 |
| Interior of the Clarence Hotel c1913-1915. Centre is John M. Mooring, and right is his grandson, Sidney M. Mooring. Photo by kind permission of David Mooring. |
 |
| The Clarence Hotel is the central building in this 1909 image. Credit Martin Easdown |
Licensees
Henry Gower 1893 1895
Walter Werner 1895 1905
Frederick Gray 1905 1906
Thomas Jenkins 1906 1910
Beatrice Jenkins 1910 1910
James Schleshman 1910 1913
John Mooring 1913 1915
Mr. Hindley 1915 1916
Amy Hindley 1916 1917
Folkestone
Visitors` List 7-6-1893
En Passant
Amongst the many preparations that have been made
lately to ensure the comfort and gratification of the expected visitors may be
mentioned that well known hostelry, The Clarence Commercial Hotel, Dover Road.
This very commodious and central establishment has now put on it`s best holiday
garb, having been repainted and decorated inside and out, and the genial host,
Mr. Gower, is prepared to guarantee the satisfaction of all who may favour him
with a call or may desire to occupy apartments at his house. Mackeson`s
celebrated Hythe ales are always on draught, and the spirits and wines will
bear comparison with those sold at any other hotel in the town.
Folkestone
Chronicle 22-2-1895
Local News
On Thursday evening, between four and five o`clock, a
man named Riddle, a stranger in the town, took about four shillings in copper
from the till of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. He was shortly afterwards
arrested in a neighbouring hotel.
Folkestone
Chronicle 1-3-1895
Local News
On Friday last at the Borough Police Court, an
ex-soldier, named John Thomas Riddals was convicted of an impudent robbery at
the Clarence Hotel.
Evidence was given proving that the prisoner had taken
advantage of the barmaid`s temporary absence to steal about three shillings in
copper out of the till at the above house.
Information was given to the police, and he was shortly
afterwards apprehended upon another licensed premises in the neighbourhood.
In consideration of the fact that prisoner is in
receipt of a pension, the Magistrates took a merciful view of the offence, and
saved the pension to the prisoner by merely imposing upon him a fine of 10s.
and costs.
Folkestone
Express 2-3-1895
Friday, February 21st: Before J. Fitness
Esq., and Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge.
John Thomson Riddell, a discharged soldier, was charged
with stealing about three shillings from a till at the Clarence Hotel, Dover
Road, on Thursday afternoon.
Mary Ann Pickerdike, housekeeper to Mr. Gower, landlord
of the Clarence Inn, said she saw the prisoner in the bar about half past four
on Thursday afternoon. He asked for half a pint of beer, and was served. He
said he wanted the beer to “put him straight”. He drank half of the beer, and
then laid down on a seat in the bar, and said he had a bad headache. She left
the bar and went into the room behind, and while there she heard a chink of
money, and in consequence went into the bar and saw prisoner with his right
hand in teh till. He had passed round from the outside to the inside of the
counter. He put his hand up as if to hit her, and she called to Mr. Gower.
Prisoner turned to get out of the bar. She tried to prevent him by catching
hold of his coat. He got away and shut her arm in the door. She followed him
into the street and cried “Stop thief”, but in Peter Street she lost sight of
him. She was sure he was the man.
Prisoner: I am almost certain you have made a mistake.
I don`t remember being in your house yesterday.
Henry Gower, landlord of the Clarence Inn, said he
heard his housekeeper call out and ran into the bar, where he saw prisoner
trying to get out of the bar. As he went out, witness had a good view of his
face. In the evening witness went with Sergeant Dawson to the Railway Tavern in
Dover Road, and there saw prisoner sitting with his head in his hands, and he
gave prisoner into custody. After prisoner had left the bar he examined the
till, and missed about three shillings worth of coppers. He had seen prisoner
in the bar on three or four days recently.
Prisoner said he had only been in Folkestone two days.
Sergeant Dawson said when he took prisoner into custody
he replied “Sure, you`ve made a mistake, man”. When charged at the police
station, he said “Can the gentleman prove it?” When searched 9d. in bronze was
found on him, some army discharge papers, a pawn ticket, and an empty purse.
The pawn ticket was dated February, 1895.
Prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and after
hesitation said “I am Guilty according to the evidence”. He said he was a
pensioner, and if convicted it would have a very detrimental effect upon him.
He had had sunstroke in India, and had served 18½ years. At Margate he was
instructor in a college.
The letters were examined by the Magistrates, and after
long consideration they said they would be sorry if prisoner were to lose his
pension. They therefore fined him 10s. and in default seven days`.
Prisoner said he was very thankful, and that he could
get the money.
Folkestone
Express 1-6-1895
Wednesday, May 29th: Before W. Wightwick and
C.J. Pursey Esqs.
Mr. Gower, of the Clarence Inn, was granted an
occasional licence to sell on Whit Monday in the football field.
Folkestone
Express 3-8-1895
Wednesday, July 31st: Before Alderman Banks,
W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Permission was granted to Mr. Gower, of the Clarence
Hotel, to sell on the football field on Bank Holiday.
Folkestone
Visitors` List 27-11-1895
Kaleidoscope
It is hardly fair to some of the other licensed houses
in the Borough if a certain public house has private communication with some
houses to the rear of it, as was alleged at the police court on Saturday
morning. And County Alderman Herbert stated that he had complained about it
before! Whether the Alderman is right or not, we cannot say, but it is not
right if any particular house should have private communication with any
dwellings in the vicinity of such house. The Bench are, however, to have a plan
of the premises and the adjoining dwellings before them within another week or
two.
Folkestone
Chronicle 29-11-1895
Local News
Mr. Warner was granted the temporary transfer of the
licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. Mr. Herbert drew attention that the
licensed premises were connected with cottages adjoining. The police were
instructed to ascertain full particulars as to this before next transfer day.
Folkestone
Express 7-12-1895
Wednesday, December 4th: Before W.G.
Herbert, C.J. Pursey, T.J. Vaughan, and R.J. Fynmore Esqs.
Mr. G.W. Haines made an application for the transfer of
the licence of the Clarence Hotel from Mr. H. Gower to Mr. W.B. Warner.
Superintendent Taylor said with reference to the
structural arrangements of the house that there were five rooms let to two
separate families, from each of which access could be gained to the two bars.
Mr. Haines said that the owners of the house, Messrs.
Mackeson and Co., were quite willing to adopt any suggestion that the Bench
might think proper, either by blocking up one door, or giving the tenants
notice to quit.
The application was granted, on Mr. Haines` undertaking
to see that the occupiers of the rooms were removed immediately, and that the
premises were not sub-let again.
Folkestone
Chronicle 26-9-1896
Wednesday, September 23rd: Before Messrs. J.
Fitness, W.G. Herbert, H.D. Stock, and J. Pledge.
Mr. Warner was granted a music licence for the Clarence
Hotel.
Folkestone Express
26-9-1896
Wednesday, September 23rd: Before Aldermen Banks
and Pledge, General Gwyn, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, and H. Stock Esqs.
A music licence was granted to the Clarence Inn.
Folkestone Visitors`
List 16-2-1898
Kaleidoscope
On Monday morning at the Folkestone Police Court E.W.
Prebble and J. Inglis were charged with stealing a quantity of furniture from
the residence of the Hon. Ralph P. Nevill, at 2, Clifton Crescent, on various
occasions since the month of October last, from which date the tenants have
been absent. The case was adjourned until Monday next. It is expected that
evidence will then be given of a surprising character.
Folkestone Chronicle
19-2-1898
Monday, February 14th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, J.
Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.
Ernest Prebble and George Inglis were charged with stealing
a large quantity of furniture, bedding, etc., from 2, Clifton Crescent, the
property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville, over the value of £5, at divers times
since October last.
Walter Richford Warner, landlord of the Clarence Hotel,
Dover Road, said he remembered Prebble coming to the house about a fortnight
ago. Witness knew him as a customer. He offered a writing table (produced) for
sale. Witness saw it outside in charge of Inglis. Prebble asked 12s, for it,
but witness declined to buy. On Saturday, January 29th, witness was
called into his private bar by his wife about 7 o`clock, and saw the two
prisoners there with a man named Welch. Inglis had two blankets under his arm,
and offered them for sale for 5s. They said they bought them at a sale. He told
them he knew a party who would be glad of them, and recommended them to Mrs.
O`Brien.
By Inglis: He could not swear which one said he had been to
a sale.
Mrs. Minnie O`Brien, widow, 45, Bournemouth Road, said two
men came to her house on February 29th at 7.30 p.m. One of them
asked her to buy a pair of blankets, saying Mr. Warner had sent him. He said he
was selling them for Prebble, the upholsterer. Witness purchased them for 5s.
She handed them to P.S. Lilley on Saturday.
Inglis: I brought the blankets, and said I was selling them
for Prebble.
Albert Jenner, 42, Sidney Street, carter, said about seven
on the 25th February he saw Inglis near the Globe Hotel on The
Bayle. He asked if witness would buy a table, but he declined. Witness saw
Prebble in the Globe, and said he was hard up. He saw the table in the garden
of the hotel. Witness gave him 5s. for it. Witness gave the table up to P.S.
Lilley the previous day.
Mary Lomax, 26, Bradstone Road, said he had been engaged at
2, Clifton Crescent since October. Witness did not live in the house, but went
once a week to keep it clean. The house was furnished, and witness missed
articles from it almost every week, and informed Mr. Goldsack at Mr. Sherwood`s
office. She identified the articles produced as those missed. She always got
the keys from Mr. Sherwood`s and returned them to him. She identified the
blankets and the tables produced. The former had the name of Neville on a piece
of tape, but it had been cut off. She always found the door locked, but it
appeared to her that someone had entered by the back door, as there were marks
of feet. She had bolted the back door, but had found it unbolted.
Superintendent Taylor asked for a remand for a week, which
was granted, in order that other goods might be traced.
Inglis said he was innocent, and Prebble could clear him if
he liked.
Supt. Taylor strongly opposed bail being granted, but the
Bench decided to accept two sureties for each prisoner in £25 each, and
themselves in £50 each. Failing to get bail, prisoners were remanded in
custody.
Folkestone Up To Date
19-2-1898
Monday, February 14th: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden,
J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.
Ernest William Prebble and George Inglis, two young men,
were charged with stealing two birch tables, a pair of blankets, a pair of
china figures, one despatch box, and other articles of furniture, &c., the
property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, from 2, Clifton Crescent. The
prisoners pleaded Not Guilty.
Walter Richard Warner said: I am landlord of the Clarence
Hotel, Dover Road. It was about the third week in January that Prebble came as
a customer into the private bar, where I was at the time. He asked me if I
wanted to buy a writing table. I followed him outside the house, when he showed
me a polished writing table which was standing just off the curbstone in front
of my house. Inglis was in charge of the table. I looked at it, and Prebble
said “That is cheap for 12s.” Inglis said nothing. I remember Saturday evening,
the 29th ult. I was called into my private bar by my wife about
seven o`clock, when I saw the two prisoners and a man of the name of Welsh.
They were apparently accompanying one another. Inglis was carrying two
blankets, and offered them for sale at 5s. I asked if the things were all
right, and where the prisoners had got them from, and Inglis said they had been
to a sale. I said I knew a friend of ours who would be very glad of them, Mrs.
O`Bryan, 45, Bournemouth Road. The three men then left, carrying the blankets
with them.
By Inglis: I think it was you who said you had been to a
sale, but am not quite sure. It was either you or Prebble.
Minnie O`Bryan: I am a widow, living at 45, Bournemouth
Road. I remember Saturday, the 24th, about 7.30 p,m. I was called to
the front door by a knock. The passage was dark, and I cannot identify the man,
but a man came and asked me if I would buy two blankets. He said he came from
Mr. Warner, of the Clarence Hotel. I asked him the price, and he said he would
sell them for 5s. I bought them for that sum and paid him. I have since handed
them to Sergeant Lilley.
Inglis: Did not I say they were all right or I should not
have brought them to you?
Witness: I believe you did.
Alfred Jenner, of 42, Sidney Street, said: On Friday, the 28th
January, in the evening, I was near the Globe Hotel at The Bayle, when Inglis
came and asked me if I would buy a table. He was not carrying anything. I told
him a table was of no use to me, and he asked some people who were standing
near. I shortly afterwards went into the bar of the hotel, where I saw Prebble,
who said he was hard up and wanted money. Before I went to the bar, Inglis had
pointed out a birch table to me. Inglis said he was trying to sell for Prebble.
Eventually Prebble sold me the table, and I took it away. I have since given it
up to the police.
Mary Lomax, wife of Henry Lomax, 26, Bradstone Road, said: I
was engaged to look after 2, Clifton Crescent in the absence of the family, and
to look after the house once a week, dust it, and keep it aired. I first went
there the last week of October. The first week I was there two or three days,
and I have continued going there up to the present time. I obtained the keys
from Mr. Sherwood. Nearly every time I went I seemed to miss something either
from the dining room or the library. The first thing I missed was a rug. That
might be in November or later on. I informed Mr. Sherwood`s clerk (Mr.
Goldsack) when I returned the keys. I missed a large number of things from the
house. I identify the blankets and tables produced. I found the back door
unbolted on several occasions, but it was always locked with a key. I never
found a window open. The back door lock was in bad condition. I always locked
the front door. I had no difficulty with it.
Supt. Taylor then asked for a remand.
Inglis asked for bail, and said that Prebble could prove his
innocence if he liked to speak out.
Supt. Taylor opposed bail on the ground that Inglis had no
settled residence and the robberies had been of a most extensive character.
The prisoners were remanded for seven days, bail being
allowed to Inglis, himself in £50, and two sureties in £25 each.
Folkestone Visitors`
List 23-2-1898
Kaleidoscope
At the Folkestone Police Court on Monday morning, E.W.
Prebble and J. Inglis, who were remanded on the previous Monday, were again
brought up on a charge of stealing a quantity of furniture at various times
from No. 2, Clifton Crescent, the summer residence of the Hon. Ralph P. Nevill.
Further incriminating evidence was given, and the prisoners were committed for
trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the Borough, bail being allowed.
Folkestone Chronicle
26-2-1898
Monday, February 21st: Before Messrs, J. Hoad, J.
Holden, and J. Fitness.
Ernest William Prebble and George Inglis were charged on
remand with stealing a large quantity of furniture, bedding, etc., from 2,
Clifton Crescent, the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville. Mr. Haines
appeared for Inglis.
The evidence of Mr. Warner, given last week, was read over.
Mrs. Lomax`s evidence was also read, and she was cross-examined by Mr. Haines.
He elicited that the articles had been missed since the beginning of November.
When she informed Mr. Goldsack, he thought the goods had been taken away for
repair.
Francis Poulston, manager, West End Poultry Stores, said he
recognised Prebble as the man he bought a table of after Christmas. He asked
10s. for it, and witness gave him 7s. 6d. A week later he purchased a copper
stock pot of him. He asked 10s., and said he was very hard up. Witness gave him
6s. for it. He did not know Prebble, and he did not give any name. A few weeks
after, Prebble brought a clock, saying he bought it at a sale. Ultimately
witness gave him 10s. for it, although he asked 15s. He said he got his living
attending sales, in reply to a question of witness`s. On Christmas Eve witness
purchased a table from a man named Minnis. Prebble said his things came from
the same sale.
By Mr. Haines: He believed he gave Minnis £1 for the table.
The Bench declined to admit the evidence as to Minnis as it
did not affect Inglis in any way.
Joseph Charles Pettifer, landlord of the Globe Hotel, The
Bayle, said he knew both prisoners as customers. He purchased a dilapidated chair
from Prebble about January 3rd, and believed he gave 6s. for it.
About a week later Prebble offered him a clock. He declined to buy, as he did
not know if it kept time. Prebble left it for five or six days, and then
witness gave him 15s. for it. Prebble and Inglis came together a few days
after. Prebble took no part in the sale. Prebble came later with a table and a
stationery case. He was accompanied by a man named Welch, whom witness knew had
just left the Royal Artillery. He bought the articles for 15s. Shortly
afterwards he bought an armchair from Prebble for 4s. or 6s. He knew Prebble
was the son of an upholsterer in the town, and believed the articles belonged
to him. He said his father often had good old furniture to sell, and would let
witness know when he had any. Witness handed all the articles to the police.
P.S. Lilley said he arrested Prebble at the Globe Hotel on
the 12th inst. Inglis and several others were present. He cautioned
Prebble, and asked him where he got the things he sold to Miss Beasley in Dover
Road. At first he denied selling any, and then said he got them from his own
house. He made no reply when charged. On the way to the station, Prebble ran
away in Rendezvous Street, but witness caught him. When charged at the police
station by Supt. Taylor, prisoner said he sold the articles for a gentleman in
London, and had a letter to say he would be down shortly. Witness searched him,
and found on him a bunch of small keys and a large door key. Prebble
endeavoured to conceal the latter. He said they were his. The large key fitted
the lock of the back door of 2, Clifton Crescent, the key of which was missing.
About five o`clock on the same day, the prisoner Inglis went to the police
station and said “I hear you want me, Sergeant Lilley”. Witness replied “Not
just yet”. Pointing to the inkstand, Inglis said “I know something about that,
and I can tell you where you can get some of the things. I sold two blankets in
Bournemouth Road, and was with Prebble when he sold some things at the Globe, a
shop in Bouverie Road, and a shop in Dover Road”. After making inquiries,
witness arrested Inglis on the 13th. Both prisoners were charged
with being concerned in the thefts. Inglis said “I`m as innocent as an unborn
babe”. Prebble said “He knows nothing about it”. Whilst taking Prebble back to
the cells, he said he should like to give some information. After being
cautioned, he told witness where several articles were, and witness recovered
them. Only about half a dozen articles were now missing.
By Mr. Haines: I had
searched Inglis`s house and had found no stolen property. The information he
gave voluntarily was quite correct.
Marion Stockfort, housekeeper at 2, Clifton Crescent,
identified all the articles produced as the property of the Hon. Ralph Nevill.
She said the family had not occupied the house since September, 1896. From
July, 1897 till September 24th Mr. Beddington occupied the house. On
Oct. 1st witness went over the house and everything appeared all
right. Witness estimated the value of the articles at about £40.
Mr. Haines submitted that there was no evidence of stealing
against Inglis. He merely assisted Prebble to carry some heavy articles. Two
other men had sold articles for Prebble, but they were not charged. Inglis went
to the police as soon as he knew anything was wrong, and gave what information
he could.
The Bench committed both prisoners for trial at the Quarter
Sessions. They offered Inglis bail – two sureties in £10, and himself in £25.
Folkestone Chronicle
9-4-1898
Quarter Sessions
Wednesday, April 6th: Before Theodore Matthew
Esq.
Ernest Prebble, 28, French polisher, was charged with
breaking and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Nevill and stealing
a quantity of furniture, of value £30. Charles Inglis, 32, groom, was similarly
charged, and was further charged with receiving the goods, well knowing them to
be stolen. Prebble pleaded Guilty, saying “I am guilty, but this man is
innocent”. Inglis pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Mavrogani, instructed by Mr. J.
Minter, prosecuted, and Mr. Bowles defended.
Mr. Mavrogani went over the case briefly against Inglis.
Walter Warner, Minnie O`Brien, Robert Jenner, Jos. Pettifer,
Mary Lomax, and Mrs. Stockford repeated their evidence given before the
magistrates and reported at the time.
P.S. Lilley deposed as to the arrest of Inglis, when he said
he was innocent. He had given the police every assistance in tracing the goods.
Mr. Bowles submitted that there was no evidence to go to the
jury against Inglis as to housebreaking. As to receiving also, there was no
evidence to show a guilty knowledge. He merely acted as porter to Prebble, who
was the son of a well-known furniture dealer in the town.
Mr. Mavrogani said he should abandon the charge as to
housebreaking, but he contended that there was evidence as to receiving, as the
goods were sold for such low prices.
Mr. Bowles submitted that that had nothing to do with
Inglis, as Prebble did the dealing.
Mr. Matthew said he could not say there was no evidence to
go to the jury. It was for them to say if there was a guilty knowledge.
Mr. Mavrogani replied, with a view to showing that Inglis
had a guilty knowledge.
Mr. Bowles, at the suggestion of a juryman, produced a
business card of the prisoner Prebble, showing he was a dealer.
Mr. Pettifer, re-called, produced a similar card.
Mr. Bowles addressed the jury, denying that the prosecution
had produced a tittle of evidence showing that Inglis knew the goods were
stolen. He merely carried furniture about for Prebble. Others had done the
same, yet they were not charged. If he was guilty, were they not equally so?
In summing up, the Deputy Recorder said the only thing the
jury had to consider was whether Inglis knew the goods were stolen. He pointed
out some circumstances which might be suspicious in the course of the dealing,
and also the weakness of the evidence against him in many ways. If the jury
believed Inglis only acted stupidly, then he must be acquitted; but if they
thought he acted guiltily he must be convicted. If any doubt existed, he must
be given the benefit of it.
The jury considered for a minute, and found Inglis Not
Guilty. There was some applause at the verdict.
The Deputy Recorder said he quite concurred in the verdict.
He hoped Inglis would not act so stupidly in the future. He was then
discharged.
Prebble said it was his first offence,, and, as he had
already been in prison two months, he asked to be leniently dealt with.
Mr. Mavrogani said there was nothing previously against
Prebble, and his father was a most respectable tradesman in the town.
Mr. Matthew said the offence was a very serious one, but it
was prisoner`s first. He would be sentenced to three months` imprisonment with
hard labour.
The prisoner: Thank you, sir.
The goods were ordered to be given up to the Hon. Ralph
Nevill.
Folkestone Up To Date
9-4-1898
Quarter Sessions
Wednesday, April 6th: Before Mr. Theobald Matthew
Ernest William Prebble, 28. French polisher, and George
Inglis, 32, groom, were charged with feloniously breaking into and entering the
dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Neville, and stealing therefrom twelve chairs,
seven tables, one stationery case, etc., together value £30, the property of
the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville, on the 29th January, and on other
dates, at Folkestone. Mr. Mavrogani appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Bowles for the prisoners.
When asked to plead, Prebble said: I am Guilty. This man
(Inglis) is innocent.
Inglis: Not Guilty.
Mr. Mavrogani, in stating the case to the jury, said: You
have heard the charge against the prisoners of housebreaking and stealing from
the house, No. 2, Clifton Crescent, articles of which we have just heard read.
Inglis is charged together with Prebble, who has just pleaded Guilty of the
same offence. The facts of the case, shortly, are as follows: Prebble and the
prisoner Inglis for some time past in the month of January went about stealing
furniture, and subsequently it was discovered that this furniture had been
taken from an unoccupied house at Clifton Crescent. Prebble, as you have heard,
has pleaded Guilty to the offence, and the only question for you to decide is
as to whether Inglis is also Guilty. Prebble, I may tell you at once, has said
that Inglis is innocent of the charge. As regards Inglis, the case for the
prosecution is that about the third week in January, Prebble and he went to Mr.
Warner, the landlord of the Clarence Inn, and offered writing table for sale.
There was some bargaining about the table, as Mr. Warner did not want it. He
asked them where they had got it, and one of them, Inglis, I think, said “We
have been to a sale”. He told them with regard to some blankets which they had
also been offering him that they might take them to a Mrs. O`Bryan, who perhaps
wanted them. Accordingly Inglis took the blankets to Mrs. O`Bryan and sold them
to her for 5s. On the 28th January, Inglis went to a Mr. Jenner and
asked him if he would buy the table. The only other evidence against Inglis is
that he was seen about with Prebble carrying the table, which was sold to a Mr.
Pettifer. Gentlemen, the only question for you to decide is whether Inglis,
when carrying these goods about, and when assisting Prebble to dispose of them,
knew that they were stealing them, although he did not take any part in the
transaction, and I may tell you that when Prebble was arrested, Inglis
apparently heard of it, and immediately went to the police and said “I hear you
want me, Sergeant Lilley”, addressing the sergeant, and the sergeant said “No,
I don`t want you at present”. So Inglis went to the police before the police
had any charge against him, and afterwards, when he was charged, he said “I am
as innocent as the babe unborn”, and Prebble said in his presence “Inglis knows
nothing about it”. These are the facts that I am going to prove, and when they
are proved it will be for you to say whether you think the prisoner is guilty
or not.
The following evidence was then called:
Walter Warner said: I am the landlord of the Clarence Inn,
Folkestone. In January, the prisoner Inglis came with a writing table. I did
not buy it. Shortly afterwards I saw Inglis again. He came with two blankets.
Both prisoners were together, and there was another man. I spoke to the three.
I told them where to go if they wanted to get rid of the blanket. They went to
a Mrs. O`Bryan.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bowles: I saw nothing strange in the
fact that Inglis was carrying the table. I could not swear that Inglis said
they had been to a sale. When they came again, Prebble did the talking.
Minnie O`Bryan said: I am a widow, living at 45, Bournemouth
Road. I remember on the 29th of January a man (Inglis) bringing me
some blankets. He came to the door, and told me he was selling them for an
upholsterer. He told me to go to the last witness for reference. I did not know
that Prebble was a dealer. I bought the blankets, and gave 5s. for them.
By Mr. Matthew: I do not often buy blankets; 5s. was a good
price to give for them, because they were second hand.
Mr. Matthew advised the witness to be more careful for the
future in buying second hand goods.
Alfred Jenner said: I am a carter, living at 41, Sidney
Street. I remember seeing the prisoner Prebble on the 28th January.
He asked me to buy a table. Inglis fetched it for me, and I bought it. I gave
5s. for it. I did not know that Prebble was a furniture dealer.
By Mr. Bowles: I thought it was quit a natural transaction.
Prebble was not there.
By Mr. Matthew: I do not often buy furniture and know very
little about it.
Mr. Matthew: I should advise you not to buy any more.
Joseph Pettifer: I am the landlord of the Globe Inn. I have
only known the prisoners a few months. Inglis offered me a table. Prebble
brought it, and Inglis carried it for him. Prebble came in with all the things,
and they were always carried by Inglis, who brought the table on the 10th
January. The clock was brought by Prebble about the 8th or 9th
January. There was nobody with him then. Prebble sold the table himself. Inglis
was with him.
By Mr. Bowles: The prisoner Inglis looked to me as though he
were a hired man, carrying the furniture for Prebble. I did not think there was
much wrong with a dealer having a man to carry goods for him.
By Mr. Matthew: I gave 15s. for the clock. I rather objected
to take the clock without I had time given to test it, and I got a week`s time.
I gave 6s, for the chair produced, 16s. for the card table, 12s. for the other
table behind and from 4s. to 6s. for the framework of a chair. I do not think I
got the goods extra cheap. I bought them as second hand articles. The table was
out of repair. I had not the slightest suspicion that the goods had been
stolen.
Mrs. Lomax, wife of Henry Lomax, No. 6, Bradstone Road: I
used to go to the Hon. Mr. Neville`s house at Clifton Crescent to dust. There
is a garden to the house, and an iron gate with a lock. When I went to the
house I used to unlock the garden gate, and then the door of the house. I have
frequently missed things from the house, and identify articles produced. I
never left the house without locking or bolting the door.
By Mr. Bowles: I do not identify the prisoner Inglis. I have
never seen him near the premises.
By Mr. Matthew: Prebble has been in the habit of visiting
the house, but he was not visiting it while the things were missed, to my
knowledge.
Marian Stockford: I am housekeeper to the Hon. Mr. Neville.
The family left the house in 1897. Last October I went over the house and saw
everything in order. The things produced were all missing property.
P.S. Lilley: I am a police sergeant of the Borough. I saw
Inglis the day that I apprehended Prebble. I was at the police station about
five o`clock on the evening of February 12th, when Inglis came to me
and said “I sold some of the articles at a shop on the Dover Road, and another
on the Bouverie Road”. Inglis then went away, but was apprehended on the next
day. I charged both prisoners together.
By Mr. Bowles: Inglis made a statement voluntarily I had
previously searched his rooms.
This evidence closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Bowles (addressing Mr. Matthew) said: I humbly submit
that there is no charge whatever against Inglis. As to the charge of
housebreaking, there is no evidence whatever to go to a jury. As to the other
count of receiving, I again submit that there has been no evidence that Inglis
had any guilty knowledge. Inglis was simply working as a porter for a
well-known man in the town, who was in business as a furniture dealer, and had
parents in the same line of business. He was therefore perfectly entitled to
take the position of porter, and to work for Prebble. Nor has it been proved
that he had a knowledge whence the furniture came.
Mr. Mavrogani: As to the housebreaking, I do not intend to
proceed, but with regard to the count of receiving I submit that there is
evidence to go to the jury.
Mr. Matthew (to Mr. Bowles): What do you say as to the
evidence on the second count? The goods are proved to have been stolen and sold
at an unreasonable price.
Mr. Bowles: As far as the receiving goes, it is Prebble who
did the dealing.
Mr. Matthew: If the jury think that, well and good, but I
cannot say that there is no evidence to go to a jury.
Mr. Mavrogani then addressed the jury. He said: The only
question for you to decide is whether Inglis received these goods knowing them
to have been stolen. Did he know these goods were being taken from Clifton
Crescent? We have heard that shortly after these things were missed they were
being hawked about Folkestone in a way that did not excite any suspicion,
because it happened that the father of the prisoner Prebble was a furniture
dealer. It is for you to say whether the man that Prebble employed knew that
the goods were being taken wrongfully from this house, or whether he thought
that they were goods that he had in the shop. With regard to that there is one
rather significant point. When the table and the blankets were taken to Mr.
Warner, you will remember that there were three men there, the two prisoners
and another man, and one of them said “We have been to a sale”. It is entirely
a question for your consideration whether that was an explanation of the
prisoners outside the inn that the furniture was furniture they had bought. If
Inglis told a lie about that furniture, or acquiesced in the telling of a lie
by any person, I submit that there is evidence of his knowing where the
furniture really came from. Then you have the fact that as soon as he knew
Prebble had been arrested, Inglis went to the police station. It may be that
Inglis was anxious to give all the information he could. It might also be that
he knew his own arrest was merely a matter of time, and that he went there
entirely to save trouble.
Mr. Bowles (addressing the jury) said: I shall not keep you
very long on the subject. You have heard that the charge of housebreaking has
been withdrawn. Therefore the only fact you have to deal with is the fact of
receiving goods well knowing them to have been stolen. In order to be
successful, the case against Inglis ought to be proved up to the hilt. Has my
learned friend brought any evidence to show that there was a guilty knowledge
on the part of Inglis as to the place from which the stolen goods came? A
furniture dealer in the position of Prebble might be quite justified in
engaging an assistant like Inglis to take furniture round. Every tradesman has
to employ somebody when moving about furniture. What on Earth was there to
prove that Prebble had got the furniture dishonestly? A man taking work from
Prebble had reason to believe that he was an honest dealer. Inglis was only
working as Prebble`s servant. Whenever there is any dealing you will find that
Prebble does all the talking. Inglis was never in it in any way whatever so as
to incriminate himself. There was nothing incriminating about him. I addressed
the Deputy Recorder on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to go
before a jury. The Deputy Recorder thought there was, but I repeat that there
is nothing to show that Inglis necessarily knew that the things were stolen.
Mr. Matthew, in addressing the jury, said: You have been
told quite properly that there is only one matter to be proved, and that is
whether the prisoner Inglis received these goods knowing them to have been
stolen. Prebble you can dismiss from your minds altogether because he has
pleaded guilty, and the learned counsel for the prosecution has not thought it
proper to proceed with the more serious charge against Inglis. Gentlemen, you
have heard all the witnesses in the case, and I know I have listened to them,
but perhaps I may remind you shortly of what it is that they speak, and what
their evidence came to. Warner, as far as the prisoner Inglis was concerned,
said only this, that Prebble and Inglis came to his place with a writing table.
There is no doubt that the writing table had been stolen from the Hon. Mr.
Neville`s house, and that Inglis was then in possession of it. He was in
possession of it in company with Prebble, who we know had stolen it, and they
were offering it to Warner at a low price. Warner says he saw Inglis a short
time afterwards when Inglis had some blankets with him. That was all that
Warner said with regard to Inglis, except this, that one member of the party –
whether it was Inglis or Prebble or a third man he did not say – had been to a
sale, and had bought the blankets there. Mr. Mavrogani, the counsel for the
prosecution, asks you to say that that is evidence against Inglis, evidence of
his guilt, because he was giving an untrue account of his possession of the
goods. On the other hand it is possible that Inglis did not make that
statement. If Prebble said he had been to a sale Inglis may or may not have
known that the statement was true, and therefore you must not rely upon that
particular piece of evidence as against Inglis. Mr. Bowles says it is quite
true that Inglis came with the stolen goods, but he knew that Prebble was a
furniture dealer, and that these goods may have been Prebble`s honestly.
Prebble might have had the goods from his father`s premises, and so far as
Inglis knew it was quite possible that the thing was fair and square. The
principal evidence against Inglis is that the goods were offered and sold at a
small price. Now I suppose it is left to you to decide that perhaps Inglis did
not know the price was small. Perhaps he was not experienced in furniture
dealing, and it was only a matter in which Prebble was concerned, and Inglis
only carried the things as a hired man. You will probably consider that Inglis
left Warner`s place and went to Mrs. O`Bryan and said that he was selling some
blankets for Prebble, an upholsterer, and I think we are justified in calling
attention to the fact and saying that it is not the sort of thing a guilty man
would do – tell a person where the goods came from. I feel quite justified in
relying upon that fact as an evidence of innocence. Then came the witness Jenner,
and he too said that Prebble and Inglis came together on one occasion with a
table, and on another occasion with a clock. Inglis asked if Jenner would buy a
table. You have further the evidence of Mr. Pettifer and that of Sergeant
Lilley, who said Inglis fairly and honestly came and told the police where the
stolen things were to be found. He told the police about the blankets and
certain other things, and when the policeman went to Inglis`s house he found
nothing incriminating. It may be therefore that Inglis acted throughout
perfectly honestly. He went about, as far as we know, in the broad daylight. It
has not been proved he shared in the profits Prebble made in respect to these
transactions. If you think that he only behaved stupidly you will acquit him,
but if you think the case against him has been proved you will find him guilty.
A juryman: What was Inglis paid?
Mr. Matthew: We do not know anything about that. We have no
evidence.
After a brief consideration of the case the jury returned a
verdict of Guilty against Prebble, and Inglis Not Guilty.
Mr. Matthew: Well, Inglis, the jury have done right in
acquitting you. You were very stupid in going about with this furniture, and
you must be very careful for the future, but I am sure you did not intend to do
anything criminal.
Prebble (to the Deputy Recorder): This is the first offence.
I hope you will deal leniently with me as I habe been already in prison two
months.
Mr. Matthew: Is there any previous conviction?
Mr. Mavrogani: Not that I know of.
Prebble then wished to call the Rev. Mr. Dale, but that
gentleman did not appear.
Mr. Matthew: I understand this is your first offence, but it
is a serious one. You have stolen a deal of property worth a lot of money, and
you have led another man into temptation. You have put that man Inglis in very
serious danger. However, it is your first offence, and I must remember that in
passing sentence. You are sentenced to three months` hard labour.
Superintendent Taylor stated, in answer to Mr. Matthew, that
unless he was otherwise instructed, the furniture mentioned in the indictment
would be returned to the owner.
Folkestone Herald
9-4-1898
Quarter Sessions
Wednesday, April 6th: Before Theodore Matthew
Esq.
Ernest William Prebble, described as a French polisher, aged
28, of imperfect education, and George Inglis, a groom, aged 32, and also of
imperfect education, the latter surrendering to his bail, were indicted for feloniously breaking and entering the
dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, and stealing therein twelve
chairs, seven tables, one stationery case, etc., together value £30, the goods
of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, on the 29th January last, at
Folkestone. Inglis, and with receiving the same knowing them to have been
stolen.
The prisoner Prebble pleaded Guilty, and said “This man
(meaning Inglis) is innocent”. Inglis pleaded Not Guilty on each count. Mr.
Mavrogani appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bowles for Inglis.
The facts have been already fully reported in the Herald.
Inglis was acquitted; Prebble was sentenced to three months`
hard labour.
Folkestone Visitors`
List 13-4-1898
Kaleidoscope
At the Folkestone Quarter Sessions held at the Town Hall
last Thursday, Mr. Theobald Matthew acted as deputy for the Recorder.
The last case was the indictment of Ernest William Prebble
and George Inglis for feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house of
the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, at Clifton Crescent, Folkestone, and stealing
therefrom various articles of furniture. Prebble pleaded Guilty and also stated
that Inglis was innocent. Inglis pleaded innocent, and on the evidence given by
various witnesses the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. Prebble pleaded
that it was his first offence and asked for leniency from the Court as he had
already been two months in prison.
The Deputy Recorder, in passing sentence, said that it was a
very serious offence, and that the least he could do was to sentence him to
three months` imprisonment with hard labour. An order was made for the
restitution of the goods stolen to Mr. Nevill, the owner.
No comments:
Post a Comment