clock, after being away about three hours.
Cross-examined:
He went home at 11 o`clock. The church clock struck as Mrs. Payer and the man
went indoors. He was positive the blinds were raised.. He could not say exactly
how much – certainly more than 6 inches, perhaps 2 ft. He did not know Mr.
Weston.
P.C.
8 deposed: I went yesterday afternoon at half past three o`clock, armed with a
search warrant, in company with prosecutor to No. 16, London Street. I a back
room on the first floor we found Mrs. Payer, and in different parts of the
house the things produced. Mr. Payer identified them, and I took possession of
them.
Mr.
Minter asked for a remand.
Mr. Whiting submitted that there was no case; and quoted several cases in support of his statement that a wife cannot steal her husband`s goods, and that if she deliver them to a stranger, he is not guilty of felony.
The magistrates, however, had a case before them exactly similar to this, and accordingly remanded prisoner till Wednesday, and accepted bail – himself, and one surety, in £20 each.
Dover Chronicle
15-12-1866
Police
Court, Wednesday: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Captain Kennicott R.N., and Messrs.
Tolputt and Leith.
The
adjourned hearing of the case in which Anthony Payer charged Jasper Weston with
stealing a quantity of furniture, &c., valued at from £2 to £3, came off
this (Wednesday) morning. Mr. Pilcher, in the absence of Mr. Minter, conducted
the prosecution, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, instructed by Messrs. Brockman and
Harrison, appeared for the defence.
The
depositions of several witnesses, as taken on Saturday last and given in the
Dover Chronicle of Wednesday, having been read over, Mr. Pilcher said he must
ask the Bench to convict the defendant on the evidence given.
This
not being done, Mr. Towne proceeded to address the Bench on behalf of the
defence. He said he had the duty imposed upon him of representing the
respectable gentleman, Mr. Weston, in regard to the charge made against him. He
had heard the depositions read, and he thought that a more vile and monstrous
case had never been before any magistrates, and yet it was asked upon those
very depositions that a respectable man should be convicted. He might be very
well content to let the case stand upon the depositions, but he should then not
be doing justice to Mr. Weston. He should show that what had been said was
filthy and abominably untrue. He would show it for the satisfaction of the
public, for the satisfaction of Mr. Weston, and that he might leave their
presence today with a full certificate that he had been most notoriously
attacked. The case as it appeared by the depositions seemed to divide into two
parts. One a direct charge that Mr. Weston had stolen two or three pounds worth
of rubbish, and indeed the only charge which they would have to consider, and
in the next place, and for the purpose of giving colour to the first charge,
there was a horrible insinuation that Mr. Weston, a respectable tradesman of
this town, had been for some time past living in an objectionable manner with
this said man`s wife. It was under the supposition that if they could make out
the latter they would this bring the charge within the law “that if a wife
steals property from her husband, her paramour, knowing it to have been stolen,
and having assisted her, is guilty of theft.” It was endeavoured then to show
that, because Mr. Weston had been seen in familiar intercourse with Mrs. Payer
on the 19th November, he was guilty of stealing the property on the
30th July previous, but even if that were the case, familiarity on
the 19th November was not sufficient to prove stealing on the 30th
July previous. But he (Mr. Towne) did not intend to make any objections of that
kind, he was there fully prepared to prove that there was not one atom of truth
in the base charge preferred. He entered upon his work with great confidence,
because he felt convinced that Mr. Weston had been made the victim of a
villainous and daring conspiracy. Probably the Bench did not know that there
had been a long course of litigation pending in Chancery between Mr. and Mrs.
Payer. Whether this foreign prosecutor thought he could turn their English
tribunals of justice into a means of carrying out his own wicked intentions he
(Mr. Towne) did not know, notwithstanding that such seemed to be his
(prosecutor`s) views. He appeared to think that if he could get Mr. Weston
convicted of familiarity with his (prosecutor`s) wife, that would be of
assistance to him in his litigation. The charge of familiarity, Mr. Towne went
on to say, was just this: On the 19th November Payer was watching
the house where he thought his wife was concealing herself from him. There he
pretended, together with his aide – who can`t write and who, for all that, is deputy
chairman of some important association – that he saw Mrs. Payer go into a
bedroom, and Mr. Weston followed her. That they then both came out of the house
and took a long country walk, after which they returned to Mr. Weston`s house
again. Now as he (Mr. Towne) thought that upon this statement much depended, he
was prepared to call about half a dozen witnesses who would be able to prove
such a distant alibi that the Bench would have no doubt as to where the truth
really lay; if he proved that, he did not think there was anything else to
disprove. It so happened that the 19th November, which was Monday,
was fixed on the minds of his witnesses by the fact that on the Saturday
previous, the 17th November, Mrs. Weston, the wife of Mr. Weston,
had returned from London, and at the very time was said to have been walking in
the fields, he was, with part of his family, at the penny readings. He should
call Mr. Hills, the secretary of the readings, to prove that he (defendant) was
there, and if Mr. Hills was to be believed then the other men who swore to the
contrary were scoundrels. The foundation prosecutor had for the statement was
just this. They might have seen a female go into the bedroom, and also a male,
but that was all the truth in the statement. Just at about the time mentioned
Sarah Weston, a daughter of Mr. Weston, went upstairs to the bedroom to brush
her hair and prepare herself for the readings, and she was followed by her
brother, who was going to accompany her. Sarah Weston then went out of the house
accompanied by her brother Frederick Jasper Weston, but instead of going with
him she went with a friend named Marian Newport, who lived next door, and her
brother went with his father, Jasper Weston, to the readings. The father, after
the readings were over, did not return to his home in London Street that night,
but slept at his house in Guildhall Street. Here he (Mr. Towne) thought that in
justice to the respectability of his client he should say something as to the
antecedents of the prosecutor. He had threatened to stab his wife, and she left
him by the advice of her solicitors, Messrs. Brockman and Harrison, because he
was dangerous to herself and pernicious to her family. A bill was at that time
filed against her in Chancery by her husband. He (Mr. Towne) should think it
his duty to call Mrs. Pyer, not only to indorse those statements, but also to
disprove what prisoner had had the audacity to swear, namely, that she had left
him (prisoner) by the advice of Weston. Her eldest son, Charles Payer, sought
for lodgings for his mother, but it being a bad time of the year, he had
considerable difficulty in finding any. He (the son) saw Mr. Weston at his
shop, and stated the case to him. He (Weston) said that providing Payer could
get Mrs. Weston`s consent he had no objection. The son saw Mrs. Weston and she
consented to let Mrs. Payer have one room and the use of a larder, kitchen and
coal cellar. Having found a place for his mother, he, with the help of his
brother Anthony, removed the things to her lodgings, but whatever things were
removed, Mr. Weston had nothing whatever to do with it, and the whole of the
time she was in his house never was in the slightest degree familiar with her,
though, sometimes, when alone, Mrs Weston would ask Mrs. Payer to bring her
work and sit with her. It was not possible for any improper conduct to go on
without Mrs. Weston knowing something of it. The things had been removed from
Payer`s house by the sons. Charles Payer had engaged the room of Mrs. Weston
and he paid her weekly for it. Mrs. Payer was then left to support herself and
three young children by her own exertions. A respectable tradesman had been
charged with felony, simply because in a long course of litigation, prisoner
had been unable to get the property from his wife, and after being charged with
the worst crime that man could be charged with, Mr. Weston was pulled into the
family broil to attain the prisoner`s own ends. He (Mr. Towne) thought a more
monstrous and vile charge could not have been hatched. After he had called the
witnesses he proposed to call, he felt convinced the magistrates would have no
doubt as to the real facts of the case.
The
first witness he would call would be Mary Ann Payer. She said: I am the wife of
Anthony Payer, to whom I was married nearly 24 years ago. I have six children
living. I left my husband`s house in July last. I left him because of his
cruelties. He has threatened my life and ill-used me during the last three
years. He was the death of his daughter by an improper connection with her. He
has given me blows. He has taken knives and choppers and thrown them at me and
my children. I left his house of my own accord. I have known Mr. Weston between
two and three years. I did not consult him about leaving my house. He never persuaded
me to leave. I have never consulted him on any subject whatever. My eldest son,
Charles Payer, found lodgings for me at Mr. Weston`s, in London Street. I had
one room and the use of the kitchen, larder, and coal cellar. I moved some of
my husband`s goods there and some I parted with. Some of the goods produced are
those I took. My two sons, Charles and Anthony, moved them. Mr. Weston did not
assist me in moving them. I sold some of the things to my eldest son, Charles,
for which he advanced me over £20. I have been supported during the time I have
been separated from my husband by that money, and taking in needlework. I had
three children with me, who were aged five, eight and ten, and whom I had to
support. Mrs. Weston and two daughters were generally living in the house. Mrs.
Weston and one daughter have been away part of the time, but there was always
one daughter in the house. Mrs. Weston had been visiting in London, but she
returned on the Saturday. I remember the Monday after she returned. I did not
see Mr. Weston on that evening. I remember Noah Weston went to the penny
readings that evening. Mrs. Weston knocked at my door and asked me to come and
sit with her, because all her family were gone to the penny readings. I went
and stopped till Noah returned at shortly after ten, after which I went to bed.
The room I occupy is the back room on the first floor. I never went into the
front bedroom on that evening. I never went out on that evening. I have never
had scarcely anything to say to Mr. Weston. With the exception of the
candlesticks, and sundry other little articles, the articles produced were all
taken from my room. My husband filed a bill in Chancery against me some time
ago, the proceedings of which, I believe, are now pending. It is to obtain possession
of some property, which I have refused to give. Mr. Tyson is my trustee for the
property, and Messrs. Brockman and Harrison are my solicitors. Except as to the
removal of the furniture, I have acted on their advice.
By prosecutor: I have been in the streets in disguise to avoid you, whilst consulting my solicitors. You have caught me in Weston`s shop, but you have never accused me of having connection with him. I have not walked the street, neither has my daughter. I have been obliged to go into the garden and in the street because you ill-used me. I have threatened to give you in charge because you followed me at those times. I have never set my children to rob you.
By
the magistrates: My sons removed the furniture at different times.
Noah
Weston said: I am fourteen years of age, and am the daughter of Mrs. Weston,
living in London Street. I remember my mother going to London, and returning on
Saturday, November 17. I went to the penny readings on Monday, the 19th,
here, in this building. Marian Newport, who lives next door, went with me. I
think it was about seven when I went. Mrs. Payer lived in the house with us.
She was in her own room, the back first floor, when I went. My father was at
home at the time, up in the drawing room, which is a back room, and over Mrs.
Payer`s. My mother and brother Fred were in the room at the time with him.
Before I went to the readings I went up to a front bedroom to prepare myself
for the readings. I brushed my hair and washed myself. When I went out I saw two
men who appeared to be watching our house. When I saw them I went back and told
my father, but I think he said “Oh, nonsense.” I then went to the readings and
I saw father come in while the first piece was going on, and he remained there
till the conclusion. He did not go home with me. I got home again at a little
past ten. I saw Mrs. Payer sitting in our drawing room, at work with mamma.
Shortly after that she went downstairs into her own room and locked the door. I
have never seen any signs of familiarity between my father and Mrs. Payer. One
of us was always with him when in London Street. I never saw him alone with
Mrs. Payer, who is still at our house and who was always on good times with my
mother.
Cross-examined
by Mr. Pilcher: They were the working men`s readings, and I believe Mr.
Farnworth gave a recitation on that evening. I went home directly they were
over. I knocked at the front door and mamma opened it. I believe it was a
little past ten. Marian Newport came home with me. I know that Mrs. Payer pays
4s. per week for her lodgings regular, but I do not know how she gets it. I do
not remember her selling anything to my mother. I never saw anyone go into the
room with her. I have never seen Mr. Weston and Mrs. Payer shake hands
together.
Richard Hills, being sworn, said: I am secretary to the Working Men`s Institute Penny Readings. I remember the 19th November. I know Mr. Weston and I saw him at our readings here on that evening. I think he came in about eight o`clock and I saw him go out at the conclusion.
Frederick
Jasper Weston said on oath: I am son to Mr. Weston. I remember the 19th
November. I remember going to the penny readings that night. My father and I
went to the hall together about seven, after which he went to pack some
photographs and I stayed outside. He was at the readings the whole of the time.
I saw him come in and go out. My father and I slept at 3, Guildhall Street that
night, and he did not go to London Street that night. I never saw any
familiarity between my father and Mrs. Payer. I remember taking a carpet bag of
my father with some left off clothing of my own in it away from our house.
Charles
Payer: I am a son of Anthony Payer, and I am a gilder by trade. I remember my
mother leaving his house. I found a lodging for her. I spoke to Mr. Weston, but
he referred me to his wife, with whom I agreed for the back room first floor,
and use of the coal cellar, kitchen and larder, for which I was to pay 4s. a
week. I told my mother that I had found lodgings for her, and the sooner she
left the better. My brother Anthony and I moved what was moved from the house,
and Mr. Weston had nothing whatever to do with it.
The Chairman, addressing the accused, said that the Bench had, for some time, been unanimously of opinion that the case must be dismissed, and they felt it their duty to tell him, that in reference to the charge, he left the court without a stain on his character.
Folkestone Chronicle 15-12-1866
Police Court, Saturday, Dec. 8th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.
Jasper
Weston, photographer, of Guildhall Street and London Street, Folkestone, was
charged with being concerned in stealing on the 25th July last, a
quantity of furniture, wearing apparel, &c., the property of Anthony Payer,
nurseryman, of 5, Eaton Place, Mill Lane. Mr. Minter appeared for complainant,
and Mr. Whiting, from the office of Messrs. Brockman and Harrison, for the
prisoner.
Mr.
Minter gave a resume of the facts, which will all be found in the evidence, and
said that after he had produced his witnesses he should ask for a remand to
enable him to obtain other evidence.
He
called the prosecutor, Anthony Payer, who stated that on the 25th
July last, on his return home after about three hours absence, he missed his
wife and a great quantity of furniture, part of which is now produced. On the
19th Nov., from information received, he watched the house of the
defendant, in company with two men, and saw his wife go into a bedroom and
arrange her hair, and defendant went into the same room. The two afterwards
came out, and he followed them into some fields in the Canterbury Road, where
he lost sight of them. After an absence of three hours they returned at eleven
o`clock at night. On Friday last he accompanied the police to the house, armed
with a search warrant, and there in various parts of the house, found the goods
produced. In the room where his wife was there was a table set, and six cups
and saucers of tea on it, but she was alone, the window being open, from which
any number of persons might have stepped.
Henry
Welsh corroborated prosecutor`s statement as to Mrs. Payer and defendant being
together in the house, and out for a walk on the 19th November.
P.C.
Mitchell stated that he executed the search warrant on the previous day, and
that the articles produced were in different parts of the house.
On
this evidence Mr. Minter asked for a remand.
Mr.
Whiting submitted that there was no case; and quoted several cases in support
of his statement that a wife cannot steal her husband`s goods, and that if she
deliver them to a stranger, he is not guilty of felony.
The
magistrates, however, had a case before them exactly similar to this, and
accordingly remanded prisoner till Wednesday, and accepted bail – himself, and
one surety, in £20 each.
Police Court, Wednesday: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Capt. Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.
Jasper
Weston surrendered to his bail on remand from Saturday, charged with stealing a
quantity of furniture, the property of Anthony Payer.
Mr.
Pilcher, from the office of Mr. Minter, appeared for the prosecution, and asked
for the committal of the defendant on the evidence adduced at the former
hearing.
Mr.
Towne, of Margate, who appeared for the defence, characterised the case as the
most vile, monstrous and empty case ever brought before any bench of
magistrates. He said he might, on the evidence on which a committal was asked
for, be justified in leaving the case as it stood, without one word from him,
or calling one witness, leaving the case in the hands of the bench; but, for
the satisfaction of all parties, he felt compelled to call such witnesses as
would clearly show that the case was the result of a base conspiracy. The
charge naturally divided itself into two parts – a charge of stealing £2 or £3
of rubbish, which indeed was the only charge brought forward, but there was
tacked onto it the horrible insinuation that the defendant, a respectable
tradesman, had been living in an objectionable manner with a married woman. If
the evidence as adduced could be sustained there would be no doubt that he was
guilty of felony, but he would show that there was not a shadow of foundation
for the charge. The real motive was that there had been a long course of
litigation between prosecutor and his wife, and he hoped by this case to make
capital for the chancery suit now pending. The charge was brought for the 19th
November. Now it so happened, providentially, that Mrs. Weston returned from a
visit to London on Saturday, the 17th of November, and the rest of
the family attended the Penny Readings, at the Town Hall, on the Monday after,
the 19th. There was no doubt the witnesses were watching the house
as they stated, and that they did see persons in the room, but that was the
only truth in the statement, the persons were Mr. Weston`s son and daughter. He
should by several witnesses prove an alibi, and it would be necessary to show
the animus of prosecutor, and show that his ill-treatment of his wife caused
her to leave his house, by the advice of her solicitor, and that she was
justified in taking his property, as she had no means of supporting herself and
children.
He
then called Mary Ann Payer, wife of prosecutor. She said: I have been married
to my husband nearly 24 years, and have six children now living. In July last,
through the cruelty of my husband – threatening my life and other ill-treatment
– I left his house. For the last three years he has been in the habit of
throwing knives, choppers, and other articles at me. I left him of my own
accord, and by his persuasion. I have known Mr. Weston for two or three years.
I cannot say whether he knew that I was going to leave or not, but he did not
persuade me to do so. My eldest son, Charles, found a room for me at Mr.
Weston`s in London Street. I had one room and the use of the kitchen, larder,
and coal cellar. I removed some of my husband`s goods to that room, and some I
parted with. My two sons, Charles and Anthony, moved them, and defendant did
not assist me at all. The goods I parted with I sold to my son Charles for more
than £20, and he paid me the money from time to time. I have supported myself
wholly by that money since I left my husband. I have taken in needlework to do.
I have three children with me, and have supported them also. Mrs. Weston was in
the house mostly, and a daughter. Mrs. Weston was in London for some time, and
till about ten days before she returned there was an older daughter in the
house. She returned on a Saturday, and on the Monday following she knocked at
my door and asked me to come and sit with her, as all the family had gone to
the Penny Readings. I took my work and sat with her till Norah came home, soon
after ten o`clock, and then I went to bed. I did not see Mr. Weston that
evening. I occupy a back room, opposite the front door. I did not go into any
front room that evening. I did not go outside the door at all. I have not been
on consulting terms with Mr. Weston. Sometimes for three weeks together I have
not seen him. I was present when these things were found; with the exception of
the candlesticks and coffee pot they were all in my room. My husband filed a
bill in Chancery against me some time since, and proceedings are still pending.
They relate to property which I hold, and which I refuse to give up. Dr. Tyson
is my trustee, but was no party to any proceedings.
Cross-examined
by prosecutor: I have been out in the street in disguise, to avoid you. You
have not caught me improperly in Mr. Weston`s shop, nor have I assisted him to
insult you. I have not been in the habit of walking the streets with my
daughter till 11 or 12 o`clock at night for the last three years, but I did try
to give you into custody for following me. I have not tried to set your
children against you.
By
the Bench: The furniture was taken away at different times by my sons.
Norah Watson, daughter of defendant, said: I reside at my father`s house in London Street. Mamma went away to London for a visit, and returned on the 17th November. On the Monday, I and Marion Newport, who lives next door, went to the Penny Readings about seven o`clock. Mrs. Payer lived in the same house with us, and at that time was in her own room. Father was in the drawing room at the back of the house, over Mrs. Payer`s, with my mother and brother, Fred. Previous to going out, I went into the front bedroom adjoining the drawing room, to get ready to go out. When I went out I saw two men opposite, and turned back and told my father. He came into the readings as the first piece was going on, and remained till they concluded. He did not come back with me. That was a little after 10 o`clock. Mrs. Payer was sitting with mamma in the drawing room, but soon after went to her own room, and locked the door. I have never seen any familiarity between my father and Mrs. Payer. Either my brother or myself was always with my father. Mamma and Mrs. Payer are on very good terms.
Richard
Hills, secretary to the Working Men`s Institute, remembered defendant coming to
the Penny Readings on the 19th November.
Frederick Jasper Weston went out with his father about seven o`clock to go to the Penny Readings on the 19th November. They both slept at No. 3, Guildhall Street that night.
Charles Payer, son of prosecutor, said he found apartments for his mother in July last, and by his advice she left his father`s, as he was told by two or three gentlemen that the sooner she went the better. He and his brother moved the goods. Mr. Weston was a stranger to the whole concern.
The Bench were unanimously of opinion some time previous to this that the case must be dismissed, and the defendant would leave the court without a stain on his character.
Kentish Express 15-12-1866
Police Court, Saturday: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.
Jasper
Weston, photographer, of Guildhall Street and London Street, Folkestone, was
charged with being concerned in stealing on the 25th July last, a
quantity of furniture, wearing apparel, &c., the property of Anthony Payer,
nurseryman, of 5, Eaton Place, Mill Lane. Mr. Minter appeared for complainant,
and Mr. Whiting, from the office of Messrs. Brockman and Harrison, for the
prisoner.
Mr.
Minter gave a resume of the facts, which will all be found in the evidence, and
said that after he had produced his witnesses he should ask for a remand – to
enable him to obtain further evidence.
He
called the prosecutor, Anthony Payer, who being sworn said: I live at No. 5,
Eaton Place, in the borough of Folkestone. The defendant Weston did live next
door to me, at No. 4, but has now removed to 16, London Street. Previous to 25th
July last I had accused him of having connection with my wife. On that day I
left home at two o`clock in the afternoon, and at that time the goods now
produced were in the house. I returned home at five o`clock, and found my wife
not there, and the house stripped. The articles produced, with a quantity of
more valuable furniture, were taken at the time. I saw the defendant the same
evening, and said “You have decoyed my wife away and stripped my house; and got
my boys to help you.” He made no reply, but only laughed. I did not see my wife
after until November. On the 19th November I was in London Street,
about seven o`clock in the evening. Henry Welsh and George Weston were with me.
We were in Mr. Martin`s garden, in London Street, watching No. 16, which we
were exactly opposite. The defendant lives at No. 16. While waiting there I saw
my wife go upstairs with a candle in her hand. She turned into a bedroom on the
left hand side with a window looking on the street. She came to the window and
put the candle on the dressing table. I saw her arranging her hair at the
glass. The blind of the window was raised about 18 inches. While she was there
I saw defendant go upstairs and into the same room. They remained there about
half an hour. About eight o`clock I saw defendant and my wife come out of the
house together, and followed them up Dover Road, through the left arch of the
railway and into the Canterbury Road, where they turned into some fields and I
lost sight of them. I then returned to London Street and waited for them. The
two men went with me, and returned with me. Defendant and my wife returned home
at 11 o`clock, to the house. I accompanied the police yesterday to 16, London
Street, and there I found my wife in a sitting room on the first floor, at the
back of the house. The door of the room was locked, and I could not get in for
some time. In the house I found the articles produced. Witness enumerated the
articles. The more valuable articles are not yet found. These things were in
various parts of the house, and they are all my property. When I got into the
room where my wife was there was no-one else there, but on the table were five
cups, a basin, and six saucers, filled with tea, as though others had been
there. One of the windows was wide open, and it would be very easy to step out
of it over the area. I value the articles produced at from £2 to £3. The total
value of the articles stolen is not less than from £50 to £60. On the 25th
July, after charging defendant with stealing my goods, I watched his house, and
at nine o`clock in the evening I saw the defendant and his son, each with a
bundle under his arm, come out. The wrapper of defendant`s bundle I recognised
as my property. He went down Mill Lane, and the son, who carried a heavy carpet
bag, went up the lane. I followed him along Rendezvous Street and on to the
Bayle, where he caught sight of me, and turning back took the bag home with him
again.
Cross-examined:
I believe my wife left me through the bad persuasion of the defendant, and I gave
her no reason for going. There is some dispute about the ownership of the
property where I live. I never ill-treated or threatened to ill-treat my wife,
but we have had words.
Mr.
Minter said he had no objection to go into family disputes, but he thought it
would be only making the case more intricate.
Henry
Welsh, employed at the Bricklayers Arms, under Mr. Peel, said he went with Mr.
Payer and another man on the 19th November to watch No. 16, London
Street. They went into a garden there, just opposite the house, and saw Mrs.
Payer, whom he knew well, go into a bedroom and arrange her hair. The blind was
raised a little. Directly after some man whom he did not know came into the
same room and remained some time. Afterwards the same man and Mrs. Payer came
out of the house and went up the Canterbury Road. They returned to the house at
11 o`clock, after being away about three hours.
Cross-examined:
He went home at 11 o`clock. The church clock struck as Mrs. Payer and the man
went indoors. He was positive the blinds were raised.. He could not say exactly
how much – certainly more than 6 inches, perhaps 2 ft. He did not know Mr.
Weston.
P.C.
8 deposed: I went yesterday afternoon at half past three o`clock, armed with a
search warrant, in company with prosecutor to No. 16, London Street. I a back
room on the first floor we found Mrs. Payer, and in different parts of the
house the things produced. Mr. Payer identified them, and I took possession of
them.
Mr.
Minter asked for a remand.
Mr.
Whiting submitted that there was no case; and quoted several cases in support
of his statement that a wife cannot steal her husband`s goods, and that if she
deliver them to a stranger, he is not guilty of felony.
The
magistrates, however, had a case before them exactly similar to this, and
accordingly remanded prisoner till Wednesday, and accepted bail – himself, and
one surety, in £20 each.
Police
Court, Wednesday: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Capt. Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and
J. Tolputt Esqs.
Jasper
Weston surrendered to his bail on remand from Saturday, charged with stealing a
quantity of furniture, the property of Anthony Payer.
Mr. Pilcher, from the office of Mr. Minter, appeared for the prosecution, and asked for the committal of the defendant on the evidence adduced at the former hearing.
Mr.
Towne, of Margate, who appeared for the defence, characterised the case as the
most vile, monstrous and empty case ever brought before any bench of
magistrates. He said he might, on the evidence of which a committal was asked
for, be justified in leaving the case as it stood, without one word from him,
or calling one witness, but, for the satisfaction of all parties, he felt
compelled to call such witnesses as would clearly show that the case was the
result of a base conspiracy. The charge naturally divided itself into two parts
– a charge of stealing £2 or £3 of rubbish, which indeed was the only charge
brought forward, but there was tacked onto it the horrible insinuation that the
defendant, a respectable tradesman, had been living in an objectionable manner
with a married woman. If the evidence as adduced could be sustained there would
be no doubt that he was guilty of felony, but he (Mr. Towne) would show that
there was not a shadow of foundation for the charge. The real motive was that
there had been a long course of litigation between prosecutor and his wife, and
he hoped by this case to make capital for the chancery suit now pending. The
charge was brought for the 19th November. Now it so happened,
providentially, that Mrs. Weston returned from a visit to London on Saturday,
the 17th of November, and the rest of the family attended the Penny
Readings, at the Town Hall, on the Monday after, the 19th. There was
no doubt the witnesses were watching the house as they stated, and that they
did see persons in the room, but that was the only truth in the statement, the
persons were Mr. Weston`s son and daughter. He should by several witnesses
prove an alibi, and it would be necessary to show the animus of prosecutor, and
show that his ill-treatment of his wife caused her to leave his house, by the
advice of her solicitors, and that she was justified in taking his property, as
she had no means of supporting herself and children.
He
then called Mary Ann Payer, wife of prosecutor. She said: I have been married
to my husband nearly twenty four years, and have six children now living. In
July last, through the cruelty of my husband – threatening my life and other
ill-treatment – I left his house. He was the death of his daughter through an
improper connection and for the last three years has been in the habit of
throwing knives, choppers, and any other articles he could lay his hands on at
me. I left him of my own accord, and by no persuasion. I have known Mr. Weston
for two or three years. I cannot say whether he knew that I was going to leave
or not, but he did not persuade me to do so. My eldest son, Charles, found a
room for me at Mr. Weston`s in London Street. I had one room and the use of the
kitchen, larder, and coal cellar. I removed some of my husband`s goods to that
room, and some I parted with. My two sons, Charles and Anthony, moved them, and
defendant did not assist me at all. The goods I parted with I sold to my son
Charles for more than £20, and he paid me the money from time to time. I have
supported myself wholly by that money since I left my husband. I have taken in
needlework to do. I have three children with me, and have supported them also.
Mrs. Weston was in the house mostly, and a daughter. Mrs. Weston was in London
for some time, and till about ten days before she returned there was an elder
daughter in the house. She returned on a Saturday, and on the Monday following
she knocked at my door and asked me to come and sit with her, as all the family
had gone to the Penny Readings. I took my work and sat with her till Norah came
home, soon after ten o`clock, and then I went to bed. I did not see Mr. Weston
that evening. I occupy a back room, opposite the front door. I did not go into
any front room that evening. I did not go outside the door at all. I have not
been on consulting terms with Mr. Weston; sometimes for three weeks together I
have not seen him. I was present when these things were found; with the
exception of the candlesticks and coffee pot they were all in my room. My
husband filed a bill in Chancery against me some time since, and proceedings
are still pending. They relate to property which I hold, and which I refuse to
give up. Dr. Tyson is my trustee, but was no party to any proceedings.
Cross-examined
by prosecutor: I have been out in the street in disguise, to avoid you. You
have not caught me improperly in Mr. Weston`s shop, nor have I assisted him to
insult you. I have not been in the habit of walking the streets with my
daughter till 11 or 12 o`clock at night for the last three years, but I did try
to give you into custody for following me. I have not tried to set your
children against you.
By
the Bench: The furniture was taken away at different times by my sons.
Norah
Watson, daughter of defendant, said: I reside at my father`s house in London
Street. Mamma went away to London for a visit, and returned on the 17th
November. On the Monday, I and Marion Newport, who lives next door, went to the
Penny Readings about seven o`clock. Mrs. Payer lived in the same house with us,
and at that time was in her own room. Father was in the drawing room at the
back of the house, over Mrs. Payer`s, with my mother and brother, Fred.
Previous to going out, I went into the front bedroom adjoining the drawing
room, to get ready to go out. When I went out I saw two men opposite, and
turned back and told my father. He came into the readings as the first piece
was going on, and remained till they concluded. He did not come back with me.
That was a little after 10 o`clock. Mrs. Payer was sitting with mamma in the
drawing room, but soon after went to her own room. I locked the door. I have
never seen any familiarity between my father and Mrs. Payer. Either my brother
or myself was always with my father. Mamma and Mrs. Payer are on very good
terms.
Cross-examined:
I remember Mr. Farnworth recited a piece at the readings that night. Mrs. Payer
pays 4s. a week for her room. I have not seen my father and Mrs. Payer ever
shake hands.
Richard
Hills, secretary to the Working Men`s Union, remembered defendant coming to the
Penny Readings on the 19th Nov.
Frederick
Jasper Weston went out with his father about seven o`clock to go to the Penny
Readings on the 19th Nov. They both slept at No. 3, Guildhall Street
that night.
Charles Payer, son of prosecutor, said he found apartments for his mother in July last, and by his advice she left his father`s, as he was told by two or three other gentlemen that the sooner she went the better. He and his brother moved the goods. Mr. Weston was a stranger to the whole concern.
The Bench were unanimously of opinion some time previous to this that the case must be dismissed, and the defendant would leave the court without a stain on his character.
Maidstone Journal
17-12-1866
At the Borough Police Court, on Wednesday, before R.W. Boarer Esq., Capt. Kennicott R.N., and Messrs. Tolputt and Leith, the case of Jasper Weston, a respectable tradesman of the borough, who was charged with stealing furniture, the property of Anthony Payer, again came on for hearing. The charge further insinuated that the defendant had been on terms of undue familiarity with Mrs. Payer, the wife of the prosecutor. From the evidence it appeared that Mrs. Payer, who had been married to her husband for 24 years, left him in consequence of his treatment towards her in July last, taking lodgings at the house of Mr. Weston, in London Street, her two sons Charles and Anthony moving several articles of furniture to her lodgings, and which articles of furniture Mr. Payer now accused Mr. Weston of stealing. The Bench, after spending a long time hearing the case, resolved to dismiss the charge.
Folkestone Chronicle 15-5-1869
No comments:
Post a Comment