King`s Arms, Sandgate Road 1692 - 1881

Kings Arms after closure

King`s Arms c1870

Unusual View of the King`s Arms from Guildhall Street. Photo kindly supplied by Alan Taylor

 

King`s Arms. Credit Kathleen Hollingsbee (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Kings-Arms-Folkestone.html)

 

 

Licensees

Richard Verrier Listed 1717 1731

Widow Verrier 1731 1731
Nicholas Binfield c1738 1750
Thomas Pilcher c1763 1766
Elizabeth Pilcher 1766 1768
George Boxer 1768 c1800
James Pilcher Listed 1815 From George

Henry Stokes 1817 1818
William Gittens 1818 1831
Nicholas Rolfe c1830 c1833
George Dunk c1837 c1841
John Bromley c1841 c1842
William Richardson c1842 c1844

William Lee c1844 1845

James Collard 1845 1845

William Smith 1846 1846
William Medhurst 1847 1878 Also Rose Hotel 1852-59
Richard Medhurst 1878 1881 Also Rose Hotel 1876-79

 

Kentish Post 10-7-1731 

To be let at Michaelmas next: The King`s Arms, at Folkestone, in the county of Kent, with about 18 acres of meadow land, and a very good garden, being a very good accustomed house, lately in the occupation of Mr. Richard Verrier, and now in the occupation of his widow to Michaelmas next.

Enquire of Mr. Jacob Wraight, of Folkestone, aforesaid.

Note: Widow Verrier does not appear in More Bastions.

Kentish Post 8-4-1738 

At Mr. Nicholas Binfield`s at the King`s Arms in Folkestone, on Thursday, the 13^th of this instant, April, will be held a florists` feast for auriculas; the largest, beautifullest (sic) and best-blown flower to be entitled to a silver punch ladle; the second-best flower to two China punch bowls. No flower to be shewn under six pips, and no person to shew a flower for the prizes but subscribers only, and the person that wins the first prize is not to shew any flower for the second.

N.B. Any person or persons whatsoever, who have not subscribed, on paying to Mr. Binfield aforesaid five shillings the day before the feast, will be deemed a subscriber, and be entitled to the above prizes as a subscriber.

Note: Earlier date for Binfield

Kentish Post 10-2-1750 

At Mr. Binfield`s, at the King`s Arms, in Folkestone, on Tuesday the 13^th instant, will be fought a cock-match, between the gentlemen of Folkestone and the gentlemen of Hythe: To shew eleven cocks a side, for four Guineas a battle, and six Guineas the odd battle.

N.B. There will be a close pit, and a very good ordinary on the table between twelve and one o`clock.

Note: Later date for Binfield

Kentish Post 18-6-1763 

To be sold to the highest bidder, at Mr. Pilcher`s, the King`s Arms, in Folkestone, on Tuesday next: A fine whole set of pencil-worked china and china bowls, a clock, a watch, a larum, a fine-toned spinet (wanting a little repairing), a bass fiddle, a violin, a German flute, several implements for making sky rockets, a quantity of saltpetre, with a great number of different articles.

The sale will begin at one o`clock in the afternoon.

Note: Earlier date for Pilcher

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 27-4-1767

Before John Hague (Mayor), Mr. John Jordan, Mr. Thomas Baker, Mr. John Baker, and Mr. Thomas Rolfe.

James Lipscomb, Ric Coveney, John Milton the elder, John Milton the younger, Henry Barber, Thomas Golder, George Parker, Cassell Burwell, and Samuel Wicks were fined ¾ each for continuing drinking and tippling in an alehouse in the township, which fines were paid to the poor.

Elizabeth Pilcher, widow, Jane Fox, widow, Anne Gittens, widow, and William Cressey were fined 10/- apiece for suffering persons to continue drinking and tippling in their houses, which fines were given to the poor.

Notes: Elizabeth Pilcher PROBABLY widow of at King`s Arms. Not listed in More Bastions. Jane Fox, Five Bells. Anne Gittens, North Foreland. William Cressey, Red Cow.

Kentish Gazette 3-7-1776

Advertisement

Lost, on the 27^th instant, from this town, a heavy pointer dog, with a whole tail, and some small liver coloured spots about his shoulders; answers to the name of Ponto. Whoever brings him, or gives information where he is, so that he may be had again, by applying to Mr. Geo. Boxer, at the King`s Arms in this town, shall receive half a guinea for their trouble.

Folkestone, June 30^th, 1776

Kentish Gazette 21-4-1781 

To be sold by auction, on Wednesday, May 16, 1781, at the sign of the King`s Arms, in Folkestone, between the hours of two and four o`clock in the afternoon, unless disposed of before by private contract, of which notice will be given, a freehold house and garden, with its appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate, and being in Mercery Lane, Folkestone, and now in the occupation of John Cusick.

For further particulars enquire of Mr. Wm. Wormer, near the church, Hythe, or Mr. Richard Wright, New Romney.

Kentish Gazette 7-1-1791 

The several persons to whom Henry Cock, late of the parish of Cheriton, in the county of Kent, mariner, deceased, stood indebted at the time of his decease are desired to meet the Trustees of his estate and effects at the King`s Arms, in the town of Folkestone, in Kent, on Tuesday, the 8^th day of February, 1791, at ten in the forenoon, in order that those persons twho have not executed the Deeds of Trust may then execute the same, when it is proposed to make a dividend to such persons who already have, or shall then and there establish and prove their debts agreeable to the tenor of the said trust; and all persons not then executing the said Trust Deeds, and establishing and proving their several debts, will be excluded all benefit under the said Trust.

Kentish Chronicle 12-8-1817 

Auction Advertisement Extract:

To Brewers and Others – to be sold by auction at the Folkestone Arms Inn, Folkestone, on Thursday, the 21^st August, 1817, in three lots:

Lot 2: All that good accustomed freehold public house and premises, with a piece of ground adjoining, known by the name of the King`s Arms, situate in the upper part of the town of Folkestone, and now in the occupation of Henry Stokes, tenant at will.

Note: Not listed in More Bastions.

For further particulars apply to Mr. Thomas S. Baker, Folkestone.

Kentish Chronicle 1-1-1819 

Folkestone: Desirable freehold and free public houses to be sold by auction by F.J. Hiller, on Friday, the 8^th of January, 1819, at two o`clock, at the sign of the Folkestone Cutter, in Dover Street, Folkestone.

All that desirable free and freehold public house, known by the sign of the King`s Arms, in Shellons Lane, Folkestone, and now in the occupation of Mr. William Gittens.

Note: Earlier date for Gittens.

These premises are advantageously let for an unexpired term of six years.

Further particulars known by applying to F.J. Hiller, surveyor, 145, Snargate Street, Dover. 

Maidstone Journal 18-1-1831 

Death: Jan. 7, at Folkestone, Mr. Wm. Gittens, of the King`s Arms public house, aged 65 years.

Note: Later date for Gittens

Kentish Gazette 3-12-1833 

Dover, Dec. 2: Tomorrow the Insolvent Southern Assizes Circuit Court will be held here, when the following prisoner will be brought before J.G. Harris Esq., His Majesty`s Commissioner, upon petition for discharge –

In Dover Castle Prison: Nicholas Rolfe, late of Folkestone, victualler. 

Kentish Gazette 10-12-1833

Dover, Dec. 4: Yesterday Thos. Barton Bowen Esq., one of His Majesty`s Commissioners for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors (in the absence of Jno. Greathed Harris Esq.) held the Assize Circuit Court in the Town Hall here, when the following prisoner was called to pass his examination to entitle him to his discharge: Nicholas Rolfe, late of Folkestone, victualler, to be discharged, conditionally, upon filing some papers relative to a distress which had been levied on his goods, and upon giving up possession of the house in the occupation of his wife, at Folkestone.

Kentish Gazette 6-6-1837

Advertisement: Folkestone, to tailors and drapers: To be disposed of, with immediate possession, an old-established shop, with the stock-in-trade &c., &c. The premises are freehold, situate in the High Street, and very commodious for a family. The business of tailor and draper has been carried on to a considerable extent for the last 50 years, now in the occupation of the proprietor, Thomas Golder, who has taken the Folkestone Arms Inn, from whom further particulars may be had, Letters, post paid. 

Kentish Gazette 14-8-1838

Advertisement: To Publicans, Brewers and Others, To Let, a very capital Free Inn, with excellent stabling, situated in one of the principal streets in Folkestone, where the excise office is held, rent moderate, incoming can be reduced to £100, and the most satisfactory reasons will be given for the present tenant leaving.

For further particulars apply to Mr. Friend, Auctioneer, Northgate Street, Canterbury, or to Mr. Goulder, boat-builder, Folkestone. Letters to be post paid.  

Dover Telegraph 31-8-1839

Advertisement: To be let at Folkestone, that well-known and established roadside inn and commercial house, the King`s Arms.

The terms on which this house is to be disposed of are that the incoming tenant shall take all that the outgoing tenant leaves, at a fair valuation.

The operations of the South Eastern Railroad which are now in progress must tend very materially to increase the value of this house. Which possesses every convenience for the comforts of travellers, viz., in good and airy bedrooms, sitting rooms, water closet, with excellent stables, &c., &c.

Possession may be had immediately, if desired.

For further particulars apply to Mr. G. Dunk, on the premises, if by letter post-paid.

Kentish Gazette 22-3-1842

Advertisement: Shooting match, open to all England. To be shot for on Tuesday, 29^th Marc, 1842, a fat bullock, weighing about thirty score, at Mr. John Bromley`s, King`s Arms Inn, Folkestone. Thirty subscribers at £1 each (including shots and pigeons).

N.B. The subscriptions to be paid on or before the 26^th instant, to prevent disappointment, and received by Mr. Taylor, White Lion Inn, Canterbury; Spice`s Harp Inn, Dover; and at Mr. Bromley`s, King`s Arms Inn, Folkestone, where the bullock may be seen by applying to F, Keen, on the premises.

Note: No mention of Bromley in More Bastions 

Maidstone Journal 30-7-1844

Assizes, Before Baron Gurney.

Coomber v The South Eastern Railway Company

Mr. Sergeant Shee, with Mr. Lush, was for the plaintiff: Mr. Peacock and Mr. Russell for the defendants.

Sergeant Shee, in stating the case to the jury, said that the plaintiff was a ginger beer and lemonade manufacturer, of Folkestone, and the defendants were the South Eastern Railway Company. The action was brought to recover compensation for damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the company having destroyed a portion of his property in making their line to Folkestone. It had been pleaded that the property in question was not the property of the plaintiff, and that would be a question the jury would have to consider. In July, 1842, the plaintiff went to Folkestone to see if he could find suitable premises to carry on his business, and ultimately agreed with Mrs. Pope for a lease of some premises, on which he erected buildings suitable for carrying on his extensive business. Between that time and the month of July, 1843, the plaintiff had expended a very considerable sum of money in the improvement of the premises. About that time the South Eastern Company had purchased Folkestone Harbour, and extended their line to it, without waiting for the tedious process of an Act of Parliament. In carrying out their intentions they had thought proper to knock down the plaintiff`s manufactory, and otherwise damage his property, whereby he had been unable to carry on his business, and for the loss sustained in consequence this action was brought.

The following witnesses were then called:

John Holten stated that in July, 1842, he was in the employ of Mr. Coomber, at Croydon, and went with him to Folkestone, where he took some premises that had been a builder`s workshop. It was about 42 feet in length, and surrounded by a stone wall. Mr. Coomber took possession of it on the 27^th July, 1842, and built a stable and manufactory there. He also built a pigsty and sank a well there, and had all the necessary apparatus erected for carrying on his trade as a ginger beer manufacturer. Witness remained with him for a twelvemonth, and was there when the railway company, on the 20^th Oct., 1843, began to pull the wall down on the railway side. He got up early that morning and saw three or four labourers at work. His master was not there, but he went and found him. In the course of the day they had pulled the wall down as far as the stables. There was a board outside describing it as a manufactory. When they took down the wall they made a regular use of the premises, and broke stones there. The plaintiff could not carry on his business in consequence. There were about 60 dozen bottles of ginger beer and lemonade, and 60 dozen empty bottles. A great many of the latter were stolen, and some of the full ones. In about a week afterwards he left Mr. Coomber, who was unable to carry on his business, as he could not find a suitable place at Folkestone. His returns were from £6 to £7 a week, and his business was increasing. He usually sent out about 150 doz. a week, ginger beer at 1s. 6d. a doz., and soda water and lemonade 2s. 6d. a doz. Some of the bottles were stone. He did not know the names of any of the workmen employed in pulling down the wall. There were 180 doz. empty stone bottles, some of which were broken.

Cross-examined: He did not stop to see all the wall pulled down. The bottles were not stored in the pigsty, but outside, in the air. He could not tell how many were broken by the rocks falling from the walls. He thought there were almost a doz. stone bottles broken, not more. They were worth a penny a piece. He could not say how long it was before Mr. Coomber sold his stock. Perhaps he had not sold more than 12 doz. when he left him. He was obliged to carry them out in his arms, as from the quantity of rubbish they could not get the cart out. It was a light spring cart capable of carrying about 50 dozen. There was a road made afterwards by the company. There was no road there before. There was a road by the side of the factory in Seagate, which they enlarged. The plaintiff could not carry on his business afterwards, for he was forced to sell his horse, not having any place to keep him. They could manage to get the horse out, but not the cart. They sold ten dozen a week to the innkeepers and others, amongst whom were Mr. Hodges, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Jeffries, who were Mr. Coomber`s principal customers. They took about 10 or 12 dozen a week. There was one copper on the premises, which held 18 gallons. This they filled two or three times a day. Sometimes he brewed and sometimes his master. He believed his master took the copper away.

Re-examined: His master had a son about 14 or 15 years of age, who assisted in the business. By the 10 or 12 dozen he had mentioned, he meant each customer took that. The cart was in the stable when he last saw it.

Mr. Wm. Lee stated that he kept the King`s Arms at Folkestone. In July, 1842, he went with Mr. Coomber to Mr. Willis, and was with him when the agreement was made for the premises. He saw it after he had taken possession. (Witness then described the state of the premises as the previous witness had done, and also spoke to the improvements made by the plaintiff.) He had seen the premises within a few days. There is a heap of rubbish there and a cart. Half a dozen men might remove the rubbish.

Cross-examined: He could not swear that a couple of men would not remove the rubbish in an hour. He had not looked at it close enough to make a calculation. The rent agreed was £31 a year.

Wm. Coomber, son of the plaintiff, deposed to the quantity of stock on the premises, which agreed with the first witness. He fetched away 3 dozen of ginger beer, 15 dozen of stone bottles and 3 dozen of glass. He might have been a month fetching these away. His father could not get another place in the town to carry on his business. He used to assis his father by washing the bottles and draining off.

James Tallad proved having received 3 quarters rent from Mr. Coomber for Mrs. Pope. The last was in July, 1843, since when they had not received any.

Cross-examined: Mrs. Pope was the executor to her deceased husband, James Pope, who died in February, 1842. Mr. Willis was the executor. Mr. Hague was the proprietor of the premises, and Mr. Pope was tenant at the time of his death. Witness was present at a conversation between Mr. Hague Jnr. and Mrs. Pope in November, 1842. After that conversation he saw Mr. Coomber. He told him that Mr. Hague had let him, witness, the premises after the expiration of Mrs. Pope`s term in July, 1843. He asked witness if he should want them or if he would let him remain. Witness said he had a coal warehouse that was likely to be sold, but he might remain till he wanted them. An application was made to witness by the railway company for permission to knock down a portion of the wall.

A letter from the plaintiff dated December, 1843, to the directors was then read, claiming £306 16s., for costs of premises and goodwill of business.

This closed the plaintiff`s case.

Mr. Peacock, for the defendants, contended that no case had been made out. The declaration stated that they had destroyed the plaintiff`s manufactory and his stables, whereas the utmost that could be proved against the company was the damage done by breaking a dozen of stone bottles and removing a portion of the wall. He was obliged to confine himself to the record or he could have shewn them that the premises were actually rented by another person, and not the plaintiff. The premises were not demised to Mrs. Pope, but were merely rented to her as executrix to her deceased husband, which was very different to holding them in her own right. There was no evidence whatever to show that Messrs Hague had made a demise of this property to Mrs. Pope after the death of her husband. He denied, therefore, that the premises could be considered as Mr. Coomber`s. If it were the plaintiff`s wall that had been knocked down then he was entitled to compensation, but he, Mr. Peacock, denied that it was his wall, and if it were not then he had no right to come there for damages. Mrs. Pope`s tenancy had expired on 6^th July, 1843,  but the damage complained of did not take place until October, 1843, and it had been proved that another person, not the plaintiff, had rented the premises. With respect to the damage done to the bottles there had been no evidence to show that it had been done by the company`s servants, but he would admit that the bottles had been broken, perhaps through the negligence of the persons employed, but the company was not answerable for that; for it had not been charged against them as arising through any neglect on their part, and it was clear that they were not liable for anything that was stolen. Mr. Peacock then read the various items of the plaintiff`s claim, by which it appeared that a considerably larger quantity of ginger beer and bottles had been charged than were proved to have been on the premises.

At the conclusion of Mr. Peacock`s address, His Lordship said he could not find any demise of the premises to Mrs. Pope, and the plaintiff had only a permissive tenancy, Mrs. Pope, as executrix, having expired in July, 1843. He should, therefore, reserve the point of law. His Lordship then strongly commented on several parts of the plaintiff`s claim, and said he hoped the jury would defeat any attempt at extortion by giving such damage only as he was entitled to.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after a short time returned a verdict for the plaintiff with £50 damages.

Baron Gurney: That will be on the second count.

Mr. Peacock submitted it could not be on the second count, as that was merely for the bottles broken, which appeared from the plaintiff`s witnesses to be about a dozen, and His Lordship had stated they were not to give damages for the wall.

After a short discussion His Lordship requested the jury to reconsider their verdict and say upon which counts they had relied.

The jury again retired, and in about a quarter of an hour gave their verdict: upon the first count (for removal, &c.) £49 19s., and upon the 2^nd, 1s. for bottles destroyed.

Note: No record of William Lee in More Bastions.

Maidstone Gazette 18-3-1845

Advertisement: Folkestone, Kent. To persons wishing to embark in the public line. To let, with immediate possession, that well-known and old-established commercial house and family hotel called the King`s Arms, Folkestone, Kent.

The present proprietor, having embarked in other business in the north, is desirous of treating with some person for the above. Owing to the increased traffic betwixt Folkestone and the Continent it affords an opportunity rarely to be met with. Rent £40 per annum.

For further particulars apply to Mr. W.M. Lee, King`s Arms Inn, Folkestone.

N.B. A good stable and lock-up coach house.

Note: No mention of Lee in More Bastions. 

Dover Telegraph 10-5-1845, Kentish Gazette 13-5-1845, Maidstone Gazette 20-5-1845

Marriage: May 8^th, at Kennington, Mr. James Collard, of the King`s Arms Inn, Folkestone, to Miss

Jane Elizabeth Spain, of Kennington

Note: No mention of Collard in More Bastions.

Maidstone Gazette 13-5-1845

A Special Session was held at the Town Hall on Tuesday last before John Bateman Esq., Mayor, W. Major and W. Sherren Esqs.

The licence granted to William Lee to keep open the King`s Arms was transferred to James Collard.

Note: William Lee not listed in More Bastions.

Kentish Gazette 22-7-1845 

Auction advertisement extract: Folkestone, Freehold Estates to be sold by auction, by Mr, Thomas Robinson, on Monday, the 28^th day of July, 1845, at Mr. Collard`s, King`s Arms Inn.

Maidstone Gazette 12-8-1845

At a Special and Petty Sessions held at the Town Hall on Tuesday last, before J. Bateman Esq., Mayor, D. Major and W. Major Esqs., and Capt. Sherren, the following alehouse licenses were transferred, viz: from Joseph Earl, of the Folkestone Lugger, to Richard Fowle; from said Richard Fowle, of the British Lion, to Robert Burvill; from William Harrison, of the Marquis of Granby, to James Hall; from said James Hall, of the Ship, to John Harrison; from James Collard, of the King`s Arms to William Smith.

Note: Transfers of Folkestone Lugger, British Lion, Marquis of Granby are earlier than previously known. Neither licensee for Ship listed in More Bastions.

Canterbury Journal 12-12-1846

A Catch Club has been formed here. From the success attending its first meeting, in the enrolment of nearly forty of the most respectable inhabitants of the town, it promises to be a useful society. It is held at Mr. Smith`s, the King`s Arms, whose liberality and attention to his guests are too well known to require any comment.

Note. Smith does not appear in More Bastions.

Maidstone Gazette 7-9-1847

Petty Sessions, Tuesday; Before Capt. W. Sherren, Mayor, S. Bradley, J. Bateman and S. Mackie Esqs.

General Licensing Day: All the licenses were renewed. There were ten applications for new licenses, two of which only were granted for spirit vaults, one for Mr. Smith, of the King`s Arms, for a house in the High Street, conditionally, and the other to Mr. Thomas Maycock (the agent for Guinness`s stout). Liberty was also granted to Mr. Field to remove his licence from his present house to more commodious premises opposite.

Notes: It is not known that the licence granted to Smith was ever taken up. Also the only person by the name of Field(s) to hold a licence at that time was William Fields who was at the short-lived Folkestone Arms Tavern and it is at present not known that that house ever moved. It is not outside the realms of possibility that Fields DID move premises across the road and that the original “Folkestone Arms Tavern” is the unknown “old Folkestone tavern” which was demolished in January, 1848.  

Dover Chronicle, Dover Telegraph 10-6-1848, Maidstone Journal 13-6-1848

Auction advertisement extract: To Brewers, Spirit Merchants and Others; To be sold by private contract (together or separately), the undermentioned valuable licensed houses, offering an opportunity for desirable investment, as well as advantageous increase of business, which but seldom occurs, viz.:-

A freehold inn called The King`s Arms, situate in a most eligible position in the flourishing town of Folkestone, in Kent. It possesses ample and excellent accommodation for travellers, and is admirably placed to command an extensive town trade.

The whole of the above are old-established, well-accustomed houses, have good tenants, are in full trade and good condition. The death of the late proprietor causes them to be now offered for sale.

For further particulars apply to James Worsfold, House and Estate Agent, Guardian Fire and Life Assurance Office, Castle Street, Dover.

Maidstone Gazette 19-12-1848

Folkestone County Court, Friday, before C. Harwood Esq.

Sheen v Wordsell: Mr. Harvey, of Dover, for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hart for the defendant. This was an action for an assault. The damages were laid at £10. From the evidence of the plaintiff, who is a leather-seller at Dover, it appeared that he was summoned on the 20^th November last by Mr. W. Vigor, of the Rose Inn, for £5 money lent; that after the trial he went to the King`s Arms, and was there assaulted by a person named Hodges and several others; that himself and friend afterwards proceeded to the Pavilion Shades to dine. A short time afterwards the defendant and several others whom he had seen at the King`s Arms came to the Shades: the defendant came upstairs into the room where he was. Plaintiff requested him to leave the room, and rang the bell. The landlord requested the defendant to go downstairs; an altercation took place, and he (plaintiff), was struck by the defendant on the neck and thrown downstairs, receiving a severe bruise on the thigh. Plaintiff called a witness, named Benjamin Wright, a woolstapler at Dover, who corroborated the plaintiff`s statement. The plaintiff, in answer to a question put by Mr. Hart, stated that he did not challenge anyone to fight at the King`s Arms that day. This closed the case for the plaintiff.

Mr. Hart then addressed the jury for the defendant, and after alluding to the conduct of the plaintiff, proceeded to show that the defendant was not present at the scuffle on the stairs by which the plaintiff was injured as he alleged. He called several witnesses, respectable tradesmen, who distinctly swore that Wordsell was in the smoking room below, and did not leave the room till after the affray was over; that a person named Hodges had gently handed the plaintiff downstairs, he being in such a state of intoxication as to be unable to walk down himself. One of the witnesses also stated that he was present at the King`s Arms when the plaintiff challenged anyone to fight him for £5. A person, now present in court, took out his purse to lay the money down, but the plaintiff then declined, not having sufficient cash. There was great excitement caused by the conduct of the plaintiff, and he was in consequence expelled from the King`s Arms.

His Honour, in summing up, read over the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness, Wright, observing that there was no doubt but that a gross assault had been committed – but by whom? It did not appear to be by the defendant, who was stated by the defendant`s witness to have remained below after being requested to walk downstairs. It had been stated that a man named Hodges, who had been summoned before the Magistrates and fined, was the guilty party, but with that they had nothing to do. It certainly was very singular that the same persons who were present at the King`s Arms in the morning should be all of them at the Shades in the afternoon; if the witnesses for the defendant were worthy of belief, the defendant could not have been the person who committed the assault. The plaintiff had not called the landlord, as he might have done, or the policeman might have been fetched by the witness Wright. The question for them to consider was, was the defendant in that state described by the witness Roberts as to be unable to identify the person who had committed the assault? The plaintiff had denied that he had challenged anyone to fight, but the whole of the witnesses for the defence had proved the contrary. After some further remarks, His Honour left it to the Jury to decide whether the identity was proved to their satisfaction.

The Jury retired, and shortly after returned a verdict for the defendant.

The same v Vigor: This was an action for an assault alleged to have been committed the same day, at the Pavilion Shades. The same witnesses were produced to negative the plaintiff`s statement. Verdict for the defendant.

Mr. Hart applied for costs, which were granted.

Upon this announcement a loud clapping of hands took place, which was immediately suppressed by the Judge. The court was crowded to excess.

Dover Telegraph 23-12-1848

Folkestone County Court, Friday, before C. Harwood Esq.

Sheen v Wordsell: Mr. Harvey, of Dover, for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hart for the defendant. This was an action for an assault. The damages were laid at £10. From the evidence of the plaintiff, who is a leather-seller at Dover, it appeared that he was summoned on the 20^th November last by Mr. W. Vigor, of the Rose Inn, for £5 money lent; that after the trial he went to the King`s Arms, and was there assaulted by a person named Hodges and several others; that himself and friend afterwards proceeded to the Pavilion Shades to dine. A short time afterwards the defendant and several others whom he had seen at the King`s Arms came to the Shades: the defendant came upstairs into the room where he was. Plaintiff requested him to leave the room, and rang the bell. The landlord requested the defendant to go downstairs; an altercation took place, and he (plaintiff), was struck by the defendant on the neck and thrown downstairs, receiving a severe bruise on the thigh. Plaintiff called a witness, named Benjamin Wright, a woolstapler at Dover, who corroborated the plaintiff`s statement. The plaintiff, in answer to a question put by Mr. Hart, stated that he did not challenge anyone to fight at the King`s Arms that day. This closed the case for the plaintiff.

Mr. Hart then addressed the jury for the defendant, and after alluding to the conduct of the plaintiff, proceeded to show that the defendant was not present at the scuffle on the stairs by which the plaintiff was injured as he alleged. He called several witnesses, respectable tradesmen, who distinctly swore that Wordsell was in the smoking room below, and did not leave the room till after the affray was over; that a person named Hodges had gently handed the plaintiff downstairs, he being in such a state of intoxication as to be unable to walk down himself. One of the witnesses also stated that he was present at the King`s Arms when the plaintiff challenged anyone to fight him for £5. A person, now present in court, took out his purse to lay the money down, but the plaintiff then declined, not having sufficient cash. There was great excitement caused by the conduct of the plaintiff, and he was in consequence expelled from the King`s Arms.

His Honour, in summing up, read over the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness, Wright, observing that there was no doubt but that a gross assault had been committed – but by whom? It did not appear to be by the defendant, who was stated by the defendant`s witness to have remained below after being requested to walk downstairs.

The Jury retired, and shortly after returned a verdict for the defendant.

The same v Vigor: This was an action for an assault alleged to have been committed the same day, at the Pavilion Shades. The same witnesses were produced to negative the plaintiff`s statement. Verdict for the defendant.

Mr. Hart applied for costs, which were granted.

Upon this announcement a loud clapping of hands took place, which was immediately suppressed by the Judge. The court was crowded to excess.

West Kent Guardian 23-12-1848

Folkestone County Court, Friday, before C. Harwood Esq.

Sheen v Wordsell: Mr. Harvey, of Dover, for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hart for the defendant. This was an action for an assault. The damages were laid at £10. From the evidence of the plaintiff, who is a leather-seller at Dover, it appeared that he was summoned on the 20^th November last by Mr. W. Vigor, of the Rose Inn, for £5 money lent; that after the trial he went to the King`s Arms, and was there assaulted by a person named Hodges and several others; that himself and friend afterwards proceeded to the Pavilion Shades to dine. A short time afterwards the defendant and several others whom he had seen at the King`s Arms came to the Shades: the defendant came upstairs into the room where he was. Plaintiff requested him to leave the room, and rang the bell. The landlord requested the defendant to go downstairs; an altercation took place, and he (plaintiff), was struck by the defendant on the neck and thrown downstairs, receiving a severe bruise on the thigh. Plaintiff called a witness, named Benjamin Wright, a woolstapler at Dover, who corroborated the plaintiff`s statement. The plaintiff, in answer to a question put by Mr. Hart, stated that he did not challenge anyone to fight at the King`s Arms that day. This closed the case for the plaintiff.

Mr. Hart then addressed the jury for the defendant, and after alluding to the conduct of the plaintiff, proceeded to show that the defendant was not present at the scuffle on the stairs by which the plaintiff was injured as he alleged. He called several witnesses, respectable tradesmen, who distinctly swore that Wordsell was in the smoking room below, and did not leave the room till after the affray was over; that a person named Hodges had gently handed the plaintiff downstairs, he being in such a state of intoxication as to be unable to walk down himself. One of the witnesses also stated that he was present at the King`s Arms when the plaintiff challenged anyone to fight him for £5. A person, now present in court, took out his purse to lay the money down, but the plaintiff then declined, not having sufficient cash. There was great excitement caused by the conduct of the plaintiff, and he was in consequence expelled from the King`s Arms.

His Honour, in summing up, read over the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness, Wright, observing that there was no doubt but that a gross assault had been committed – but by whom? It did not appear to be by the defendant, who was stated by the defendant`s witness to have remained below after being requested to walk downstairs. It had been stated that a man named Hodges, who had been summoned before the Magistrates and fined, was the guilty party, but with that they had nothing to do. It certainly was very singular that the same persons who were present at the King`s Arms in the morning should be all of them at the Shades in the afternoon; if the witnesses for the defendant were worthy of belief, the defendant could not have been the person who committed the assault. The plaintiff had not called the landlord, as he might have done, or the policeman might have been fetched by the witness Wright. The question for them to consider was, was the defendant in that state described by the witness Roberts as to be unable to identify the person who had committed the assault? The plaintiff had denied that he had challenged anyone to fight, but the whole of the witnesses for the defence had proved the contrary. After some further remarks, His Honour left it to the Jury to decide whether the identity was proved to their satisfaction.

The Jury retired, and shortly after returned a verdict for the defendant.

Kentish Gazette 22-1-1850 

On Friday evening se'ennight the tradesmen of Folkestone, to the number of 50, dined together, at Mr. Medhurst's, the King's Arms. The chair was taken by Charles Golder, Esq. The toasts of the evening, loyal, corporate, and per­sonal, were given with discretion and effect, and suit­ably acknowledged. The dinner was substantial and plentiful, and the wines excellent.

Maidstone Gazette 10-12-1850

Petty Sessions, Tuesday; Before R. Hart Esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, T. Golder and W. Major Esqs.

Henry Vale, labourer, lately in the employ of the Tontine Building Company, was charged by Henry Porter (son of Mr. Christopher Porter) with assaulting him on Monday, the 2ns inst. It appeared that during the election of Councillors the prisoner thrust himself into the company of others at the King`s Arms, and having conducted himself improperly, he was turned out. The complainant advised him to go home, when the prisoner struck the complainant a blow on the forehead, knocking him down. Police constable Burvill, seeing the assault committed, endeavoured to take the prisoner into custody, and succeeded, after much resistance. Prisoner then amused himself by destroying all he could in his cell, having been twice before convicted of an assault.

Fined £4 and costs, and two months` imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-7-1855

Advertisement: W. Medhurst, wine and spirit merchant, King`s Arms Inn and Commercial House, Sandgate Road, Folkestone. Families supplied.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-8-1855

Petty Sessions, Monday: Before Samuel Mackie Esq., Mayor, Capt. Kennicott R.N., W. Major, James Kelcey, Stephen Godden, J. Kingsnorth and Thomas Golder Esqs.

Mr. Richard Lyddon, solicitor, appeared to answer a complaint of Mr. Richard Hart, for having unlawfully threatened that he would send a bullet through the “defendant`s heart, were it not for the law.”

Mr. Hart being Clerk to the Magistrates, the magistrates decided to have Mr. Wightwick, solicitor, for their advison on the present occasion.

Mr. Hart was sworn, and proved that in the trial of Lyddon v Temple in the County Court, on the 17^th inst., he heard defendant say that he deserved a bullet through his heart, and also that he had said the same thing previously to Mr. Jinkings, or a company of which Mr. Jinkings formed one. Mr. Hart stated that from all the circumstances, he went in bodily fear from the defendant, and was obliged to claim protection.

Mr. James Jinkings being sworn, said that on the 1^st August he was in the King`s Arms Inn, with other gentlemen, when defendant came in, and in a very excited state complained of someone having served him with a notice, and said that he would like to send a bullet through the villain`s heart, if it was not for the law. Defendant mentioned no names, but from what has subsequently transpired, witness had no doubt he meant Mr. Hart.

Mr. Lyddon, in defence, admitted the substance of what he was reported to have said, but he had only said Mr. Hart “deserved” to be so served, and he absolutely now repeated it, but said he did not intend doing it himself.

The magistrates having retired, returned, and the Mayor stated that they had come to the unanimous conclusion to bind defendant over to keep the peace for six months, himself in a penalty of £200, and two sureties in £100 each. Defendant was allowed a week to procure sureties.

Folkestone Chronicle 9-2-1856

Friday February 8^th :- Before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, and W. Major esq.

Mr. John Minter, Solicitor, appeared on a warrant taken out against him by Mr. T.A. Davidson, the clerk to the Magistrates` Clerk, the object being to bind him (the defendant) over to keep the peace, he having used (according to the charge) insulting language and behaviour, with threats, towards the plaintiff.

Thomas Atkinson Davidson, being sworn, said – On Friday last, February 1^st, in the evening, I went to the King`s Arms public house. After sitting there some time Mr. Richard Medhurst came in. Soon after, or at the moment, he had a bill in his hand, which he produced. It was a printed bill. I understood him to say that it had been put up in his house, and that he had taken it down. The bill was read to the company, and afterwards handed round, when I asked to have a look at it, and it was handed to me. I have not the bill, but I believe this (produced) to be an exact copy. (The bill was here read in court) Upon reading the bill, I said whoever has done this it gives them no great credit for their grammar. Independently of the grammar, I said it is a dirty mean thing for anyone to have taken the liberty with Mr. W. Major`s name in the manner they seem to have done, or words to that effect. I was not addressing myself to the defendant in particular, it was merely a general observation for the company. Mr. Minter, who was sitting at the other end of the room, said I should like to know if there is anybody as mean, or more mean, in the town than the clerk to the Magistrate`s Clerk – and immediately looking at me, said, I should like to, or I shall, and I would if I could get a chance, punch your head. I am quite certain the defendant looked at me when he made the observation, but he did not put himself in any attitude against me. I was not apprehensive that he would there make any attempt as the room was full of company, and I felt I should be protected. So soon as he had said this, which was done in a very angry tone, (this was about 11) I said I beg your pardon, Mr. Minter, I was not addressing myself to you, (I spoke this very mildly) and therefore I will thank you to confine your observations to yourself. Mr. Minter then called me “a cur”. Some other observations equally offensive were made about my having brought his name before the magistrates, and he said if I did it again he would punch my head. Nothing more occurred then, but the next morning I took out a warrant against the defendant.

Upon a representation being made by Mr. Medhurst to me that the defendant did not mean anything, I asked him to see Mr. Minter, and if he could induce him to give me his assurance that he meant nothing by what he had said on the Friday night, and meant nothing for the future, I should be perfectly satisfied, and would proceed no further in the matter. I asked for no apology. I afterwards asked Mr. Elgee, Mr. Medhurst having mentioned his name to me. I got no answer in return. Not receiving any, I believed defendant was in earnest by what he said that night. I am afraid the defendant would, if he had a chance to, do me, or cause to be done to me, some bodily injury. I believe myself to be in danger. I do not know exactly whether he would do it himself or get others to do it.

Cross-examined by the defendant :- This occurrence took place on Friday night. I took out the warrant on Saturday. It was made out and signed by the magistrates on that day but was not issued. It was delivered to the Superintendent on Wednesday evening about five o`clock. The warrant remained in our office until it was delivered to Mr. Steer. The whole of this time I was under bodily fear from you, but in consequence of what was passing between Mr. Medhurst and others I retained the warrant, and studiously avoided meeting you. Not receiving any answer I proceeded with the matter. I did not see you in the meantime that I remember. I never spoke to you.

On Sunday evening when Mr. Medhurst was talking with me, you passed by, and I said good evening. I scarcely knew you until I looked at you. I was sober. I did not notice where you went. I think you passed me, and went round to the bar fire, and spoke with Mrs. Medhurst, but did not notice particularly. I cannot say how long I remained at the bar. I talked to Mr. Medhurst seriously about it, and was anxiously asking him to get me this assurance. I might have stood at the bar and had three glasses of ale. I did not see you the whole of this time. When I left I might have said goodnight, Mrs. Medhurst, goodnight, sir. It is possible I might have said so, but cannot swear. I will swear I went home sober last night. I may have had some other threats made to me by other persons, but none like this.

Observations were here made by the defendant as to the plaintiff`s general character, to show that he was a very quarrelsome man.

Cross-examination continued :- I never threatened or struck anyone. You threatened me twice. I was perfectly sober, but you seemed excited. I remained some long time afterwards in your company that evening. I was arguing upon politics, but not with you. I believe you made some remarks agreeing with me. I was under no apprehension that night.

The defendant, (in answer to the Mayor) said “I bear no malice to the plaintiff”.

Mr. Minter here spoke at long length in defence, complaining in strong terms of the frivolous and vexatious nature of the charge, which was got up entirely to injure his character, and particularly of his having been apprehended on a warrant, and subjected to some hours confinement; and stated that the bill (or squib) in question, with which he had had nothing to do, had been introduced into court with a view to prejudice his case with Mr. Major (one of the sitting magistrates) whose name appeared in it.

The magistrates immediately dismissed the case.

Kentish Gazette 18-3-1856

A pigeon shoot came off last week between Mr. Barling Sharpe, of the Somerset Arms, and Mr. Medhurst, of Folkestone, for £5 a side at 21 yard rise. The former killed 15 out of 21 birds, and the latter only 13

Dover Telegraph 22-3-1856

Dover Petty Sessions, Thursday: Before the Mayor, B.B. Wilkins and J. Coleman Esqs.

Margaret Brown, remanded from Saturday on suspicion of stealing a spoon, was again brought up. The landlord of the King`s Arms, Folkestone, who had lost several spoons similar to that found in the prisoner`s possession, was in attendance, but could not swear to the article. The result, therefore, was the discharge of the prisoner, who had only been released from our gaol a few days since, where she had undergone imprisonment for stealing some brushes. The Bench reminded her to be careful in future, or penal servitude would be awarded her if sent before the Recorder.

Kentish Gazette 1-4-1856 

The return match on Easter Monday between Mr. R. Medhurst, of this place, and Mr. B. Sharp, of Ashford, for £10 a side, was won by the former killing 17 to his opponent’s 15 out of 21 birds.

Folkestone Chronicle 31-7-1858

Fire _ On Monday night a fire broke out in an out-house used as a bottle house adjoining the King`s Arms Inn. By the prompt assistance of may of Mr. Medhurst`s friends the fire was prevented extending to the stables and the house, and was extinguished before the engines arrived, but not until the shed in which it broke out was burnt down. The water having been shut off from the Company`s mains, the whole of it had to be fetched in buckets from a pump some 250 yards from the spot.

Kentish Gazette 3-8-1858 

On Monday night, about 10 o'clock a fire broke out in an out-house used as a bottle-house adjoining the King`s Arms. By the prompt assistance of many of Mr. Medhurst’s friends the fire was prevented extending to the stables and the house, and was extinguished before the engines arrived, not until the shed in which it broke out was burnt down. The water having been shut off from the Company's mains, the whole of it had to be fetched in buc­kets from a pump some 250 yards from the spot.

Folkestone Chronicle 3-12-1859

County Court

Monday November 28^th:- Before Charles Harwood esq., Judge

William Medhurst v C. Armytage – Claim for £5, balance of an IOU for £10 – defendant did not appears. Forthwith order.

Note: Medhurst was landlord of King`s Arms

Southeastern Gazette 5-11-1861, Canterbury Weekly Journal, East Kent Times. Faversham Mercury, Kentish Mercury, Maidstone Telegraph, Sheerness Guardian 9-11-1861, Maidstone Journal 12-11-1861

Local News

Mr. Medhurst, King’s Arms Inn, who has been collecting large penny pieces, had £8 of coppers, whioh he had purchased, in his bar, last Friday. A sporting farmer at Broadmead was talking about the weight of them, when Mr. Medhurst said he could not carry them so far as his home without stopping. The farmer thought to the contrary, and it was arranged that he was to pay down £1, an if he carried the coppers home, without resting once, he was to have them, which he did with perfect ease, thus winning £7. The weight was 110lbs.  

Dover Telegraph 9-11-1861 

Mr. Medhurst, King`s Arms Inn, who has been collecting large penny pieces, had £8 of coppers, which he had purchased, in his bar last Friday. Mr. T. Griffiths, of Broadmead, was talking about the weight of them, when Mr. Medhurst said he could not carry them so far as his home without stopping. The farmer thought to the contrary, and it was arranged that he was to pay down £1, and if he carried the coppers home without resting once he was to have them, which he did with perfect ease, thus winning £7. The weight was 110 lbs

Folkestone Chronicle 12-12-1863

County Court

Friday December 11^th:- Before Charles Harwood Esq., Judge.

W. Medhurst v S. Fenn – Claim for £5.

Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff.

It appeared from the opening statement of Mr. Minter, and the evidence of the plaintiff, that some short time ago the servant of defendant came to plaintiff`s house, the King`s Arms, and asked for change of a cheque for £5, made payable to Self, drawn on the London and Westminster Bank, and signed “Bathurst”. The wife of defendant endorsed the cheque with her name. Plaintiff without any hesitation cashed the cheque – defendant being a customer. On being presented, however, it turned out that no person of that name banked with the London and Westminster Bank. Plaintiff thereupon demanded his £5 back, which was refused by the defendant, hence the present action.

For the defence it was urged that the cheque was sent to get changed at the request of the drawer, who was a person then occupying furnished apartments at defendant`s house, and that plaintiff changed it at his own risk; that the person who wrote the cheque only paid her 33s. due to defendant, and took the rest of the money himself.

His Honour adjourned the case for enquiries to be made with reference to the person who uttered the cheque.

Kentish Gazette 15-12-1863, Dover Chronicle 19-12-1863 

Folkestone County Court, Friday, December 11^th: Before Charles Harwood, Esq., (Judge.)

W. Medhurst v S. Fenn: Claim for £5. Mr Minter appeared for plaintiff. It appeared that some time ago the servant of defendant went to plaintiff’s house, the King’s Arms, and asked for change of a cheque for £5, made payable to self, drawn on the London and Westmin­ster Bank, and signed “Bathurst.” The wife of defendant endorsed the cheque with her name. Plaintiff without any hesitation cashed the cheque, the defendant being a customer. On being presented, however, it turned out that no person of that name banked at the London and West­minster Bank. Plaintiff thereupon demanded his £5 back, which was refused by the defendant, hence the present ac­tion.

For the defence it was urged that the cheque was sent to get changed at the request of the drawer, who was a person then occupying furnished apartments at defen­dant’s house, and that plaintiff changed it at his own risk; that the person who wrote the cheque only paid her 33s. due to defendant, and took the remainder of the money himself.

His Honour adjourned the case for enquiries to be made with reference to the person who uttered the cheque 

Folkestone Chronicle 30-1-1864

Mary Hart and Fanny Hardman were brought up in custody, charged with stealing one pair of boots, the property of Edwin LeButt, from his shop in Broad Street.

Mr. LeButt deposed that on the 26^th instant the prisoner, Fanny Hardman, came into his shop and asked for some boots for Mrs. Lane to look at. Whilst looking out the boots, the prisoner said she was going to the King`s Arms and would call for them on her return, but she did not come back. The same evening Mr. Hart, the pawnbroker, sent for him and showed him a pair of boots, which witness identified as being his; had only two pair of that description in the shop that morning, and had only one pair now; knew them by the private mark on them; they are worth 15s. 6d.

Mr. P. Hart deposed he was a pawnbroker in the High Street. On the evening of the 26^th, the prisoner Hart came into his shop, and producing a new pair of boots, wished to pledge them. Witness having a suspicion of the prisoner detained them, the prisoner saying the owner was outside and she would send her in; she did not return, however, till next morning when she came in and said she had come to give every information that she had received them from the prisoner Fanny Hardman. Witness then sent for a policeman and gave her into custody.

Michael Upton deposed he was assistant to Mr. LeButt, by whose request he had followed the prisoner out of the shop. She did not, however, go near the King`s Arms, but up Church Street. Witness returned, and going up Bayle Street saw the prisoner, who immediately ran down the Bayle steps, when witness lost sight of her.

P.C. Ovenden deposed that he took Mary Hart into custody at Mr. Hart`s shop. She said to witness that the prisoner Hardyman had given her the boots five minutes before she went into the shop to pawn them for her. Witness then proceeded to Hardyman`s lodgings, and taking her into custody brought her to Mr. LeButt, who identified her as the girl who had been in his shop on the previous day. Prisoner was then charged with stealing the boots, and made no reply to it.

The magistrates ultimately discharged the prisoner Mary Hart, and remanded Fanny Hardman until Saturday, the 30^th inst.

Folkestone Observer 6-2-1864

Saturday January 30^th:- Before J. Kelcey and R,W, Boarer Esqs.

Fanny Hardyman was brought up on remand for stealing a pair of boots from the shop of Mr. Edwin Lebutt, Broad Street, valued at 15s 6d.

Edwin Lebutt, bootmaker, keeping a shop in Broad Street, said: The prisoner Fanny Hardyman came to my shop on Tuesday last, the 25^th of January, and obtained from me three pairs of boots at her request, as she stated that she wanted to show them to a Mrs. Lane in Dover Street. She went away with them, and brought them all back. She stated that she wanted another kind of boot and I put up some, which she said she would call for. She then went away, but did not call for the second parcel of boots. I sent my shopman, Michael Upton, to watch the prisoner. Late in the evening Mr. Philip Hart sent for me, and on going to his shop I identified a pair of boots there which belonged to me, and which I had noticed in my shop in the afternoon of the Tuesday before the prisoner came in. I particularly noticed these boots in stocktaking, which I had been doing in the afternoon. The boots now produced are the same I was shown at Mr. Philip Hart`s shop; they are quite the value of 15s. 6d., and were taken from my shop in the afternoon of Tuesday, but were not sold out of the shop. Am able to state decidedly that the boots are mine from the private marks which are made on the soles. I had but two pairs of boots of this particular kind in my possession, and I have the other pair still. When she (prisoner) asked for the second parcel of boots she said she was going to the King`s Arms, and would call for them as she came back. I received the boots from Mr. Philip Hart, and handed them over to Sergeant Newman. The boots now in court are the same I received from Mr. Hart.

Michael Upton, shopman in the employ of Mr. Lebutt, said: On Tuesday last, the 26^th of January, the prisoner came into Mr. Lebutt`s shop and asked for some boots to take to a Mrs. Lane in Dover Street. She had three pairs, and some time after returned with them. I followed the prisoner when she left the shop. She went round several streets, but did not go into Dover Street. I did not lose sight of her from the time she left the shop until she returned to it. On her return to the shop she said the boots were not the sort she wanted. She described what she wanted to Mr. LeButt and asked him to put some up for her by the time she came back: she said she was going to the King`s Arms. I followed her the second time. She didn`t go to the King`s Arms, but ran round Church Street. I went back by Broad Street and met her on The Bayle. As soon as she saw me she started off running again, and went down the Parade steps. I then lost sight of her. The shoes produced belong to Mr. LeButt. I did not sell them out of the shop. I am quite certain she did not go to the King`s Arms, as she stated when she left the shop the second time.

Mary Howett, a domestic servant, but out of situation, said: The prisoner has been a fellow servant of mine. On Tuesday evening, the 26^th of January, about half past 6, I met the prisoner in High Street. She had a pair of boots, which she showed to me, and said she had had them from home, but they were too small for her. She said she could not get home, and that she had no money and asked me to pledge them for her. At her request I took the boots to Mr. Hart`s, the pawnbroker, at the bottom of High Street. On seeing the boots Mr. Hart asked me where I had got them from. I said the owner was outside and I called her in. The prisoner came in, and on Mr. Hart questioning her she ran out of the shop. I did not see her till the next morning. On Wednesday morning I went to Mr. Hart`s, as I had promised him the previous evening that I would. I went with a policeman, and assisted him to discover the prisoner. I was then charged with stealing the boots, but was discharged by the magistrates.

Philip Hart, pawnbroker, keeping a shop at the bottom of High Street, said: On Tuesday evening, the 26^th of January, a pair of boots (the same now produced) were brought to my shop to be pledged by the last witness. Having a suspicion, I retained the boots, and suspected they were stolen from Mr. Edwin LeButt`s shop. I sent for him, and he identified them as his property. The last witness called at my shop on the next morning as she had promised. I marked the boots inside before I parted with them, which enables me to state they are the same which Mary Howett brought to my shop as above stated. I gave the boots to Mr. LeButt.

P.C. Newman said: I produce a pair of boots, which I received from Mr. Edwin LeButt, on Tuesday evening the 26^th of January, which he stated to me had been stolen from his shop.

The prisoner was convicted, and sentenced to 2 months` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-3-1864

Monday March 7^th:- Before Capt. Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M.Leith Esqs.

William Cowen was brought up in custody charged with wilfully and maliciously breaking seven glasses, doing damage to the amount of 2s 6d, being the property of Mr. Wm. Medhurst, of the Kings Arms Inn.

William Medhurst, sworn, deposed he was the landlord of the Kings Arms Inn, and on the last evening, the 6^th instant, prisoner came into his bar. Witness was sitting behind the screen, and presently saw a jug and some glasses come tumbling to the floor; some of the glasses were broken; witness got up and saw the prisoner in the passage; in his hearing Mrs. Medhurst said “This soldier has deliberately knocked the glasses off the counter”; witness put him out of the front door; he kept attempting to strike witness; he just struck witness, but not so as to hurt him; afterwards witness found seven glasses broken, their value is half a crown.

Richard Medhurst, sworn, deposed he was the son of previous witness; corroborated the statement of his father.

Prisoner convicted in 2s 6d for malicious injury, 2s 6d the damage, and 5s 6d costs. Prisoner committed for seven days in default.
 

Folkestone Observer 12-3-1864

Monday March 7^th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

William Cowan, private, 5^th Fusiliers, was charged with wilfully and maliciously breaking seven glasses, the property of Mr. William Medhurst, on the 8^th instant.

William Medhurst, landlord of the King`s Arms, said that last evening about a quarter before 8 o`clock the prisoner came to the bar. He was sitting behind a screen and saw a jug and some glasses come tumbling on the floor, and some were broken. He got up, and saw the prisoner in the passage. In prisoner`s hearing Mrs. Medhurst said to witness “That soldier has deliberately kicked the glasses off the counter”. He repeatedly attempted to strike witness, and did just strike him, but not to hurt him.

Richard Medhurst, son of complainant, saw the prisoner come into the bar and deliberately lift his leg, and sweep some of the glasses off the bar. He was not very drunk.

The magistrates fined prisoner 2s. 6d, with 2s 6d. damages, and 5s. 6d costs, or 7 days` imprisonment. He went to prison.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-9-1865

Saturday September 23^rd:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Mr. Valyer, of Sandgate, and a bus driver in his employ named Jordan were charged with having caused a wilful obstruction in the Sandgate Road on Sept. 19.

The charge against Mr. Valyer was that he allowed his cart to stand for two and a half minutes in the road in front of the King`s Arms stables, and the charge against Jordan was that he allowed his bus to stand with one wheel a foot and a half over the kerb stones, marking the division of Mr. W. Medhurst`s property from the road.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendants and contended that no wilful obstruction, within the meaning of the Act, had been made out in either case, and the bench discharged the defendants with a caution.

Folkestone Observer 30-9-1865

Saturday September 23^rd:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Michael Valyer, fly proprietor, appeared to answer a summons, charging him with causing an obstruction in a public thoroughfare on the 19^th of September.

Mr. Minter for defendant.

Supt. Martin deposed that on Tuesday morning, the 19^th of September, about half past ten, he was in his office in the Hall when the Mayor called him out and directed his attention to a trap which was standing opposite the entrance to the King`s Arms yard, about three feet from the kerb. The Mayor directed him to have it moved, and he went to Mr. Valyer`s man and told him to remove it. He then received an order from the Mayor to summon Mr. Valyer before the magistrates. He saw the trap there about two minutes.

By Mr. Minter – The trap was standing outside the kerb forming the boundary of the private property belonging to the King`s Arms.

Mr. Minter said the case was simple enough. Valyer had driven up from Sandgate to the King`s Arms, where, as was often the case in his business, he found it necessary to change horses, and the yard being filled with traps, and also the space in front of the inn, he left the trap in the road whilst the horses were being changed, and he was returning to have the trap removed when he met Supt. Martin.

He contended there was no wilful obstruction in the meaning of the Act, and called William Philpott, an omnibus driver, who corroborated the statement made by Mr. Minter and said the trap was left standing there two or three minutes only.

After a short discussion the Chairman said the magistrates had taken the case into their consideration, and bearing in mind the narrowness of the street they felt that no obstruction ought to be allowed for any period of time, long or short. They should, however, dismiss the case with a caution, recommending defendant to be careful for the future.

James Jordan, an omnibus driver, was summoned for causing an obstruction at the King`s Arms on the Tuesday previous.

Mr. Minter for defendant.

P.C. Swain deposed that on Tuesday morning his attention was called by the Mayor to an omnibus and two horses which were standing opposite the King`s Arms stables. The horses were eating from their nosebags, and one wheel of the omnibus was about a foot and a half outside the kerb. He saw it standing there a few minutes, and he then went and told the driver, who immediately removed it.

In answer to Mr. Minter, witness said he did not take a rule to measure, but he could tell it was about a foot and a half.

Mr. Minter said a more ridiculous case he had never heard brought before the bench. If they were to be so nice, really the police must be furnished with a rule to measure. But to speak seriously: to come and ask the bench to say that this was an obstruction was absurd in the extreme.

Case dismissed with a caution similar to that given in the previous case.

Southeastern Gazette 16-1-1866

Inquest

On Monday afternoon an inquest was held at the Town Hall, before J. Minter, Esq., the borough coroner, on the body of a man found washing against the rooks of the old pier, Folkestone harbour. The body was that of a well-dressed man, who had not been positively identified.

Mr. W. Medhurst, at the King’s Arms Hotel, stated that the deceased came to his house on Saturday night, and engaged a bed, retiring to his room about half-past nine, apparently with some trouble on his mind. He left in the morning, and witness, on examining his room, found that the bed had evidently not been slept in, while the pillows, which were found to be covered with blood, had been placed on the sofa. There was also blood on the carpet, and in a night commode. The man again made an application for a bed on Sunday evening, but witness told him his room was engaged.

It seems that the prisoner then went to Mr. Powell’s coffee house, Beach- Street, engaged a bed, and left in the morning, leaving an Inverness cape behind him. About two hours afterwards the body was found washing against the old pier, and on being taken out it was found to be quite warm. Means were taken to restore animation, but without effect.

The body was examined by Dr. Fitzgerald, who found a number of wounds on the deceased’s arms which had been caused by the man himself in an attempt to open the larger blood vessels of the arm with a penknife, but they had been made in the wrong places, and there is little doubt that he attempted to commit suicide while he was at the King s Arms. A letter addressed to Mr. Taylor, perfumer, Worcester, was found in the pocket of the Inverness cape. It was found to be written in German, and was signed “Peter Muller.” The letter complained that, owing to some misunderstanding the writer had been unable to gain the affection of a young lady in Worcester, but offered no evidence as to his intention to commit suicide.

The jury returned a verdict of “Found drowned”.

Kentish Gazette 16-1-1866

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, yesterday afternoon work, before J. Minter, Esq.,

the borough coroner, on the body of a well dressed man, name unknown, which was found early on

the same day washing against the rocks near the light­house of the old pier at Folkestone harbour.

The evidence adduced was rather singular in its character, and may afford some clue to the 

identity of the deceased. The body was recognised by Mr. W. Medhurst, landlord of the King’s Arms 

Hotel, as that of a person who came to his house on Saturday night and engaged a bed. His 

manner attracted attention, and he seemed to be in great trouble about something. He went to his

room about 9.30 p.m., after writing a letter, and came down on Sunday morning about eleven 

o’clock, paid for his bed, and went away. Soon after he had gone, Mr. Medhurst’s attention was 

called to the room in which he had passed the night. The bed had not been slept on, but the 

pillows had been taken off and put on the sofa. These were covered with blood. There was also 

blood in the night commode, and spots of blood all over the carpet. The same man came again in 

the even­ing and wanted to sleep there again, but Mr. Medhurst did not like his appearance, and told

him the room was en­gaged. The same evening he called at Powell’s Coffee House, in Beach Street,

had some refreshments, talked to some person for an hour and went to bed. He got up about half-

past seven o’clock on Monday morning and went out while Mr. Powell was busy in his shop. Powell 

asked his wife a question, and she said that the man hail gone for a walk, had left his Inverness 

cape, and would be back in half an hour. He did not return, and in about two hours a body was 

wheeled past on a truck. He looked at it, but failed to recognise the man who had slept at his 

house. The body had been found by a fisherman washing against the rocks under the lighthouse on 

the old pier, and it was quite warm when taken out. Means were taken to restore animation, but 

without effect: and the body was removed to the Dispensary and examined by C. E. Fitzgerald, 

Esq. M.D., who found on the left arm a number of wounds varying in depth, which, in his opinion,

had been caused by the man himself in an attempt to open the larger blood vessels of the arm 

with a penknife, but being ignorant of anatomy they had been made in the wrong places, and there 

is little doubt that he attempted to commit suicide while he was at the King’s Arms. A letter 

addressed to Mr. Taylor, perfumer, Worcester, was found in the pocket of the In­verness cape. For 

the purpose of ascertaining the name of the man, the letter was opened by the Coroner, when it 

was found to be written m German. It was signed ^uPeter Muller,” and that owing to some 

misunderstanding he had been unable to gain the affection of a young lady in Worcester; but 

offered no evidence as to his intention to commit suicide. As there was no evidence to show how 

deceased got into the water, the jury returned an open verdict of Found drowned.   

Kentish Gazette 21-12-1869

On Tuesday last, James Clark, a private in the 10^th Hussars, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, was 

con­victed of stealing an overcoat belonging to a flyman named White, from the King’s Arms stables,

and sentenced to three months hard labour. Prisoner’s defence was that he found it on the dust

 heap of the camp.

Folkestone Express 7-9-1872

Local News

On Saturday evening last the new Licensing Act was the cause of a serious street disturbance in our town. About 11 o`clock a noisy crowd of some 150 persons collected in front of the Pavilion Hotel. The night porter turned the lamps out as soon as possible as a precautionary measure, but some stone throwing took place and he was hit upon the head. The crowd then proceeded to the Rose Hotel, which was luckily shut up, and they were disappointed of a row. The mob was also foiled in their attempts at a breach of the peace at the King`s Arms Inn, which, fortunately, was closed. The roughs then proceeded to Mr. Holden`s house, where they smashed one of the front windows and hooted, after which they proceeded to the West Cliff Hotel, and by this time numbered some 200 or 300 persons. No windows at this hotel were broken, but several persons endeavoured to forcibly enter the stores, but failed, and some light-fingered person purloined the visitors` book. The lamps were turned out and it was, we understand, nearly 12 o`clock before Mr. Howse got rid of the troublesome crowd. Leaving the West Cliff Hotel, the mob, as if not satisfied with their night`s work, next visited the Albion Inn, kept by Mr. Jacob, where Mobocracy ran rampant; the door lamp and the bedroom windows were smashed, and damage done to the amount of £5 or £6. The shutters were pulled down by the mob, and in the fracas which ensued Mr. Jacob was badly bruised in the face with a stone. In order to appease the riotous behaviour of the crowd the landlord supplied them with ale. Some of the party took an empty beer barrel from the back yard and rolled it through several streets, finally leaving it against the wall near the Congregational Chapel, after which they dispersed.

On Sunday night the town was quiet, with the exception of a noisy crowd in Queen`s Square and the lower parts of the neighbourhood, and we are glad to state that no damage was done, the mob confining themselves to singing comic songs “Ole Brewster”, and to joking and jeering each other.

Anothe disturbance and breach of the public peace took place at the Pavilion Hotel at 12 o`clock on Monday night, resulting in a large plate-glass window being broken and some fighting. The police were, we are informed, obliged to make sharp use of their staffs. The names of several ringleaders were taken by the police, but no arrests were made.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25-1-1873

Wednesday, January 22^nd: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Mr. William Medhurst applied for an occasional license authorizing him to keep the King`s Arms Hotel open between the hours of 12 p.m. and 5 a.m. on the night of Wednesday, on the occasion of a ball at the Town Hall. Application granted.

Folkestone Express 20-12-1873

Monday, December 15^th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

A private in the Royal Artillery, named Kennedy, was charged with being drunk and assaulting P.C. Keeler.

From the evidence of the constable, it seems that prisoner was making a noise near the King`s Arms during the small hours on Sunday morning, and on requesting him to go away and be quiet, prisoner shouted “Come up here in the dark, you ----, and I`ll warm you”. Witness then went down Rendezvous Street and prisoner followed him and said “If you don`t come to me, I`ll come to you”, and then struck him with his clenched fist on the back of the head, knocking him down. Witness got up and after two or three scuffles succeeded in locking him up.

Prisoner`s Sergeant was in Court, and said he had only been in the service four or five months, and bore a good character. He had a pass up to six o`clock on Sunday morning. He would be punished on his return to camp for being drunk and exceeding his pass.

The Mayor said as prisoner would be punished on his return to camp, and as the Bench did not think much of the assault, he would be discharged.

Prisoner then left in custody of his Sergeant, evidently surprised and pleased with the decision.
 

Folkestone Express 2-1-1875

Monday, December 28^th: Before J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. William Medhurst, of the King`s Arms, Sandgate Road, applied for leave to open his house for an additional hour on New Year`s Eve. Granted.

Southeastern Gazette 10-5-1875

Local News

At the Police Court a few days since Robert Acton Beresford, a tramp, was oharged with begging in Sandgate Road.

Prisoner went into the King’s Arms and Guildhall Tavern, and told people that he was a cashiered military officer.

Mr. Boarer, before whom prisoner was charged, asked the ex-captain if they did not know each other, to which prisoner replied that he was not aware of it.

He begged to be allowed to leave the town, saying he had a family at Brighton.

He was told that he would be at perfect liberty to go away after he had received the public hospitality for fourteen days, during which period he would be kept to hard labour for the benefit of his health.

The “gallant captain,” who seemed indignant at the degradation he was doomed to undergo, was then removed. 

Folkestone Express 29-1-1876

Wednesday, January 26^th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer and T. Caister Esqs.

Mr. Medhurst, of the King`s Arms Hotel, applied for an extension of time on Thursday, the occasion being a private subscription ball.

Application granted.

Folkestone Express 9-3-1878

Local News

A few days ago we inserted a paragraph relaining to wanton acts of mischief committed by a retriever dog. The same animal has since given further proof of the extraordinary development of his bump of destructiveness. Finding himself confined in the smoking room at the King`s Arms Hotel, he gnawed a hole in the gas pipe. Not succeeding in making his exit by this means, and probably being incommoded by the escape of the noxious element, he with great sagacity turned his attention to the door, in which he also made a hole. The escape of gas was fortunately discovered, otherwise a terrible blow might have been inflicted on the ancient hostelry

Southeastern Gazette 11-3-1878

Local News

A retriever is making itself famous by its development of the spirit of mischief. Among other antics it has recently gnawed a hole in a gas pipe in a smoking-room of the King’s Arms Hotel, and also in the door, effecting his exit from the room by means of the latter. The escape of gas was fortunately discovered before any accident resulted.

 

Folkestone Express 10-8-1878

Wednesday, August 7^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, General Armstrong, and J. Kelcey Esq.

The license of the King`s Arms Hotel was transferred from Mr. William Medhurst to Mr. Richard Medhurst

Southeastern Gazette 24-8-1878

Corporation Meeting Extract

A correspondence was read from Mr. Richard Medhurst in reference to his intention of rebuilding the King’s Arms Hotel, and asking the sum of £4,000 for a piece of land to be given up to the town for the purpose of widening Guildhall Street. After some discussion the matter was referred to a committee empowered to make arrangements with Mr. Medhurst, and report back.

Southeastern Gazette 21-9-1878

Corporation Meeting

The King’s Arms

The Council was occupied for some considerable time in discussing the proposed widening of Guildhall Street, in the event of Mr. Medhurst pulling down and rebuilding the King’s Arms. A committee had been appointed to consider the matter, and they recommended the council to prescribe certain lines in Guildhall Street and the Sandgate Road, and to submit to arbitration the proposal to take over a certain portion of Mr. Medhurst’s land. It was stated that Mr. Medhurst had asked a very much larger sum than the corporation thought it was worth, and therefore the only resource was to refer the matter to a jury. The recommendation of the committee was adopted. Another resolution empowering the committee to appoint a valuer to value the land, and to offer the amount to Mr. Medhurst, was also carried.

 

Folkestone Express 19-7-1879

Wednesday, July 16^th: Before Captain Crowe and J. Fitness Esq.

Thomas Foster was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Sandgate Road on Tuesday, and with assaulting P.C. Sharpe in the execution of his duty.

P.C. Sharpe said about 20 minutes past five he was sent for to go to the King`s Arms. He saw the prisoner in front of the King`s Arms, helloing and shouting. His face was bleeding. He tried to persuade defendant to leave, but he said he would not until he found out who hit him. As he would not go, witness took him into custody. When they reached the middle of the road defendant kicked him and tried to throw him down. He obtained assistance, and defendant, who was extremely violent, was secured.

Sergeant Ovenden said the defendant was drunk and in a very excited state.

Defendant said he was excited by having been struck by someone. He was well known in the town, having supplied most of the publicans in the town with trade utensils for some years.

He was dismissed with a caution.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22-11-1879

Notice

Notice is hereby given that the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Folkestone, in the County of Kent, acting by the Council of the said Borough, as the Urban Sanitary Authority for so much of the said Borough as is not included within the Local Government District of Sandgate, [the same being under the Public Health Act, 1875, a separate Urban District, under the jurisdiction, for the purposes of the said Public Health Act, 1875, of the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses as the authority for executing The Folkestone Improvement Act, 1855] in pursuance of the 176^th section of the Public Health Act, 1875, intend to present a petition, under their Corporate Seal to the Local Government Board for an order and authority to put in force with reference to certain Lands, Buildings and hereditaments within their district, required for the several undertakings hereinafter described, the powers of The Land Clauses Consolidation Acts, 1845, 1860, and 1869, with respect to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement.

The nature of the said several undertakings, and the quantity of land required for, and in connection with the same respectively, are as follows, namely

No. 1: Guildhall Street and Sandgate Road Improvement

The altering, widening and improving Guildhall Street and Sandgate Road, and for the purposes of such improvement the acquisition of the whole of the property known as The King`s Arms Hotel, with the Stabling, Yards, Land, Outhouses and appurtenances thereto, belonging to Richard Medhurst, jun., and in the occupation of himself and Michael Pierrepoint Valyer, jun.

The quantity of land required for and in connection with this undertaking is 1210 superficial yards or thereabouts

Folkestone Chronicle 4-12-1880

Town Council Meeting Extract

Wednesday, 1^st December.

The next business was “To consider claim of Mr. R. Medhurst for the value of the King`s Arms Hotel, compensation, and as to offer. To appoint an arbitrator, and to affix seal of his appointment, and as to evidence to be obtained, and business in relation thereto”.

Ald. Hoad suggested they should have a small committee to report back, and he would name The Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Mr. Dunk.

The Town Clerk said the matter must now be adjourned, as the necessary communications had not been received from the solicitors in the affair.

Mr. Pledge said that he should certainly enter a protest against a small committee, and should propose that the whole Council should deal with the matter. E should deem, if this business was relegated to three men, that a slight had been put upon the rest of the Council.

Mr. Coules expressed a similar opinion.

Ultimately it was agreed that this business should, when ready for consideration, come before the whole of the Council.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-12-1880

Editorial

The negotiation between the Council and the proprietor of the King`s Arms Hotel has at length reached the practical stage, and we are in hopes that the great improvement to the town involved in the purchase of this property is not far off. On Monday evening a Special Meeting of the Council was held, when Mr. Medhurst`s claim was made, which is given in our report of the meeting, and it was unanimously agreed that the matter should be decided by arbitration. We are glad to state that in view of these proceedings the Corporation – with one exception – maintained a judicious silence as to the amount claimed. For the same reason we must decline to discuss the subject, with the exception of saying that Mr. Medhurst, not yet having developed into a celestial being, and still having the elements of human nature about him, has done what everyone else would under the circumstances, and asked for substantial compensation for valuable property forced by the Corporation upon the market.

The value of the property will now be thoroughly argued in an Arbitration Court, and we feel confident that Mr. Medhurst will have awarded to him a just and equitable compensation.

Corporation and Council Meetings

A special meeting of the Corporation was held on Monday evening last, the chief business of which was to consider the claim of Mr. Richard Medhurst for the value of the King`s Arms Hotel, lands, and premises, and compensation, &c., and as to steps to be taken, and offer to be made, and as to reference and arbitration, and as to the evidence to be obtained, and generally in relation thereto, and to make orders, and secondly to appoint an arbitrator, and to affix seal to such appointment.

The Mayor said that this matter, which had occupied their attention so long, had now advanced another stage. They should approach the subject in a calm and judicial mind. Let them face the issue before them, and as most of them knew by report the nature of the demands put in, they would, as men of business, dismiss that from their minds, and act on facts and facts alone, with the object of doing justice to both parties.

The Twon Clerk read the statement of claim put in by Mr. Medhurst, for which he claimed for his property and compensation £25,000. Having traced the matter until the present issue, the Town Clerk said that the course to be pursued would now be for the Corporation to consider the amount to be offered, and in the event of non-acceptance, to go to arbitration.

Mr. Medhurst, on his part, had nominated Mr. Ellis as his arbitrator, a gentleman well qualified for this position, and on the part of the Corporation, Mr. Vigors had been strongly recommended by those to whom he had applied for a competent arbitrator. On the motion of Ald. Sherwood, seconded by Ald. Hoad, these arbitrators were unanimously accepted, whose decision would be submitted to an Umpire.
 

Folkestone Chronicle 22-1-1881

A Special Meeting of the Corporation was held on Monday night, the business being to receive the report and certificate of the valuers (on the part of the Corporation), and of the Town Clerk as to the offer to be made to Mr. Richard Medhurst for the purchase, and as compensation, for the property and interest in the King`s Arms Hotel.

The Town Clerk stated that he had communicated with the witnesses, all of whom had examined the premises. On Friday they met in London for the purpose of consulting as to the amount which should be offered as compensation. The Mayor said they would remember that on the last occasion he asked them to take no notice of the amount claimed by Mr. Medhurst, as it had no bearing on the real value of the place. They had taken the opinion of four or five eminent men, and the sum they advised the Corporation to offer was such a one as they could fairly stand upon. The Town Clerk said that he had received notice from Mr. Medhurst stating he had appointed Mr. J.W. Ellis to act as his arbitrator, and he (the Town Clerk) had arranged with Mr. Vigor to act for the Corporation.

The certificate of the valuers was then read, advising the sum of £8,000 to be offered to Mr. Medhurst, and which was signed by Messrs. J. Tootell, J. Orgell, R. Read, E. Rye, G.W. Haynes, and W.E. Springall. The Town Clerk said that if he had tried everywhere he could not have selected better men, and when the matter was mentioned to Mr. Vigor he said they had got first-rate and able men.

Ald. Hoad moved, and Mr. Holden seconded, that amount be offered to Mr. Medhurst, which was unanimously carried; also one appointing Mr. Vigor arbitrator to the Corporation.

Folkestone Express 22-1-1881

Local News

The Kentish Post, published July 24^th, 1731, contained the following advertisement:

The King`s Arms in Folkestone, in the County of Kent, with about 18 acres of meadow land, with a very good garden, being a very good accustom`d house, lately in the occupation of Mr. Richard Vierrier, and now in the occupation of his widow to Michaelmas next. Enquire of Mr. Jacob Wraight, of Folkestone.

Southeastern Gazette 24-1-1881

Council Meeting

A special meeting of the corporation was held on Monday evening, the Mayor presiding, to receive the report and certificate of the valuers (on the part of the corporation), and of the Town Clerk as to the offer to be made to Mr. Richard Medhurst for the purchase, and as compensation for his property and interest in the King’s Arms Hotel.

The Town-clerk explained the course of the proceedings which had been taken by him in consulting witnesses who had been to see the property, and who had on Friday last met together in London.

The Mayor wished to remind the council that he had told them on a former occasion to take no notice of the offer made by Mr. Medhurst, as it had really nothing to do with the final result as to the value of the property, and he thought they had, in the report about to be read, sum to offer that they might really atand by.

The Town Clerk, resuming, said that he received from Mr. Medhurst, on the 6th inst., a notice of the appointment of Mr. Alderman Ellis as his arbitrator, and the arbitrator for the corporation was Mr. Robert Vigors.

The report and certificate of the valuers was then read, recommending that the Mayor and corporation should offer £8,000 as compensation for the property and loss of business to Mr. Medhurst. The document was signed by the valuers, Messrs. J. Tootall, W. Orgill, R. Reed, E. Ryde, G. W. Haines, and W.E. Springall.

The Town Clerk added that he thought he could not have selected gentlemen more capable to value the property, and Mr. Vigors was of the same opinion.

Alderman Hoad proposed, and Councillor Holden seconded, that the sum of £8,000 be offered. The Mayor made a few remarks, urging upon the members to confine themselves to the recommendation of the valuers, and to stand or fall by their offer

The resolution was carried unanimously, and the corporate seal was affixed to the appointment of Mr. Robert Vigors as the arbitrator on the part of the corporation.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 14-5-1881

Editorial

The King`s Arms arbitration case is the subject of local importance which occupies the attention of the week. We regret the case has ever gone to litigation, and we are inclined to think the ratepayers must look and feel “glum” – a vulgar and expressive word – when they contemplate the expenses which must be involved in the legal lights engaged on this occasion. How this should teach Corporations to avoid litigation if possible. Of course we do not presume to offer any comment upon the evidence given, and which one paper devoted much of it`s space to reporting. We have consistently maintained throughout that Mr. Medhurst should have substantial compensation for property that the Corporation insist upon his parting with. People who have shares in the Bathing Establishment, or property contiguous to the South Eastern Railway would be very tenacious of their rights if they were forced to part with them, and few, we imagine, amongst the most immaculate of our townsmen would be above asking for a fancy price.

What necessity is there for all this litigation? There needed to be only two parties to the contract – one meeting the other in as liberal a spirit as possible, considering the circumstances under which the claim is made. As it is, we think the ratepayers will have the opportunity of seeing the lawyers swallow the nicest, plumpest, and well-seasoned oyster they have ever in the course of their profession come across.

The King`s Arms Arbitration

On Thursday week the case of the Corporation of Folkestone v Medhurst came on for hearing at the Institute of Surveyors, London, before John Clutton Esq. (Umpire). Mr. Webster Q.C., and Mr. Biron (instructed by Mr. Minter) appeared for the claimant, and Mr. Philbrick Q.C., and Mr. Pitt Lewis for the Corporation. After Counsel had been heard and the evidence of Mr. Medhurst and other witnesses taken, the enquiry was adjourned until Friday next.

Southeastern Gazette 25-6-1881

Local News

In reference to the King’s Arms arbitration, in which the Corporation of Folkestone compulsorily acquire the King’s Arms Inn for purposes of street improvement, the umpire, Mr. Clutton, has awarded the owner and occupier £11,000, and the whole of the costs of the arbitration will fall on the council.

Kentish Gazette 28-6-1881 

King`s Arms Arbitration: The Town Clerk on Monday proceeded to London, and took up the award. The amount the Corporation is to pay as compensation to Mr. Medhurst is £11,000. Mr. Medhurst`s costs are also being paid by the Corporation.

Folkestone Chronicle 9-7-1881

It is with deep regret we record the death of Mr. William Medhurst, late proprietor of the King`s Arms, in his 60<sup>th</sup> year, who, after a painful and somewhat lingering illness, expired on Saturday afternoon last. Amongst all classes of the community Mr. Medhurst was greatly esteemed. Indeed the hotel which he kept was more associated in the minds of those who frequented it with the idea of the kind-hearted, genial landlord than by it`s name, for Mr. Medhurst was one of those few men who. By their courteous and generous disposition make friends with all and enemies with none. For the many years that he kept the King`s Arms he was intimately identified with all movements which minister pleasure to the inhabitants and visitors. The cricket club, for instance, (at a time when Folkestone boasted of a club that did credit to the town), the local races, in the promotion of balls, in the superintendence of dinners, &c., on public occasions. When he retired from the hotel, the host of friends whom he had made hoped that he would have many years of happy ease before him, but it was not to be, and amidst the regrets of all, and especially the seven children he leaves behind him and his relatives, he was buried in the Cemetery on Thursday beside his wife, who preceded him to the grave by a few years, carrying with her equal respect and regret. The esteem with which Mr. Medhurst was held was seen by the representatives of all classes which attended his funeral on Thursday, and who mourned the loss of an old inhabitant, and a consistent, upright, true hearted man, who will long be held in regretful memory.

A special meeting of the Corporation was held on Wednesday last.

The King`s Arms

The next notice on the agenda paper was “To receive the reward of the unpire in the matter of the King`s Arms arbitration, and to consider the steps to be taken in relation thereto, and as to purchasing the property and providing of ways and means”.

The Town Clerk said he had been to London and taken up the award, which he read to the meeting, and which offered the proprietor of the King`s Arms £11,000, The necessary course now to carry into effect that decision was to obtain an abstract of the title, to communicate with the Local Government Inspector, and then arrangements could be made and the money immediately paid over, and the property must be given over.

The Mayor: Does the money include the valuation?

The Town Clerk said everything; stock, fixtures, house and land. It did not include costs, as Mr. Medhurst had got more than he was offered. They paid him compensation for the removal of the stock.

Mr. Robinson suggested that when they issued notices for the Debenture bonds they should have the law costs included.

The Town Clerk said that would be the case when they would be in a position to know the amount they would have to pay and to borrow.

Mr. Pledge said that he understood that the Town Clerk meant we had not the stock and furniture, but only the freehold. He wished to know whether it included the fixtures?

The Town Clerk said as he had intimated before, that compensation included everything, fixtures, license and building. When they went over stock and fixtures it was agreed to give Mr. Medhurst compensation for their removal.

In answer to a persistent enquiry by Mr. Pledge, the Town Clerk said they would see by the schedule that the fixtures would be arranged by agreement between the incoming and outgoing tenant.

The Mayor said that Mr. Pledge, as a man of business in this particular line, he should be acquainted with that fact by instinct. (Laughter)

Ald. Caister said they should get possession as soon as possible to avoid expense.

On the motion of Ald. Caister, seconded by Ald. Sherwood, the award was accepted.

Folkestone Express 9-7-1881

Local News

We have to record the death of our old and much respected townsman, Mr. William Medhurst, for many years proprietor of the King`s Arms Hotel, who, after a lingering illness, expired at the age of 60 on Saturday last. The funeral took place on Thursday, and was attended by a large number of the deceased`s friends.

Southeastern Gazette 9-7-1881

Local News

The Folkestone Corporation have decided to accept the award in the King’s Arms arbitration case, by which they will have to pay £11,000, and the costs of both sides in the case. The matter was referred to at the last meeting of the corporation, when the Town Clerk said he went to London and took up the award, and the course now to pursue was to carry that award into effect, unless either party differed on the subject and tried to upset it. So far as he had heard, Mr. Medhurst had no such intention, and the course would be this: to call upon him to produce an abstract of his title, and, upon that being found satisfactory, to apply to the Local Government Board to send down an Inspector to make the necessary inquiry, in order that power might be granted the corporation to borrow the necessary money.

In answer to the Mayor, the Town Clerk said the award included everything, excepting the costs which followed the event.

Alderman Sherwood said he thought they must accept the decision of the umpire as final. Mr. Robinson hoped when they raised the money they would know the amount of costs, so that the whole sum could be borrowed at one time.

The Town Clerk said that would be so. At the same time he did not contemplate the necessity of borrowing all the £11,000, for by arrangement they could sell the land they did not require, and deduct the proceeds from the amount to be borrowed.

Mr. Pledge asked whether, when the Town Clerk said the award included stock, fixtures, and fittings, it meant everything as it stood, or did the award merely cover the freehold and the licence?

The Town Clerk said all they would get was the land the place was built upon, the fixtures, and the licence. What he meant to convey was, that the award included a sum as compensation for the removal of the stock and furniture.

Alderman Sherwood moved that the necessary steps be taken to carry out the award, and that application be made to the Local Government Board for permission to borrow the money. Alderman Caister seconded, and the motion was agreed to.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17-9-1881

The King`s Arms Hotel

On Tuesday morning, Major Tulloch, Inspector of the Local Government Board, held an enquiry at the Town Hall, relative to an application by the Corporation to borrow £14,000 for the purchase of the above named hotel. There were present Aldermen Caister, Banks, and Sherwood, and the own Clerk. The Town Clerk stated that the Arbitrators wanted £11,000, and he estimated the law costs at £3,000. In answer to questions by Alderman Banks, the Inspector said the Corporation were compelled to resell the property, but he thought the Corporation could erect a market thereon, by consent of the Local Government Board. The Town Clerk stated that he had not yet received a statement of claimant`s costs, although he had applied for them, and the Inspector stated that he thought the Board would require the Law expenses to be taxed. With regard to borrowing the required money, the inspector advised a temporary arrangement with the bankers of the Corporation, on an extension of the Board that they would be willing to grant such sum as they might require. The Board would not sanction a loan of £11,000. It was against an absolute rule. The loans would be granted in two sums, one for that portion intended to be resold, and one for that to be retained. In answer to the Town Clerk, the Inspector said he saw no objection to the Corporation borrowing £11,000 for six months, to be borrowed temporarily from the bankers. It was agreed after a long discussion between the Inspector and the Town Clerk that the application should be for permission for a loan of £11,000, on the understanding that the amount actually required should be lent for 30 years, and in the meantime an exact statement of account should be sent in.

Southeastern Gazette 17-9-1881

Local News

Major Hector Tulloch on Monday held an enquiry at the Town Hall, Folkestone, into an application by the Town Council for sanction to borrow £14,000 for the purpose of street improvement, the purchase of the King’s Arms Inn and the widening of Guildhall Street being the main object for which the money is required. A long discussion as to the propriety of the loan took place between Major Tulloch and the Town Clerk, and it was stated by the former that the Local Government Board would require a detailed statement of the taxed costs in the matter of the Kings. Arms Inn arbitration before they oould grant permission for £3,000 to be borrowed for the purpose of paying them. Consequently the application for the present must be confined to £11,000 and here again there was the objection, that if the corporation sold the land not required for the improvement, and it became necessary for all £6,000 to be borrowed, it would leave £5,000 at the disposal of the corporation which they might be disposed to devote to other purposes, and therefore the Local Government Board would probably decline to sanction the loan for this amount. Major Tulloch suggested an arrangement with the bank, and in reply to Mr. Harrison said he had not the slightest objection to recommend a loan of £11,000 for six months, but he did not think the board would do so, as it was unusual. Personally he saw no objection to it on the condition that at the end of that time the proceeds of the sale were immediately repaid and a detailed statement of the loan required sent in, its repayment to extend over 30 years. It was mentioned in the course of the enquiry that of the present King’s Arms Inn site of 10,704 feet, 3,100 feet is to be thrown into the road leaving 7,604 feet super to be resold for building purposes.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-12-1881

Auction Advertisement

King`s Arms Hotel, Folkestone

Notice of Auction Sale of the whole of the valuable stock, untensils-in-trade, and household furniture of the above old-established Hotel.

T.J. Harrison has been favoured with instructions from Mr. Richard Medhurst jun. (in consequence of his hotel being taken over by the Corporation of Folkestone) to Sell by Auction on Tuesday Decem. 20^th and 21^st the whole of the useful household furniture, stock, and utensils-in-trade of the above old established Hotel.

The furniture comprises iron bedsteads, beds and bedding, large quantity of mahogany frame and other chairs, couches, mahogany and deal tables, dinner wagons, sideboards, Brussels, tapestry, and other carpets, fenders, fire irons, and the usual kitchen and cooking utensils, several prints and engravings, Kent`s refrigerator, excellent full compass pianoforte in mahogany case by Hopkinson, also the contents of a well arranged billiard room, comprising nearly new billiard table by Cox and Yeaman, with all balls, cues, markers, &c., deal seats in American leather, mahogany frame chairs, couches, &c. The stock consists of Old Vintage Ports, Sherry, Marsala, Champagne, Hocks, Moselle, Spirits, Cordials, Cigars, &c. The utensils-in-trade comprise a large assortment of glass, plated goods, dinner, tea, breakfast and dessert services, and all the requisites for carrying on the business of an hotel.

The whole will be fully particularised in Catalogues, to be obtained at the Offices of the Auctioneer, 14, Guildhall Street, Folkestone.

Goods on view, Monday, December 19^th, between the hours of 10 and 5 o`clock.

Sales each day at twelve o`clock.

Local News

On Thursday evening, a very gratifying testimonial was presented to Mr. Richard Medhurst, landlord of the King`s Arms Hotel, by a number of his personal friends, to mark the occasion of his leaving the Hotel, with which himself and family have been so long and honourably connected. The parting gift consisted of a large and handsomely mounted timepiece, with chimney ornaments, and in the presence of a circle of Mr. Medhurst`s personal friends, the presentation was made, the gentleman deputed to perform the pleasing duty making a few appropriate remarks, which were heartily endorsed by all present. He said that that slight memento of esteem was the outcome of general admiration of Mr. Richard Medhurst, who, for the time he had been landlord of that hotel, had displayed those pleasing features of character which had made his father so generally popular and esteemed in Folkestone. In taking their final leave of the King`s Arms – which they did that night – they were separating their connection with an hostelry which was a link, connecting the past and present of Folkestone. However, they hoped, they had not seen the last of the landlord. When a man was generally esteemed, as in the present case, they had a longing desire to know where he was going, what was to become of him, the new home that he was to make, the fresh circle of friends of which he was to become the centre, or part. Well, he, the speaker, trusted that the son of William Medhurst would remain in Folkestone, but if he, in the course of life, was called elsewhere, that clock would accompany him to remind him of the friends that he had left behind, and to recall many happy associations as pleasant to the recipient as they were to the givers. The paw of the Corporation having clutched within its claws what they must now look upon as an ancient building, the old landmark of Sandgate Road would soon be swept away, and not even the tail of a rat – proverbial in natural history for deserting a – he would not say sinking but a departing ship – would remain behind. One thing, however, would remain, and that was their happy reminiscences of the place of the good old sire, and the genial and straightforward son, and in the name of old inhabitants and fervent friends he begged to present him with that slight memento of esteem, coupled with the most earnest wishes that himself, wife, and family, wherever they went, may be swept into the harbour of prosperity on the tide of their good wishes.

Mr. Richard Medhurst, who was received with loud applause, in a few feelingly expressed sentences stated his gratification on receiving that mark of their regard. Few, whatever their positions, or wherever their lot may be cast, could escape enemies, or the voice of censure. It was his happy lot, however, to reflect that if he had foes he did not know where to look for them, but, on his leaving the old place, he had abundant proofs of the number of friends he possessed, and that testimonial would ever happily remind him of the fact, and wherever he might go would be the ornament of his home and the pride of his life.