Licensees
William Ford 1848 1853 From
Pavilion Shades
Richard Hughes 1853 c1858
Spencer Hayward c1858 c1861 (1861 Census)
George Hammond c1861 1868
John Smith 1868 1869
Richard White 1869 1869
Later Martello
Thomas Parkes 1869 1870 To
Druids Arms
John Williams 1870 1871
Thomas Cobb 1871 1872 From
West Cliff Shades. To Alexandra Tavern
George Wright 1872 1873
Later Albion Hotel
Stephen Woolett 1873 1873
Roger Williams 1873 1874
Charles Collins 1874 1874
William Collins 1874 1875
Richard Back 1875 1889
Richard Lee 1889 1890
Henry Gower 1890 1893
Renamed Clarence Hotel
Folkestone Chronicle 29-6-1867 had a bankruptcy report of a John Wallis (ex New Inn)
Maidstone Gazette
12-9-1848
Thursday
– Licensing day; Before the Mayor and a full Bench of Magistrates.
All
the old licenses were renewed without opposition, and the following new ones
granted: William Larkins, late of the Old Shakespeare, corner of Shellons Lane,
for the New Shakespeare, Grace Hill; Edward Iverson, Tramway Tavern, Radnor
Street; Peter Wm. Foord, New Inn, Mill Lane.
Notes: Tramway Tavern and New Inn transfers are later date. New
Shakespeare is a previously unknown house.
Maidstone Gazette
24-6-1851
Petty
Sessions, Wednesday; Before R. Hart Esq. Mayor, D. Major and W. Major Esqs.
John
Dennis appeared to answer the complaint of Richard Earl, for an assault. From
the evidence adduced, it appeared that the complainant went with defendant to
settle some business at the New Inn, and there quarrelled, that the complainant
left the house, and the defendant followed and struck him. The magistrates,
after having heard witnesses for both parties, dismissed the case.
Southeastern Gazette
11-10-1853
Inquest
On Wednesday morning, John Bean, one of the borough police,
died suddenly. A report was prevalent that the deceased had been injured in
taking a drunken man to the station-house. Mr. Eastes, surgeon, and who is also
the coroner, was sent for and attended; he found that the poor man had just
died, and from examination and enquiry he could not ascertain the cause of
death. Having heard the report of the supposed injury, he caused a post mortem
examination to be made.
On Thursday an inquest was held at the New Inn, before
Silvester Eastes, Esq., on the body of John Bean, aged 33. The Mayor was
present to hear the proceedings.
Eliza Bean, wife of the deceased, deposed: On Tuesday
morning my husband complained to me of feeling very sore and stiff in his
limbs. I thought he had hurt himself; he said also he was very cold ; he went
again on duty and came home soon after twelve o’clock; he said he was very
poorly but the went again on duty and came home soon after four o’clock, when
he said he was not going on duty again that night. He had got some pills from
Mr. Hammon, the chemist, which he took and went to bed; he continued poorly
throughout the night. At about ten o’clock I gave him some gruel; he then
complained of a pain across his forehead; he went to sleep till about two
o’clock, when he got up and went downstairs, observing that he thought by
moving about the pain would be removed. Have seen him several times in a
similar way. At about half-past two he vomited a little, and complained of
tightness across his chest. He was perfectly sensible and quite warm. A little
after four o’clock I heard a rattling noise in his throat, and shortly
afterwards he expired.
By the Mayor: My husband complained that the man he lifted
was very heavy; he did not say that he had received a blow from him.
Mr. Peter Roscow, surgeon, detailed the result of the post
mortem examination; he said he found the liver and spleen double the natural
size; the bowels were healthy, and by the appearance of one of the lungs
adhering to his side, the deceased must have suffered much. The heart and brain
were healthy; the liver was healthy in structure, but large in size. Mr. Roscow,
having fully explained to the jury the appearances of the various organs,
expressed his opinion that the deceased died from natural causes; he thought it
probable that he had caught cold, and not seeking proper advice m time,
congestion of the lungs took place and caused his death.
By a Juror: The pills supplied by Mr. Hammon were of the
usual kind, and contained nothing deleterious.
Verdict, “Natural death.”
Mr, Ford, from the office of Mr. Hart, clerk to the
Justices, addressing the coroner and jury, stated that the magistrates of the
borough being desirous that the cause of death of one of their servants should
be ascertained with certainty, he had received instructions to attend and watch
the proceedings on their part.
Maidstone Journal
11-10-1853, Kentish Mercury 15-10-1853
Some
degree of excitement was prevalent in this town, on Wednesday last, in
consequence of the sudden death of policeman John Bean, it being currently
stated that the deceased had been injured by a person he had taken into custody
for some petty offence; we are, however, glad to say that the medical evidence
taken at the inquest holden on the body, which we subjoin, quite exonerated the
person from all participation in the death, it being proved to be entirely the
result of chronic disease.
The
inquest was holden at the New Inn, on the 6th inst., before
Silvester Eastes Esq., coroner, and a respectable jury. Mr. Edward Bailey
having been appointed foreman, the jury proceeded to view the body, after which
the following evidence was given:
Eliza
Bean deposed she was the wife of deceased. Her late husband first complained to
her on Tuesday morning; he said he thought he had over exerted himself; in the
morning he was shivering, but still he went on duty. Saw him again at noon; he
was not cold then, but complained of thirst; he went on duty in the afternoon,
but returned and got some tea a little after 4. He said he was not going on
duty that night. He took some medicine, and went to bed before 5. About 10 took
him some tea and gruel, when he complained of a pain in his head. About 12 he
went to sleep, and continued quiet until half past 2, when he was very sick
once or twice; witness then went to sleep, and was awoke about a quarter past 4
by a rattling in the throat of deceased. Called a lodger named Richard Luck,
who immediately sent for Mr. Eastes, surgeon, but he died before Mr. Eastes
arrived. The deceased had not complained of ill usage to witness.
The
coroner here stated that he came immediately, and found the deceased dead. From
what he saw he had not died from cholera, nor could he, from appearances,
imagine the cause of death. Mrs. Bean told him she thought he was injured. To
remove any wrong impression he had thought it best to order a post mortem
examination to be made, which had been done, and the evidence of the medical
man would be placed before them.
Peter
Roscow deposed that at 5 o`clock on Wednesday morning he was called to the
deceased`s house; the deceased was then dead, but the body was warm. The only
thing that called his attention was a discolouration under the thighs and lower
part of the back, which he believed arose from natural causes. At 3 p.m. he
made a post mortem examination. The first thing thst struck hum was the
extraordinary bulk of the liver, which was double its usual size. The spleen
was also two or three times the natural size. The bowels were also in their usual
state. The stomach was much congested. The other organs were healthy; the right
lung adhered to the side throughout, but both lungs were healthy, although much
congested and filled with blood. The heart and brain were healthy. The cause of
death was long-standing chronic disease of the liver and spleen, superadded to
cold affecting the mucous membrane.
Verdict:
Died by the visitation of God.
Mr.
Ford, from Mr. Hart, clerk to the justices, stated that he had attended by
direction of the justices, who were anxious to remove any impression which
might have arisen in the minds of the public with reference to the sudden death
of the policeman.
Dover Chronicle
15-10-1853
On
Wednesday morning week, John Bean, one of the Borough policemen, died suddenly.
A report was prevalent that the deceased had been injured in taking a drunken
man to the station house. Mr. Eastes, surgeon, and who is also the coroner. Was
sent for and attended; he found that the poor man had just died, and from
examination and enquiry he could not ascertain the cause of death. Having heard
the report of the supposed injury, he caused a post mortem examination to be
made.
On
Thursday an inquest was held at the New Inn, before Silvester Eastes Esq., on
the body of John Bean, aged 33. The Mayor was present to hear the proceedings.
Eliza Bean, wife of the deceased, deposed:- On Tuesday
morning my husband complained to me of feeling very sore and stiff in his
limbs. I thought he had hurt himself; he said also he was very cold; he went
again on duty and came home soon after twelve o’clock; he said he was very
poorly but he went again on duty and came home soon after four o’clock, when he
said he was not going on duty again that night. He had got some pills from Mr.
Hammon, the chemist, which he took and went to bed; he continued poorly
throughout the night. At about ten o’clock I gave him some gruel; he then
complained of a pain across his forehead; he went to sleep till about two
o’clock, when he got up and went downstairs, observing that he thought by
moving about the pain would be removed. Have seen him several times in a
similar way. At about half-past two he vomited a little, and complained of
tightness across his chest. He was perfectly sensible and quite warm. A little
after four o’clock I heard a rattling noise in his throat, and shortly
afterwards he expired.
By
the Mayor: My husband complained that the man he lifted was very heavy; he did
not say that he had received a blow from him.
Mr. Peter Roscow, surgeon, detailed the result of the
post mortem examination; he said he found the liver and spleen double the
natural size; the bowels were healthy, and by the appearance of one of the
lungs adhering to his side, the deceased must have suffered much. The heart and
brain were healthy; the liver was healthy in structure, but large in size. Mr.
Roscow, having fully explained to the jury the appearances of the various
organs, expressed his opinion that the deceased died from natural causes; he
thought it probable that he had caught cold, and not seeking proper advice in
time, congestion of the lungs took place and caused his death.
By a Juror: The pills supplied by Mr. Hammon were of
the usual kind, and contained nothing deleterious.
Verdict, “Natural death.”
Mr.
Ford, from the office of Mr. Hart, clerk to the Justices, addressing the
coroner and jury, stated that the magistrates of the borough being desirous
that the cause of death of one of their servants should be ascertained with
certainty, he had received instructions to attend and watch the proceedings on
their part.
Southeastern Gazette
1-11-1853
Thursday, October 27th: Before W. Smith and W.
Major, Esqs.
The license granted to Peter William Foord to keep the New
Inn, was transferred to Henry Hughes.
Southeastern Gazette
20-6-1854
Wednesday, June 14th: Before the Mayor, J,
Kingsnorth and G. Kennicott, Esqs.
George Garland, a plasterer, and Richard William Nichols, in
the employ or the. South Eastern Railway Company, were summoned by the
superintendent of police, for a breach of the peace at the New Inn, Mill-lane,
on Whit-Monday.
Bound over to be of good behavior for three months.
Southeastern
Gazette 22-8-1854
Notice: Insolvent debtor, to be heard at the Sessions
House, Maidstone, before the Judge of the County Court of Kent, on Tuesday, the
5th day of September, 1854, at twelve o`clock at noon precisely.
Peter William Foord, formerly of Mill Lane, Folkestone,
Kent, carpenter and builder; then of the New Inn, Mill Lane aforesaid, licensed
victualler, and carpenter, builder and undertaker; then of No. 5, Great Warner
Street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, out of business or employ; and then and late of
Hythe, out of business or employ.
Charles Morgan, Maidstone, Inselvent`s Attorney.
Southeastern
Gazette 12-9-1854
Kent County Court, Maidstone, Tuesday: Before J.
Epinasse Esq., Judge.
Insolvent: Peter William Foord, formerly of the New
Inn, Folkestone, and late of Hythe, out of business or employ, was supported by
Mr. Reed, barrister, and opposed by Mr. Goodwin, solicitor, on the part of the
detaining creditors, Messrs. Leney, of Wateringbury. The grounds of opposition
were that the insolvent had given undue preference to several of his creditors,
contracted debts without reasonable expectation of paying them, made away with
property, and vexatiously defended an action, and also that his balance sheet
was defective. After the insolvent had undergone a lengthened examination, His
Honour said it was the weakest case of opposition he ever heard, and ordered
him his discharge.
Canterbury
Weekly Journal 14-4-1855
William Jessup was brought up at the Petty Sessions
last week, charged by William Larkins, under-bailiff of the County Court, with
having in his possession a pony, which he, the complainant had distrained for
rent by virtue of his warrant. It appeared that Larkins went to a stable near
North Street, in the occupation of a Mr. Crumby, to distrain for ground rent
due to Mr. Puttie. In the stable was a pony, which Larkins distrained upon, and
he was in the act of fastening up the door when he was prevented by Crumby, who
pushed him away. The pony was afterwards found in Jessup`s stable, who claimed
it as his own; it was, however, taken by the police and put into the New Inn
stables, from whence it was stolen.
Jessup, in his defence, said he had bought the pony
three months before of Crumby, to whom he had lent it.
The case was adjourned for the production of further
evidence.
Since then the pony has been found at Dover, where
it was represented that it had been sold, and a deposit of £5 paid upon it. The
police, however, brought the pony away. Mr. Banks was the broker who had the
order to distrain, and he stated to the magistrates that he felt bound to bring
the case before them to protect this man from a like obstruction in executing a
distress warrant in future.
Southeastern Gazette 17-4-1855
Petty Sessions: Before W.
Major and G. Kennicott.
William Crumby was brought
up in the custody of Superintendent Steer, charged with an assault on Wm.
Larkens, a County Court Bailiff, in the 3rd inst., in the execution
of his duty. Fined 5s. and costs, or fourteen days` imprisonment. He was then
charged by Superintendent Steer with stealing a pony from the New Inn stables,
Mill Lane, on the 3rd inst. The evidence was not gone into, but he
was remanded till Saturday, the 14th inst.
Canterbury
Journal 21-4-1855
William Crumby, remanded from Thursday week, was
again had before the magistrates on Saturday, charged with stealing a pony from
the stables at the New Inn, Folkestone, on the 3rd inst., where it
had been placed for safe custody by the police. It appeared from the evidence
adduced that the pony had been seized by Mr. Banks, the broker, for rent due to
Mr. George Puttee, after which the pony was stolen and taken to Dover and sold
to Mr. John Amos, the landlord of the Golden Lion, Priory Street, where it was
found on the following day by Superintendent Steer, and taken possession of.
The depositions of some of the witnesses were taken and the prisoner was
further remanded till today in consequence of one of the witnesses, William
Oakley, the ostler of the New Inn, refusing to answer the question put to him
by the bench, as to receiving the pony into his custody. After being several
times requested by the bench to answer and refusing to do so, the bench ordered
him to be imprisoned for six days for contempt of court, unless he consented
before the term to be examined. He was afterwards conveyed to gaol, at the same
time stating they might transport him if they liked, and then he would not
answer.
Southeastern Gazette 24-4-1855
Petty Sessions; Before W.
Major and G. Kennicott Esqs.
William Crumby, remanded
from last week, charged with stealing a pony from the stables of the New Inn,
was again brought up. It appeared that the pony had been seized for rent due to
Mr. George Puttee; it was afterwards removed from the stable where it was
seized, and recovered again by a search warrant from the premises in the
occupation of William Jessup, and taken by the police to the New Inn stables,
where it was stolen by Crumby, ridden to Dover, and sold to a man named William
Ames, landlord of the Golden Lion, Priory Street, where it was found next day
by Superintendent Steers and taken possession of. Several witnesses were
examined to prove the above facts, but one witness, William Oakley, refused to
give evidence, and was committed to prison for six days for contempt of court.
Crumby has since been committed for trial, bail being accepted, himself in £80,
and two sureties in £40 each.
Dover Telegraph 7-7-1855
Quarter Sessions, Thursday:
Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.
William Crumby, 30,
fisherman, charged with stealing a mare, value £3, the property of John Banks,
at Folkestone, on the 3rd April last. In this case the Grand Jury
returned “Not a true bill”.
Southeastern Gazette 10-7-1855, Canterbury Journal,
Dover Chronicle 14-7-1855
Quarter Sessions, Thursday; before J.J. Lonsdale
Esq.
The Recorder, in his address to the Grand Jury,
called their attention to the charge of stealing a mare by one Crumby, an
indictment that could not be sustained, for no man could be convicted of
stealing his own property. The circumstances arose out of taking away a mare
that had been distrained upon, and which was upon the premises of the person
owing the rent; it had been removed from one place to another, and at last was
taken away by the owner.
William Crumby, committed for stealing a mare, value
£3, the property of John Banks. Bill ignored.
Dover Telegraph 21-7-1855
The starting of two horses
attached to a brewer`s dray here on Monday placed in jeopardy the lives of a
husband, wife, and child, and terminated in the death of the latter, in severe
injury to the woman, and the more fortunate escape of the man, though not
without a fractured thumb, and several contusions on the head, &c. The
parties were from Dover, and of the name of Drowley. The man was formerly
groom, &c., to Mr. A. Kingsford, brewer, of Buckland, but was now employed
in the brewery, and had been engaged on the day in question in conveying some
beer to Hythe. The vehicle used was one styled the “small beer dray”, and known
in the locality of Dover (from which it seldom emerged) from the peculiar
character of the tilt, which was of a canopy-like form, and supported by
upright iron rods – the two horses attached to it being driven in tandem. The
dray left Dover shortly before noon, and reached its destination in safety. The
wife of Drowley, who is enceinte, and
had for some time been unwell, accompanied her husband, thinking a little
change might be beneficial, and took with her their youngest child, a fine
little fellow 2 years and 9 months old, named (after his father) Edward. The
wife and child were put down at Sandgate, and taken up on the return from
Hythe. All went on well until they had proceeded as far as the Folkestone
branch of the National Provincial Bank, opposite to which the fore horse made a
start, from the circumstance of it being struck by one of the hooks of the
trace. The driver`s “Wo!” instantly checked the speed of the animal, but the
sudden stoppage brought the shaft into contact with the leading horse, and off
he bolted again. The danger involved in passing through the circuitous
thoroughfare of the town was at once apparent to Drowley, who attempted to jump
down, when his foot became entangled in the reins, and he was struck by the
fore-wheel, which passed over one of his hands, breaking the thumb and injuring
several of the fingers. It is said that Drowley had previously made every
effort to stop the horses, but that the breaking of the reins deprived him of
control over them. There were several persons in the dray, who, with the
exception of Drowley`s wife and child, succeeded in getting out on Grace Hill. On
the dray reaching the bottom of the hill (near the top of Tontine Street) it
came into violent contact with the post, breaking the vehicle asunder in the
middle, forcing off the two hind wheels, and throwing forcibly out the woman
and child, the latter being killed on the spot, and the former sustaining a
fracture of the collar bone, and other severe injuries. The horses continued
going on for a short distance, but were stopped before further injury was
sustained to any party. The poor woman was promptly removed to the New Inn,
where medical assistance was secured, and though doubts of her surviving her
injuries were at first prevalent, it is said that she is now progressing
favourably.
An inquest was held on the
body of the child on the following day, when a verdict of “Accidental Death”
was recorded, and it was elicited that no blame could be attached to the
driver. In noticing this lamentable circumstance, we have not the painful task
of adding that the cause is attributable either to negligence or intemperance.
The occurrence was purely accidental; and from enquiries we learn, not only
that the driver was perfectly sober at the time, but that he bears a most
excellent character for sobriety, and is deservedly esteemed for his good
conduct by his highly respected employer, Mr. Kingsford.
Kentish Gazette 26-5-1857
On Thursday morning a serious
accident occurred to Mr. Hughes, landlord of the New Inn, who was
driving a
vehicle from Sandgate to Folkestone, and who, on coming down the slope entering
the
latter place, jumped from the carriage, with the rein over his arm, for the
purpose of stopping the
horse. He missed his footing, and his arm in some way
becoming entangled with the rein, he
sustained a compound fracture, the bone
penetrating the thick part of the flesh. We are happy to
say he is doing well.
Southeastern Gazette
26-5-1857
Accident:
Mr. Hughes, of the New Inn, Folkestone, broke his arm on Thursday evening last
by falling out of his van on the Sandgate Road.
Folkestone Chronicle 17-4-1858
Wednesday
April 14th: - Before R.W. Boarer esq., Mayor, James Kelcey and W.
Bateman esqs, and Capt. Kennicott.
The licence
of the New Inn was transferred from Henry Hughes to Spencer Hayward.
Note:
New Inn transfer is at odds with More Bastions.
Folkestone Chronicle
21-3-1863
Advertisement:
To livery stable keepers and others. To let, with immediate possession, the New
Inn livery stables, comprising stalls for 16 horses, and 2 commodious
coach-houses, with every other convenience.
For
particulars enquire of Mr. G. Hammond, New Inn, Mill Lane, Folkestone.
Southeastern Gazette
8-9-1863
Advertisement:
To be let, the New Inn Commercial House, Folkestone, situate in a leading
thoroughfare, and built in the modern style; well furnished; 7 bedrooms,
drawing room, bar, bar parlour, coffee room, smoking and living room, with 16
stall stables, let off for more than half the rent of the whole premises. The
house is free, and none will be treated with unless they are principals.
Address
Mr. G. Hammond, New Inn Commercial House, Folkestone. Coming-in about £400.
Immediate possession, if required, the present occupier leaving to take another
business.
Folkestone Observer 11-6-1864
Monday June 6th:-
Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.
Louisa
Austin, the dissipated wife of a barrister, and who has made sundry appearances
at this court lately on charges of drunkenness, was again placed in the dock.
P.C. Ovenden
said that about midnight he found the prisoner lying down, partly on the
doorstep of the New Inn public house and partly on the pavement. She was drunk,
asleep and snoring. He roused her up, but it was some time before he could make
anything of her. She was quite helpless, but he obtained assistance and brought
her to the station.
Prisoner
said: I was at the door of my own lodging. I had walked two miles. I am
suffering from palpitation of the heart. I am taking most deadly drugs. All the
medical men of the town can bear me out. I am taking prussic acid. I was
waiting till they came down to open the door to me. They are very kind people,
and they would have been sure to let me in. I am the daughter of a gentleman,
and the wife of a gentleman. I would rather dash my brains out. I would go away
today if I had the money. For God`s sake forgive me. You will sign my death warrant
if you do anything to me. There is a doctor has had his hand on my heart
counting for my life.
Captain
Kennicott: If you were not to drink intoxicating liquors your heart would be
all right. There is one thing in your favour – you were not noisy. We don`t
know what to do with you. We will try you once more. You are discharged. If you
come here again we will give you a month.
Folkestone Chronicle 1-10-1864
Advert for
Auction:
Lot 1: The
well known Established Inn, known as the NEW INN, situate in Mill Street,
Folkestone, at the top of Tontine Street, with the Coach-houses, Stables, and
appurtenances thereto belonging
Folkestone Chronicle 29-6-1867
Notice:
Bankruptcy
Act 1861
John Wallis,
late of No. 6, Dover Street, Folkestone, Kent, previously of the New Inn,
Folkestone, aforesaid, out of business, and formerly of the Pavilion Shades,
Folkestone, aforesaid, Licensed Victualler, and late a Prisoner for Debt in
Maidstone Gaol, having been adjudged Bankrupt by the Registrar of the County
Court of Kent, holden at Maidstone, attending at the Gaol aforesaid on the 19th
day of June, 1867, and the adjudication being directed to be prosecuted at the
County Court of Kent, holden at Folkestone, is hereby required to surrender
himself to Ralph Thomas Brockman, Registrar of the said last mentioned Court,
at the first meeting of creditors, to be held on the Eighth day of July, 1867,
at three o`clock in the afternoon precisely, at the County Court Office,
Folkestone, aforesaid.
John Minter,
of Folkestone, is the Solicitor acting in the Bankruptcy.
At the
meeting the Registrar will receive the proofs of the debts of the Creditors,
and the Creditors may choose an Assignee or Assignees of the Bankrupt`s Estate
and Effects.
All persons
having in their possession any of the effects of the said Bankrupt, must
deliver them to the Registrar, and all debts due to the Bankrupt must be paid
to the Registrar.
Note:
More Bastions has no note of Wallis being landlord at the New Inn.
Folkestone Express 18-4-1868
Advertisement
NEW INN
Family and
Commercial Hotel
TOP OF
TONTINE STREET
All
spirituous liquors warranted of the finest quality
Prime Pale
Ale 6d. per quart
Best Black or
Mixed Tea 2s. 6d. per lb.
Best Green
3s. per lb.
Loaf Sugar
5d. per lb.
John Arthur
Smith
Proprietor
Folkestone Chronicle 27-2-1869
Wednesday,
February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.
License of
the following house was transferred at a special sessions:- The New Inn to
Richard White
Folkestone Observer 27-2-1869
Tuesday,
February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.
Richard
Holtum White applied for a transfer of the license granted to John Smith, to
sell at the New Inn. Granted.
Folkestone Express 27-2-1869
Wednesday,
February 24th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.
Transfer of
License
The New Inn –
R. White applied for a transfer from Arthur Smith. Granted.
Southeastern Gazette 1-3-1869
Transfer
of Licence.—The following licence was applied for on Wednesday and granted :—R.
White, from Arthur Smith, of the New Inn
Kentish Gazette 2-3-1869
The following license was applied
for on Wednesday and granted: R. White, from Arthur Smith, of the New Inn
Folkestone Chronicle 28-8-1869
Tuesday
August 24th: Before S. Eastes, J. Gambrill, J. Clark, and J. Tolputt
Esqs.
William
Burbridge, a deserter from Chatham, was charged with felony.
Ellen Parks
said: I live at the New Inn. Prisoner came into the bar yesterday afternoon at
three o`clock, and asked the way to the station, and left again. A quarter of
an hour after, I went into the bar again, and saw him leaning over the bar with
his hand in the till. He then called for a glass of ale, and put down a penny.
I drew the beer, and on going to the till, missed two halfcrowns, which were
there five minutes before. I charged him with the theft, but he denied it. I
called mother and sent for a policeman. Prisoner then took out a halfcrown, and
said he had taken it, for he was badly off. I told him he had taken more than
that, and he took another from his pocket, and said that was all he had. P.C.
Smith then came in, and I gave prisoner into custody.
P.C. Smith
said he took prisoner into custody and charged him with stealing money out of
the till. He said he only took two halfcrowns. On searching him at the police
station he found 2s. 5d. in his possession. Prisoner was then formally charged
with the offence, pleaded guilty, consented to be tried by the Bench, and was
committed to two months` hard labour as a warning to him.
Note:
Parks appears to have been a relative to the licensee.
Folkestone Express 28-8-1869
Tuesday,
August 24th: Before S. Eastes, J. Tolputt, J. Gambrill and J. Clark
Esqs.
William
Burridge was charged with stealing two half crowns from the New Inn on Monday,
they being the property of Thomas Henry Parks.
Miss Ellen
Parks deposed to seeing the prisoner reaching over the counter; his hands were
near the till. When he saw her he asked for a glass of beer. She went to the
till and missed two half crowns, and charged the prisoner with theft.
P.C. Smith
said, on charging the prisoner, he said he was guilty, but would not have done
so had he not been badly off.
The prisoner
pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to two calendar months` imprisonment.
Southeastern Gazette 30-8-1869
Local News
William Burridge was charged at the same sitting with
stealing two half-crowns, the property of Ellen Sparkes, on the 23rd inst.
Ellen Sparkes said : I live at the New Inn, Mill Lane.
Prisoner came there yesterday between three and four, and asked me at the bar
the way to the railway station. He afterwards left the house, but about half an
hour afterwards I saw him leaning over the counter, taking his hand from the
till. I was in the room close by the bar at the time, but when I came out he
asked me for a glass of beer. The till was shut when I left it, but at that
time it was a little way open. I drew the beer, and on going to the till I
missed the two half-crowns. I told the prisoner he had been taking the money
from the till, and he denied it. I then called my mother, and sent for a
policeman. Before the policeman came prisoner said he did take the money, and
put down one and then the last half-crown. When the policeman came in I gave
him into custody.
P.C. Smith proved taking the prisoner into custody, and
on searching him at the police station he found the money on him.
Prisoner pleaded guilty, and said he was sorry for what
had occurred.
The Bench sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment
with hard labour.
Folkestone Observer 3-2-1870
John Williams
applied for a transfer of the license granted to John Henry Parks to sell
excisable liquors at the New Inn. The application was granted.
Folkestone Express 5-2-1870
Thursday,
February 3rd: Before R.W. Boarer and A.M. Leith Esqs.
A temporary
authority was granted to John Williams to sell spirits at the New Inn, Mill
Lane.
Folkestone Observer 24-2-1870
Wednesday,
February 23rd: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J.
Gambrill and J. Clark Esqs.
Transfer of
License
John Williams
applied for a renewal of temporary authority granted to him on the 3rd
of February last. It appeared the notices of the application had not been
delivered through some neglect, but the magistrates granted a temporary
authority until the annual licensing day, 6th January, 1871.
Folkestone Chronicle 26-2-1870
Wednesday
February 22nd: Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer, John Clark, and John
Gambrill Esqs.
This was a
special sessions for the transfer of licenses, and for other business.
John Williams
asked for a renewal of his permission to sell excisable liquors, he not having
served the requisite notices. It was granted.
Folkestone Express 26-2-1870
Wednesday,
February 23rd: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J.
Gambrill and J. Clark Esqs.
Special
Licensing Meeting
New Inn: John
Williams applied for a further extension of his temporary authority to sell
excisable liquors, a clerk in the Magistrates` Office having forgotten to serve
the notices for a transfer. If the applicant himself had omitted to do so, the
Bench would, according to their usual practice, refuse the application, but
under these exceptional circumstances the extension was granted.
Folkestone Observer 7-4-1870
Wednesday,
April 6th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt, and A.M. Leith
Esqs.
This was a
special session for transferring and granting alehouse licenses.
The license
of the New Inn was transferred from Thomas Henry Parks to John Williams.
Folkestone Chronicle 9-4-1870
Wednesday
April 6th: Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith
Esqs.
The license
of the New Inn was transferred from Thomas H. Parkes to John Williams
Folkestone Express 9-4-1870
Wednesday,
April 6th: Before The Mayor, A.M. Leith, J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer
Esqs.
The following
transfer received the sanction of the Magistrates:
New Inn: From
Thomas Henry Cox to John Williams
Note:
No mention of Cox at this date in More Bastions. Should this be Parkes?
Southeastern Gazette 11-4-1870
Special Petty Sessions
A special session was held on Wednesday for
transferring and granting alehouse licences.
The
licence of the New Inn was transferred from Thomas Henry Parks to John
Williams.
Folkestone Chronicle 30-7-1870
Wednesday
July 27th: Before the Mayor, R.W. Boarer, and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.
William Cox
was charged with being drunk and riotous in Mill Lane, and with using obscene
language, and with assaulting P.C. Smith in the execution of his duty.
P.C. Smith
said that on that morning about two o`clock he was in Mill Lane, and saw the
prisoner drunk. He was with two others, and knocked at the door of the New Inn,
and bawled to the landlord for some beer. The others, at his request, went
home, but prisoner said he should remain as long as he liked. He left him and
went up around St. Michael`s Church. He came down, and used some obscene and
abusive language towards him, and he told prisoner that if he did not go home
he would lock him up. He threw several stones at him, and the one produced he
caught in his hand, and it knocked a piece of skin off. He then closed with the
prisoner and with the assistance of the man with the mail cart, handcuffed him
and brought him to the station. They were obliged to have the assistance of the
lamplighter to carry him to the bottom of Grace Hill as he kicked so much.
The prisoner,
in defence, said he was quiet in the streets when the police constable accosted
him and told him to go home. He did so, and his father sent him out on an
errand, and he was suddenly surprised by a kick from behind from the policeman,
who was as drunk as he could be. He never threw a stone at him.
Daniel
Bishop, the lamplighter, was examined, and supported the policeman`s evidence,
and the Bench committed the prisoner for seven days for being drunk and riotous
and fourteen days for obstructing the police.
Folkestone Express 30-7-1870
Wednesday,
July 27th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.
William Cox
was charged with assaulting P.C. Smith in the execution of his duty, and with
being drunk and riotous.
P.C. Smith
deposed that about two o`clock that morning he saw the prisoner and another man
knocking at the door of the New Inn, Mill Lane, and he told them to go home. He
replied he would go where he liked, and walked round St. Michael`s Church.
Witness followed him, when prisoner set to, stoning him and using bad language.
With the assistance of another man he succeeded in taking him into custody.
The prisoner
denied the policeman`s evidence, and alleged that he kicked him first and that
the policeman was drunk.
He called
Daniel Bishop, lamplighter, who denied that the prisoner used violence, and
stated that they were both sober.
The Bench
committed him for twenty one days on the two charges.
Folkestone Express 15-10-1870
Monday,
October 10th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, C.H. Dashwood, and J.
Clark Esqs.
George
Collington, a fly driver, was brought up on a warrant, charged with stealing a
pocket handkerchief, the property of Filmer Tyas.
Mr. Filmer
Tyas said: I live at No.3, Queen Street. I went into the New Inn last night
about quarter past seven and stood in front of the bar. The prisoner was
sitting down just inside of the bar and I stood beside him. I called for a pint
of beer and after I had drank it I put my hand in my coat pocket and found my
handkerchief was gone. It was in my hand when I came into the house. I turned
round and said “I have lost my handkerchief since I have been in the bar”, and
asked the prisoner and another man sitting there whether they had taken it. The
prisoner replied he had not taken it out of my pocket or seen it. The other man
said nothing, but made motions which I understood to mean that the prisoner had
it. I then accused the prisoner of taking it, when, with an oath, he replied he
had not seen it. I drank my beer and said to the prisoner ”If you have got my
handkerchief, give it to me. I want to go”. He still persisted in the statement
that he had not seen it. I asked the other man if he had seen the prisoner take
it, and he said he had and persuaded the prisoner to give it to me. I said I
should send for a policeman. He said he had not got it, and I could send for a
policeman and lock him up, or knock it out of him if I thought proper. I sent
for a policeman, and during the interval the landlord of the house said “If you
have got the man`s handkerchief why don`t you give it up to him?” He said “I`ll
see him d---- first. I`ll not give it up for half a crown. I`ll wait till the
policeman comes now”. P.C. Ovenden came and I gave the prisoner into his
charge, and he denied all knowledge of the handkerchief. While standing at the
door I saw the prisoner with his hands behind him underneath his coat. He took
the handkerchief from underneath and threw it out on the footpath. I called the
policeman`s attention to it, and Mr. Williams` dog went and picked it up. The
handkerchief was a white one with black spots, quite new, and is valued at 8d.
The witness here identified the handkerchief produced as his property.
Benjamin
Errey, a cab driver, the man spoken of by the last witness, deposed to seeing
the prisoner take the handkerchief and charged with the robbery, which he
denied.
P.C. Ovenden
said: On taking the prisoner into custody he said “Lock me up. I want you to
lock me up”. When the charge was read over to the prisoner at the station he
admitted the handkerchief.
The prisoner
admitted the charge and elected to be tried by the Magistrates.
The Bench
sentenced him to be imprisoned for 14 days with hard labour.
Folkestone Chronicle 6-5-1871
Thursday, May
4th: Before The Mayor and C.H. Dashwood Esq.
Thomas
William Cobb applied for a license to sell excisable liquors at the New Inn
under the license granted to John Williams. The Bench granted the application.
Folkestone Express 6-5-1871
Transfer of
License
The New Inn:
The license of this house was on Thursday transferred to Mr. Thomas William
Cobb from John Williams.
Folkestone Express 27-5-1871
Wednesday,
May 24th:
Transfer of
License
The license
granted to Mr. John Williams (New Inn) was transferred to Mr. T.W. Cobb at the
Petty Sessions on Wednesday last.
Folkestone Express 3-5-1873
Monday, April
28th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.
The license
of the New Inn, Dover Road, was transferred to Stephen Woollett, formerly a
waiter at the Pavilion Hotel.
Folkestone Express 6-9-1873
Wednesday,
September 3rd: Before The Mayor and W. Bateman Esq.
Filmer Tyas
and Ellen Dawkins were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road;
also with using obscene language.
P.C. Smith
said the pair were fighting in front of the New Inn about half past twelve on
Wednesday morning. They were both drunk and using obscene language. As they
refused to go away he took them into custody, but Tyas managed to escape. He
then took the woman towards the police station, and when near Hillside House met
Supt. Wilshere and Sergt. Reynolds and gave the woman into their custody and
went back for Tyas and found him near the Mechanics Arms and took him into
custody.
Mr. Thomas
Mummery said he was disturbed by a noise of two persons quarrelling, and on
looking out of the window saw the prisoners scuffling, and heard them use very
bad language. It was not the first time he had been disturbed in a similar way.
Supt.
Wilshere said he received prisoner Dawkins from P.C. Smith. He could hear her
using obscene language some time before they came up. She threw herself down
and it was as much as he and Sergt. Reynolds could do to get her to the
station, having to carry her some of the way.
Prisoner said
they had a dispute about an earring which the female prisoner had lost, but
stoutly denied being drunk or fighting, or using bad language.
Superintendent
Wilshere said Tyas was very violent after he was taken to the station, and
threatened to do for two of the policemen. He had been twice convicted of
assaulting the police.
Prisoners
were fined 10s. and 5s. costs each for being drunk and disorderly, or 14 days`
hard labour in default. For using obscene language they were fined 10s. and 3s.
6d. costs, or fourteen days` hard labour in default.
Dawkins paid,
and Tyas was removed in custody.
Folkestone Express 11-7-1874
Advertisement
Extract
Mr. John
Banks is instructed to sell by Auction, at the King`s Arms Hotel, Folkestone
On Monday,
July 27th, 1874, at Six O`Clock in the Evening
The Following
Valuable Freehold and Leasehold Properties and Ground Rent
Lot 1: All
that well and substantially built Leasehold Public House, with the Stables,
Coach House, and Carpenter`s Workshop thereunto belonging, situate and known as
the New Inn, Dover Road, Folkestone, and in the occupation of Messrs. C. &
A. Dickenson, Brewers. The basement contains kitchen, scullery, beer and wine
cellars. Ground Floor: front and Back parlours, Bar Parlour, Tap Room and Bar.
First Floor: 4 Bedrooms and W.C. Second Floor: 4 Bedrooms.
Folkestone Express 19-12-1874
Wednesday,
December 16th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq. and Col. De
Crespigny.
License
Transfer
This was one
of the days appointed for the transfer of licenses. The following application
was heard:
That of the
New Inn, Dover Road, from R. Williams to Charles Collins.
In this case
the applicant had omitted to bring with him his testimonials as to character.
He said he had kept houses of the kind in Whitechapel and Limehouse, but never
knew such certificates were necessary.
The Bench
admonished Collins as to his neglect, but decided to grant the application.
Folkestone Express 10-4-1875
Wednesday,
April 7th: Before W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and J. Kelcey
Esqs.
The License
fo the New Inn, Dover Road, was transferred from Charles Collins to William
John Edward Collins.
Folkestone Express 7-12-1878
Monday,
December 2nd: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe,
Captain Fletcher, and R.W. Boarer Esq.
William Henry
West, a plasterer, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly, and refusing
to quit the New Inn on Saturday night.
He was fined
5s. and 3s. 6d. costs for each offence, or seven days` hard labour, and the
Mayor at the same time said he was sorry to say that the plasterers in the town
were, as a rule, a disgrace to their fellow townsmen.
Folkestone Express 21-6-1879
Saturday,
June 14th: Before W. Bateman Esq., Col. De Crespigny, W.J.
Jeffreason and Willoughby Carter Esqs, and Aldermen Caister and Sherwood.
Walter Knell
was summoned for assaulting James Baker at the New Inn on the 9th
June.
James Baker,
a woodman, living at Setlling Minnis, said that a short time back he had a mare
for sale, and the defendant went up to him and told him that he knew where he
(the defendant) could sell the mare for £20. Witness let him have the mare on
the condition that he received £10 within three days. On Monday the 9th
inst. he went to the defendant in Mill Bay and asked him for his mare, but
defendant would not give it up. Between nine and ten o`clock he went to the New
Inn, and while he was there the defendant went in and hit him in the eye.
Cross-examined
by defendant: I did not threaten to knock your brains out with the butt end of
my whip.
The defendant
said that Baker was drunk at the time and flourished his whip round his head,
and he pushed him away so that he would not hit him.
The
Magistrates considered the case proved, and fined Knell 5s. 6d., and 9s. costs,
or in default seven days` hard labour.
Folkestone Express 15-12-1883
Wednesday,
December 12th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, J.
Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.
Samuel Barker
was charged with obtaining a horse and cart by false pretences from William
Swan.
Mr. Minter
prosecuted, and Mr. Martin Mowll defended.
Prosecutor
said he was a labourer, living at Postling, and on the 5th of
December he owned a pony and cart. He came into Folkestone on that day, and put
up at the New Inn. Had not seen the defendant previously. He saw him at the New
Inn stables, and afterwards at the bar. Witness was going to “chop” his horse
and cart with a man named Stone, and he was waiting for Stone to come.
Defendant told him Stone would not come back, he told him “straight”, and it
was no use his waiting. Between three and four o`clock he told defendant that
he would sell the lot and go to work again. He said he wanted £7 for it. Baker
said he would give £5. He refused to sell it for £5, but afterwards told the
defendant he could have it for £5 5s. Defendant said he would have it, and if
witness would go with him he would pay him. They went to the Harvey Inn, and
defendant asked if someone was in. The landlord said “No”. Defendant then took
10s. out of his pocket and gave it to witness, saying he would go out and get
the remainder. He told Baker he was not going to have the horse and cart
without the money. He replied “O h, you needn`t be afraid of your money. You
come along with me”. They went together to a public house in Dover Street,
where defendant said he could “get a bit of money”. He said he was the owner of
houses, and had lots of property. Then they went to the Eagle Tavern, High
Street, where defendant had a paper written out (two or three scraps of paper
were put in). He told witness he would pay at ten o`clock the next morning.
Witness still refused to let him have the horse and cart. In the presence of
the landlord, Baker said he was the owner of houses, and believing that
statement was true, he allowed him to take the horse and cart, and defendant
promised to pay him at ten o`clock the next morning. Witness went to
defendant`s house at Foord at ten o`clock the next morning and saw defendant`s
wife, but defendant was not at home. He could neither find defendant nor his
pony and cart. He searched about the town for him that day and the next, and then
went to the police.
Cross-examined:
I came to Folkestone with the intention of “chopping” the pony away with a man
named Stone, a horse dealer, of Dover, whom I saw the day before. The 10s. was
paid me at the Harvey, and the agreement was drawn up at the Eagle Tavern by
the landlord. It was drawn up to show Baker would have to pay me £4 15s. on the
next day. I made an entry in my pocket book. I saw the police on Thursday
morning. A policeman told me I must summons him. I believe I told the policeman
that Baker said he had property.
Re-examined:
I should not have parted with the horse and cart if Baker had not said he was
the owner of houses. I proposed to come to your office. Baker said you closed
at four o`clock. The sergeant of police told him the character Baker bore.
Sergeant
Ovenden said he had known Baker about ten years. Never heard of his having any
house property. Could not say whether the furniture in his house belonged to
him.
By the Court:
Defendant is a dealer in ducks, horses, rags and bones, and bottles.
Mr. Minter
asked the Bench to commit the prisoner for trial on the evidence.
Mr. Mowll
contended that there had not been a prima facie case made out, but that on the
contrary, the complainant, a dealer, sold his property to another dealer, and
that there was not the slightest possible cause for saying the defendant had
been guilty of a criminal act.
The
Magistrates` Clerk said if the defendant did not intend to pay for the
property, and if all those papers were a mere trick, then it was a case of
larceny.
The Bench
decided to commit the prisoner for trial at the Quarter Sessions.
Folkestone Express 12-1-1884
Quarter
Sessions
Monday,
January 5th: Before W. Frederick Laxton Esq.
Samuel Baker
was indicted for obtaining by false pretences a horse and cart and harness,
value £5 5s., from Wm. Swan, at Folkestone on the 5th December. Mr.
Denman prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The case was heard so
recently before the magistrates that it is only necessary now to give a summary
of the evidence.
William Swan,
a labourer, living at Postling, stated that he came into Folkestone on the 5th
December and put up at the New Inn, where he expected to meet a man named
Stone, who had arranged to buy his horse and cart. Stone did not come, but he
saw Baker, who said Stone would not be back, and asked him what he wanted for
the horse and cart. He asked £7. Prisoner said he would give him £5, but
afterwards offered £5 5s. Prosecutor agreed to sell for that amount. They went
together to the Harvey Hotel,
where prisoner gave him 10s. He told him that he need not be afraid about his
money – that he owned lots of houses round about there, and had plenty of
money. He wanted prisoner to go to Mr. Minter`s office and get an agreement
drawn up. Prisoner replied “Mr. Minter shuts up at four o`clock”. They
afterwards went to the Eagle Tavern, where the landlord wrote a memorandum in
prosecutor`s pocket book to the effect that prisoner would pay the balance at
ten o`clock the next morning. He believed that prisoner was the owner of
houses, or would not have consented to part with the horse and cart. The next
morning at ten o`clock he returned to Folkestone, and went to prisoner`s house
at Foord. His wife said he had gone down town. The money was not there. He
searched all round the town for prisoner, but could not find him. He never
received the money, nor had he seen the horse and cart since. He gave
information to the police.
In reply to
prisoner, witness said he did not order Mr. Back to hand the horse over to him.
Prisoner paid for the stabling. He went three times to his house on the 6th,
and again on the following day, and delivered a bill. He told him not to pay
his sister, but told prisoner`s wife he would take part of the money and leave
the rest for a week or two.
Sergeant
Ovenden was called, and in reply to Mr. Denman he said he had known prisoner
for about ten years as a dealer in bottles, rags and bones, &c., going
round with a cart. Never heard that prisoner had any property.
In reply to
prisoner, witness said he had never known him to be before the magistrates.
Prisoner
alleged that he bought the horse and cart, paid a deposit, and agreed to pay
the balance in a few days.
At the close
of the case, the Deputy Recorder asked Mr. Glyn if he had no evidence to
negative the statement by the prisoner that he had lots of houses. It was quite
possible that he had property which the police sergeant knew nothing of.
Mr. Glyn
replied that if it were true that the man had houses it would be very easy for
him to rebut the charge of false pretences.
The Deputy
Recorder said it was a question whether he ought not to withdraw the charge and
direct the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty. However, in deference to Mr.
Glyn, he would allow the case to go to the jury. He then summed up strongly in
the prisoner`s favour, pointing out that it was possible the prisoner had
property, and it was not necessary that it should be situated in Folkestone.
They must be careful not to allow a Criminal Court to become a Court for
collecting or enforcing the payment of debts, because the prosecutor could
recover the balance of his money in the County Court. Further, he referred to
the fact that the prisoner, who had been known to the police for ten years, had
nothing against his character, and that, considering his avocation was that of
a dealer, a class of men likely to be thrown into contact with the police, it
was very much in his favour.
The jury,
however, retired for a few minutes, and returned with a verdict of Guilty.
Two previous
convictions at the East Kent Quarter Sessions were then proved against the
prisoner, and it appeared that on that occasion there was a prior conviction.
This was in July, 1873, and prisoner then went in the name of Henry George, and
was sentenced to six months` hard labour.
Superintendent
Taylor said he had known the prisoner two or three years, and had had repeated
complaints about him. He associated with three or four other persons who
frequented fairs and markets in the neighbourhood to get hold of weak-minded
people to swindle them out of their goods in such a manner as to evade the
criminal law.
The Deputy
Recorder, in sentencing the prisoner, said the facts of the case as just stated
were not known to him, and perhaps it was quite right that a judge should not
know them until after the prisoner was convicted. But the jury had found him
guilty after having carefully considered their verdict, which they had not
arrived at hastily. There was no doubt that the countryman parted with his property
on the faith of the misrepresentations he had made, and the law held that to be
an offence. Unfortunately for the prisoner, that was not his first offence. He
did not pay particular heed to the statements of Superintendent Taylor, but
there was the record against him, that he was convicted at the East Kent
Sessions in July, 1873, and there was a conviction, it appeared, previous to
that, and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Therefore that was the
third offence known against him. Of course such cases must be severely dealt
with. It was an unfortunate thing for the prisoner`s family, but the law must
take it`s course without contemplating what would be the effects on a man`s
family. He had consulted the magistrates on the Bench and they quite concurred
that it was his duty to pass a sentence of twelve months` imprisonment with
hard labour.
The Court
then rose.
Folkestone News 12-1-1884
Quarter
Sessions
Monday,
January 7th: Before W.F. Laxton Esq.
Samuel Baker
was charged with on the 5th December obtaining by false pretences a
horse and cart, value £5 5s., from William Swan, with intent to defraud.
Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Denman,
who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, addressed the jury.
Mr. Swan was
then examined, and said he was a labourer at Postling. On the 5th
December he had a pony and cart, and brought them into Folkestone. He went to
the New Inn with the intention of meeting a man of the name of Stone, about
twelve o`clock. He saw the prisoner there, but he did not know him before.
Prisoner said Stone would not be back that day. Witness told the prisoner he
was waiting for Stone. Witness saw prisoner again in the afternoon, and told
him he should sell the horse and cart and go to work again. Prisoner was then
at the New Inn stables, and said he would buy the things. Witness said he
wanted £7 for them, and prisoner said he should only give £5. Witness refused
to sell them for that price, and he afterwards came to the agreement to sell
them for five guineas, whereupon prisoner bought them and said “Come along with
me, and I will get the money”. They then went to the Harvey Inn, and prisoner
asked for someone, but the party was not there. Prisoner then gave witness
10s., but witness said he should not have the horse and cart without the money.
They then went into a public house in Dover Street, and when they got into the
street again prisoner said “You need not be afraid of me, for I am the owner of
houses all round here”. Witness then wanted to go to Mr. Minter`s office to get
an agreement drawn up, but prisoner said Mr. Minter shut up his office at four
o`clock, and that it was no use going there. They then went to the Eagle Tavern
in High Street, where they had a paper written out by the landlord. Prisoner
signed it, and witness wrote a line at the bottom saying “the remainder on the
sixth”. Prisoner promised to pay the balance at ten o`clock the next morning.
Witness then let the prisoner have the horse and cart as he believed prisoner
was the owner of houses and property. If it had not been for that belief he
would not have allowed prisoner to have the things. Witness went to prisoner`s
house next morning, but prisoner was out and had left no money. Witness went at
ten o`clock, the time fixed for the payment of the balance. Witness went about
the town to find him, and returned to prisoner`s house again about twelve
o`clock. Witness never got either the money or his horse and cart. Witness gave
information to the police. Witness again went on Friday, two days afterwards,
with the bill. Prisoner paid the stabling of the horse to Mr. Back.
In reply to
prisoner, witness said defendant`s wife told him the prisoner was gone to Dover
to sell the cart. Witness told the prisoner`s wife that he would take a part of
the money, and leave the rest for a week or two if they did not cause him any
trouble. Witness did not call at prisoner`s house again. Prisoner asked if he
should leave the money with his (witness`s) sister, Mrs. Bisco, but witness
told him not to pay anyone but himself. Witness said he should not call at the
house again.
Sergeant
Ovenden, on being sworn, said he had known the prisoner about ten years. He was
a dealer, dealing in poultry, bottles, rags, bones, iron, and such things.
Prisoner went about with a cart, and lived at 7, Castle Terrace, Foord. Witness
never heard that he was the owner of property. Witness had no recollection of
prisoner having been before the Folkestone Bench of Magistrates.
Prisoner then
addressed the Court, and said he bought the things of Swan, paid him a deposit,
agreeing to pay the remainder in a few days. On the following morning prisoner
waited till the time when he had promised the money, a quarter to ten, and then
went out to look for Swan. He meant to pay the money. He did not say he had property
in the town.
The Judge
then summed up the evidence, stating that he thought the charge of false
pretences had not been fully proved.
The jury,
after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner
was then asked by the Clerk of the Peace if he were the same man as one Henry
George, who was indicted at Canterbury in July, 1873, for larceny in regard to
two offences.
The prisoner
replied that he was.
Supt. Taylor
stated that he wished to give evidence as to the prisoner`s character, and on
being sworn said he had known the prisoner for between two or three years, and
had repeatedly had complaints made to him by persons whom prisoner and some
others had swindled. They got people to part with their goods in such a manner
as to evade the criminal law.
The Judge,
addressing the prisoner, said unfortunately for him it was not the first
offence he had committed. It was recorded against him that he was charged at
the East Kent Quarter Sessions of the Peace, at Canterbury, in July, 1873, with
two offences, and was sent to gaol for six months for each offence, therefore
the present was the third offence known against him. He (the Judge) should
sentence him to twelve months` imprisonment with hard labour.
Folkestone Express 19-5-1888
Saturday, May
12th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General
Gilbourne, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Edward John
Pope and William Avery, alias Mullett, were charged with making an affray in
Belle Vue Street.
P.C. Swift
said on Tuesday, at nine o`clock in the evening, he saw the defendants fighting
in front of the New Inn. There was a crowd of people round them. He took hold
of Mullett, who said it was not his fault. He did not want to fight – it was
the other. Pope ran away.
The
defendants were bound over to keep the peace for three months, and ordered to
pay the costs, 5s. 6d. each, in addition to 3s., the costs of the
recognisances.
Folkestone Chronicle 29-12-1888
Saturday,
December 22nd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood, J. Fitness, E.T.
Ward, J. Hoad, and J. Holden Esqs.
Richard Back,
landlord of the New Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for being drunk and
disorderly in Belle Vue Street on the night of the 15th December.
Mr. Minter
appeared for the defendant and pleaded Not Guilty.
P.C. Wm.
Knott said he was on duty in Belle Vue Street on Saturday night, a few minutes
before eleven. He saw the defendant there. He was very drunk and using bad
language. When he saw witness he said “I don`t want to show any of you ---- up,
and I don`t want you to round on me, because I`ve got all you ---- under my
thumb”. Witness walked away. About ten minutes past eleven witness was at the
other end of Belle Vue Street and heard the landlord of the Honest Lawyer
public house ask the company to leave. Witness looked in and told them that the
time was up. They all came out, the defendant being the last one to leave. He
said to witness “I want you to take all these ---- names”, and continued to
shout about. Defendant had a glass of beer in his hand. He threw it down on the
pavement and said “Take my name first”. Witness asked him to go away, but he
refused. A few minutes afterwards two of his friends took him away.
By Mr.
Minter: There were about fifteen men in the street at the time. Most of them
came out of the Honest Lawyer. Witness supposed the defendant wanted him to
take the names of those who left the house because it was beyond the time. The
defendant kept a public house a little lower down. Witness had spoken to him
once about keeping his house open a little beyond time. Witness had been in the
police force about four months.
Mr. Minter:
The defendant was angry, was he not?
Witness: He
was very drunk. I can`t say whether he was angry or not. I don`t know his
disposition.
What time was
it when you first saw him?
A few minutes
before eleven.
He has got
two bars close there, hasn`t he?
Yes. When I
first saw him he was going from one to the other.
Chas. Prior,
living at 5, Belle Vue Street, was then called in support of the charge. He
stated that he was standing in the street last Saturday night about eleven
o`clock when he saw the defendant come up the street from his house. He was
rather the worse for drink. He went into the Honest Lawyer and called for a
glass of beer. When he got outside he dropped the glass on the pavement.
Witness did not hear him make use of bad language, nor was he disorderly in the
street.
Mr. Minter,
in addressing the Bench for the defence, remarked that he had thought of
charging the constable with making a false statement. The witness Prior whom he
had called to support him had not rendered him any assistance, but, on the
other hand, had stated that the defendant was not disorderly, that he did not
hear him make use of bad language, and that he was a little the worse for
drink. That, he considered, put an end to the disorderly conduct, and the legal
adviser of the Bench would tell that they could not convict upon one portion of
the charge alone, viz., drunkenness. He thought the Bench would clearly see
that the police had been rather severe upon the defendant about closing his
house, whilst they were not particular about his neighbours. Mr. Back felt that
he was not being dealt with fairly, and no doubt on the night in question he
felt angry and went into the Honest Lawyer after eleven and wanted the
constable to take the names of those people in the house. The defendant had
instructed him to say that he had never been drunk in his life, and challenged
anyone to deny it. He had kept the New Inn, where nightly concerts were held,
for fifteen years, and had never had a conviction or a complaint against him.
He would call some witnesses who would prove that the defendant was not drunk,
and would ask the Bench to dismiss the case.
Mrs. Hogan,
whose professional name was Nellie Mackney, said she was a singer, and had been
engaged at the New Inn for a fortnight. She sang at the house nightly. On the
night in question the house was closed about two minutes to eleven. Witness was
at the house from about a quarter to seven until five and twenty minutes to
eleven, and saw the landlord from time to time during the evening. He was quite
sober and serving in the bar upstairs.
John Hogan,
husband of the last witness, and a music hall artist, said he had been engaged
at the New Inn for the past fortnight. He had had previous engagements there.
Had never seen the defendant drunk. Witness saw him in the upper bar from seven
until about eleven. He was quite sober then.
Mr. Minter
said he could call six other witnesses of the Bench thought it necessary to
call them.
The Mayor
said the Bench did not consider the charge proved, and dismissed the case.
Folkestone Express 29-12-1888
Saturday,
December 22nd: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad, J. Fitness, J. Holden, J.
Sherwood and E.T. Ward Esqs.
Richard Back,
landlord of the New Inn, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in Belle
Vue Street on the 15th Dec.
P.C. Knott
said on Saturday the 15th inst. he saw defendant in Belle Vue
Street, very drunk and using bad language. When he saw witness he said “I have
got everything all right tonight. I don`t want to show any of you ---- up” and
used other bad language. Witness was in the Honest Lawyer at five minutes past
eleven, and heard the landlord ask the company to leave. He went in and told
them the time was up. Defendant was the last to leave, and when he came out he
said he wanted witness to take all their names, and again used very bad
language. He asked defendant to go away, and he refused. Two friends took him
home.
Mr. Minter
cross-examined the witness, who said he did not know whether defendant was
angry or not. He was very drunk.
Charles
Prior, a plasterer, living in Belle Vue Street, said he saw the defendant on
Saturday night, rather the worse for drink. He went into Mr. Edwards` and
called for a glass of beer. He brought the glass out and dropped it. He heard
him use no bad language.
In reply to
the Clerk, the Superintendent said “That is the case”.
Mr. Minter:
And a very pretty case it is. (Laughter) He contended that the cause of all the
disturbance was a quarrel between defendant and the policeman, because the
latter had not dealt out fair play to himself and the landlord of the Honest
Lawyer. He further alleged that the defendant had never been drunk in his life.
He had carried on the business for 15 years, and during all that time there had
been no charge against him by the police.
Nellie Hogan,
a music hall singer, engaged at the New Inn Music Hall, said she had sung at
the music hall at the New Inn for a fortnight. She left the house on Saturday
evening at twenty five minutes to eleven. She saw the landlord frequently
during the evening and he was quite sober and serving in the bar.
John Hogan,
“a music hall artist”, engaged at the New Inn, said he saw the defendant the
evening in question from seven till eleven. He was sober when he closed the
house. Witness had never seen him drunk.
Mr. Minter
said he had half a dozen more witnesses to prove the same thing.
The Bench
dismissed the case.
Folkestone Chronicle 28-9-1889
Advertisement
New Inn,
Folkestone, TO LET. Large premises, good position, with frontage to two
streets. Rent and ingoing moderate. Apply Hythe Brewery, Kent.
Folkestone Chronicle 3-5-1890
Tuesday,
April 29th: Before F. Boykett, W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Charles Cosh
was charged with stealing 4s. from the till of the New Inn, Dover Road, on
Monday afternoon, the moneys of Henry Gower.
Susan
Standing said she was barmaid at the New Inn. About five o`clock on Monday
afternoon the prisoner entered the bar and called for a glass of ale. He was
quite alone and there was no-one else in the bar. Prisoner went from the bar to
the smoking room, and witness left the bar. Shortly afterwards she heard the
ratting of coppers and also heard the till close. Witness went into the bar and
saw the prisoner going out by the side door. She had been to the till just
before the prisoner entered the house. There were seven sixpences, a threepenny
piece, and 3s. in bronze. After the prisoner had left she counted the money and
found that four sixpences were missing and 2s. in bronze.
Sergeant Pay
deposed that he arrested prisoner. In answer to the charge he said “You`ve made
a mistake. I went in with a man who treated me with a glass of ale. I came out
with him”. In reply to the charge at the station he said “I don`t know anything
about any till”. Witness searched him and found three sixpences and 3d. in
bronze.
Prisoner
asked to be dealt with summarily.
The Clerk
said as the prisoner had been previously convicted the Bench had no
jurisdiction. Committed for trial. Bail was granted in his own security of £20
and two other securities of £20 each.
Folkestone Express 3-5-1890
Saturday,
April 26th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Alderman Pledge and J.
Clarke Esq.
Charles Kosh
was charged with stealing money from a till at the New Inn on the previous
afternoon.
Susan
Standing, barmaid at the inn, said the prisoner went in for a glass of ale. She
served him and left him there alone. As she turned away she heard the money
rattle. The till contained seven sixpences and a threepenny piece, and about
3s. in bronze. When the prisoner left she missed four sixpences and some
coppers. Anyone on the outer side of the bar could reach the till, the key of
which was left in the lock.
Sergeant Pay
said he apprehended the prisoner at the Wonder Tavern in Beach Street. He was
sitting in the smoking room. He was not drinking, and was sober. He charged him
with stealing four sixpences and 2s. in coppers from a till at teh New Inn. He
replied “You have made a mistake. I went in with a man who treated me to a
glass of ale, and I came out with him”. At the police station he said he knew
nothing about any till. He aws searched and three sixpences and 3d. in bronze
found upon him.
Prisoner said
he was out of work, and had walked from London. He had been drinking and hardly
knew what he was up to. He admitted that he had done wrong, and was sorry for
it. He had work to go to, and would leave off drinking from that day. He had a
wife and four children, and he knew he ought to know better.
The Bench
committed the prisoner for trial at the Sessions, he having been previously
convicted.
Folkestone Chronicle 31-5-1890
Wednesday,
May 28th: Before The Mayor, Surgeon General Gilbourne, W.G. Herbert,
H.W. Poole, and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Henry Gower,
landlord of the New Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for selling whiskey
containing more water than the allowed 25 percent. Mr. Minter defended.
John Pearson
said he was Inspector of Food and Drugs for the Borough of Folkestone. On the
14th of May he went to the New Inn, Dover Road, which was kept by
defendant. There was a woman in the bar and witness asked for a pint of Irish
whiskey, for which he paid 2s. 2d. Witness asked if the landlord were in, and
she called him. Witness told him he had purchased the whiskey for the purpose
of analysis. Witness divided it into three parts, giving one to defendant, kept
one for himself, and one for the public analyst. He delivered one sample to Mr.
Harvey on the same day personally. The whiskey was 33.7 under proof. Witness
looked round the bar, but saw no notice up with reference to the sale of it.
By Mr.
Minter: Witness would swear there was no notice in the bar. The young lady in
the bar asked 2s. 8d. for the bottle of whiskey, and witness said he had never
paid more than 2s. The price was then reduced to 2s. 2d. He expected to get
genuine whiskey for that price.
Charles
Keeler, who accompanied the last witness, gave corroborative evidence.
By Mr.
Minter, the witness said he did not hear Pearson say he was going to send a
sample to the Public Analyst.
Mr. Minter
said the witness had contradicted the evidence of the Inspector with regard to
him informing the defendant that he intended to send one sample to the Public
Analyst, and, therefore, he contended that the case had fallen through. If the
Inspector wanted the best whiskey he should have paid a proper price for it. He
paid a small price and could not expect to have had a good article.
Defendant was
fined 40s., and £1 13s. costs, the Chairman remarking that the full penalty was
£20.
Folkestone Express 31-5-1890
Wednesday,
May 28th: Before The Mayor, H.W. Poole Esq., Surgeon General
Gilbourne, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Henry Gower,
a licensed victualler, was charged with selling whiskey adulterated with water
to the extent of 33 percent. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Pearson,
inspector of food and drugs, said on the 14th May he went to the New
Inn, Dover Road, which is kept by the defendant, and asked for a pint of Irish
whiskey. There was a woman in the bar. He paid 2s. 2d. for the whiskey. He
asked the woman if the landlord was in, and she said he was. She called him,
and he told him he had purchased the Irish whiskey for the purpose of analysis.
He divided the whiskey into three parts, one of which he gave to the defendant,
one he sent to the public analyst, and the other he produced in court. He
delivered one portion to Mr. Sidney Harvey, the analyst, personally. He
produced Mr. Harvey`s certificate showing the whiskey was 33.7 under proof. He
cast his eye round the bar and saw no public notice with reference to the sale
of the articles.
By Mr.
Minter: There was no notice I saw that spirits were sold diluted. I did not
taste the whiskey, and cannot give any opinion as to it`s quality. At first the
young woman charged me 2s. 8d., and I said it was exorbitant. It was then
reduced to 2s. 2d. I expected to get genuine whiskey at 2s. 2d., and have
usually paid 2s.
Charles
Peters said he went in company with the Inspector to the New Inn. Mr. Pearson
asked for a pint of Irish whiskey, and paid 2s. 2d. for it, divided it into
three parts, and sent one part to the public analyst. He saw no notice in the
bar that spirits were sold diluted.
By Mr.
Minter: I do not know one part was sent to the public analyst. I heard him
complain of the price, and the price was reduced.
Mr. Minter
said it was necessary to prove that the Inspector gave notice that one portion
was to be sent to the public analyst. The witness Peters, who was called, said
the Inspector said nothing at all about it. He did not dispute the analyst`s
certificate, or that the whiskey was 33 percent under proof. The man was new to
the business, or he would have put up a notice saying it was diluted with water
according to price. It was clear the Inspector was not satisfied with the
price, and bargained for something cheaper, and obtained it cheaper. He should
have been content to have purchased and have paid what was charged for whiskey,
sold as best Irish whiskey, 25 under proof. He suggested that the objections
raised were fatal to the complainant, but if the Bench considered the case
proved, a very small fine would answer the justice of the case.
The Bench
fined the defendant 40s., and costs £1 13s. The full penalty was £20.
Holbein`s Visitors` List 9-7-1890
Quarter
Sessions
At the
Quarter Sessions held at the Town Hall on Monday, there were only two prisoners
for trial, but there were two indictments in one case and three in the other.
The Recorder was unable to be present, and Mr. Abel John Rann acted as his
deputy. It is an open secret that the Recorder is engaged in a case at present
pending in the High Courts, in which the Victoria Pier sharehiolders are deeply
interested.
A true bill
having been returned against Charles Kosh, he was indicted for stealing 4s.,
the monies of Henry Gower, of the New Inn, on the 28th April.
Mr. Hume
Williams appeared for the prosecution, and having briefly stated the facts,
called Susan Stanley, barmaid at the New Inn. She deposed that about five
o`clock on the evening of 28th April prisoner came in and ordered a
glass of beer. He tendered sixpence and she gave him the change. She went into
a side room behind the bar, and heard the chink of coppers. Had counted the
money just before, when there were six sixpences, a threepenny bit, and about
4s. worth of coppers. When she heard the noise she went at once to the till and
again counted the money. There were only two sixpences, a threepenny bit, and about
2s. in coppers. The till could be reached from the front of the counter. No-one
else was in the bar at the same time as the prisoner.
In reply to
prisoner, witness admitted that she did not see him touch any money or the
till. Mr. Gower sent Sergeant Pay after him at once, but he did not find him
until about 6.40. Prisoner asked further questions as to the number of
sixpences in the till, contending that if there were six at the time they were
counted there must have been seven after he had paid another one. He had no
recollection of having been in the house at all.
P.S. Pay
proved apprehending Kosh at the Wonder, in Beach Street, about 6.40. Prisoner
said he had made some mistake, but went quietly to the station. On being
searched there were found on him three sixpences and threepence in bronze.
Mr. Hume
Williams said prisoner had made a statement which was virtually an admission of
his guilt.
The jury
expressed a desire to retire, on the ground that they were not satisfied as to
the number of sixpences, but the Deputy Recorder explained to them that if they
were satisfied the prisoner took any money from the till their verdict must be
one of Guilty.
After a brief
consultation the jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and prisoner was then
charged with having been convicted of a felony before the borough Magistrates.
The Recorder:
Are you Guilty or Not Guilty?
Prisoner: I
don`t know (Laughter)
The Recorder:
But what did the magistrates say; did they find you guilty?
Prisoner:
They fined me ten and sixpence (Laughter)
The
Superintendent of Police said prisoner formerly belonged to the Engineers, and
left with a good character. He had been in the town for some time, but except
the two charges brought that day there was nothing against them.
The Deputy
Recorder told prisoner he had been convicted on the clearest possible evidence,
and that was not his first conviction. He would take into consideration the
fact that prisoner had already been imprisoned more than two months, but warned
him that if he came there, or before any court, again he would receive a long
sentence of imprisonment, or else penal servitude. The sentence would be three
months` hard labour.
Folkestone Chronicle 12-7-1890
Quarter
Sessions
Monday, July
7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
Charles Kosh,
described as a bricklayer, was charged with stealing 4s. from the till of the New
Inn, Dover Road, the money of Henry Gower, on the 28th April.
Mr.
Hume-Williams prosecuted, and the prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded Not
Guilty, stating that he did not remember going into the house.
Susan Stanley
stated that she was barmaid at the New Inn, and on Monday, the 28th
of April, she remembered prisoner being in the bar. He called for a glass of
beer and put down a sixpence. Witness gave him the change and went out of the
bar into a side room, leaving in the till six sixpences, four shillings, and
some bronze money. After she had left the bar a few moments she heard a
rattling of coin and went back to see what it was. She got there just in time to
see the prisoner leaving the house. Witness examined the till and found that
the prisoner had taken four sixpences, a threepenny piece, and about two
shillings in coppers. There were two sixpences left. No-one but the prisoner
was in the bar, and anyone standing in front of the bar could reach over to the
till. Witness counted the money in the till a few minutes before the prisoner
was served.
Prisoner
remarked that he did not remember anything about the offence, but it seemed a
strange thing that the witness should say she counted six sixpences before he
was served, and that there were only two left when she missed the money,
because she had admitted that he had paid her sixpence for the drink. He should
have thought four from seven left three.
The witness
appeared to be rather muddled as to the actual number of sixpences in the till
and afterwards stated that there were three left.
Sergeant Pay
said in consequence of information which he received he went in search of the
prisoner on the evening of the 28th of April, and found him in the Wonder
Tavern. He told him he would be charged with stealing the money, and he replied
“You have made a mistake. I went in with a man who treated me and I came out
with him”. On searching him he found three sixpences and some coppers.
The
prisoner`s statement before the Magistrates was then read, in which he said he
had been out of work for some time, and had been drunk ever since the previous
Saturday night. He admitted that he had done wrong, and he was sorry for it. He
ought to have known better, when he had a wife and four children at home.
The Recorder
having summed up, the jury expressed a wish to retire, and in answer to The
Recorder, Mr. Mercer stated that there was a difference amongst them as to the
number of sixpences.
The Recorder
pointed out that it was not exactly a question as to the number of sixpences.
What they had to decide was whether the prisoner was guilty of taking any money
at all.
After a
little further consideration the jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
Superintendent
Taylor stated that the prisoner was convicted for felony at Folkestone on the
23rd of February, 1890.
The Recorder
(to prisoner): Is that correct? Did the Magistrates find you Guilty?
Prisoner: No,
sir; they fined me 10s. 6d. (Laughter)
Supt. Taylor
said the prisoner formerly belonged to the Royal Engineers, and was discharged
in 1882 with a good character. He had lived in the town for several years, but
he knew nothing further against him.
Mr. Hume
Williams said in fairness to the prisoner he would like to remind The Recorder
that he had been in prison since April 28th.
The Recorder
said he was sorry it was not the occasion on which the prisoner had been in
trouble. There were two serious charges of felony against him. He had already
been three months in prison, and under those circumstances he would deal
lightly with him, but he would warn him that if he was ever taken before
another court he would receive a term of imprisonment three times as long as he
was about to pass upon him, and perhaps penal servitude. Drunkenness appeared
to be his evil and he would recommend him to overcome it in the future. He
would be sentenced to three months` hard labour.
Folkestone Express 12-7-1890
Quarter
Sessions
Monday, July
7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
Charles Kosh,
a bricklayer, was indicted for stealing 4s., the money of Henry Gower, landlord
of the New Inn, on the 28th April. The prisoner said he did not
remember going into the house. The facts of the case were very simple. The
prisoner went into the bar and called for a glass of ale. He was served, and
the barmaid went into the bar parlour, leaving the prisoner standing in front
of the bar. She heard the money in the till rattle, and on going in missed 4s.
Mr. Hume Williams prosecuted.
Susan
Stanley, barmaid at the New Inn, Dover Road, said on Monday, the 28th
April, the prisoner went to the bar and asked for a glass of beer, and tendered
6d. She served him and gave him 4½d. change. As she was leaving the bar to go
into a side room she heard the money in the till rattle. There were six
sixpences, four shillings, and some coppers. She went back and found two
sixpences, a threepenny piece, and about 2s. in coppers in teh till. Anyone
standing in front of the bar could reach over the counter and reach the till.
No-one but prisoner was in the bar at the time. She had counted the contents of
the till a few minutes before the prisoner went in.
In answer to
the Deputy Recorder, the witness said there were three sixpences left in the
till.
Sergt. Pay
proved apprehending the prisoner at 6.40 p.m. at the Wonder Tavern, Beach
Street. He told him the charge, and he replied “You have made a mistake. I went
in with a man, who treated me to a glass of ale, and I came out with him”. On
being searched there were found on him three sixpences and some coppers.
Prisoner`s
statement before the Magistrates was read. He admitted in it that he had done
wrong. He had been out of work and had been drinking about for several days.
The jury
expressed a desire to retire and consider the point as to the number of
sixpences.
The Recorder
told them, however, that the number was immaterial. The only question was
whether prisoner took any money. It was clear there were not so many sixpences
when he left as there were when the young woman counted the money.
The jury
consulted for some minutes in the box, and then returned a verdict of Guilty.
A previous
conviction was proved against him of felony in February, 1890, when he was
fined 10s. 6d.
Supt. Taylor
said the prisoner was formerly in the Engineers. He had resided for several
years in the town, and with the tow exceptions named he had borne a good
character.
Mr. Hume
Williams drew the Deputy Recorder`s attention to the fact that the prisoner had
been in custody for two months.
A sentence of
three months` hard labour was passed upon the prisoner. The Deputy Recorder
called the prosecutor and asked him as to the position of the till, which he
was informed had been altered.
Folkestone News 12-7-1890
Quarter Sessions
Monday, July
7th: Before Abel John Ram Esq.
The Grand
Jury returned a true bill against Charles Kosh, bricklayer, for stealing 4s.,
the monies of Henry Gower, landlord of the New Inn, on the 28th
April.
Mr. Hume
Williams, barrister, briefly stated the case for the prosecution and called
Susan Stanley, who said she was barmaid at the New Inn. At 5 o`clock on Monday,
28th April, the prisoner came into the bar and ordered a glass of
beer. He gave her sixpence, and she gave him the change. As she was going into
a room behind the bar she heard the rattle of coppers, and at once went out to
the till and counted the money. She knew what was in the till, having counted
it just before prisoner came in. When she counted it first there were six
sixpences, one threepenny bit, and about 4s. in coppers. At the second count
there were only two sixpences, one threepenny bit, and about 2s. in coppers.
No-one else came into the bar while prisoner was there. The till could be
reached from the outside of the counter. The coins were certainly taken while
prisoner was in the bar.
In answer to
the prisoner, witness said she found only two sixpences in the till after
prisoner had left. Prisoner contended that if he had given a sixpence, as
witness said, there must have been three, if there were six before, and he had
only taken four.
P.S. Pay said
he apprehended prisoner about 6.40 on the 28th April, at the Wonder,
in Beach Street. Prisoner said he had made a mistake, as he only went in with a
man who treated him to a glass of ale. On being searched at the station there
were three sixpences and threepence in bronze found on him.
Mr. Hume
Williams said prisoner had made a statement before the Magistrates that he had
walked from London in search of work and had been drinking about in Folkestone
for several days. He admitted that he had done wrong and was sorry for it. He
would leave off drinking for the future.
In reply to
the Recorder, the prisoner said it was quite true he had been drinking about,
and he did not know whether he was in the New Inn or not on the date in
question. He hoped it would be taken into consideration that he had already
been in prison more than two months.
The jury
expressed a wish to retire, as they were not satisfied as to the number of
sixpences, but the Deputy Recorder said all they had to consider was whether
prisoner took any money from the till. After a few minutes consultation a
verdict of Guilty was returned. In sentencing the prisoner to three months`
imprisonment with hard labour, the Deputy Recorder said he had taken into
consideration the long time prisoner had been in gaol, but he warned him that
if he came before any Court again on a similar charge he would receive a
sentence of a long term of imprisonment or else of penal servitude. The Deputy
Recorder called Mr. Gower forward and questioned him as to the till. It was
very wrong of people to put temptation in the way of their fellow creatures.
Mr. Gower said he had since had the till removed, and the Deputy Recorder
expressed his satisfaction.
Folkestone Chronicle 19-12-1891
Saturday,
December 12th: Before The Mayor, Major Poole, Aldermen Banks and
Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Clarke, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Mr. George
Warden Haines appeared on behalf of Mr. Gower, landlord of the New Inn, to make
an application for a music and dancing licence in respect of the New Inn.
Mr. Haines
said the whole of the licenses to the other houses were granted until ten
o`clock, but in this case he asked for an extension until eleven. The house
would be under the supervision of the police, and he undertook to say that the
licence would be in no way abused. At Dover the licenses were all granted until
eleven.
Supt. Taylor
said he had no objection to the licence being granted, but he did object to the
last hour. They all knew the class of people who frequented that kind of house
– soldiers and young girls – and it gave rise to disturbances at a late hour in
the night. The landlords really expected the police to go and clear the houses.
He had nothing to say against the houses. Since Mr. Gower had kept it there
had, in fact, been a great improvement.
Mr. Gower
said he did not want the licence for dancing. There was a Club meeting
occasionally held at the house, and sometimes they liked to sing, but, if they
had no licence, under the new Act, his house would be deemed a disorderly
house.
In answer to
Mr. Herbert, Mr. Gower said he did rent two rooms of the adjoining house, but
did not let them off for improper purposes.
Mr. Clarke
asked if Mr. Gower would undertake to shut off communication from the house and
the rooms if the licence were granted.
Mr. Gower
said he would promise to do that.
Superintendent
Taylor said he supposed the door would be merely locked. It would be a very
easy matter to unlock it and lock it as they liked.
Mr. Clarke
said it would not cost much to brick it up. Would he undertake to do that?
Mr. Gower
said he could not undertake to do that without first consulting the brewers.
The
application was adjourned for a week in order that the applicant might
communicate with the brewers, Mr. Clarke remarking that under no consideration
would the licence be granted after ten o`clock.
Folkestone Express 19-12-1891
Saturday,
December 12th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge, H.W.
Poole, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert and J. Clark Esqs.
Mr. Gower
applied for a music and dancing licence for the New Inn. Mr. Haines appeared in
support of the application, and asked that the time should be extended to
eleven o`clock, the majority of such licences being until ten only. He urged
that the character of the house and of the applicant were unimpeachable. It
would, however, be under the eye of the police.
Mr.
Wightwick: Would the police be allowed to dance too?
Mr. Haines: I
don`t suppose there would be any objection, sir. The Superintendent would
perhaps like to dance.
Supt. Taylor
objected to the licence being granted until eleven.
Mr. Herbert
said there were three separate means of communication from the room to private
lodgings with entrances to Peter Street.
The
Superintendent said since Mr. Gower had had the house there had been a marked
improvement in it`s conduct. The rooms referred to were private lodgings and
they were part of the premises.
Applicant
said when the large room was being used the rooms were closed. Three of them
were let to very respectable people.
The Clerk
asked the applicant if he would give an undertaking that so long as the licence
was granted the rooms should be shut off.
Applicant
said he would have them cut off. He did not propose that the hall should be
used for music and dancing, but there was a club held there and sometimes they
had a professional player to give entertainments. He could not undertake to
brick the doorway up.
The Bench
then decided to adjourn the application for a week, in order that the applicant
might communicate with the owners. They added that the licence would only be
granted until ten o`clock.
Folkestone Chronicle 26-12-1891
Saturday,
December 19th: Before Alderman Banks, Major H.W. Poole, Alderman
Pledge, J. Holden and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Mr. Gower,
landlord of the New Inn, again attended in connection with the adjourned
application for a music and dancing licence. On the last occasion, it will be
remembered, the applicant was represented by Mr. Geo. W. Haines, but Mr. Minter
now supported it.
In the course
of his remarks, Mr. Minter said the case was adjourned from last Saturday. He
was unable to be present himself.
Alderman
Banks: You were well represented, though.
Mr. Minter
said he was very glad to hear it. There was a remark made by a gentleman on the
Bench that the applicant would have to stop up a back door before the licence
was granted. Of course, he could not give such an undertaking without
consulting the landlord. He had consulted the landlord, but they could not do
it. He (Mr. Minter) had yet to learn that it was a crime for a publican to have
a back door to his premises. Why should this man not have a back door to his
premises as well as every other house in the town? He had visited the house
personally, and in company with Superintendent Taylor. At the corner of Peter
Street there was a bar belonging to the New Inn premises, and the front bar was
in Dover Road. Between the two bars there was a smoking room. The objection
raised by the Magistrates was, he understood, to the small private entrance in
Peter Street, but if the Bench were to go and look at the place they would not
only see that it was necessary to have an entrance there, but that it ought to
be there for the safety of those who frequent the music and dancing room. There
were now two exits in the room, but if he went before them for a licence for
music and dancing without those exits they would say it would be a death-trap.
He believed there was also something said about some part of the house being
used for private lodgings. He could not see what objection there could be to
that. He had got two rooms which he let out to private people in the same way
as the Queen`s Hotel. If any of the gentlemen of the Bench were to go to the
Queen`s they could take rooms for a year if they liked. It was just the same at
the New Inn, only in a more humble way, of course. It had been stated that
people infringing the law could escape by the back door. They could not make
people good by Act of Parliament. The landlord was under the usual penalty if
he infringed the law, and he was merely applying for what every other publican
in the town had got. With regard to the possibility of people escaping by the
back door, he had been before the Bench on a great many of those kind of cases,
and what id the police do? Why, they placed one man at the front door, and
another at the back. Previous to the applicant taking the house, no doubt there
were great complaints against it. What did Mr. Mackeson do? He got rid of his
tenant and got the present man to take it, and they had granted Gower his
licence because they knew him to be a man of respectable character.
Superintendent Taylor had told them there had been a marked change in the
character of the house. He was a respectable man and conducted his house in a
respectable manner. Therefore he was entitled to have what every other publican
had got. In objecting to close the door, it was not in any way to set the Bench
at defiance. If the Bench would go and look at the place they would see that it
was necessary to have the exit there. The licenses to the other houses in the
town were until ten o`clock at night, but he now asked them to grant this
licence until eleven. Why should the poor not be allowed to dance until eleven,
when the Bench would grant a licence to the rich until four in the morning? The
neighbouring towns had considered that eleven o`clock was the proper hour. He
was perfectly aware that the Bench had made it eleven in other cases, and they
might say it was unfair to extend the time in this particular case. But, with
regard to that matter, he would have another application to make to them
directly, and he would ask them to suspend their judgement in this case until
he had made the application.
Mr. Wightwick
said Mr. Minter seemed to be misrepresented as to the adjournment. It was not
to have the back door stopped up, but to block the door leading to the private
room.
Mr. Bradley
remarked that the house in St. Peter`s Street had never been included in the
licence.
Mr. Minter
said they had held a licence for it for many years.
Mr. Bradley
said he never remembered any application ever having been made.
Mr. Minter:
Of course not, Mr. Bradley, because it was before your time.
Mr. Bradley:
I have sat here for 28 years. It has not been made during that time.
Mr. Minter
said he was going back to the time when it was built by Peter Foord.
Mr. Bradley
said the rooms had been added since.
Mr. Minter
said he was speaking of the whole of the buildings for which they paid a
licence. From time to time the premises had been extended and the Magistrates
had granted the licence. The Excise Authorities had also registered the
premises. He could not close the door because it would cut off communication to
the other bar in Peter Street. It would really make two houses if the door were
closed.
Mr. Minter
then proceeded to make his second application. He had been instructed by every
licence holder in the town to ask the Bench to vary the licenses which they had
granted to them from ten o`clock till eleven o`clock. Of course it would be for
their legal adviser to say whether they had the power to alter it by the
extension for which he was seeking.
Mr. Bradley
said he had looked into the matter, and he was perfectly certain that the
Magistrates had no power to entertain the application.
Mr. Minter
said the licenses for music and dancing were very different to the other
licenses. In the ordinary licenses they knew the duty of the Magistrates were
defined by Act of Parliament and that the annual licensing meeting was
appointed on a particular day and another day for an adjournment. After those
two days were past no further application could be made until the following
year. But there was no such limit with regard to an application for music and
dancing. They could at any time hold a session to deal with them. They held it
there that day because he had given notice that it was his intention to apply
for a licence. Mr. Bradley had told them that they had no power to alter the
licenses, but he did not think he would say he was like the Pope of Rome –
infallible. He held that the Bench had an inherent right over it`s own actions
in these matters and they could modify, alter or vary any order they had made.
He hoped they would say that the publicans of Folkestone had as much right to
have dancing until eleven as the publicans in the neighbouring towns.
The Chairman
said the police had great difficulty in clearing the houses at eleven, and
therefore they were unable to grant the second application.
The licence
would be granted to the New Inn until ten o`clock.
Folkestone Express 26-12-1891
Saturday,
December 19th: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, H.W. Poole, W.
Wightwick, and J. Holden Esqs.
Mr. Gower, of
the New Inn, renewed his application for a music and dancing licence.
Mr. Minter
appeared in support of the application, and with regard to the proposition to
brick up a doorway, he said it was only a back door, and he (Mr. Minter) could
not understand why a publican should not have a back door to his premises. The
house extended from Mill Lane through to Peter Street, there being a bar at
each end – the front door was in Dover Road and the back door in Peter Street.
The objection, he understood, was to the back door in Peter Street, and in the
interests of those who frequented the music room it was essential that there
should be two places of exit and entrance. The bedrooms referred to were
occupied by working men, who were permanent lodgers, and Mr. Gower had as much
right to have private lodgers as the landlord of the Queen`s Hotel. The
Superintendent had seen the premises, and he (Mr. Minter) asked that the
licence should be granted not until ten o`clock only, but eleven. Why, he
asked, should the poorer classes be obliged to leave off dancing at ten
o`clock, when, if an application was made by the upper classes, they would be
allowed to dance till four o`clock in the morning?
Mr. Wightwick
said the application was adjourned, not in order that the back door should be
closed, but in order that the doors leading from the dancing room to the
private rooms should be closed.
Mr. Bradley
said he had no recollection of the houses in Peter Street being included in the
licence at all.
Mr. Minter
said the houses had been used as a part of the public house for years, and it
was entered in the Excise Books.
Mr. Minter
then made a further application on behalf of the various holders of music
licences for an alteration of the hours generally from ten to eleven.
Mr. Bradley
said he had looked into the matter, and he was perfectly certain the
Magistrates had no power to accede to the application.
Mr. Minter
argued that at any time at a special meeting the Magistrates had power to do
so. Every Court, unless prohibited, had an inherent right to alter and vary any
order it may have made. Why Folkestone should be tied to ten o`clock, when in
all other towns the time was extended to eleven, he failed to understand.
The Bench
said they were willing to grant the licence until ten, but they had made up
their minds the time should not be extended in any of the cases.
Folkestone Express 28-5-1892
Wednesday,
May 25th: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.
Mr. Gower was
granted an occasional licence for a ball at the Town Hall on Whit Monday, for
the benefit of the Victoria Hospital.
No comments:
Post a Comment