Paris Hotel, Harbour Street 1853 - 1886

Licensees

Felix Denibas 1853 c1861 (1861 Census)
Thomas Cobb c1861 1866

George Pointer 1866 1868 From Harbour Inn
George Pointer and Frederick John Attwood 1868 1871

Christopher Wedderburn 1871 1875 To West Cliff Shades

Alfred Hills 1875 1886 Later Castle Inn. Renamed American And Paris

Southeastern Gazette 8-8-1854

Tuesday, August 1^st: Before the Mayor and W. Major, Esq.

Claude Michaud, a porter from the Hotel de Paris, was charged by Inspector George Douglass Hazle with trespassing on the platform of the railway company’s harbour station, at 7 p.m., on the 31st, and refusing to quit when requested to do so.

The case having been proved, Mr. Lydden, who appeared for the defendant, said the proprietors of the hotels were anxious the question should be settled, as they were of opinion that they had as much right there as the Pavilion porters.

Fined 1s. and 9s. costs; paid by Mr. Felix Denebas, landlord of the Hotel de Paris.

Dover Chronicle, Dover Telegraph 12-8-1854

Petty Sessions: Claude Michaud, a porter from the Hotel de Paris, was charged by Inspector George Douglas Hazle with trespassing on the platform of the railway company`s station on the evening of the 31^st, and refusing to quit when requested to do so. The case having been proved, Mr. Lydden, who appeared for the defendant, said the proprietors of the hotels were anxious the question should be settled, as they were of opinion that they had as much right there as the Pavilion porters.

Fined 1s. and 9s. costs, paid by Mr. Felix Denibas, landlord of the Hotel de Paris.

Southeastern Gazette 6-3-1855

Local News

Petty Sessions: Before the Mayor and W. Kelcey, Esq.

Felix Denibas, landlord of the Paris Hotel and licensed Customs agent, appeared to answer the complaint of Thomas Harfleet, an officer belonging to the South Eastern Railway Company, for obstructing him in the execution of his duty. Mr. Lvddon appeared for the defendant in the several cases.

Thomas Harfleet stated that it was his duty, on the arrival of the steam packets from Boulogne, to prevent as much as possible the passengers from being annoyed by the touting of agents’ clerks, hotel-keepers, porters, and others, and also to inform the passengers that the Company s Custom-house agent would clear their luggage free of all charges. While performing this duty he was obstructed by the defendant by his taking him by the breast of the coat, shaking him, and telling him to go about his business.

 Mr. Lyddon, in addressing the bench, said that no case had been made out against his client, as the place where the obstruction took place was the refreshment room, which was a licensed public-house, and he considered the Company’s servants or the defendant had no right there.

The magistrates took the same view of the case and dismissed it.

Friday: Before the Mayor, G. Kennicott, Wm. Major, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

 Felix Denibas appeared again, charged with assaulting Thomas Harfleet on the occasion referred to above.

The magistrates having heard the evidence deferred their decision until they heard a cross charge of assault preferred by the defendant against the plaintiff.

A great deal of evidence was gone into, which occupied the magistrates two hours, but was quite uninteresting to the general reader. The magistrates decided in dismissing both cases.

Felix Denibas was then charged with an assault upon Hippolvte Virgil, a waiter in his employ. It appeared that the defendant came into the kitchen and asked the complainant if he was not going to appear against him as a witness in the above cases, and received a reply that he knew nothing about it, whereupon the defendant struck complainant several times and ordered him out of the house.

Mr. Lyddon, who appeared for the defendant, questioned the complainant as to whether the dispute did not arise in consequence of the complainant taking away a box left at the hotel by a customer who had gone to Boulogne.

The complainant admitted that he was taking away a box, but he had written authority to do so, which he produced to the magistrates.

The magistrates fined defendant 8s. and 12s. costs.

Dover Telegraph 27-10-1855

Petty Sessions

John Gibson, one of the harbour porters, was summoned by George Fields for an assault. It appeared that the complainant, with two friends, named Edward Odell and Henry Horton, went into the Paris Hotel, in company with two prostitutes, when their language and conduct was so bad that Mr. Denibas, the landlord, requested them to leave, and on their refusing to do so, called in Gibson to assist him. The whole party seemed somewhat the worse for drink, and in removing Fields he appeared to have fallen out of the door and received a blow on the head.

The Bench being of opinion that it was a squabble amongst the whole of them, dismissed the case, the costs to be paid between them

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27-10-1855

Wednesday October 24^th :- Present S. Mackie Esq., Mayor, W. Major Esq., G. Kennicott Esq., and W. Bateman Esq.

John Gibson appeared to answer a summons for an assault on George Fields in the bar of the Paris Hotel, on Sunday evening last. The case was dismissed, the parties paying the costs, 9s 6d between them.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-11-1856

On Sunday afternoon about 1 o`clock a passenger landed at this port from the ship “Lightning,” from Sydney, and took up his quarters at the Paris Hotel, but who was surprised on Wednesday morning by the Superintendent of police at Leith walking into his bedroom and appre­hending him on various charges of forgery, to the amount of several thousand pounds, committed in that town about two years ago. It appears that the prisoner, Mr. J. P. Wilson (a Swede), succeeded in making his escape to Australia, and that a detective officer was despatched in search of him; but the prisoner, who got an inkling of this, managed for a time to elude his vigilance, and at length took a passage for England in the Lightning. The officer, finding himself foiled, at once embarked in another vessel bound for England, and arrived in the Thames a day or two before the Lightning. On her arrival being tele­graphed he proceeded on board of her, and ascertained from the captain that a person answering the prisoner’s description had left the ship in a shore boat somewhere between Dungeness and Dover. On ascertaining this, the Leith police officer, who was with him, started immediately for Folkestone, and pounced upon his prey as before stated. The warrant was backed by one of our magistrates, and the prisoner was taken off by the next train to London.

Southeastern Gazette 2-12-1856

Local News

Capture of Joseph Manning Wilson

On Wednesday morning application was made to Superintendent Steer, of the Folkestone police, by Superintendent Grant, of the Leith police, for information respecting the above-named individual, who was supposed to have landed on Sunday, between Dover and Dungeness. Superintendent Steer, with much tact and judgment, immediately set to work, and found that a mail had been landed from a ship in the offing, and the delinquent’s name found in the custom-house books. No time was lost in finding his whereabouts, and the two superintendents having shortly appeared at the bedside of Wilson at the Paris Hotel, he was taken into custody and conveyed to Scotland. The prisoner, who is a German, was a ship broker and agent at Leith, was charged with forgeries to the extent of £1000 and upwards, and was an absconded bankrupt to a considerable amount. He was traced to Sydney about twelve months ago, and upon information from the Melbourne police, who had been directed to watch him, it was found that he had taken his passage back to England in the ship Adelle, which arrived in London on the 24th. He had left the ship in the channel, and had defrauded the captain of his passage money by giving him a cheque on Coutts and Co., which was returned dishonoured.

Kentish Gazette 2-12-1856

O Sunday se’ennight a passenger landed at this port from the ship “Lightning,” from Sydney, and took up his quarters at the Paris Hotel, but was surprised on Wednesday morning by the Superintendent of police at Leith walking into his bedroom and appre­hending him on various charges of forgery, to the amount of several thousand pounds, committed in that town about two years ago. It appears that the prisoner, Mr. J. P. Wilson (a Swede), succeeded in making his escape to Australia, and that a detective officer was despatched in search of him; but the prisoner, who got an inkling of this, managed for a time to elude his vigilance, and at length took a passage for England in the Lightning. The officer, finding himself foiled, at once embarked in another vessel bound for England, and arrived in the Thames a day or two before the Lightning. On her arrival being tele­graphed he proceeded on board, and ascertained that a person answering the prisoner’s description had left the ship in a shore boat somewhere between Dungeness and Dover. On ascertaining this, the Leith police officer, who was with him, started immediately for Folkestone, and pounced upon his prey as before stated. The prisoner was taken off by the next train to London. 

Folkestone Chronicle 3-10-1857

Wednesday September 30^th:- Before the Mayor, and T. Golder, W. Major, J. Tolputt, G. Kennicott, and J. Kelcey esqs.

This being the adjourned general annual licencing meeting, the following licence was renewed, viz.:- Felix Denibas, Paris Hotel

Folkestone Chronicle 9-1-1858

Council Meeting Extract

The special and monthly meeting of the Town Council was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening, Jan. 6^th, 1858.

A letter from the executors of the late Mr. Craxford was read, consenting to give up the piece of ground in front of the Paris Hotel, on condition that the Corporation fulfil their contract of the payment of £100 made some five years since.

It was moved by Mr. Jinkings, seconded by Mr. Gambrill, that the £100 be paid out of the general account of the borough. Carried.

A letter from Mr. Ash, of Canterbury, was also read, respecting the drainage by the Gun public house, in the occupation of Mr. Cock, and the report of the surveyor with regard to the same was read, but which report was deferred on account of the great expense.

Southeastern Gazette 28-9-1858, Folkestone Chronicle 2-10-1858

Advertisement Extract

The very desirable and valuable Freehold, Copyhold and Leasehold estates of the late John Craxford Esq.

Messrs. Glasier and Son are instructed to sell by auction at the King`s Arms Inn, in Folkestone, on Tuesday, 5<sup>th</sup> October, 1858, at One for Two o`clock the exceedingly valuable and substantially built Copyhold premises the Paris Hotel, opposite the Harbour, and corner of South Street, occupying the most commanding and best situation in Folkestone.

Folkestone Chronicle 22-1-1859 

County Court, Wednesday, January 19^th: Before Charles Harwood Esq.

Mack v Denibas: Case adjourned from last Court.

Mr. Minter appeared for Mr. Mack, and said that His Honour would perhaps recollect the case; it had been published in the papers, and his client had been subjected to a great deal of obloquy in consequence. He had therefore gone into considerable expense to set himself roght with the public – he had therefore obtained the attendance of witnesses from Dover, Chatham, &c., to prove the assertion he had made at the previous hearing. The porter from the Paris, the hotel kept by Mr. Denibas, was also present, and would be able to prove the statement made by his client about the carpet bag. His Honour would also recollect that Mr. Denibas had denied writing to Chatham to Mr. Austen. Mr. Austen was present to prove this, and further could prove that since the case was last heard, Mr. Denibas had written to Mr. Austen.

Mr. Minter then called Vincent Elvey, who said he was a fruiterer residing at Dover; knew Mr. Denibas well; had had dealings with him; recollected purchasing some onions from him, and paid him either 12s. or 14s. for them, could not tell which. The onions were in Mr. Denibas` store, and witness paid him for them. Never knew Mr. Mack in the transaction at all.

John Austed said he resided at Chatham, and was a contract baker. Mr. Mack called upon him with samples of flour and potatoes; received a letter shortly after from Mr. Denibas, which he produced; he admitted the fact of Mr. Mack travelling for Mr. Denibas.

Hugh Daniels said he was until lately a porter at the Paris Hotel. Recollected being sent for the key of a portmanteau to Mr. Mack`s house.

The Judge said it was a most important contradiction to Mr. Denibas` statement made last Court, and he must verdict in Mr. Mack`s favour, with expenses of witnesses from Chatham and Dover.

Dover Chronicle 3-9-1859 

County Court, Wednesday: Before Charles Harwood Esq.

Thos. Griffin v Felix Denibas; Mr. John Minter, of Folkestone, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Biron, with Mr. Wilks, of Hythe, for the defendant.

Mr. Minter said that the plaintiff was a farmer residing at Broadmead, and the defendant was the proprietor of the Paris Hotel, and was also engaged as general merchant. The action was brought to recover £15 damages sustained in consequence of breach of contract by the defendant. The case like many others arose from a rise or fall in the price of the goods contracted for. At the commencement of the month of May it was anticipated that in consequence of the state of things on the continent the ports would be closed, and the exportation of provisions disallowed; a rise in the price of potatoes was therefore anticipated, and the plaintiff, thinking it would be a good speculation to lay in a stock, went to the defendant and purchased 15 tons at £3 5s. per ton, to be delivered within a fortnight. The non-completion of this contract formed the subject of the plaint.

He then called Thomas Griffin, who said: I am a farmer, and reside at Broadmead. On the 10^th of May I went to Mr. Denibas to purchase some potatoes. He agreed to sell me 15 tons at 65s. per ton, to be delivered within a fortnight if the French ports were not closed; it was a verbal agreement. He told me he had them over by the cargo boats, and therefore could not deliver them all at once, but I was to have the greatest proportion of the several lots as they came over. He also told me that if the ports were not closed I could have any quantity. On the 12^th I received a not stating that the defendant had got some potatoes in, and enquiring when I would commence having the 15 tons. I sent for a sample and, approving of them, I sent my waggon for 60 sacks; but I only got 30 sacks, about 46½ cwt.; this was on Saturday. On Monday I sent for the other 30 sacks, and the waggon returned empty. I afterwards wrote to Mr. Denibas complaining of the loss of time. I was to pay for them as they were fetched away. I sent again on the Tuesday, and got 30 sacks more, but did not send the money for the second lot. I sent again to defendant for some more, but received a letter from him demanding 5s. 6d. per sack. I sent him a note requiring the completion of the contract, and I also sent him a cheque for £7 10s. for the last lot delivered; but he declined sending any more potatoes, except at the advanced price. The price ultimately rose 2s. 6d. per sack, and therefore I consider I am entitled to £15 damages.

Cross-examined: I went to the Paris Hotel and asked Denibas the price of potatoes. He told me 65s. per ton. I asked for ten tons, and he told me I could have fifty if the French ports were not closed. He did not say the price must depend upon what he heard from France. The only risk was upon the ports being closed. I did not see him again on the subject; they were to be paid for as delivered, and the whole to be delivered within a fortnight. I got a sample within three or four days. Mr. Denibas refused to sign a written contract.

George Chester said: I am servant to Mr. Griffin. I remember the receipt of a load of potatoes. I was sent with a letter to Mr. Denibas; it was after the second load was received; the answer was that if the money for the last lot was sent, we could have more potatoes.

Thomas Deal said: I am waggoner to Mr. Griffin. My master gave me a cheque to pay for the last lot of potatoes, and I was to bring home another load. I saw Mr. Denibas and gave him the cheque; he told me I could not have any more potatoes unless I had the money for them, and then I must pay the same price as other people.

In reply to the Judge, Mr. Griffin said he had sold a part of the sixty sacks at 7s. 6d. per sack, but some that were out of condition he had sold at 4s. 6d.

Mr. Biron said there was one distinct answer, and that was that they never agreed to supply 15 tons, but agreed to sell them as they came to their hands. Mr. Griffin came to them as a customer to purchase some potatoes, and they agreed to supply him from time to time as they had them; there was also an agreement that Mr. Denibas should correspond with Mr. Griffin when they arrived, and a sample of the first arrival was sent accordingly; another point of considerable importance was not carried out, according to Mr. Griffin`s own account. The money was not sent as it should have been; if it were so they were entitled to insist on ready money.

Felix Denibas said: Plaintiff came to me in May, and asked me if I had any potatoes. I said I had none then. He said he wanted some as his crops had failed. I promised as soon as I had some to let him know; on the 11^th I received eighty seven sacks by a steamer. I did not send him a letter, but sent him word by a messenger that he could have sixty sacks. On the 14^th he sent the waggon for them, but the waggoner said he could not take more than thirty sacks. As I was obliged to clear the quay, I sold all the remainder to my other customers; without further notice Mr. Griffin sent to me on the 16^th for the other thirty sacks. I told the man he should not have come. The next day I sent to Mr. Griffin for a cheque for those he had had, and told him he could have more on that day if the money were sent.

Cross-examined: There was no agreement as to price.

The Judge, having reviewed the case, gave a verdict for £6 10s. and costs to the plaintiff.

Folkestone Chronicle 3-9-1859

County Court

Wednesday August 31^st:- Before Charles Harwood esq., Judge.

Thomas Griffin v Felix Denibas

Mr. Biron appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff was represented by. Mr. John Minter, who, in opening the case, said the plaintiff was Mr. Thomas Griffin, was a farmer, residing in this locality, and the defendant was Mr. Denibas, proprietor of the Paris Hotel, and also a dealer in potatoes. Some time in May last plaintiff went to defendant, and asked him if he had any potatoes for sale, as from the disturbed state of the Continent there was a probability of the ports being closed, and plaintiff wished to speculate in that article; ultimately, as he would prove by evidence of plaintiff, a verbal contract was entered into between him and defendant for 15 tons of potatoes at £3 5s per ton, to be delivered in a fortnight. When the negotiation was going on, plaintiff wished to reduce the contract into writing, but defendant would not consent to this; that of course would nullify the verbal contract; but he would be enabled to lay before the court, letters that had passed between the parties which would make it a contract binding in law. Plaintiff had received from defendant sixty sacks of potatoes, but after the delivery of them, defendant refused to supply him, except at an increase of 6d. per sack, which plaintiff refused to agree to. This action was therefore brought to recover the sum £15 as damages sustained by plaintiff for the breach of contract. The damage was estimated at 2s. 6.d per sack on 120 sacks – the number required to make up 15 tons. The letters referred to were then put in and read.

Mr. Griffin was then called, and being examined by Mr. Minter, proved the facts as stated by Mr. Minter.

Mr. Biron cross-examined plaintiff, but did not succeed in eliciting any new fact.

George Chaster, examined by Mr. Minter, proved taking a letter to defendant, from plaintiff, and bringing back a verbal answer, “that if the money was sent for the other potatoes delivered, plaintiff might have more”.

Thomas Dent, a waggoner to Mr. Griffin, proved taking a cheque for thirty sacks of potatoes, and the refusal of defendant to supply any more except at an increased price.

Mr. Minter said this completed the case.

Mr. Biron, in answer, said the only reply they had no contract between the parties, and that the defendant had not agreed to sell plaintiff 15 tons of potatoes. He argued that in all the conversations in the first instance, and in all the letters produced, 15 tons is only alluded to by Mr. Griffin, and it was an axiom in law, that two parties must agree to make a contract binding; but even if there was a contract it had been broken, for plaintiff said himself that the goods were to be paid for on delivery, and they had not been; this was a violation of the contract which he thought was fatal to the claim for damages; he would call Mr. Denibas, who would prove that there was no contract entered into at all; but that he was to supply Mr. Griffin at the regular market price in such quantities as he required, and that no contract for 15 tons, as alleged, had been entered into. Mr. Biron then called Mr. Denibas.

Before examining him however, His Honour (the Judge) asked Mr. Biron to look attentively at two letters put in, one from plaintiff, and a reply from defendant, clearly showing that a contract was made, and whether it would be advisable to swear the defendant after that.

Mr. Biron having consulted with the solicitor for the defence, and reading over the letters, intimated to His Honour that he should examine Mr. Denibas, who stated that plaintiff came to him on the evening of the day on which the foundation stone of the New Town Hall was laid, and asked him if he had any potatoes for sale, as his crops had failed and he wanted some very much. Defendant replied he had none on hand, but as soon as he had he should let him know. In the course of a day or two defendant had some from France, and immediately let plaintiff know he could have 60 sacks. Had necer agreed to let Mr. Griffin have 5 tons, nor 15 tons either; only that when he had potatoes he would let him know.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, there was no price named for the potatoes when they first met. A person called Hart was there when the contract was made; was in the house before Mr. Griffin came in, and went out with him; could not recollect who else was there.

Jeffery Hart, examined by Mr. Biron, recollected Mr. Griffin asking Mr. Denibas if he had any potatoes for sale. Mr. Denibas said he had none, but would have some soon; could recollect nothing further.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter – Was there about three quarters of an hour – came in about two minutes after Mr. Griffin, and remained after him. Heard nothing about the ports being closed – must have heard this conversation if it had taken place.

Mr. Minter shortly replied, and said the only point was the question of damages, as he thought he had proved his case by the evidence he had adduced.

His Honour said, no doubt a contract was made between the parties, and if plaintiff had agreed to the 6d. increase per sack the case would not have been heard at all, he should therefore award the sum of £6 10s. with costs.

Southeastern Gazette 6-9-1859

County Court

Wednesday: Before C. Harwood, Esq.

Thos. Griffin v. Felix Denibas. Mr. Minter was for plaintiff, and Mr. Biron for defendant.

 

Mr. Minter, in opening the case, said the plaintiff was Mr. Thomas Griffin, a farmer, residing in this locality, and defendant was Mr. Denibas, proprietor of the Paris Hotel, and also a dealer in potatoes. Some time in May last plaintiff went to defendant, and asked him if he had any potatoes for sale, as from the disturbed state of the Continent there was a probabilty of the ports being closed, and plaintiff wished to speculate in that article; ultimately a verbal contract was entered into between him and defendant for 15 tons of potatoes at £3 5s. per ton, to be delivered in a fortnight. Plaintiff had received from defendant sixty sacks of potatoes, but after the delivery of them, defendant refused to supply him, except at an increase of 6d. per sack, which plaintiff refused to agree to. This action was therefore brought to recover the sum of £15 as damages sustained by plaintiff for the breach of contract. The damage was estimated at 2s. 6d. per sack on 120 sacks—the number required to make up the 15 tons.

Evidence having then been given in support of the above statement, Mr. Biron replied, contending that no contract had been made at all, but that even if there was one, it had been broken, for plaintiff said himself that the goods were to be paid for on delivery, and they had not been; he would call Mr. Denibas, who would prove that he was to supply Mr, Griffin at the regular market price.

Mr. Denibas and a witness named James Hart were then examined, but His Honour said no doubt a contract was made between the parties, and he should therefore award the sum of £6 10s. with costs.

Kentish Gazette 6-9-1859 

County Court (Before Charles Harwood. Esq., Judge.)

This Court was held on Wednesday. There were about 40 cases, but only one of any interest:

Thos. Griffin v Felix Denibas - Mr. John Minter, of Folkestone, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Biron, with Mr. Wilks, of Hythe, for the defendant. Mr. Minter said that the plaintiff was a farmer residing at Broadmead, and the defendant was the proprietor of the Paris Hotel, and was also engaged as general merchant. The action was brought to recover £15 damages sus­tained in consequence of breach of contract by the defendant. The case, like many others, arose from a rise or fall in the price of the goods contracted for. At the commencement of the month of May it was anticipated that in consequence of the state of things on the continent, the ports would be closed, and the exportation of provisions disallowed: a rise in the price of potatoes was therefore anticipated, and the plaintiff, thinking it would be a good speculation to lay in a stock, went to the defendant and purchased 15 tons at £3 5s. per ton, to be delivered within a fortnight. The non-completion of this contract formed the subject of the plaint. He then called the witnesses, after whose evidence had been taken, the Judge gave a verdict for £6 10s and costs to the plaintiff.

Dover Telegraph 10-9-1859 

County Court, Wednesday: Before Charles Harwood Esq.

Thos. Griffin v Felix Denibas: Mr. John Minter, of Folkestone, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Biron, with Mr. Wilks, of Hythe, for the defendant.

Mr. Minter said that the plaintiff was a farmer residing at Broadmead, and the defendant was the proprietor of the Paris Hotel, and was also engaged as general merchant. The action was brought to recover £15 damages sustained in consequence of breach of contract by the defendant. The case like many others arose from a rise or fall in the price of the goods contracted for. At the commencement of the month of May it was anticipated that in consequence of the state of things on the continent the ports would be closed, and the exportation of provisions disallowed; a rise in the price of potatoes was therefore anticipated, and the plaintiff, thinking it would be a good speculation to lay in a stock, went to the defendant and purchased 15 tons at £3 5s. per ton, to be delivered within a fortnight. The non-completion of this contract formed the subject of the plaint.

He then called the witness, after whose evidence had been taken, the Judge gave a verdict for £6 10s. and costs to the plaintiff.

Kentish Express 10-9-1859

County Court

Thomas Griffin v Felix Denibas. Mr. Biron appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. John Monter, who, in opening the case, said the plaintiff was Mr. Thomas Griffin, a farmer, residing in this locality, and defendant was Mr. Denibas, proprietor of the Paris Hotel, and also a dealer in potatoes. Some time in May last plaintiff went to defendant, and asked him if he had any potatoes for sale, as from the disturbed state of the continent there was a probability of the ports being closed, and plaintiff wished to speculate in that article; ultimately, as he would prove by the evidence of plaintiff, a verbal contract was entered into between him and defendant for fifteen tons of potatoes at £3 5s. per ton, to be delivered in a fortnight. When the negotiation was going on, plaintiff wished to reduce the contract into writing, but defendant would not consent to this; that, of course, would nullify the verbal contract; but he would be enabled to lay before the Court letters that had passed between the parties which would make it a contract binding in law. Plaintiff had received from defendant sixty sacks of potatoes, but after the delivery of them, defendant refused to supply him, except at an increase of 6d. per sack, which plaintiff refused to agree to. This action was therefore brought to recover the sum of £15 as damages sustained by plaintiff for the breach of contract. The damage was estimated at 2s. 6d. per sack for 120 sacks, the number required to make up the fifteen tons. The letters referred to were then put in and read. After taking evidence on both sides at considerable length, His Honour said, no doubt a contract was made between the parties, and if plaintiff had consented to the 6d. increase per sack the case would not have been heard at all; he should therefore award the sum of £6 10s. with costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 3-12-1859

County Court

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

George Beer v F. Denibas – For £1 8s. for balance of account. Mr. Wightwick appeared for defendant, and put in a receipted bill for the amount claimed. Verdict for defendant.

Folkestone Chronicle 5-5-1860

Local News

On Sunday last an accident occurred to Mr. Thomas Cobb, junr., proprietor of the Paris Tap. It appears that Mr. Cobb was driving home when the pony (the property of Mr. Lyell) took fright, ran away, and threw him out of the chaise into the window of the house lately occupied by Mr. Robert Baker, by which five or six panes of glass were broken, the trap almost destroyed, and Mr. Cobb much cut about the head and rendered insensible, in which state he was carried home, and has been confined to his room ever since. It appears that this is not the first or second time that this pony has started and occasioned accidents to the drivers and occupants of the vehicles in which it has been placed.

Folkestone Chronicle 19-10-1861, Southeastern Gazette 29-10-1861

Advertisement Extract

The very desirable and valuable Freehold, Copyhold and Leasehold estates of the late John Craxford Esq.

The Copyhold portion consists of that commandingly situate and substantial building The Paris Hotel, fronting the Harbour, corner of South Street, and opposite the Pavilion, which will be sold by auction by Mr. J. Banks, at the King`s Arms Inn, Folkestone, on November 5<sup>th</sup>, 1861, at six o`clock in the evening, by direction of the executors.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-5-1862 

Death: May 13, at the Paris Hotel, Folkestone, Sophia, wife of Mr. Charles Denibas, aged 33 years.

Southeastern Gazette 20-5-1862 

Death: On the 13^th inst., at the Paris Hotel, Folkestone, Sophia, wife of Mr. Felix Denibas, aged 33.

Canterbury Weekly Journal 24-5-1862

Death: May 13, Sophia, wife of Mr. Felix Denibas, of the Paris Hotel, aged 33 years.

Dover Chronicle 24-5-1862 

Death: May 13, at Folkestone, Sophia, wife of Mr. Felix Denibas, of the Paris Hotel, aged 33 years.

Dover Chronicle 27-6-1863 

At the Magistrates` Court, Folkestone, on Saturday last, a young man named George Burgess, a commissioner for Denibas` Paris Hotel, was charged upon a summons with having on the 13^th and 14^th instant unlawfully trespassed upon certain premises of the South Eastern Railway Company – to wit, one of the waiting rooms at the Harbour Station, and with having refused to quit the same on being requested to do so by the servants of the Company. These proceedings, it appears, have been taken in consequence of the very many cases brought to the knowledge of the Company of the annoyance and the extortion practiced upon passengers by men of the defendant`s class.

Mr. Freeland, the Company`s solicitor, attended to support the summons, and Mr. John Minter conducted the defendant`s case.

Mr. Freeland, in his opening remarks, said the Act of Parliament under which the prosecution proceeded was the 3^rd and 4^th Vic., chap.97, sec. 16, wherein it was laid down that any person wilfully trespassing upon any railway, of upon any premises or works connected therewith, was liable and might be seized by any officer or agent of the Company and detained till he could be conveniently taken before a Justice of the Peace; and that upon conviction for each offence he should, at the discretion of the magistrates, be fined in a sum not exceeding £5, and in default to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding two months. Not wishing to act harshly by the defendant, the extreme course pointed out in that Act had not been taken, and instead of giving him into custody a summons had been taken out, The facts of the case were these:- On the previous Saturday, on the arrival of one of the trains, the defendant entered the waiting room at the Harbour Station. He was then asked by an officer of the Company if he had a ticket to proceed by train, or if he had any business at all with the Company. The defendant replying in the negative, he was requested to leave the premises, and at the same time was informed that his refusal to do so would render him liable to be prosecuted and fined for trespass, but he still persisted in remaining. On the following day the defendant again entered the waiting room, when the same course was adopted towards him as on the previous day; he was asked if he were there upon any business connected with the Company and, upon his intimating that he was not, he was requested by the Superintendent, in the presence of a witness, to leave the station. That, however, he refused to do. Now, the defendant was a touter for the Paris Hotel, at Folkestone, and he was sure the Bench would agree with him when he said that the system of touting had become a great evil. Englishmen did not care to be touted; they did not like to be told where to go, and the conduct of this class of men was moreover a great annoyance to ladies crossing over by the boats. Not that he had one word to say against claims of the Paris to public patronage. Every man liked to have his own hotel, and the pressing solicitations of these touters, therefore, were a great bore to the travelling public. It mattered not one jot to the Company whether patrons went to the Paris, or the Royal George, the Pig and Whistle or the Hog in Armour, but, as the Bench would understand, it was extremely objectionable for an individual to be compelled to swallow a Hog in Armour (laughter). As he said, these touters were a source of great inconvenience and annoyance to passengers using the waiting room, and if persons were allowed to appropriate the room for purposes other than those for which it was erected there was no telling where the evil might stop. If the defendant were allowed to come upon the premises for the purpose of touting, he could come there for other purposes, and one man being allowed to do this others could not be prevented from following his example. There would be nothing to prevent people from assembling and actually carousing in that very waiting room. And it was possible, should it be decided the defendant was right in doing what he had done, that such might ultimately be the result. The real and only object in view in instituting the present proceedings was the protection and comfort of the public travelling by the Company`s line. There was no reason for supposing that the admission or non-admission of touters would make any particular difference to the shareholders` dividends; but, looking at it from a different point of view, the question was one of great importance to the public of Folkestone, and the South Eastern Railway Company, as the guardians of a large portion of the public, had come forward to ask the Bench to put in force powers given them by the Act of Parliament for the suppression of the nuisance. After some few further remarks, Mr. Freeland called the following witnesses:-

Captain James Fuller Boxer: I am the Superintendent at Folkestone of the South Eastern Railway Company. There is a waiting room at the Harbour Station, which is now in the possession of the Company and forms part of the premises. I remember the previous Saturday. About 8.40 in the evening of that day, I saw the defendant in the waiting room talking to some passengers just landed from the boat, but I did not hear what he said to them. In the presence of two witnesses I asked the defendant if he had a ticket to go by the train and he said he had not. I asked him if he had any business at all to transact with the Company, to which he replied “No.” I then said to him, as the Company`s Superintendent, I must request him to leave the waiting room. The defendant answered that he should not go, and remained in the room. Of my own knowledge, I can only say that the defendant remained about two minutes, as I left him to attend something else after telling him to go.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I think the defendant said to me that he was there on business as a custom-house agent. I have told him that to be a custom-house agent it was necessary to get the authority of the collector of the port. I am aware that under a new Act of Parliament the licenses formerly issued to custom-house agents have been abolished; but, as I have said, I believe it is necessary to obtain the sanction of the collector before a person can act in that capacity. The defendant told me he had applied to Mr. Raggett, the collector, and that he had given him the necessary authority. I know a man named Tassart, and I have sometimes seen him at the station on the arrival of the boats, but I have never seen him passing baggage in the waiting room. I have seen him speaking to passengers, and also passing baggage in the baggage room. There is a passage leading from the waiting room to the baggage room. My belief is that Tassart attends the station for the purpose of passing baggage. There is a refreshment room adjoining the waiting room, at which wines and spirits are sold, but it is opened only during the embarkation and landing of passengers. There is a communication between the waiting room and the refreshment room, but the proper entrance is by the door opening into the corridor. The former is kept only open for the convenience of passengers. I have seen some of the general public taking refreshment at the refreshment room. 

Re-examined by Mr. Freeland: The defendant did not tell me that any of the passengers had given him authority to get their baggage passed. The defendant knows that I am the Company`s Superintendent – or at least I suppose he does.

Thomas George Ledger, custom-house agent for the South Eastern Company, and William Burr, a police officer at the Harbour Station, were next called, and their evidence substantiated in all its material points that given by Captain Boxer.

Mr. William H.M. Bennett, station master at the Harbour Station, was then called to prove the trespass on the 14^th. He said he saw the defendant in the waiting room at the Harbour Station on that day, and heard Captain Boxer ask him what he was doing there. Defendant replied that he was on his business. Capt. Boxer said “Touting for custom, I suppose?” and the defendant replied “Yes.” Capt. Boxer then requested him to leave the Company`s premises, but he refused to go. Capt. Boxer said “Do you refuse to go?” and the defendant answered “Yes.” The defendant, to witness`s knowledge, remained in the waiting room some time after that conversation took place – it might have been fifteen minutes afterwards. The defendant said nothing about being there for the purpose of passing baggage.

By the Bench: I did not hear him say anything about the Paris Hotel.

Mr. Freeland: Do you know the defendant to belong to the Paris Hotel?

Witness: He keeps the tap there, I believe.

By Mr. Minter: The defendant did not say he was a custom-house agent. Captain Boxer asked him if he was touting for business, and he replied “Yes.” Those were the words used.

This being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Minter addressed the Court for the defendant. He had anticipated, from the great length at which his learned friend on the other side in his opening speech had dwelt upon the necessity for protecting the rights of the public that some serious charge was about to be produced against the defendant. The evidence of the witnesses, however, he contended, had not substantiated a single point in the statement of the solicitor for the prosecution. Not a single case of touting, not a single case of annoyance had been proved against the defendant; but, on the other hand, all of the witnesses, with the exception of Captain Boxer, were constrained to admit that he was at the station for his lawful and legitimate business – that was he was there for the purpose of passing passengers` luggage. Captain Boxer had said he did not know for what purpose the defendant was at the station; but he had got from him on cross-examination that some conversation had taken place between him and Burgess respecting customs house licenses, and that fact, he thought, at once negative the idea that Captain Boxer was ignorant of his business at the station. There was no doubt, then, that the defendant was there for the purpose of passing baggage. The Bench also had it in evidence that Tassart and other commissioners were constantly engaged at the station in passing baggage, and indeed the whole circumstances of the case combined to show that the present proceedings instead of being taken for the protection of the public were nothing more nor less than the result of a splenetic action on the part of Captain Boxer. That view of the case was supported by the utter absence of any proof that the defendant was in the habit of rushing about and annoying passengers, or of dragging them to the Paris Hotel to the detriment of other hotels in the town. Independent of all this, however, the Bench had heard that at the Harbour Station there was a public refreshment room. It was all very well to say that this place was opened only at certain hours – that was upon the arrival and departure of passengers; but it was known, and it had been admitted, that non-travellers were frequently seen taking wines and spirits there. He contended, therefore, that so long as this refreshment room was open to the general public the defendant had a right to go there, and it was not within Captain Boxer`s power to turn him off. He also submitted that if the defendant went upon the premises in the bona fide belief that he had a right to do so for the purpose of pursuing his lawful vocation the jurisdiction of the Bench was ousted.

Mr. Freeland, in answer to this remark of Mr. Minter, that he had charged the defendant with dragging passengers to the Paris Hotel, said what he wished to show to the Bench was that if the system was not at once suppressed it might eventually be productive of all the evils he had enumerated. In respect to the technical objection taken by Mr. Minter, he referred the Bench to the case of Leet aganst Vian in 30 Law Journal (magistrates` cases), page 207, and Regina against Dodson, in Oke`s Magisterial Synopsis, in both which it was clearly laid down that a simple allegation of general right was not sufficient to cost the jurisdiction of the Bench,

Mr. Minter then proposed to examine the defendant upon the question of right, but the Bench ruled that could not be called.

The Bench then deliberated for some time with closed doors.

Upon the re-admission of the public the Mayor asked Mr. Freeland if he pressed for a conviction in both cases. 

Mr. Freeland said he did; but at the same time there was not the slightest desire to deal harshly with the defendant; he should be quite satisfied with the infliction of a nominal fine in each case. The object of the Company, he could assure the Bench was simply and only to protect the public travelling by their line from inconvenience and annoyance. 

The Bench then fined the defendant 1s. for each offence, with the costs, amounting together to £1. 

Southeastern Gazette 27-10-1863 

Advertisement extract: Folkestone, in Kent. The remaining portion of the very desirable freehold, copyhold and leasehold estates of the late John Craxford Esq.

All that substantial and well-built copyhold premises, the Paris Hotel, fronting the harbour, let on a lease to Mr. F. Denibas, which expires on the 1^st September, 1865.

The above property (under instructions received from the trustees), will be sold by auction by Mr. John Banks, at the King`s Arms Inn, Folkestone, on Wednesday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 1863, at five for six o`clock in the afternoon.

Folkestone Observer 26-3-1864

Friday March 25^th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

A Gentleman In The Dalliance Of Nymphs

Ann Mercer, who is not the handsomest of the frail sisterhood in Fancy Street, was charged with stealing various articles from the person of George William Freeth.

George William Freeth, at present staying at the Pavilion Hotel, said that on Saturday night last, as I was walking in the street, he met the prisoner, Ann Mercer, and another girl. Prisoner, or her companion, asked me to treat them, and I did. We went into the Paris Hotel, at the side door. We had some soda and brandy. I then had a necktie pin, and other articles. The other girl left us, and I went walking about with the prisoner. We then went to her rooms. I don`t know where that was, but it was up some steps. I was not in my sober senses, but quite on the other side. I don`t remember what took place after that, until I found myself in bed at the Pavilion next morning. I then missed a gold necktie pin, a little purse containing three Napoleons, a common pencil, a silver pencil case, walking stick, and a small pen-knife. I had all these things when I was in company with the prisoner, after the other girl went away. The walking stick produced by Superintendent Martin was the stick he had missed.

Prisoner: When we went up to my place we did not stay in my place two minutes. Had you all these things with you when you went into a shop and bought a veil for me? And then you wanted me to go into your apartments at the Pavilion.

Prosecutor: When I first met her I had a dog with me, and I went home and took my dog home. I have no recollection of going in with her to buy a veil.

The Mayor: Did you ask her to go to your apartments at the Pavilion?

Prosecutor: I don`t think I asked her to go to the Pavilion with me. I have no recollection of it.

Prisoner: He did. I left him outside the Pavilion. I did not see him after that. As to that stick, it must have been left in the room when he went up. He did not stop there two minutes.

Superintendent Martin said that yesterday afternoon about three o`clock he received information about this robbery, and went to the Pavilion and saw the complainant. He described the property that had been stolen from him, including the stick produced, and described the prisoner. In consequence of that, witness went to the prisoner`s house in Fancy Street. She was in bed. He said to her “You were in company with a gentleman last night”. She at first said “I have not been with a gentleman”. Afterwards she said she had been with a gentleman. Witness said “You have robbed him”. She denied it. Witness said “I want a stick that is here”. She said “I know nothing about a stick”. Witness said “He has lost his hat also”. She then said “I was drunk last night. I recollect now there is a stick in the room, and it is under the drawers. The gentleman left it here”. Witness looked under the drawers and found the stick produced, and then searched the room, but no more of the property was found. He then took her down to the Pavilion, and Mr. Freeth identified her and gave her into custody. There was no hesitation in identifying her. He should be able to adduce other evidence if a remand to Wednesday were granted.

Prosecutor desired that the case might be immediately settled, as he wished to leave the town.

The Mayor, after consultation, said that for the ends of justice the case must stand over to Wednesday; but ultimately the prisoner was again placed in the dock and the evidence of Vincent Sinclair, 2, The Narrows, was given as follows:-

He saw Ann Mercer on Saturday night at The Narrows at about a quarter past ten. She was sober, and had the stick now produced in her hand. She told him he could have the stick now produced for sixpence. He took it in his hand and looked at it, and told her he did not want to buy it.

The magistrates now limited the case to the stick, and the prisoner giving consent to be tried by the magistrates, and pleading guilty, the bench committed her to prison with three months` hard labour.

Prosecutor was picked up, we understand, by a gentleman of the town, at the end of Fancy Street, in a state approaching insensibility, and was by him taken to the Pavilion. The prisoner has been seventeen or eighteen time before the bench on charges of drunkenness, and once for robbery.

Southeastern Gazette 22-5-1866

Transfer of Licence

At a special sessions held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last, the following transfer was granted:—The Paris Hotel Tap, from Mr. Cobb to Mr. Pointer

Notes: No mention of Cobb in More Bastions. Date for Pointer at Paris Hotel is at variance.
 

Folkestone Chronicle 21-9-1867

Advertisement

Mr. John Banks is instructed by the executors of the late John Crawford Esq., to submit to pulic auction, at the King`s Arms Inn, Folkestone, on Monday, September 23<sup>rd</sup>, 1867, at six o`clock in the evening precisely, the remaining portion of the eligible Freehold, Copyhold and Leasehold Properties in six lots.

Lot 1: All that exceedingly valuable, newly erected, and substantially built Copyhold premises, known as the Paris Hotel, on the Harbour, and corner of South Street, occupying one of the most commanding and best situations in Folkestone: containing 13 good bedrooms, large sitting room, with three windows overlooking the harbour, bar, bar parlour, coffee room, smoking room, kitchen, scullery, larder, wine, beer and coal cellars, and two W.C., in the occupation of Mr. F. Denibas. This Lot is subject to two Quit Rents, at 1s 6d per annum each, and two Fines of 1s 6d each upon death or alienation

Notes: Hardly “newly erected”, as the Paris Hotel had been open since 1853. 

Kentish Gazette 10-12-1867 

It will be in the recollection of some of our readers, that some four or five years ago, a lad, the son of a French cook at the Paris Hotel, was suddenly missed, and that a boat belonging to Mr. Graves was also lost at the same time, but afterwards found at sea, capsized. The lad was not afterwards heard of, and it was supposed he went out to sea and was drowned; but during the past week, it is believed that tidings have been received from him in Australia.

Folkestone Observer 15-2-1868

Wednesday, February 12^th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and W. Bateman Esqs.

George Painter and John Frederick Attwood applied for a transfer of license granted to Felix Denibas to sell excisable liquors at the Paris Hotel, South Street. The application was granted.

Folkestone Observer 26-6-1869

Saturday, June 19^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

Ann Mercer was charged with being drunk and being a common prostitute; also with wandering the streets in a riotous manner.

P.C. Swain said he was on duty at the lower part of the town at 11 o`clock the previous night, when he saw the prisoner coming down High Street. Prisoner was so drunk she could scarcely walk. On passing into Harbour Street she had something to say to two or three young men, and she continued hallooing them until in front of the Paris Hotel, when she went across to the wall opposite, where she stood talking to some men, and witness told her to go away or he would lock her up. Prisoner then commenced swearing and witness took her into custody.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. for being drunk, a week being allowed to pay it in.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-5-1871

Thursday, May 4^th: Before The Mayor and C.H. Dashwood Esq.

Christopher William Wedderburn applied for a license to sell excisable liquors at the Paris Hotel under the license granted to George Pointer and Frederick John Attwood. This was also granted.

Note: This date for Wedderburn differs from information in More Bastions. There is also no mention of Attwood having a license for the Paris Hotel.

Folkestone Express 6-5-1871

Transfer of License

The Paris Hotel: The license was transferred from Messrs. George Pointer and Frederick J. Attwood to Mr. Christopher W. Wedderburn.

Folkestone Express 27-5-1871

Wednesday, May 24^th:

Transfer of License

The license of Mr. George Pointer (Paris Hotel) was transferred to Mr. Wedderburn at the Petty Sessions on Wednesday last.

Folkestone Express 10-5-1873

Wednesday, May 7^th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, R.W. Boarer, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

James Coleman was charged with assaulting Laura Smithson on Sunday, April 20^th.

Complainant deposed: I am sixteen years of age, and formerly lived servant at the Paris Hotel. On Sunday, April 20^th, I left my father`s house between five and six o`clock in the evening for a walk with a little girl named Henrietta Standen. We went into a field belonging to Mr. Gambrill, and as I was getting some primroses for the little girl, defendant jumped on my back, and when I stood upright he slipped off. He then caught me round the waist, and putting his foot behind my foot threw me down. He put his hand upon my throat and said he would do me more good than the flowers I had got; he then put his hand under my clothes. I said to him “I did not speak to you. What do you want to interfere with me for?” He said “My name is Jarvis”; he then got up and looked about him and I got up and ran away. There was a plank across a ditch and I went over it into the other field. Defendant jumped the ditch and ran after me, but did not catch me. I ran home and told my mother what defendant had been doing. I had not seen him before he jumped on my back. I am sure defendant is the man. The little girl went away when he jumped upon my back.

Hentietta Standen, a girl of eleven or twelve, when asked if she knew what she came into Court for, said: To claim the man. I cannot read nor write, and do not go to school. If I do not tell the truth I shall go to ----. She was then sworn, and said: I was with Laura Smithson a fortnight last Sunday. I went with her between five and six from her father`s house to Mr. Gambrill`s fields. She was picking primroses when defendant came and jumped upon her back. He threw her upon her back and put his hand upon her throat. Complainant called out “Sister” and I ran home. I am sure he is the man. I never saw him before that Sunday.

Eliza Smithson (complainant`s mother) said: In consequence of what my daughter said to me on Sunday, April 20<sup>th</sup>, I went to look for defendant and found him in Mr. Griffin`s meadow. This was between five and six o`clock, and I ran directly my daughter told me. I am sure defendant is the man. I said to him “You villain. How came you to interfere with a young woman along by the hedge?” He replied “But for two things I would knock your teeth down your throat”. I said to him “It is well for you the girl`s father is not at home”. He then said “But for two things I would make sausage meat of you”. I then told him I would have him locked up, and he went away.

On defendant being asked if he wished to put any questions to witness he said: I know nothing of what she is talking about.

Superintendent Wilshire said: On Thursday night last I went to defendant`s house and spoke to him about the assault, and he voluntarily came with me to the Police Station, but said nothing. I had him placed among several other men and complainant and the witnesses saw him one after the other and each of them identified him. The little girl was not so ready to do so as the two others.

Defendant, when called upon for his defence, said: I don`t know what it means. I was out in the meadow near the Waterworks a fortnight last Sunday, and was home to my lodgings to tea at half past four. I was at Mr. Shelvey`s between five and six. I have five witnesses, but only one of them is handy.

John Shelvey, brickmaker, said: I live in the tarred hut near Mr. Clout`s meadow. Defendant lodges with me. He came home on Sunday, 20<sup>th</sup> April, at half past four to get his tea. I have no clock in the house, but that was the time as near as I can say. After tea we went to Mr. Major`s brick field, and from there to my father`s house, and it was half past six when we came out of there; we looked at the clock. We went to the Eagle Tavern, Foord, and came out a little after seven; it rained heavily and we went to cover the bricks up. Defendant was with me from half past four to nine o`clock, when we went to bed.

By complainant`s mother: I did not tell you it was six o`clock when defendant came home. I said I could prove he was with me from half past four to nine.

Eliza Jarvis said: I am wife of William Jarvis, and live at Mr. Major`s cottage at Foord. I know defendant; his name is not Jarvis. I saw him pass by my door at a quarter to five; I know the time because I looked at the clock. My husband said he thought it was going to rain and he had some brick to cover up. I have heard the day of the assault talked about. I saw defendant about seven o`clock.

Complainant`s mother, re-called: I had a conversation with Shelvey on Wednesday, 23<sup>rd</sup> April, in Fuller`s house, when defendant was present. I was taken to defendant and I said to my daughter “Do you know that man?”. She replied “Yes. That`s the man who assaulted me on Sunday”. Shelvey said “Old lady, you are mistaken. I know who it is”. Defendant said “I have four witnesses that it was not me. The man who did it lives on Castle Hill. I was home by six o`clock”. I remarked that there was plenty of time to get home by six o`clock after the assault. Defendant brought three young man, and one said defendant came in shortly after seven to get shaved.

The Court was cleared for some time to allow the Bench to consider the case, and the public being re-admitted the Mayor said: The Magistrates are of opinion that the case is proved, and defendant has rendered himself liable to six months` hard labour. He is sentenced to 21 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 27-3-1875

Saturday, March 20^th: Before J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. Alfred Hills obtained a temporary authority to sell excisable liquor at the Paris Hotel under the license granted to Mr. D. Wedderburn, who takes possession of the West Cliff Hotel

Folkestone Chronicle 5-6-1875

A most extraordinary case of mistaken identity occurred on Tuesday morning last. A coastguardsman discovered a body in the water just beyond the toll house in the Lower Sandgate Road. It was that of a young man, respectably attired, and several at once identified the corpse as that of George Hopley, who at one time was waiter at the Paris. On breaking the news to Hopley`s father, the young man was found alive, and came back to Folkestone. The resemblance is very marked. Deceased is deformed in one of his fingers near the nail, and Hopley has a similar peculiarity. On his person was found a copy of Uncle Tom`s Cabin, and inside of which was the name in pencil, “Harry Renshaw, Dean Street, Lincoln”. The Superintendent has written to make enquiries in that place, but no information can be gleaned. A photograph of the body has been taken, and the peaceful expression of the face, almost a smile on the mouth, is most striking. Evidently the young man, according to his hands, has done very little laborious work. Absurd rumours were afloat as to a betting book being found on him, which suggested the cause of suicide, but this altogether is one of those stories which imaginative persons are so fond of circulating.

An inquest on the body was held at the Alexandra Hotel on Tuesday evening, before John Minter Esq., Coroner.

John Sharp, gardener, deposed to seeing the body, and drawing the attention of the coastguard to it.

John Fitzgillon, a coastguardsman stationed at Folkestone, deposed: Just before five o`clock I was coming from my house at Sandgate, to perform my duties at Folkestone, and when hear the toll house on the Lower Sandgate Road the last witness called me from the top of the cliff. I walked down the beach in the direction Sharp pointed, and saw the body just seen by the jury. It was quite cold, and lying on it`s back, with the head towards the eastward (the harbour), about fifteen yards below last water mark. He was fully dressed, except that he had no hat. The tide was high between seven and eight last night, and between eleven and twelve that night it would have receded to where the body lay. There were rocks to the seaward, but none ashore of the body. I commenced the motions for restoring animation, but the state of the body showed me the man was quite dead. With the help of the last witness I drew the body above high water mark and searched the pockets. We found in them the articles produced – a copy of Uncle Tom`s Cabin containing the name twice written in pencil “Harry Renshaw, Dean Street, Lincoln”, a bunch of keys, a handkerchief, a penny, and two half pence, which I delivered to the police. From the appearance of the body and the “little dock” that he had made in the beach by the rolling it had received from the waves, I believe the body had not been moved after it was dead, nor had it been in the water very long before we found it.

Dr. Bateman stated that from an examination he had made, he believed that death came by drowning.

Supt. Wilshere produced some studs and gold plated sleeve links which he had removed from the shirt.

The Coroner summed up, showing that there was no evidence as to how deceased came by his death, and the jury returned a verdict of Found Drowned.

Folkestone Express 5-6-1875

Inquest

Early on Tuesday morning the body of an unknown man was found between tides on the beach, just beyond the toll-house on the Lower Sandgate Road, by a coastguardsman and a gardener. The body was fully dressed (with the exception of a hat) in good clothes, but had but three halfpence in the pockets. The corpse was taken to the tan house at the back of the fishmarket pending identification. While it lay there several persons who saw it recognised in it the body of a man named George Hopley, who at one time was a porter at the Paris Hotel, and more recently a railway ticket collector at Dover. A messenger was sent to Dover to break the intelligence to the young man`s friends, but returned bringing with him the supposed drowned man that he might lend his assistance in identifying it. Even then the resemblance was so great that those standing by remarked that if Hopley was not then present they should still consider it his body. In consequence of the false scent on which persons were thus put, a travelling copy of “Uncle Tom`s Cabin”, in which was pencilled the name Harry Frenshaw, Deane Street, Lincoln, was overlooked till late in the day. A gentleman living not a hundred yards from the Manor Road was also recognised in the body, but, like the ticket collector, he proved still to be alive and able to speak for himself. It was surmised that deceased was a betting man and that he had committed suicide, possibly in consequence of losses at the Derby, by making into the sea at high tide on Monday night, but these suppositions had necessarily no solid foundation to rest upon.

An inquest was held on the body at six o`clock on Tuesday evening at the Alexandra Hotel before Mr. J. Minter, Coroner for the Borough, and a jury.

John Sharp, gardener, said: I live in the Bayle, lodging at the Red Lion public house. This morning about half past four o`clock I was walking on the cliff, and when near the half way toll gate saw something near the edge of the beach. I drew the attention of a coastguardsman named John Fitzgibbon to it, and we went down and found it was the body of an unknown man – the one that has just been viewed by the jury.

John Fitzgibbon, a coastguardsman stationed at Folkestone, deposed: Just before five o`clock I was coming from my house at Sandgate to perform my duties at Folkestone, and when near the toll house on the Lower Sandgate Road, the last witness called me from the top of the cliff. I walked down the beach in the direction Sharp pointed and saw the body just seen by the jury. It was quite cold and lying on it`s back, with the head towards the eastward (the harbour) about fifteen yards below the last high water mark. He was fully dressed, except that he had no hat. The tide was high between seven and eight last night, and between eleven and twelve that night it would have receded to where the body lay. There were rocks to seaward, but none ashore of the body. I commenced the motions for restoring animation, but the state of the body showed me the man was quite dead. With the help of the last witness I drew the body above high water mark, and searched the pockets. We found in them the articles produced – a copy of “Uncle Tom`s Cabin” containing the name twice written in pencil, Harry Frenshaw, Deane Street, Lincoln, a bunch of keys, a handkerchief, a penny, and two halfpence, which I delivered to the police. From the appearance of the body and the “little dock” that had been made in the beach by the rolling it received from the waves, I believ the body had not been moved after it was dead, not had it been in the water very long before we found it.

Mr. W. Bateman, surgeon, said he saw the body of the deceased at the tan house between seven and eight o`clock. He examined the body externally, but found no marks of violence. From the air bubbles on the mouth and nostrils and the pinched appearance of the features, death appeared to have arisen from drowning. He believed that the body had only been in the water a few hours. The body appeared to be that of a young man of about two or three-and-twenty.

In reply to a juror: The body could not have floated over any rocks that lie to seaward. The “little dock” described by the last witness would indicate that the man had not been far in the water when he was drowned.

Superintendent Wilshere produced some gold-plated sleeve links and studs removed from deceased`s shirts. The body was dressed in a tweed suit of olive green. There was no mark upon the clothing by which identification could be established. Witness had had the body photographed.

In answer to a juror, witness said he had not telegraphed to the address in the book because till within a short time of the inquest he had been on a wrong scent as to the identity.

The Coroner asked whether the jury considered they had sufficient evidence as to the cause of death, or would they adjourn for further evidence? It was almost certain from the doctor`s evidence that the deceased met with his death by drowning, but they could not tell whether he fell into the sea during a fit, whether he drowned himself, or if he was pushed in. Even if they met another day and evidence was adduced as to who he was, and even supposing it was stated that he left home in an unsound state of mind, that would not render the cause of death absolutely certain.

After a brief consultation the jury returned an open verdict of Found Drowned

Folkestone Express 11-10-1879

Wednesday, October 8^th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., General Cannon, Captain Crowe, and M. Bell Esq.

John Newman was charged with being drunk and begging in South Street on October 6^th.

P.C. Hogben said on Monday evening he was sent for to the Clarendon Hotel, and from what he was told he went along South Street, and saw the prisoner go into the Victoria and hand his cap round to the people in the bar, and from there he went to the Paris Hotel bar and asked for coppers to pay his lodgings. Witness took him into custody. On the way to the station prisoner was very violent.

He was sentenced to fourteen days` for begging and to a further term of seven days` for being drunk, in default of paying a fine of 5s. and costs.

Folkestone Express 18-10-1879

Monday, October 13^th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., General Armstrong and J. Fitness Esq.

Annie Owen, a stranger to the town, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in South Street.

P.C. Swain said he was on duty about 10.30 p.m. on Saturday near the Paris Hotel. He saw the prisoner leaning against the wall, drunk, and warned her to go to her lodgings, but she would not and kept on shouting.

She was fined 5s. and costs, or seven days.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-12-1879

Large Robbery

On the evening of yesterday week a large commotion was made at the Paris Hotel by the apprehension of a thief, a well-dressed gentleman, whilst engaged in partaking of a meal in the coffee room. He frankly acknowledged his sin, and was taken back to Dover. Prisoner is a Belgian, named De Barmentas, alias Henry De Lamore, and he was brought before the magistrates on Saturday, when the following evidence was adduced:-

Mrs. Annie Solly deposed: I am the wife of William Finland Solly, and keep a lodging house at 28, Liverpool Street. Prisoner first came to my house on Monday last. He took the dining room and a bedroom at the back. He continued to lodge in my house till yesterday, when he went out between three and four. Before he went out – at about twenty minutes to three – I sent my little girl upstairs to my bedroom. My bedroom is built at the back, and we get to it by going up a flight of stairs by the prisoner`s bedroom. My daughter then came down and went to school, and in consequence of something my kitchenmaid told me I went upstairs into my bedroom. I looked directly for my jewellery and missed it. It was all kept in a box in a drawer in my room. The articles produced are those I missed, and in addition there is a pair of sleeve links, which are also mine. The value of the lot is about £15. I searched further, and missed the cashbox, which had been in a locked drawer in the same room. My husband had the key with him at the time. There was a small mark on the drawer. I do not know what the cashbox contained, but the one produced is the same. I found it last night in prisoner`s room, broken open. He did not return after he left at three o`clock, and he was gone when I came downstairs. The jewellery was all safe in the morning.

Rose Ann marsh deposed: Yesterday afternoon, at twenty minutes past one, prisoner was in the dining room, and said he was going to the Clarence Theatre, and would not be home till eleven. I saw nothing more of him till last night at the Paris Hotel, Folkestone, at twenty minutes past eight. I went there with my master, who gave him into custody.

Mr. Solly deposed: The cashbox produced is mine, and I kept it in a locked drawer in my bedroom. I kept the key myself. I went to it last on Sunday. It contained then £298 17s. 9d., made up as follows:- thirty two £5 notes, three £10 notes, £70 in gold, a cheque for £29 8s. drawn by J.V. Pepper, and another for £9 9s. 9d. drawn by Francis W. Freeman. I did not miss any of the money until my wife told me of the robbery. I went to Folkestone with the last witness, and accompanied by P.C. Hogben of the Folkestone Constabulary, proceeded to the Paris Hotel. I there found prisoner, and gave him into custody. The watch and chain he was wearing, and all the jewellery was found on him. He said “You will find all the money there, and more than belongs to you”.

P.C. Hogben said: Last evening, at about half past eight, I went with Mr. Solly in search of the prisoner. I found him in the coffee room at the Paris Hotel. I searched him, and on opening his coat found he was wearing the watch and chain produced, which was identified as Mrs. Solly`s. In his left hand trousers pocket I found all the other jewellery, except the brooch and steel earrings. In his pocket I found a packet of notes, including two £10 notes, and 28 £5 notes, and two cheques, all of which I produce. I found also in his purse six Napoleons, 27 half-Napoleons, 100 franc bank note, £71 in gold, a half crown, two florins, three shillings, five sixpences, and twenty francs in two franc pieces, &c. I took him into custody, and he said Mr. Solly would find all his money, and £10 besides.

Charles Ovenden gave corroborative evidence.

Superintendent Sanders deposed: Last night I went to 28, Liverpool Street, where I was shown a portmanteau, locked. I fitted a key to it and unlocked it. It contained two brushes and a small tin of blacking. (Laughter) Later on prisoner was brought to Dover in custody.

Prisoner had nothing to say, and was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 6-12-1879

Local News

On Friday afternoon information was received by the Folkestone police that a large sum of money had been stolen at Dover and that it was probable the thief would endeavour to make his escape from this port to the continent with his spoil. A description of the man who was supposed to have committed the robbery was given, and the police officers here were speedily on his track, and about half past eight in the evening Police Constable Hogben apprehended the man at the Paris Hotel. The particulars of the affair appear to be as follows: The prisoner, who is stated to be a Belgian, and who gave his name at the police station as Henric Delorne, but has two or three aliases, went on Monday of last week to lodge at 28, Liverpool Street, Dover, the residence of Mr. William Solly. He seems to have arrived in Dover by boat, his portmanteau having been left at the Dover Harbour Station. He engaged a sitting room and a bedroom on the second floor, the sleeping apartment of Mr. and Mrs. Solly being at the back. He remained until Friday afternoon, and shortly after one o`clock told the servant that he was going to the Clarence Theatre and would not be home till eleven, so he wanted Mrs. Solly to get his supper ready at eleven o`clock. He left the house, and shortly afterwards, in consequence of something the kitchen maid told her, Mr. Solly went to her bedroom and missed her jewellery. There was a gold brooch set with coral and with earrings to match, a gold watch and a long gold chain with two lockets, a pait of long gold earrings and a pair of steel earrings, all of which were kept in a box in a drawer, and the whole was worth about £15. On searching further she missed her husband`s cash box, which had been locked in a drawer in the same room. This drawer appeared to have been forced, and the cash box was found broken open in the prisoner`s bedroom. It contained £298 17s. 9d., made up as follows: Thirty two £5 notes, three £10 notes, £70 in gold, a cheque for £29 8s. drawn by J.V. Pepper, and another for £9 9s. 9d. drawn by Francis W. Freeman. Mr. Solly came over to Folkestone and accompanied P.C. Hogben to the Paris Hotel, and there found prisoner and gave him into custody. The watch and chain he was wearing, and all the jewellery was found on him. He said “You will find all the money there, and more than belongs to you”. Hogben searched him, and found in his left hand trousers pocket all the other jewellery except the brooch and steel earrings. In his coat pocket he found a packet of notes, including two £10 notes and 28 £5 notes, and two cheques, all of which he produced. He also found in his purse six Napoleons, 27 half Napoleons, 100 franc bank note, £71 in gold, a half crown, two florins, three shillings, five sixpences and 20 francs in two franc pieces &c. Superintendent Sanders went to Mr. Solly`s house, and on opening the portmanteau left there by the prisoner, found it contained only two brushes and a small tin of blacking. Prisoner was taken before the Dover Magistrates on Saturday and committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 10-1-1880

Local News

At the Dover Quarter Sessions on Monday, Henry Delorme, who was recently arrested at the Paris Hotel, Folkestone, was indicted for stealing £298 17s. 9d., and a gold watch, brooch, and other articles, value £15, the money and property of William filmer Solly at Saint James the Apostle, on the 28^th November, 1879.

Mr. Glyn prosecuted, and asked for the restitution of all foreign money and property found on the prisoner.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and put in a long written defence, setting forth that he was not a professional thief, but the act on this occasion was one of retaliation for the piano in his room having been shut, which he took as an insult.

Superintendent Sanders said he was wanted in London for larceny. Prisoner said he was a native of Brussels, but the police there did not know him.

Police Sergeant Ovenden, of Folkestone, deposed that the prisoner changed a £10 note for foreign money at the Paris hotel, and another for £5 at the same place. Other notes were changed for foreign money at different places.

Arthur Andrews deposed to selling the prisoner a Gladstone bag for 39s., a hat, a pair of gloves, and other articles, in payment for which prisoner tendered, and received change from, two £5 notes.

The Recorder said he had great difficulty in determining what course to adopt. He took the lodgings and planned the robbery, pretending he was going to the theatre, but took the train to Folkestone, where he changed the money and meant to go off by the eleven o`clock boat. Fortunately the robbery was discovered in time to apprehend him. He (the Recorder) hardly knew whether or not to pass a sentence of penal servitude on prisoner, but he would commit him to a term of imprisonment for 18 calendar months as this was the first time of prisoner`s appearance before an English court of justice so far as was known.

The property was to be returned as asked.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-1-1881

Saturday, January 22^nd: Before The Mayors, Alds. Caister and Sherwood, General Cannon, J. Holden and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

George Keating, a shoemaker, was charged with stealing a turkey of the value of 15s., the property of James Parker.

Mr. Minter defended.

The prosecutor was in the bar of the Paris Hotel on the 18^th instant, about six o`clock in the evening, and left two turkeys there. About eight o`clock he hear that Keating, with whom he had been drinking that afternoon, had taken it. The next morning, after he had taken out a summons, defendant`s wife brought the turkey back.

It was evidently a practical joke played on prosecutor, and the Bench immediately dismissed the case, expressing it as their opinion that it ought not to have been brought into Court.

Folkestone Express 29-1-1881

Saturday, January 22^nd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, General Cannon, J. Holden and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

George Keating, a shoemaker, was charged with stealing a turkey, value 15s., the property of Mr. James Parker. Mr. Minter appeared for the defence.

Prosecutor, a clerk in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, said on Tuesday the 18^th he was at the bar of the Paris Hotel, about six o`clock in the evening. Three other persons, of whom defendant was one, were there at the same time. He left two dead turkeys there and went away. About eight o`clock he heard that one turkey was gone, and on making enquiries he ascertained that Keating had taken it. Next morning, after he had taken out a summons, he called again at the Paris Hotel to ask if the turkey had been returned, and whilst he was there Keating`s wife brought the turkey back.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Where did you get these turkeys? – I purchased them.

You say it was about six o`clock in the evening when you left them at the Paris Hotel? – Yes.

You know the defendant, don`t you? – I have seen him lots of times.

Haven`t you been a frequent companion of his for years? – Certainly not.

Never been at the Paris Hotel with him before? – I have been in the bar at the same time, but not in his company.

Did you know his name? – I knew him as Keating.

And you knew he was a shoemaker carrying on business in the town? – Yes, but I never employed him.

Were you in the bar in the afternoon at two o`clock? – Possibly.

Were you? – No, I think not.

Well, three o`clock – Yes, I was there at three.

Was the defendant there? – I don`t remember.

Why, did he not save you from a hiding that somebody was going to give you? – Certainly not.

Didn`t he save you by preventing a fight? – Certainly not.

These goodly turkeys. Why did you leave them in the bar? – Because they were two handsome turkeys – the finest I had seen all the Christmas.

So you left them for people to view? – I asked the barmaid to take charge of them.

Did you ask this young man to take a number to raffle for them? – I might have done so.

Don`t say so. I ask you whether you did? – Yes, I did.

For one? – For one.

Was it the one you lost? – No.

Just produce the one you lost. Had you looked after it? – Yes, in company with P.C. Hogben.

Is that the turkey (produced)? – Yes, I have no doubt about it.

And his wife offered it to you, and you refused to take it? – Yes, for the simple reason that I had taken out a summons for it`s recovery.

No; you had taken out a summons charging him with stealing it. You did not suppose he intended to steal it? – I could not tell what his motives were.

You made enquiries? – I did, and found he had taken it.

And then his wife brought it to you, and you refused to take it? – Yes.

Were you tipsy? – Certainly not – not more than I am now.

Was he? – I should say not.

But you had all been drinking together? – No, we had not.

What did you go into the Paris for? – I often have business with Mr. Hills, and I sometimes go to meet persons, friends connected with the railway, and also visitors.

But you don`t transact your railway business at the Paris Hotel, do you? – I don`t think that is a proper question to ask at all.

I want to know whether you do. – Certainly not.

Were you not all drinking and larking about all that day? – Certainly not.

William Sumner said he was at the Paris Hotel in company with Parker last Tuesday evening. Defendant was there and somebody else. He saw Parker go, and leave the two turkeys on the bar counter. He was talking to Knight and saw Keating take up one of the turkeys and walk out of the door with it. He heard no conversation between Parker and defendant.

Cross-examined: You and Parker were squaring up? – Yes.

And the defendant interfered and stopped the fight? – No, he did not interfere.

Well, he got between you? – There was no squaring up in the way you mean.

He got between you? – Yes, he did that.

Afterwards, when these goodly turkeys were brought in, did you hear Parker ask the prisoner to take a number for a raffle? – No, I was in conversation with a man named Knight.

After Parker was gone, leaving his turkeys there, you saw the prisoner take one of the turkeys and go off? – Yes.

You did not suppose he was stealing the turkey, did you? – I did not.

Don`t you know that it was done for a lark, just to hide the turkey up from Parker for a little while? – I thought so.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, prosecutor said he had no other evidence. He did not think any more was necessary.

The Bench immediately dismissed the case, and when the prosecutor went to pay the costs intimated to him that the matter ought not to have been brought before them.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-4-1883

Saturday, April 21^st: Before General Armstrong C.B., and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Alfred Hills, proprietor of the Paris Hotel, was summoned for keeping his house open during prohibited hours. The case was a very trivial one, and Mr. Hills was fined 10s. and 8s. costs, and four men found in his house a very short time after 11 o`clock, 2s. 6d. each.

Folkestone Express 28-4-1883

Saturday, April 21^st: Before General Armstrong, Captain Bell and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Alfred Hills, proprietor of the Paris Hotel, was summoned for keeping his house open during prohibited hours, and William Buckland, Henry Pilcher, Thomas Mercer, and Thos. Jeffrey were summoned for being on the premises during prohibited hours. All the defendant pleaded Guilty, and after Mr. Ward had addressed the Bench for the defence, the chairman said they were disposed to deal very leniently with the matter. Mr. Hills was fined 10s. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-7-1885

Saturday, July 4^th: Before Alds. Sherwood and Caister, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Robert Blacquire, a man of respectable appearance, was charged with being drunk and disorderly at the Paris Hotel, on the 3^rd inst.

Defendant came into the Paris and created a disturbance. He was very insulting to the landlady, and it was found necessary to send for a policeman and have him taken into custody.

In defence prisoner said he was very excited at an imaginary insult he had received, and prisoner was discharged on promising to leave the town.

Folkestone Express 11-7-1885

Saturday, July 4^th: Before Alderman Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Robert de Blaquire was charged with being drunk at the Paris Hotel.

Mrs. Hills said the defendant went to the hotel between four and five o`clock on Friday. He was very insulting, and she thought he must have been drunk. He wished her to read a letter, which she declined to do, and he then threatened to knock her brains out with a stick. She ran to her husband, and defendant ran after her.

In reply to defendant, she said she thought it was a begging letter.

P.C. Gilham said he saw the defendant near the Paris Hotel. He was drunk and disorderly and helloing out to Mrs. Hills. There were several people collected, and witness took the man in charge.

Sergt. Pay said the man was drunk when he was brought to the station. He had previously been seen in the afternoon having an altercation with the landlord of the Oddfellows. He was drunk then.

Defendant protested that he was not drunk, but only excited.

Supt. Taylor said he saw the defendant about eight o`clock. He was drunk, and demanded to see the Superintendent. He told him that he was the Superintendent, and that he thought he knew him. Defendant had been more or less drunk for three or four days.

In reply to defendant, Sergt. Pay said he did not ask for a doctor to be sent for.

Defendant asked for a remand to call witnesses to prove that he was not drunk. He had lived in the town previously with his mother, and during the day he had been very much annoyed by people who had taken property from him.

Defendant said he would undertake to give his “word as a gentleman to leave the town”, and he was discharged.

Folkestone Express 30-1-1886

Saturday, January 23^rd: Before The Mayor, F. Boykett, W.J. Jeffreason and H.W. Poole Esqs.

James Baker was summoned for keeping a dog without a licence and pleaded Not Guilty.

He said the dog he kept belonged to Mr. Hills, of the Paris Hotel, who had a licence for it, and the hearing was adjourned for Mr. Hills` attendance.

Wednesday, January 27^th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

James Baker, who was summoned last Saturday for keeping a dog without a licence, again appeared.

Mr. Hills, of the Paris Hotel, said the dog kept at the defendant`s premises was his. He took out a licence for it every year.

P.C. Read said Mr. Hills` dog was the mother of the dog defendant was summoned for. The puppy was about eight or ten months old.

He was fined 7s. 6d. and 13s. costs.

Folkestone News 30-1-1886

Wednesday, January 27^th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

James Baker appeared on an adjourned summons for keeping a dog without a licence.

Mr. Hills, landlord of the Paris Hotel, said the defendant had kept a dog for him for the last two years. He had a licence for the dog.

P.C. Reed said the defendant had another dog besides Mr. Hill`s dog.

Fined 7s. 6d. and 13s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 10-7-1886

Local Intelligence

Mr. Banks submitted for sale at the Clarendon Hotel on Wednesday last the Paris Hotel, which was bought for £2,000.

Folkestone Express 17-7-1886

Local News

Mr. C.W. Downing, the present occupier of the Globe Hotel, and lessee of the refreshment department at the Bathing Establishment, purchased the Paris Hotel at the sale last week for £2,000.

Kentish Gazette 27-7-1886 

The Paris Hotel, situate near the Harbour, has been sold to Mr. G.W. Downing, present lessee of the Globe Hotel, for £2,000.

Folkestone Express 18-9-1886

Wednesday, September 15^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood and Caister, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

The licence of the Paris Hotel was transferred to Mr. C.W. Downing

Folkestone Express 9-10-1886

Saturday, October 2^nd: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

A tramp named Murphy pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly. P.C. Knowles said the defendant was turned out of the Paris Hotel. He was fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs, and in default sent to prison for seven days.