Even More Tales From The Tap Room: Pavilion Hotel 1840s

Thanks And Acknowledgements

My thanks go to Kent Libraries and Archives - Folkestone Library and also to the archive of the Folkestone Herald. For articles from the Folkestone Observer, my thanks go to the Kent Messenger Group. Southeastern Gazette articles are from UKPress Online, and Kentish Gazette articles are from the British Newspaper Archive. See links below.

Paul Skelton`s great site for research on pubs in Kent is also linked

Other sites which may be of interest are the Folkestone and District Local History Society, the Kent History Forum, Christine Warren`s fascinating site, Folkestone Then And Now, and Step Short, where I originally found the photo of the bomb-damaged former Langton`s Brewery, links also below.

Welcome

Welcome to Even More Tales From The Tap Room.

Core dates and information on licensees tenure are taken from Martin Easdown and Eamonn Rooney`s two fine books on the pubs of Folkestone, Tales From The Tap Room and More Tales From The Tap Room - unfortunately now out of print. Dates for the tenure of licensees are taken from the very limited editions called Bastions Of The Bar and More Bastions Of The Bar, which were given free to very early purchasers of the books.

Easiest navigation of the site is by clicking on the PAGE of the pub you are looking for and following the links to the different sub-pages. Using the LABELS is, I`m afraid, not at all user-friendly.

Saturday 22 July 2023

Pavilion Hotel 1840s - 1859

Pavilion Hotel c1880


English`s Guide, 1856

English`s Guide, 1865

English`s Guide, 1876

Unknown Date


Unknown Date

Pavilion Hotel, 1909

From Tiffen`s Guide, 1846. Kindly sent by Alan Taylor


Tiffen`s Guide, 1850. Kindly sent by Alan Taylor

Pavilion Hotel, 1861. Credit Peter Langmaid (from http://www.warrenpress.net/FolkestoneThenNow/FolkestoneHotels.html)

Pavilion Hotel, 1856. From Mackie`s "A descrpitive and historical account of Folkestone"

Pavilion Hotel. Credit Alan Taylor

Pavilion Hotel, c1850 (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Pavilion-Hotel-Folkestone.html)

Pavilion Hotel, 1860 (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Pavilion-Hotel-Folkestone.html)

Royal Pavilion Hotel, 1932 (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Pavilion-Hotel-Folkestone.html)

Pavilion Hotel, undated (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Pavilion-Hotel-Folkestone.html)

Pavilion Hotel from "Dickensian Inns and Taverns, 1922" (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Pavilion-Hotel-Folkestone.html)

Royal Pavilion Hotel, undated postcard (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Pavilion-Hotel-Folkestone.html)

Royal Pavilion Hotel, 1890

Royal Pavilion Hotel postcad dated 1911. Credit Mark Jennings (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Pavilion-Hotel-Folkestone.html)

Pavilion Hotel, undated. Credit Christine Warren http://www.warrenpress.net/FolkestoneThenNow/FolkestoneHotels.html

Canterbury Weekly Journal 5-8-1843 & Kentish Gazette 8-8-1843

The South Eastern Railway Fete at Folkestone

On Tuesday the mayor and corporation of Folkestone, and the directors of the Dover and South Eastern Railway Company, celebrated the opening of the communication by regular steam-packets between the ports of Folkestone and Boulogne by a public breakfast and other festivities at the South Eastern Pavilion Tavern at Folkestone. The town was filled all day long with visitors from the adjacent places, and by arrivals from London, to be present at the celebration. The vessels in the harbour, which has been purchased by the railway company, and which it is in contemplation to enlarge and improve forthwith, were decorated with flags and ensigns, and presented a very gay appearance, whilst from the old tower of the church the bells rang forth a merry peal. At half-past twelve o`clock the City of Boulogne steamer came into the harbour and landed the mayor and authorities of Boulogne, and the gentlemen of that place invited to be present at the festival. Their arrival was announced by a salute of ordnance, and they were received on landing by the mayor and corporation of Folkestone and conducted to the terminus of the railway, where they inspected the engines, carriages, &c, and expressed their satisfaction with the arrangements. About this time the down train from London came in, having brought down several of the directors and many more guests to the breakfast. In the earlier part of the day the Sir William Wallace steamer, one of the eight new vessels intended to make the passage between Boulogne and Folkestone, had arrived from London, and taken from Folkestone to Boulogne in this her first trip upwards of one hundred passengers, and another vessel shortly afterward came in from Boulogne with a large number of passengers. It appears that the harbour of Folkestone in its present state contains at high tide water to the depth of twenty feet, and that when the wind is south or south-west it affords a better entrance for vessels than Dover.

By four o'clock the town was filled with people, and the two mayors, and those by whom they were attended, the directors and the visitors having returned from the railroad, the breakfast commenced. In order to afford accommodation to the very numerous party assembled, and to the various groups collected together, an elegant marquee, sent down for the occasion from the manufactory of Mr. B. Edgington, of Duke Street, Borough, had been erected in front of the Pavilion Tavern, facing the sea, and beneath this were placed seats and tables; and in addition to this a building, formerly a boat house, had been converted into a banqueting room, and fitted up with great taste bv Mr. Vantini, the proprietor of the Tavern, to whom it is but justice to say that his arrangements for the gratification of his guests were most satisfactory. The repast, to which nearly two hundred persons sat down at four o'clock, was in a very excellent style.The chair was taken by the mayor of Folkestone, supported on his right hand by Mr. Baxendale, and on his left by M. Adam, the mayor of Boulogne. There were also present Mr. Marjoribanks, M.P. for Folkestone; M. Bailly, commandant of the artillery ait Boulogne; M. De là Sabloniere, lieutenant colonel of the national guard of that city; M. De Mentque, sub-prefect; M. Sanson, colonel of the national guard; Capt. Tyndall, M. Marquet, civil engineer at Boulogne; M. Le Comte, grand vicaire; Mr.Caldwell, M.P., Mr. Hamilton, consul of her Britannic Majesty; Baron de Chivenet, commandant of the garrison at Boulogne; M. de Hestingham, king’s advocate at Boulogne: M. Dessaux, Captain Barthelemy, Mr. F. Cubitt, Captain Charlwood, R.N., Captain Peat, R.N., General Hodgson, M. de la Porte, &c., the directors of the railway, &c. The company, in addition to the good things placed on the tables, were entertained by a musical band from Boulogne, which, during the breakfast, played some of the national airs of England and France.

The mayor of Boulogne gave the first toast, viz., “the health of her Majesty Queen Victoria" which was drunk with the honours. The mayor of Folkestone then proposed “the health of his Majesty Louis Philippe," which was also received with cheers, and drunk with all the honours. The next toast, “the Royal Families of England and France," was the third in succession, and was drunk with the honours, after which the health of “the Mayor of Folkestone," was proposed and drunk, and the mayor returned thanks. On the health of “the Mayor of Boulogne" being drunk, which came next in succession, M. Adam, in returning thanks, detailed the history of the projected railroad from Paris to Boulogne through the French Chambers, and observed that the recent fete given at Boulogne on occasion of the railroad and steam boat excursion from London to that city, had had a beneficial effect in showing what could be done by railroads and steamers, and bad expedited the wished-for proceedings. M. Adam repudiated all intention of injuring Calais by supporting a communication between Boulogne and Folkestone, and said there was sufficient traffic for both ports, and enough to render the competition of the one no injury to the other.

On the health of Mr. Baxendale and the Directors of the Smith Eastern Railroad being drunk, that gentleman returned thanks, and in doing so described the state of Folkestone harbour from the printed report and memorial laid before the commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury by the merchants, shipowners, and masters of ships of the port of London. Mr. Baxendale said he considered the interests of the four ports of Boulogne, Calais, Dover, and Folkestone, would all be advanced by the more rapid communication of railroads, and that it was not from the injury of any one of them that the others should receive increased advantages. He then briefly adverted to the state of the harbour of Folkestone before it was purchased by the railroad company; and pointed out the capabilities it possessed, and the improvement of which it was susceptible. He hoped the example set to the government of the country by the company would lie productive of good effects in calling their attention to what might be done to render other harbours better than they now were. Mr. Baxendale concluded amidst loud cheering.

The healths of Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Bleaden, and several others were then drunk, and those gentlemen returned thanks. After which a large portion of the company retired in order to return to London by the train. The festivities were, however, not over till a late hour, and it was nearly midnight before the steamer conveyed the French guests back to Boulogne.

Dover Telegraph, Kentish Mercury 5-8-1843

The South Eastern Railway Fete

The chair was taken by the mayor of Folkestone, supported on his right hand by Mr. Baxendale, and on his left by M. Adam, the mayor of Boulogne. There were also present. Mr. Marjoribanks, M.P. for Folkestone, the authorities and various gentlemen from Boulogne, Mr. F. Cubitt, Captain Charlwood, R.N., Captain Peat, R.N., General Hodgson, the directors of the railway, &c., &c.

The mayor of Boulogne gave the first toast, viz., “the health of her Majesty Queen Victoria" which was drunk with the usual honours. The mayor of Folkestone then proposed “the health of his Majesty Louis Philippe," which was also received with cheers, and drunk with all the honours. The next toast, “the Royal Families of England and France," was the third in succession, and was drunk with the honours, after which the health of “the Mayor of Folkestone," was proposed and drunk, and the mayor returned thanks. On the health of “the Mayor of Boulogne" being drunk, which came next in succession, M. Adam, in returning thanks, repudiated all intention of injuring Calais by supporting a communication between Boulogne and Folkestone, and said there was sufficient traffic for both ports, and enough to render the competition of the one no injury to the other.

On the health of Mr. Baxendale and the Directors of the South Eastern Railroad being drunk, that gentleman returned thanks, and in doing so described the state of Folkestone harbour from the printed report and memorial laid before the commissioners of Her Majesty's treasury by the merchants, shipowners, and masters of ships of the port of London. Mr. Baxendale said he considered the interests of the four ports of Boulogne, Calais, Dover, and Folkestone, would all be advanced by the more rapid communication of railroads, and that it was not from the injury of any one of them that the others should receive increased advantages. He then briefly adverted to the state of the harbour of Folkestone before it was purchased by the railroad company; and pointed out the capabilities it possessed, and the improvement of which it was susceptible. He hoped the example set to the government of the country by the company would lie productive of good effects in calling their attention to what might be done to render other harbours better than they now were. Mr. Baxendale concluded amidst loud cheering.

West Kent Guardian 5-8-1843

The mayor and corporation of Folkestone, and the directors of the Dover and South Eastern Railway Company, on Tuesday, celebrated the opening of the communication by regular steam-packets between the ports of Folkestone and Boulogne by a public breakfast and other festivities at the South Eastern Pavilion Tavern at Folkestone. The town was filled all day long with visitors from the adjacent places, and by arrivals from London, to be present at the celebration. The vessels in the harbour, which has been purchased by the railway company, and which it is in contemplation to enlarge and improve forthwith, were decorated with flags and ensigns, and presented a very gay appearance, whilst from the old tower of the church the bells rang forth a merry peal. At half-past 12 o`clock the City of Boulogne steamer came into the harbour and landed the mayor and authorities of Boulogne, and the gentlemen of that place invited to be present at the festival. Their arrival was announced by a salute of ordnance, and they were received on landing by the mayor and corporation of Folkestone and conducted to the terminus of the railway, where they inspected the engines, carriages, &c, and expressed their satisfaction with the arrangements. About this time the down train from London came in, having brought down several of the directors and many more guests to the breakfast. In the earlier part of the day the Sir William Wallace steamer, one of the eight new vessels intended to make the passage between Boulogne and Folkestone, had arrived from London, and taken from Folkestone to Boulogne in this her first trip upwards of 100 passengers, and another vessel shortly afterward came in from Boulogne with a large number of passengers. It appears that the harbour of Folkestone in its present state contains at high tide water to the depth of 20 feet, and that when the wind is south or south-west it affords a better entrance for vessels than Dover.

By 4 o'clock the town was filled with people, and the two mayors, and those by whom they were attended, the directors and the visitors having returned from the railroad, the breakfast commenced. In order to afford accommodation to the very numerous party assembled, and to the various groups collected together, an elegant marquee, sent down for the occasion from the manufactory of Mr. B. Edgington, of Duke Street, Borough, had been erected in front of the Pavilion Tavern, facing the sea, and beneath this were placed seats and tables; and in addition to this a building, formerly a beat house, had been converted into a banqueting room, and fitted up with great taste bv Mr. Vantini, the proprietor of the Tavern, to whom it is but justice to say that his arrangements for the gratification of his guests were most satisfactory. The repast, to which nearly 200 persons sat down at 4 o'clock, was in a very excellent style. The chair was taken by the mayor of Folkestone, supported on his right hand by Mr. Baxendale, and on his left by M. Adam, the mayor of Boulogne. There were also present Mr. Marjoribanks, M.P. for Folkestone; M. Bailly, commandant of the artillery ait Boulogne; M. De là Sabloniere, lieutenant colonel of the national guard of that city; M. De Mentque, sub-prefect; M. Sanson, colonel of the national guard; Capt. Tyndall, M. Marquet, civil engineer at Boulogne; M. Le Comte, grand vicaire; Mr.Cardwell, M.P., Mr. Hamilton, consul of her Britannic Majesty; Baron de Chivenet, commandant of the garrison at Boulogne; M. de Hestingham, king’s advocate at Boulogne: M. Dessaux, Captain Barthelemy, Mr. F. Cubitt, Captain Charlwood, R.N., Captain Peat, R.N., General Hodgson, M. de la Porte, &c., the directors of the railway, &c. The company, in addition to the good things placed on the tables, were entertained by a musical band from Boulogne, which, during the breakfast, played some of the national airs of England and France.

Kentish Gazette 5-9-1843

A great many workmen are now employed in forming the Railway to the Harbour; upwards of twenty houses are already down, and many more will be removed in a short time. The contractor for clearing the harbour has put on more men, who work night and day. As soon as the mud and shingle are cleared out, other contracts are ready to be let. Messrs. Grissel and Peto are building a large hotel, which will contain a great number of bedrooms; its situation is fronting the harbour, on what was called Farley’s Ground, close by the Pavilion. The pier is being made wider, and is lighted with gas, which is a great improvement. The company seems “to stand for nothing” - whatever is wanted is done.

Kentish Gazette 21-11-1843

Mr. Major, on his re-election to the office of Mayor on the 9th inst. invited the Town Council, and Joseph Baxendale, Esq. the chairman of the South Eastern Railway, to a breakfast, a la fourchette, at the Pavilion. The Mayor and Corporation, and a party of gentlemen, afterwards dined together at the Rose Hotel.

Kentish Gazette 28-11-1843

The new hotel and harbour house are now nearly completed. The tramway from the station to the harbour will shortly be finished. It is expected the trains will now run to the permanent station.

Kentish Gazette 23-1-1844

The improvements of this place bad been for two or three weeks nearly at a standstill, but considerable activity is again evinced in the progress of the works, and a good number of hands are employed on the branch tram road from the station to the harbour, which is rapidly approaching completion. The clearing out of the mud and stones from the bed of the harbour is finished, and the depth of water much increased, but this has had a serious effect in increasing the shingle bank at the mouth, which has caused considerable obstruction to vessels entering or leaving the port. The company, however, intend to carry out their work with spirit, and a large space is laid out for the purpose of forming a capacious back water bay, the effect of which will be to prevent the bar from forming at the mouth. An act is about to be applied for to enable the company to do this, of which notice has been given to the inhabitants of 500 houses in the lower part of Folkestone, the whole of which houses are to be taken down. The new pavilion facing the harbour has been opened to the public by the company. It is a fine building, replete with every accommodation, and capable of making up a hundred beds. Baths are fitted up on a superior construction, which, as well as the whole house, are supplied with water from a deep well sunk on the premises, the water from which is conveyed into every department on the hydraulic principle. The new harbour house is nearly completed. It is a handsome building, surmounted by a square lower, in which an illuminated clock with four faces is now being placed. The lawn in front of the pavilion has been neatly laid out, and well turfed down, which gives it a gay and cheerful appearance. The trains now run over the viaduct to the permanent station, which is in every way commodious, and stands in an excellent situation to command the communication with every part of the town, the Dover road and the adjoining country. Well-horsed omnibuses are plying to and from the station, the harbour, Dover, Sandgate, Hythe, &c.; and the communication between this place and the continent is rendered expeditious and safe, by the establishment of steamboats, which leave and arrive in the harbour every tide to and from Boulogne. An excellent road, lit with gas, has been constructed from the station to the harbour, with a raised footpath, which renders the communication with the lower part of the town easy and safe. This place is rapidly progressing in importance, the effects of which are every day apparent in the rapidly increasing value of property, and there is no doubt it will soon become a port of considerable consequence. There are many opinions afloat respecting the probable time when the line will be opened to Dover; but whenever that may be, there is no reason why this port may not become the grand outlet to the continent. A great proportion of travellers will prefer the shorter and more expeditious route by Boulogne, which is not only a saving of time and distance, but a saving of expense, and will be preferred to the more circuitous route by Dover and Calais. The whole aspect of the town has much improved of late, and the streets (which are lit with gas) are much better kept and cleaner swept than formerly.

West Kent Guardian 3-2-1844

The old Pavilion Hotel is in course of demolition, and we hear that another large building will be erected to match the new Pavilion. A handsome parapetted wall is building in front of the hotel, which encloses the lawn, and enhances the appearance of the harbour.

West Kent Guardian 16-3-1844

The improvements and buildings at the new Pavilion are in progress, and the newly-turfed lawn in front gives it now a very pretty and imposing aspect. Some new buildings are also about to be erected in the place, and we hope soon to see the activity of Folkestone return and its present dullness dissipated.

Canterbury Weekly Journal 25-5-1844

The building of the new Pavilion Hotel is going on very rapidly and, when completed, it will be, probably, the finest hotel on the coast.

Dover Chronicle 25-5-1844

The addition to the new Pavilion Hotel is proceeding with expedition; when completed it will rival the best hotel in England, or on the Continent. The addition comprises billiard room, coffee room, ballroom, a large club room, a table d`hote; a large balcony will run along the front, consisting of York slabs six feet wide, supported by large iron ornamental brackets, which have a rich appearance. Altogether the building, when completed, will be an ornament to our town, and reflects great credit on the architect and the railway company.

Dover Telegraph 25-5-1844

On Tuesday, a man employed in pulling down the old Pavilion trod upon a board, which canted up and precipitated him several feet to the ground, by which he was much bruised, but, fortunately, no bones were broken. The man is a sawyer by trade, but work being slack he was temporarily employed as a labourer.

Kentish Mercury 1-6-1844

An accident happened to one of the workmen, named Johnson Herbert, at the New Pavilion, on Wednesday last, by treading on a piece of timber, which gave way with him and precipitated him from a height of 12 to 14 feet. The poor fellow was considerably hurt, but is recovering.

Maidstone Gazette 14-1-1845

The new, or northern, wing of the great Pavilion Hotel is now finished, and will soon be open to the public. The western wing of that immense establishment has, ever since its opening, enjoyed a good patronage and, no doubt, the whole establishment will be unequalled for beauty and convenience, from its interior arrangements and good management.

Kentish Gazette 27-5-1845, Dover Telegraph 31-5-1845

The present Proprietor of this Hotel (Mr. Vantini having ceased to be Proprietor thereof), begs to inform the Nobility, Gentry, and Public that this Establishment affords accommodation of a most superior character for Families, Visitors, and Travellers to the Continent, with a scale of charges that will be found as moderate as any first-class Hotel in the Kingdom. The Cuisine is under the management of eminent foreign Cooks, and the Wines, which are of the highest order, are now wholly supplied by a first-rate and old-established House in the City, the former stock having been entirely removed.

Paris via Folkestone and Boulogne - The Hotel is also situated close to the Quay, where the steamers (which go from Folkestone to Boulogne and back daily) land their Passengers. It need hardly be observed that this is the shortest and best route to and from Boulogne, avoiding the numerous tunnels that lie beyond Folkestone on the Dover Line, whilst the present Boulogne steamers on this station, the Queen of the Belgians and the Princess Maude, being first-class Vessels, are unrivalled in speed, safety, and accommodation. The present Proprietor is happy to say that although Mr. Vantini has ceased to be the Proprietor of this Hotel, he will still have the valuable assistance of himself and Mad. Vantini in the management of the same; and families and others requiring rooms or information, are requested to address letters to Mad. Vantini, Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone.

Kentish Gazette 23-9-1845

Folkestone, Sept. 22: The traffic between this place and Boulogne during the past week has been immense, and notwithstanding the violent gales, only on one day interrupted. We hear that it is contemplated to erect increased accommodation for the public by extending considerably the Pavilion Hotel, for although the Royal George Hotel is opened and in full business there is yet a want of means to meet the tide of demand, which is daily increasing here.

Maidstone Gazette 1-9-1846

Town Hall, Tuesday: This being the licensing day for this town, all the licenses were renewed, and an additional licence was granted to Mr. Zenon Vantini, for the Pavilion tap.

Maidstone Gazette 4-5-1847, West Kent Guardian 8-5-1847

Petty Sessions, Tuesday; Before Capt. W. Sherren, Mayor, D. Major & S. Bradley Esqs.

Louis Turiam, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, was summoned by Henry William Mayne (a man who gets his living by singing at public houses), for an assault. The complainant stated that he entered the hotel with some friends and called for wine, and that for some offence given he was turned out of the house and struck by the defendant, without provocation; he was perfectly sober at the time.

The defendant, in answer to the charge, stated that the complainant came to the hotel and called for wine; that while there he conducted himself in a disgraceful manner – so much so that several ladies and gentlemen complained of his conduct to the manager. Finding he was much intoxicated and refused to be quiet, he, with assistance, turned him out of the hotel. Defendant then went outside, and while looking at the complainant, who was still creating a disturbance, he was struck by him on the mouth; he defended himself from a second attack of the complainant, who was ultimately locked up in the station-house.

Walsh, the night porter, corroborated the defendant`s statement in every particular, and stated that the complainant was very tipsy.

The Magistrates consulted together, and decided that the assault was justified, and dismissed the summons.

Dover Chronicle 8-5-1847

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions last week, Louis Turiam, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, was summoned by Henry William Mayne (professional singer), for an assault. The complainant stated that he entered the hotel with some friends and called for wine, and that for some offence given he was turned out of the house and struck by the defendant, without provocation; he was perfectly sober at the time.

Walsh, the night porter, corroborated the defendant`s statement in every particular, and stated that the complainant was very tipsy.

The Magistrates consulted together, and decided that the assault was justified, and dismissed the summons.

Maidstone Gazette 2-10-1849

Petty Sessions, Monday; Before C. Golder Esq., Mayor.

John Cane was charged with breaking a window at the Pavilion Hotel. From the evidence of the manager, Gullous Gianini, it appeared that the prisoner was playing a flute at the south end of the building; he was requested to go away by one of the waiters sent out by a lady in the hotel; he refused, and threw his flute at the waiter`s head, which it missed, and went through a square of glass. The prisoner was intoxicated. Fined 5s. and costs, or fourteen days` hard labour. Committed.

Maidstone Gazette 1-1-1850

Petty Sessions, Friday; Before W. Major, C. Golder and S. Mackie Esqs.

James Osborne, chimney sweep, and Osborne Lee, ostler at the Duke`s Head, Hythe, were charged with stealing a piece of copper, the property of Owen Tickel Alger Esq., of the Pavilion Hotel.

John Myers, marine store dealer, being sworn, deposed: I live at Hythe. On the 19^th December instant the prisoner Osborne Lee brought me the piece of copper produced, and asked me to purchase it. I asked him where he obtained it, and he said it was all right, I need not be afraid. I told him I thought it was not all copper, and that I would give him 4s., and if when I sold it they did not knock anything off I would give him more; it weighed 13 lbs.

Mary Roker deposed: I am still-room maid at the Pavilion Hotel. The piece of copper produced was formerly used in the bain-marie, in the still-room, to keep things hot. We have no use for it now, but I have fitted it in its former place, and can swear to it by the make of it.

William Francis Smith deposed: The article now produced was made by my father for the bain-marie. I can swear to it as I cut the hole in it to let out the steam. The value of it as old copper is about 9s.; it cost new about 26s.

Richard Bishop, chimney sweeper, deposed: I lodge at the Duke`s Head, Hythe. About the 15^th or 16^th instant the prisoner, James Osborne, came into the Duke`s Head, and enquired for me; I shortly after saw him, when he asked me if I would purchase some old copper; he said he had about 12lbs. or 14 lbs. I was afraid to buy it, and told him to take it to my master, Mr. Myers. I did not see it till my master showed it to me. The prisoner Osborne Lee told me he had sold it for the other prisoner, and got 4s. for it, and 6d. for his own trouble.

The Magistrates consulted, and the prisoner Osborne Lee was then sworn as a witness; he deposed: The prisoner (James Osborne) brought me a piece of copper into the tap room of the Duke`s Head, said he had found it on the sea shore, and wished me to sell it for him. I told him I would try and sell it for him if it was all right; he assured me it was, and that I need not be afraid. I took it to Mr. Myers, and he gave me 6d. for my trouble. I was asked by Mr. Myers where I got it from, and I told him it was all right.

The prisoner, in defence, said: When I had done my work a few days before I gave the copper to the ostler. My master, Mr. Driscoll, chimney sweeper, sent me over from Hythe to the Pavilion to empty sawdust and bring back ashes. One of my master`s men was at work at the hotel all the morning. When I got there he was lying in the ash-hole, awaiting my coming. I gave him the basket down to fill, and he shortly handed me the copper from out of the sawdust, and said it would fetch a shilling or two. I asked him who it belonged to, and he said to them, the sweeps. I told him he had better not carry it away, for fear of getting themselves and master into trouble. He said whatever was in there was to throw away, or carry home. Being a perfect stranger to the work and house, I did not know what the sweeps were allowed to have. He told me it was all right; we then took it home, and afterwards I employed the ostler to sell it for us, and we were to divide the money.

Remanded till Tuesday. A warrant was issued in the course of the day for the apprehension of the other man concerned in the robbery.

Maidstone Gazette 8-1-1850

Petty Sessions, Tuesday; Before D. Major Esq., Mayor, C. Golder, W. Major and S. Mackie Esqs.

James Osborne and Thomas Graham, the former remanded from last week, were brought up in custody for final examination, charged with stealing a piece of copper from the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner Graham had been apprehended at Canterbury by police constable Pearson, who has shown much vigilance in the matter. The statement made last week by Osborne was read to the prisoner Graham.

Police constable Pearson stated that on Christmas Day last he looked in at Mr. Myers`s, the marine store dealer, and seeing the piece of copper asked him where he bought it; he gave the name of the ostler at the Duke`s Head, Hythe. Witness then took him and the other prisoner into custody on Saturday last; on the 29^th he apprehended Thomas Graham at Canterbury.

The prisoner Graham, in his defence, stated that he always took the rubbish away and put it on the beach; he did not know it was copper when he took it away.

Committed to the Quarter Sessions.

Dover Chronicle 12-1-1850

The Pavilion Hotel changes hands next week. We understand that it has been taken by Mr. Breach, of the firm of Bathe and Breach, of the London Tavern, Bishopsgate Street.

Canterbury Journal 12-1-1850

On Tuesday last, the quarter sessions for the borough of Folkestone were holden at the Guildball, Folkestone, before the Recorder (J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.,) the Mayor (D. Major, Esq.,) and Messrs. C. Golder, Wm. Major, and S. Bateman, magistrates.

James Osborne, labourer, late of Hythe, was indicted for having stolen a piece of copper, value 9d., the property of Mr. Owen Fickell Algar, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel.

Guilio Giovarni, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, deposed that the piece of copper was brought to him by Pearson, the policeman, and which he recognised as being the top of a “bain marie” It had not been used for two years; originally coat 25s.; and had been put away in the scullery.

Matthew Pearson, policeman, on the 25^th of December, went to John Myers, the marine store dealer, at Hythe, in consequence of information he had received; saw the piece of copper produced; asked where it came from; was told by Myers that he had purchased it from the ostler of the Duke’s Head Inn, named Osborn Lee; took it away and brought it home; next day took it to the Pavilion Hotel, where the servants identified it as being the property of Mr. Algar.

John Myers, marine-store dealer, deposed that Osborn Lee, ostler of the Duke’s Head, brought the piece of copper produced; asked him how he came by it; said it was all right; told him all right was sometimes all wrong; gave him 4s. for it, but told him he might have the difference in the price, if any, at some future time; did not know the exact value; told him, over and over again, he was afraid it was stolen.

The Recorder cautioned this witness about his dealings, and told him to be more cautious in future.

Osborn Lee, ostler at the Duke’s Head, Hythe, deposed to selling the piece of copper for Osborne, without any suspicion that it had been stolen.

Mary Roker, still-room maid at the hotel, identified the copper as belonging to the “bain marie” at the Pavilion. Saw it last in the still-room, two or three years since.

William Francis, whitesmith, identified the copper produced, it being fitted by him in the place it occupied.

The prisoner, on being asked what he had to say, stated that about a fortnight ago he was sent for a load of ashes. One of his master's sweeps was down the ash-hole at the Pavilion Hotel; he passed the piece of copper through the hole, and when be (prisoner) cautioned him about it, he said all thrown in there belonged to the sweeps. The sweep asked him to sell it for him, and he passed it to Osborn Lee for the purpose.

The Recorder summed up, and the jury, having retired for a short time, acquitted the prisoner. He was, however, detained in custody, to be brought up as evidence against the sweep.

James Graham, the sweep alluded to in the previous trial, was then indicted for having stolen the piece of copper, value 9s., and pleaded Not Guilty.

The evidence in this case was precisely as before, with the addition of James Osborn`s statement as to the conversation between him and the sweep, and his undertaking to sell the item in question.

Witnesses were called to speak to character.

Verdict: Guilty – one month`s imprisonment.

Kentish Gazette 15-1-1850

The Pavilion Hotel is about to change hands. We understand that it has been taken by Mr. Breach, of the firm of Battle and Breach, of the London Tavern, Bishopsgate Street.

James Osborne, labourer, late of Hythe, was indicted for having stolen a piece of copper, value 9d., the property of Mr. Owen Fickell Algar, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel.

The Recorder cautioned this witness about his dealings, and told him to be more cautious in future.

Osborn Lee, ostler at the Duke’s Head, Hythe, deposed to selling the piece of copper for Osborne, without any suspicion that it had been stolen.

Mary Roker, still-room maid at the hotel, identified the copper as belonging to the “bain marie” at the Pavilion. Saw it last in the still-room, two or three years since.

William Francis, whitesmith, identified the copper produced, it being fitted by him in the place it occupied.

The Recorder summed up, and the jury, having retired for a short time, acquitted the prisoner. He was, however, detained in custody, to be brought up as evidence against the sweep.

Maidstone Gazette 15-1-1850

Quarter Sessions: Before J. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder.

James Osborne, labourer, was indicted for stealing a piece of copper, value 9s., from the Pavilion Hotel.

Not Guilty.

Maidstone Gazette 29-1-1850

The Pavilion Hotel: It is said that the new proprietor (Mr. Breach) intends to make various alterations and additions to the Pavilion, with a view to render that accommodation so much wanted in the season.

Letter: In reference to your report respecting the trial of Osborne and another for a robbery at the Pavilion, Folkestone, I merely wish, in justice to myself, that you will state what appeared to the Court, viz., that I gave the information to the policeman that was the means of the man Osborne being convicted. I trust you will insert a line or two in my favour to exonerate me from public obloquy. Your most obedient servant, John Myers, Hythe, Jan. 27, 1850.

Dover Chronicle 2-2-1850

Maidstone Gazette 26-2-1850

Petty Sessions, Monday; Before D. Major Esq., Mayor, W. Major and S. Mackie Esqs.

James Driscall, of Hythe, master chimney sweeper, was charged with having, on the 12^th inst., stolen a chimney sweeping machine, value £10, from the Pavilion Hotel, the property of James Gaby Breach.

Guilio Giovannini deposed: When I was manager of the Pavilion Hotel, I repeatedly missed different articles belonging to it. The sweeping machine now produced is the property of Mr. Breach; it has been in use at the hotel. The last time I saw the machine was about three weeks ago, and on Thursday last I missed it. I never gave James Driscall permission to take the machine. He must have taken it away from part of the house where he had no business. I have known that there was a machine belonging to the house about two years.

James Gaby Breach deposed: I am proprietor of the said hotel, and as such the sweeping machine belongs to me. One day in the early part of last week I was in the basement storey of the hotel. I saw Driscall in the lower part of the house, and asked him what business he had there; he said “I want to see Mr. Giavannini”. I said that was not the place to find him, and told him to go upstairs. I saw a boy with him carrying the machine, and asked Driscall what he was going to do with it. He said “I am going to take it away, as it belongs to me”. I then suffered him to take it away, as I did not at that time know it belonged to me. The prisoner had no business whatever in the hotel where I found him.

Frederick George Francis deposed: When my father used to sweep the chimneys at the hotel, I bought two machines for the use of the house. There are no particular marks on the machine, but I believe it is the one belonging to the Pavilion Hotel. I have frequently used the machine myself. I know it by the sticks being much shorter than those usually used by sweeps.

Matthew Pearson, police constable, deposed that he found the machine in the premises belonging to James Driscall.

The prisoner was committed for trial, but liberated on bail.

Dover Chronicle 27-4-1850

Folkestone Quarter Sessions, before W. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder.

John Driscoll, master sweep, of Hythe, was indicted for stealing a sweeping apparatus, or machine, from the Pavilion, at Folkestone.

Mr. Sladden prosecuted, and Mr. Mercer, of Ashford, defended.

It appeared that the article was taken under the idea that it was his own property, and that this was stated to the prosecutor, Mr. Breach, master of the hotel, at the time the prisoner took the article in question, and the Jury, after an able defence from the prisoner`s advocate, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

Maidstone Gazette 30-4-1850

Folkestone Quarter Sessions, yesterday week, before J.J. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder.

James Driscall, master sweep, residing at Hythe, was indicted for feloniously stealing one sweeping machine, value £10, the property of James Gaby Breach.

James Gaby Breach deposed: I have been the occupier of the Pavilion Hotel since the 13^th January last. About the second week of February I met the prisoner in the basement of the premises with a sweeping machine. I asked him what he did there; he told me he was looking for Mr. Giovannini. I told him that was not the place to look for him, but in his office; he was going in the direction of the steps into the road above. I asked him if the machine was mine; he said “No, his own, and he was going to take it home”. I afterwards discovered that the one belonging to me was gone. I believe the one the prisoner had was mine; it was part of the fixtures of the house, and included in the inventory when I took the hotel. The prisoner had no business in the hotel, as his contract was terminated and his account settled.

The witness, in cross-examination, stated that he was not sure that the machine was in the inventory, but he believed it was. He had not prosecuted one of the prisoner`s servants for theft; he had heard that one had been tried and convicted before he took possession of the hotel.

Gulion Giovannini deposed: I hold a situation at the Pavilion Hotel, as manager, and have done so about 4½ years. The prisoner succeeded a Mr. Francis as sweep, and a contract was entered into and the machine was handed over by Francis to the prisoner, for his use in the hotel.

Cross-examined: I recollect seeing the machine, but do not recollect if it was in the dust-hole; it had short sticks like the one in Court; the prisoner had no business to take it away. Before I paid the prisoner his account, I sent the policeman, Pearson, to the prisoner`s to request him to send back the machine belonging to the Pavilion, and he did so. Did not know how long a machine would last; had never used one (laughter). Never looked to see if the machine was kept in the dust-hole; that was not his business. Had never been called upon to repair the machine. When the agreement to sweep the chimneys was made, other parties were present. The prisoner was to have £16 a year for it, and to pay £5 yearly for the ashes. He had prosecuted the prisoner`s servant, Thomas Graham, for stealing a piece of copper from the dust-hole.

Frederick Francis deposed: I do the smith`s work at the Pavilion. My father used to sweep the chimneys by contract when I was in London. My father wrote to me to purchase two machines of the Ramoncur Company in 1845. I sent them down and received the money for them; they were numbered 101 and 102; the heads produced are those I purchased, and were in use at the Pavilion Hotel. The canes are similar in appearance. I understood they were for the South Eastern Railway Company, and that Mr. Sims, the foreman, paid my father for them.

Mr. Mercer addressed the jury for the defence, and observed that the prisoner was indicted for feloniously stealing a certain machine, the property of one James Gaby Breach, but he could prove to them that the machine never was his property; that on the prisoner taking the contract from Francis he was told by him that he might have the machine, and he had always considered it his own. The prisoner`s conduct throughout was that of an honest man; he had never applied to the proprietors of the Pavilion to repair the machine at any time, and when he found they claimed a machine, he took the one away to select those canes from his own, and to return them; those canes had remained in his store-room until the policeman came, when the prisoner immediately took him to the room, and gave them to him. The machine sworn to by the prosecutor, as seen by him on the day it was said to have been stolen, was not the one now produced, but it was one he should produce to them. (The machine was brought in, and was a round headed one, the Pavilion machine having a square head.)

James Harman deposed: I have been two years in the employ of Mr. Driscoll. I have used machines at the Pavilion. We took them home to repair when they wanted, and used the machine for other works besides the hotel work. I always thought the machine at the hotel was my master`s property; he said it was. I heard my master order a man to take the machine home, to separate the canes belonging to the old machine from his, and return the others to the Pavilion. We never used the square-headed machine produced, but a round-headed one.

James Osborne deposed: The square-headed machine was in the room where I sleep, from last October to February. I heard my master tell James Harman to take the machine home and pick out the sticks he thought belonged to the hotel. He had been sixteen years a sweep. A machine would last three or four years at the Pavilion.

Robert Greenland deposed: I was formerly a scullery-man at the Pavilion. One Sunday afternoon in 1846 I was called to a chimney on fire in one of the servants` rooms. I used a machine then on the premises to extinguish the fire, and burnt the head of it and part of one of the canes. I always thought that the machine belonged to the prisoner; he called it his own.

The Recorder summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The trial lasted five hours, and the Court was crowded to inconvenience.

Dover Telegraph 4-5-1850

Folkestone Quarter Sessions

John Driscoll, master sweep, of Hythe, was indicted for stealing a sweeping apparatus, or machine, from the Pavilion, at Folkestone.

Mr. Sladden prosecuted, and Mr. Mercer of Ashford, defended.

Maidstone Gazette 29-10-1850, Kentish Mercury 2-11-1850

On Friday last, soon after midnight, a gentleman in great haste applied at the London Bridge station for a special train, and as soon as it could be got ready, proceeded to Folkestone, where he arrived about five o`clock. He proceeded direct to the Pavilion and was shown, at his request, into one of the principal apartments. The bell soon announced that he had some wants which he wished supplied; one of the first was a message to the electric telegraph office, informing his friends of his safe arrival, soon after another desiring their presence. Then there were the usual wants of a traveller; and about seven o`clock he wanted medical assistance. On arrival of the medical attendant no complaint could be discovered, but there was no difference of opinion about the remedy proposed – a composing draught and a suggestion that he should retire to bed. But retiring to bed and retiring to rest were soon found to be very different matters; the only difference to the servants being that they were incessantly summoned by the bedroom instead of by the parlour bell. The whole of the inmates having been disturbed from five o`clock till eight, with no prospect of being quiet, Mr. Breach was at last compelled to insist upon his guest dressing and quitting the hotel. This is one of the “desagrements” to which hotels are unavoidably subject, accompanied, as in this case, with loss; but we are surprised to hear that for his special train trip, and affectionate messages to his friends through the telegraph, he is indebted to the company £38. Should he be a singer at taverns in towns, as reported, the prospect of payment is, we fear, remote. He left for Dover. The above account may put persons upon their guard against him.

Canterbury Journal 2-11-1850

Maidstone Gazette 7-1-1851, Canterbury Journal, Dover Chronicle 11-1-1851, Kentish Gazette, Maidstone Journal 14-1-1851

Enlargement of the Pavilion Hotel: An addition to this hotel will immediately be made, the building being continued on the north side to the boundary of the South Eastern Company`s property. The Marine cottage will be removed to make room for it. The hotel will then make up over 200 beds.

Dover Chronicle 19-7-1851

Fatal accident at Folkestone harbour; A poor fish-seller named Wm. Impett, a native of Hythe, but for some years a resident of Dover, was here on Monday last, waiting the arrival of the fishing boats. In passing round the harbour, near the clock house, his cap blew off; he ran after it, and in so doing, when hear the kerb, a gust of wind blew him into the harbour, where he remained nearly twenty minutes before he could be got out, there being no drags or means of saving from drowning in case of accident. He was taken to the Pavilion Hotel, where Mr. Breach kindly gave the use of the hot bath, but it was of no avail, life was extinct. This is not the first case of persons falling over at that place. Ought not the South Eastern Company to be compelled, as they will not do so voluntarily, to place chains round the harbour, as is the case in all other ports? An inquest was held on the body next day, and a verdict of accidental death returned.

Southeastern Gazette 19-10-1852

Petty Sessions, Wednesday: Before W. Smith Esq., Mayor, S. Mackie and T. Golder Esqs.

Alfred Hoadley, chef de cuisine at the Pavilion Hotel, appeared to answer the complaint of Ann Morgan, kitchen maid. From the evidence adduced it appeared that an altercation took place in the kitchen on the 24^th September last, and that the defendant ordered the complainant out of the kitchen; she refused to go, and he put her out, hurting her wrists.

The defendant acknowledged having taken the complainant by the wrists to put her out of the kitchen, but that he had not used any violence in so doing. He called Ann Pantry, one of the kitchen maids, who confirmed his statement.

The Magistrates told the defendant that he ought not to have taken the law into his own hands, but to have sent for the proprietor of the hotel. They fined him 1s. and 9s. costs.

Canterbury Journal 30-9-1854

Coroner`s Inquest: An inquest was held on Saturday last, before Mr. Brockman, on the body of Samuel Augustine Courtauld, a gentleman on a visit to this place. The evidence of Mr. John Warren was taken at the house before the coroner and jury, on account of the illness of the witness from immersion. He deposed that he was second cousin to the deceased, and went with him to bathe on Saturday morning last, between nine and ten o`clock. He and deceased took a double machine, and witness, having undressed first, went into the sea, and shortly afterwards saw the deceased on the steps of the machine, and then dip his head under the water and swim out; the deceased was a better swimmer than witness, and passed him towards Sandgate. Witness was swimming towards the shore, when he observed persons running to and fro, and saw something was the matter. As soon as his feet touched the beach he heard a cry “Save him; he is drowning;” heard no cry from the deceased, but on looking round saw his head turned up out of the water and his lips moving. After he had taken breath he swam out and took hold of him, but he had no power to bring him in, being exhausted. Nothing was done by the persons on shore to save him; he returned and asked for a rope; a piece of clothes line was given to him, and he returned with it in his mouth, thinking that the persons on shore held hold of it, but on reaching the deceased he found that it had been let go, and he felt he must be lost. Deceased appeared to be in the same position as before, and did not clutch hold of him, as a drowning man, and witness thought he must have been in a fit. Afterwards he saw the colour of deceased`s face change to a purple hue, and finding he could not bring him to shore, witness returned himself, quite exhausted. The coroner and jury then returned to the Guildhall, and as it was late, the inquest was adjourned.

On the reassembling of the jury on Monday, further evidence was taken, at the close of which the deputy coroner, in summing up, said that the whole of the evidence led to the supposition that the deceased was dead before he sank. With reference to the rumour that had prevailed as to the conduct of the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel, he thought it right to observe that the evidence given that day completely exculpated them from any blame. It could scarcely have been believed that such inhumanity had been perpetrated; but if such a belief had gained currency, the satisfactory evidence elicited was sufficient completely to exculpate them. Whether the deceased died from drowning, or any unknown cause, it was impossible to say; but they knew this fact, that he died whilst in the water, and he was sorry to be obliged to make some remarks upon the arrangements which appeared to exist at the bathing establishment. Rofe, who had the care of the machines, seemed to be an ignorant man, and perhaps his mode of giving evidence might be partly attributed to that fact; but certainly he had not made the most favourable impression upon him (the deputy coroner), for he seemed to be thinking more of the preservation of his master`s property than the saving of life. From some cause – whether he wanted the wit, or whether there was a carelessness on his part, or whether he was too much alarmed to give the matter all the attention he might have done, it was hard to say – but he certainly did not use the best means that might have been used for saving the life of the deceased. He thought it would be quite right that the jury should take into their consideration the arrangements of the bathing establishment, and recommend that some greater care should be used and some better arrangements made which might assist in preventing so sad an accident again occurring.

The jury, after due consideration, returned the following verdict: Died suddenly whilst bathing in the sea from a machine, and not by any violent means. The jury are of opinion that means and appliances ought to be at hand in case of an accident, and that the proprietor of the machines should be recommended to have a boat and oars and rope, and if possible life-buoys, to prevent the recurrence of such a melancholy accident; and that a competent person should be employed to attend the machines.

The want of drags or ropes to save life in case of accident while bathing is much felt here, and we hope the proper authorities will take the matter up.

Dover Chronicle 30-9-1854

This place was thrown into some excitement on Saturday last by a melancholy and fatal accident to a gentleman whilst bathing. The unfortunate deceased, Samuel Augustin Courtauld Esq., was a student of the medical profession, and was staying on a visit at the temporary residence of some relatives (who are visitors to Folkestone) at No. 1, Pleydell Gardens, with one of whom, Mr. John Warren, a second cousin, he was in company with at the time of the sad occurrence. A rumour obtained currency to the effect that proper means had not been used by persons on the shore, and especially by those connected with the bathing establishment, to rescue the drowning man; and, by some means, it was also reported that on the body being picked up its admission to the Pavilion Hotel was refused. The latter was quickly dispelled on examination of the witnesses, and the grounds which existed for the former will be seen by the following report of the investigation into the circumstances attending death, held by the deputy coroner of the borough, R.T. Brockman Esq. The jury was empanelled on Saturday at the Guildhall, but it was stated that, owing to the exertions made by Mr. John Warren to render his cousin assistance, he had been conveyed home in an almost exhausted state, and that he was consequently unable to attend the examination. It was therefore proposed that the deputy coroner and jury, of which Mr. Flaherty had been chosen foreman, should proceed to Pleydell Gardens to take Mr. Warren`s deposition at his residence. The following was the statement of that gentleman, made after the body had been identified by Mr. T.R. Warren, the uncle of the deceased.

Mr. John Warren: I am second cousin to the deceased. At quarter before ten o`clock this morning the deceased and myself got into a double bathing machine on the sea shore at Folkestone, with a view to bathing. I entered the right hand compartment, and he entered the left; and the bathing man wheeled us down whilst we were undressing. I had undressed first, and plunged first into the water. I am a very poor swimmer, but I went a little way out of my depth in the direction of Sandgate, that being described by the man in attendance as the safest course, on account of the current. I had proceeded about ten or a dozen yards and was, I should think, in about eight feet of water, when I saw that the deceased had come out of the machine and was standing at the bottom of the steps. On the wave approaching he covered his head, and swam out after me and soon passed me, he being a much stronger swimmer than I. Having by this time become tired I turned round and swam towards the shore; but before I had reached my depth I saw several people on the shore, from whose actions I fancied that something was the matter. Immediately afterwards, on reaching my depth, I heard them shout “Save him; he is drowning”, or words to that effect. I directly turned round and saw the deceased`s head out of the water and a little reclined back. His face, mouth, and nostrils at least, were clearly out of the water, and his lips were moving. I replied to the observations of the people “I have no strength”, upon which they cried out “You can save him”. I asked for their help, and having succeeded in reaching the deceased, I caught hold of his right arm. He was then in the same position as when I first saw him. I held him as long as I could; he was quite motionless all the time. His lips were working, but he did not speak. I found I had not sufficient strength to save deceased, as, by using of my hand to support him, I perceived that I was sinking. Having had so little practice in swimming, and being exhausted, I found that all my efforts to move the body were unavailing, and seeing that my persistence in these endeavours would cause the loss of my life, I again swam towards the shore, and called to the persons on the beach to bring a rope. They then cut down one of the lines upon which some clothes were hanging, but while they were doing so the current was drifting deceased away to the eastward, and he was then further off. I took the rope in my mouth, however, and swam out again to him, thinking that the persons on shore had hold of the other end. On reaching deceased again, I called out “Pull, pull!”, bt I then discovered that no-one was holding the other end of the rope. The deceased did not clutch me this time. I thought I must have been drowned, as I had depended on being drawn in with the rope. I was obliged to let the deceased go, but his lips were still moving. I was completely exhausted, but was by some means washed to the shore. On recovering myself I observed that deceased`s face had considerably changed. I did not see the body sink, for what with the excitement and the quantity of water I had swallowed I felt very unwell. I was taken home before the body was brought on shore, but I saw that boats were out searching. I did not hear any struggling by the deceased during the whole of the time we were in the water.

The inquiry up to this point had occupied three hours, and the jury, having returned to the Guildhall, decided to adjourn till the Monday following, at two o`clock.

On the reassembling of the jury on Monday last, the following corroborative and additional facts in connection with this melancholy occurrence were deposed. Mr. T.R. Warren attended to watch the inquiries on behalf of the friends of the deceased. One of the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel (whose name did not transpire) also attended.

Mr. Joseph Topham, solicitor, of Lincoln`s Inn, a visitor at Folkestone, stated: I was on the beach at this place at 10 o`clock on the 23^rd inst., and saw two gentlemen enter a double bathing machine. I soon after saw them in the water, and almost immediately heard a girl scream out “There`s a man drowning!” I looked and saw the deceased floating in the water not a very long distance from Mr. Warren. I saw no apparent danger, as deceased seemed to me from his position to be floating on his back. I heard Mr. Warren say “I can`t help him. I can hardly swim myself”. Upon this I turned round to the bathing man, John Rofe, and observed “I am afraid that man`s drowning; can you swim?” He replied that he could not. I then said “Is there not someone here who can swim?” and he again replied that there was not. With the exception of the bathing man and some workmen (navigators or men employed upon the gas works) there were no other persons there besides myself. I ran to these men and asked if any of them could swim, but they took very little notice. I am not able to swim myself, but I asked for a rope, when Rofe replied there was not one there. “Then, for God`s sake,” said I, “go and get one.” I ran a little way and found a clothes line, and having cut it down, it was taken from me by someone and thrown to Mr. Warren. I then directly after heard Mr. Warren say “Pull, pull!” Shortly afterwards I observed the deceased sink. There did not seem to be the slightest struggle during the whole time. The deceased remained perfectly motionless. Just before the body sank I saw that, by some means or other, a large rope had been brought. I took this rope through the next machine and threw it within half a yard of the spot at which Mr. Warren then was; but he seemed exhausted and did not succeed in catching hold of it. Mr. Warren was shortly afterwards pulled out of the water in an exhausted state. I observed the efforts of Mr. Warren, whilst in the water, to rescue the deceased, and he appeared to use every means in his power. He made several attempts to draw the drowning man to the shore. Deceased was about forty feet from the beach. Mr. Warren could not have done more than he did. There was no reply to Mr. Warren`s request to pull. I was surprised to find that no-one had got a boat. From the time my attention was drawn to the circumstance till the body sank I should think about three minutes elapsed. About five minutes after the body had sunk some boats came to search for it. If a boat had been upon the spot at the time my opinion is that the deceased might have been saved. The tide was running fast, but there was only one other machine occupied.

By a juror: If there had been expert swimmers connected with the bathing establishment, the deceased might have been saved. I hardly ever knew a bathing establishment before without expert swimmers.

Mr. Tyson, sworn: I am a surgeon, residing in Folkestone. I was sent for soon after eleven o`clock on Saturday morning last, and saw the deceased in a room at No. 1, Pleydell Gardens. Upon examining the body, I found that life was quite extinct, and that it would be of very little service to use any applications to attempt restoration; yet, at the most urgent request of the deceased`s friends those means were used which, under ordinary similar circumstances, we should make use of, but without producing the slightest effect. Another medical gentleman, a friend of the deceased, was with me, and assisted in using these restoratives. From the appearance of the body, I believe deceased came to his death by drowning; but I would add that, from the evidence of Mr. Warren, as to the deceased`s making no effort to grasp him on being touched, and also from having learnt that he had been subject to rheumatism, I think it is possible that he might have had disease of the heart, and that that was the immediate cause of his death. My opinion is that he was dead before he sank.

The deputy coroner here reminded Mr. Tyson that Mr. Warren had sworn that he had seen deceased`s lips move even when he last touched him, although, in touching him, he gave no indication of consciousness.

Witness replied that there would often be muscular action of the lips after death; and that this circumstance was not suffieient to induce him to alter his opinion.

Thos. Hall, mariner, of Folkestone, sworn: On Saturday morning, between ten and eleven o`clock, a man came to me, and asked me to get my “Seine-gear” out, as a man was drowned. A cart having been procured we immediately drove to the shore near to Mr. Willis`s bathing establishment; and, having got the gear into the water, shortly succeeded in getting up the body of the deceased, which I and some other men proceeded to take to the Pavilion Hotel, some persons having suggested that he should be taken there in order that he might be put into a warm bath. We had taken the deceased as far as the Pavilion green, on our way thither, when Mr. Rofe`s daughter came running after us and told us we were to take the body to No. 1, Pleydell Gardens, stating that she had been so ordered by the deceased`s friends, who had prepared the house for the reception of the body. There was no obstacle to our taking the body to the Pavilion. On getting to the house where deceased was staying, we completed in carrying him upstairs, in rubbing him with hot water, and in using other remedies; but these efforts produced no effect. I should think that upwards of a gallon of water came out of the deceased`s body, from first to last. The body was found about twenty feet from the shore.

The deputy coroner, at this juncture, addressed the gentleman who attended on behalf of the proprietors of the Pavilion, observing that he was glad the evidence of this witness had been such as to dispel any misconceptions as to the hospitality which was held out at that establishment.

The gentleman addressed replied that he could not conceive how such a rumour could have originated. There were not the slightest grounds for such a statement; for the deceased would have had every attention had he been brought into the Pavilion. He might say that, on two previous occasions, persons recovered from drowning had been brought into the Hotel, and had received every assistance their state required.

John Rofe, sworn: I am employed by Mr. Willis to look after the bathing machines, and am present during the time bathing is going forward. I am assisted in this duty by a man named Hart. On Saturday last, about ten minutes after the deceased and Mr. Warren had entered a double machine for the purpose of bathing, I heard an alarm, which was raised by my daughter screaming out that a man was drowning. I immediately ran to the boat-house near for a piece of rope, but could not find any. We have never had any rope there, with the exception of clothes line. Then I ran to a boat belonging to Mr. Willis, but there were no theles, oars, or plug in it, Mr. Willis not having made use of it lately. It has been used principally by the men belonging to the gas works, and the oars, I believe, were at the gas-house. I then ran into the water to try and reach the deceased, but could not. He was out of my depth, and I could only go up to my shoulders, as I could not swim. After going out till I could just feel my feet, I was obliged to retreat. There were some men near, who ran to look at the object in the water – the man drowning. I ran to the boat myself, but did not ask them to assist me. If the boat had been put off, it would have lasted long enough to save the gentleman, but we could have done nothing without oars, as there was a strong flood tide running. It would have required six men to have got the boat out. I had to attend the machines at the time, to keep them from becoming floated with the tide. There were two full ones; the rest were empty. I drew those up, and I also went to look at the object in the water. It did not occur to me that it would be better to attend to this particular case (the drowning man) than to look after my master`s property. There were persons in some of the machines, and it was my duty to look after one party as much as the other. I attended to the empty machines because I was fearful they would was away. If I was asked which I would first do – save an empty machine or a human life – I should, if it came to that, save the life, but it is my duty to look after my master`s property.

By a juror: I never remember a machine upsetting in the water, but am quite sure machines would upset. The machines have long planks attached to them, leadng to the shore, so that the persons inside them could have come out if they had been deposed.

By the deputy coroner: I am 63 years of age. I cannot say the age of my assistant. We have never had an accident of this kind, where life has been lost, ever since I have been connected with the bathing establishment – about 40 years. The deceased was 60 feet from the shore. I can`t say why I went into the water, knowing that I could not swim, when the deceased was that distance out.

Mr. John Warren here said that he was prepared to swear that this witness rendered him no assistance whatever.

By the deputy coroner: I drew up three machines between the time the alarm was given and the sinking of the deceased.

The deputy coroner, addressing the witness, here said that he did not think he (the witness) had done all that he might have done in the endeavour to save the life of the deceased. His efforts should certainly have been directed to getting the boat down, for which purpose he should have claimed the assistance of the navigators, or whoever was standing by. Although placed in his situation to look after the bathing machines, it was hardly necessary that he should be told that it was his duty on every occasion to use all means in his power to save life. The boat, it appeared, was placed there for the express purpose of being used in the event of any accident occurring, and instead, therefore, of running to the water and doing nothing, he should have concentrated his attention in this mode of rendering assistance.

The witness here carelessly remarked that he was employed not to look after bodies, but machines.

The deputy coroner said it did not become the witness to contend what was the letter of his employment. It was his duty to use every effort to save life.

Eliza Rofe, daughter of the last witness, was then sworn. She briefly deposed that she was alarmed by seeing the deceased change colour in his face after going twice under the water, after which he cried out.

The deputy coroner then said that, in consequence of what had fallen from the medical witness, it would be satisfactory to have some evidence of the state of deceased`s health previous to his death.

Mr. John Warren was therefore re-sworn, when he stated that about six months ago the deceased was afflicted with a rheumatic fever. Since he had been at Folkestone (from Thursday) he had complained once or twice of indigestion, but he seemed remarkably well before going into the water.

Mr. George Courtauld, a brother of the deceased, also gave similar testimony. He added that his brother was in delicate health, but he had never heard that his heart was diseased.

This was the whole of the evidence.

The deputy coroner, in summing up, said that the whole of the evidence led to the supposition that the deceased was dead before he sank. With reference to the rumour that had prevailed as to the conduct of the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel, he thought it right to observe that the evidence given that day completely exculpated them from any blame. It could scarcely have been believed that such inhumanity had been perpetrated; but if such a belief had gained currency, the satisfactory evidence elicited was sufficient completely to exculpate them. Whether the deceased died from drowning, or any unknown cause, it was impossible to say; but they knew this fact, that he died whilst in the water, and he was sorry to be obliged to make some remarks upon the arrangements which appeared to exist at the bathing establishment. Rofe, who had the care of the machines, seemed to be an ignorant man, and perhaps his mode of giving evidence might be partly attributed to that fact; but certainly he had not made the most favourable impression upon him (the deputy coroner), for he seemed to be thinking more of the preservation of his master`s property than the saving of life. From some cause – whether he wanted the wit, or whether there was a carelessness on his part, or whether he was too much alarmed to give the matter all the attention he might have done, it was hard to say – but he certainly did not use the best means that might have been used for saving the life of the deceased. He thought it would be quite right that the jury should take into their consideration the arrangements of the bathing establishment, and recommend that some greater care should be used and some better arrangements made which might assist in preventing so sad an accident again occurring.

Dover Telegraph 30-9-1854

No small sensation was created here on Saturday last, by the circumstance of a visitor named Samuel Augustin Courtauld, a medical student, having met with his death while bathing from one of the machines to the westward of the harbour; and the excitement was much increased, and another pang added to the poignant grief of the deceased`s relatives, by a report of the neglect of those having charge of the bathing machines; and that fatal delay in using restorative means after recovering the body had resulted from alleged opposition offered by the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel to its reception there. With a view of arriving at the facts, we attended the adjourned inquiry on Monday, at the Town Hall, before R. T. Brockman, Esq.. Deputy Coroner, when the evidence of a principal witness (Mr. John Warren, taken on Saturday) was recapitulated, and several other witnesses examined, the investigation occupying nearly 5 hours, and being conducted so as to elicit every possible fact associated with the lamentable occurrence, and what amount of blame (if any) attached to the conduct of any in the least involved in any feature of the transaction. With the evidence before us, we are in a position to state, (adopting the language of the Coroner,) that the proprietors of the Pavilion are completely exculpated from the slightest charge of refusing to receive the body of the deceased gentleman. Of the bather, whatever may be urged in extenuation, we cannot speak so favourably. In the first place, the boat connected with the machines, and provided against accidents, was said by the bathing-man to be unseaworthy, and when run to was without oars, tholes, plug, or warp, and secondly, the attention of this man appears to have been so engrossed about the preservation of his employer's machines, as to induce conduct that called forth a stricture from Mr. Brockman, that it was evident the bather had not used the best means he could to save the deceased. It is to be hoped that the proprietor (Mr. Willis) will forthwith supply what the deplored issue of Saturday revealed to be so much wanted. An uncle and two brothers of the deceased were present nt the adjourned examination, when the following witnesses were examined: Mr. John Warren, a relative of the deceased, recalled; Mr. Tapham, a visitor; Mr. Tyson, surgeon; Thomas Hall, mariner, who recovered the body with his seine net; John Rolfe, the bather; his daughter, who attended the ladies` department; and Mr. George Courtauld, the elder brother of deceased. Annexed is an outline of the evidence, commencing with the witness John Warren:

Deceased arrived at Folkestone on Thursday afternoon, the 21^st instant, joining some relations, who had preceded him, at 1, Pleydell Gardens. On Friday he bathed from a machine with his second cousin, the witness John Warren, and the same parties entered a double machine for bathing shortly before 10 o`clock on the morning of the accident. Warren first entered the waterm and the deceased followed. The former, being an indifferent swimmer, soon turned for the shore, having first observed the deceased pass him, swimming strongly. On nearing the machine, Mr. Warren was induced by the actions of those on the beach to turn his head in the direction of his companion, who was seen floating with his face above the water, and motionless, save a quivering of his lips. Mr. Warren suspected the fatal truth that his friend was drowning, and he lamented to those on shore his utter inability to render any assistance. Urged, however, to make an effort, he swam out to deceased, then a distance of sixty feet from the shore, and caught hold of his right arm, which he held for some time, but finding himself much exhausted, and that his strength was insufficient to move his relative towards the shore, he was compelled to relinquish his hold, and regain the machine. At this juncture a rope was obtained, and, at the imminent risk of his own life, Mr. Warren plunged once more to the rescue of deceased, bearing an end of the rope in his mouth. He succeeded in reaching him the second time, and grasped his friend`s wrist, who made no attempt to clutch, but still lay motionless in the water, some discolouration of the face being observable. At this juncture the witness cried out “Pull!” to those on shore, when to his dismay, instead of being dragged with his drowning friend to the beach, the alarming fact was revealed that the rope had been thrown into the sea, and no end of it retained on shore. Exhausted, and in danger of drowning himself, Mr. Warren released his hold of his companion, (who afterwards went down,) and with difficulty gained the machine, from which he was assisted, and shortly afterwards was put to bed.

The witness Tapham spoke to the efforts made by Mr. Warren, who risked his own safety for the preservation of his friend; and to the indifference of some excavators at present employed at the gas works, who remained impassive spectators of the scene, though urged to lend a helping hand.

Mr. Tyson, surgeon, was called in after the removal of the body to Pleydell Gardens. He found that life was extinct; and though believing that no efforts of restoration would be of any avail, yet, at the most urgent request of the relatives, he resorted to the usual remedies (in which he was assisted by a medical gentleman, a friend of deceased,) but without producing the slightest effect. From the appearance of the body, witness would have said that deceased died from drowning; but from the evidence of Mr. Warren, the statement of deceased having recently had an attack of rheumatism, and from the fact of his making no attempt to clutch, it being proverbial for drowning persons to grasp at anything within their reach, he (Mr. Tyson) was of opinion that the unfortunate gentleman might have been dead before he sank, and probably from disease of the heart. In this view, the witnesses generally coincided.

The evidence of the bather Rofe evinced that the poor man was wanting the presence of mind for emergencies so essential in individuals filling the situation he holds, and his statements in reference to the means available for aiding casualties disclosed a state of things that added little to his credit. The daughter gave her evidence in a clear and straightforward manner. She observed deceased go under the water after leaving the machine, and on rising he appeared as if strangled, and shortly went down again. She immediately gave an alarm, and deceased arose to the surface a second time, when he floated as described until he finally sank. This witness was desired by a relative of deceased to request the men bearing the corpse to the Pavilion to carry it to 1, Pleydell Gardens.

The evidence of Mr. Hall referred to the recovery of the body, and its intended removal to the Pavilion Hotel to be placed in a hot bath. When crossing the Pavilion Green, those bearing the corpse were informed that the relatives wished it borne to Pleydell Gardens, where everything was prepared for its reception. No-one opposed to its being carried to the Pavilion, and but for the message from deceased`s relatives, it would have been taken thither. Not more than 15 minutes elapsed from the time of his hearing of the accident to the recovery of the body, within 20 feet of the shore.

Deceased`s brother, who was examined touching the general health of his unfortunate relative, said that deceased had an attack of rheumatic fever 4 or 5 months ago, and had since been in an ill state of health, which was partially attributed to his studies, and to his being constantly in the dissecting room at the hospital. No-one imagined that he had disease of the heart.

The Coroner having briefly summed up, the jury retired, and after a deliberation, recorded “That deceased died whilst bathing.”

Kentish Gazette 3-10-1854

No small sensation was created here on Saturday last, by the circumstances of a visitor named Samuel Augustin Courtauld, a medical student, having met with his death while bathing from one of the machines to the westward of the harbour; and the excitement was much increased, and another pang added to the poignant grief of the deceased’s relatives, by a report of the neglect of those having charge of the bathing machines; and that fatal delay in using restorative means after recovering the body had resulted, from alleged opposition offered by the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel to its reception there. With a view of arriving at the facts, we attended the adjourned inquiry on Monday, at the Town Hall, before R. T. Brockman, Esq.. Deputy Coroner, when the evidence of a principal witness (Mr. John Warren, taken on Saturday) was recapitulated, and several other witnesses examined, the investigation occupying nearly 5 hours, and being conducted so as to elicit every possible fact associated with the lamentable occurrence, and what amount of blame (if any) attached to the conduct of any in the least involved in any feature of the transaction. With the evidence before us, we are in a position to state, (adopting the language of the Coroner,) that the proprietors of the Pavilion are completely exculpated from the slightest charge of refusing to receive the body of the deceased gentleman. Of the bather, whatever may be urged in extenuation, we cannot speak so favourably. In the first place, the boat connected with the machines, and provided against accidents, was said by the bathing-man to be unseaworthy, and when run to was without oars, holes, plug, or warp, and secondly, the attention of this man appears to have been so engrossed about the preservation of his employer's machines, as to induce conduct that called forth a stricture from Mr. Brockman, that it was evident the bather had not used the best means he could to save the deceased. It is to be hoped that the proprietor (Mr. Willis) will forthwith supply what the deplored issue of Saturday revealed to be so much wanted. An uncle and two brothers of the deceased were present nt the adjourned examination, when the following witnesses were examined: Mr. John Warren, a relative of the deceased, recalled; Mr. Tapham, a visitor; Mr. Tyson, surgeon; Thomas Hall, mariner, who recovered the body with his sceine net; John Rolfe, the bather; his daughter, who attended the ladies` department; and Mr. George Courtauld, the elder brother of deceased. The Coroner having briefly summed up, the jury retired, and after a deliberation, recorded “That deceased died whilst bathing.”

Maidstone Journal 3-10-1854

An inquest was held on Saturday last, before Mr. Brockman, on the body of Samuel Augistine Courtauld, a gentleman on a visit to this place. The evidence of Mr. John Warren was taken at the house before the coroner and jury, on account of the illness of witness from immersion. He deposed that he was second cousin to the deceased, and went with him to bathe on Saturday morning last, between nine and ten o`clock. He and deceased took a double machine, and witness having undressed first went into the sea, and shortly afterwards saw the deceased on the steps of the machine, and then dip his head under the water and swim out; the deceased was a better swimmer than witness, and passed him towards Sandgate. Witness was swimming towards the shore, when he observed persons running to and fro, and saw something was the matter. As soon as his feet touched the beach he heard a cry, “Save him. He is drowning;” heard no cry from the deceased, but on looking round he saw his head turned up out of the water and his lips moving. After he had taken breath he swam out and took hold of him, but he had not power to bring him in, being exhausted. Nothing was done by the persons on the shore to save him; he returned and asked for a rope; a piece of clothes line was given to him and he returned with it in his mouth, thinking that the persons on shore had hold of it, but on reaching the deceased he found that it had been let go, and he felt he must be lost. Deceased appeared to be in the same position as before, and did not clutch hold of him, as a drowning man, and witness thought he must have been in a fit. Afterwards saw the colour of deceased`s face change to a purple hue, and finding he could not bring him to shore, he returned himself, being quite exhausted.

The inquest was adjourned.

The want of drags or boats to save life in case of accident while bathing is much felt here.

Southeastern Gazette 3-10-1854

The inquest upon the body of Samuel Augustine Courtauld, a medical student, was resumed on Monday. The Coroner read a letter which he had received from the owner of the bathing machines, who was unable to attend through illness; it stated that there was a boat provided on purpose in case of accident, which had been lent to the gas company, who had broken one of the oars; it being a spring tide the men were obliged to draw the other machines up, or a worse catastrophe would have occurred as there were several machines in use, and they would have floated; the men consequently were not able to render the assistance they otherwise would. It also stated that no lives had been lost from his machines for 15 years.

The first witness examined was Mr. Joseph Tatham, a gentleman residing in Loncoln`s Inn, but at present in lodgings at Folkestone. He deposed: I was on the beach on Saturday morning, the 23^rd September. At about 10 o`clock I saw two gentlemen go into a double machine, and saw them in the water; immediately afterwards I heard the bathing woman scream and say “That man is drowning.” The deceased was then floating on the top of the water, not a very long distance from the other gentleman (Mr. Warren). I thought he was floating on his back for amusement. I heard no cry or alarm proceed from him, and I could not believe he was drowning. I heard his companion say “I cannot help him”, or words to that effect. I said to John Rolfe, the bathing man, “I am afraid that man is drowning.” He said he could not swim; nor could I. There were only myself and another person present, except some females. Some excavators were working close by at the gas works, but they took little or no notice, and offered no assistance. I asked the bathing man for a rope, but he said he had not got one. There was a line on which the towels hung to dry; I cut it down, and it was snatched out of my hand and thrown to Mr. Warren, who was near the wheel of the machine. I saw Mr. Warren with it in the water, and I think I heard him say “Pull.” I was fearful that Mr. Warren would lose his life, as the deceased appeared to sink when he reached him. The deceased appeared to lie inactive on the water, and made no exertion to save himself. I did not observe a struggle from the first moment I saw him till he sunk. I took a rope and went through the machine up to my waist in water, to throw it to Mr. Warren, but he was so exhausted that he could not hold it.

By the Coroner: Mr. Warren did everything he could to save the deceased; it appeared to be about 40ft. to where the deceased was.

By a juror: I was surprised to find no-one had hold of the rope on shore. From the first moment I heard the scream of the bathing woman till I saw the deceased sinking it was about three minutes. My opinion is that if a boat had been handy, or the bathing man been an expert swimmer, the deceased might have been saved.

By the foreman: Only one or two machines were in use at that time.

Thomas Hall, mariner, deposed: Between 9 and 10 o`clock a Preventive man called me to assist, as there was a man drowned; he asked me to get my seine net or gear to get the body out of the sea. We got it into a boat within eight or ten minutes after the alarm was given. The deceased was about 15 or 20ft. from the shore. I and three others then took the deceased on our backs, intending to put him in a warm bath at the Pavilion Hotel, and we had proceeded as far as the Pavilion green when we were ordered by the bathing man`s daughter to take the body home to No. 1, Pleydell Gardens, which we did.

By the foreman: Never heard of any objection from the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel to a body being taken there. The bathing girl informed us that the friends of the deceased desired the body to be taken to the house. I assisted in trying to restore deceased, but without success.

The Coroner, addressing Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, said that he had been informed that the body had been refused admittance to the Pavilion, and he had sent for him to be present, but as the last witness had fully stated the facts, he would not wish Mr. Breach to remain, unless he pleased.

Mr. Breach said he was standing at the door when the body passed, and was not asked any question; on other occasions he had rendered every assistance, and should have done so if the body had been brought to the Pavilion; he could not imagine how the report originated.

Mr. William Taylor Tyson deposed: I was sent for soon after 11 o`clock on Saturday morning to No. 1, Pleydall Gardens; on my arrival I found 2 or 3 medical men there, and that life was extinct, but at the earnest request of deceased`s friends I used the usual restoratives, but without effect. A friend of the deceased assisted me. From the appearance of the deceased my opinion was he died from drowning, but from the evidence I have read and heard, that the deceased did not cry out, and also that when his companion was near him there was no clutch (which is proverbial in a drowning man), and also hearing from the family of the deceased that he had suffered from rheumatism, I think it possible that he might have had disease of the heart, and that that was the immediate cause of death. I am decidedly of opinion that the deceased was dead before he sank.

By a juror: If the deceased had disease of the heart, swimming would be injurious to him.

John Rolfe, bathing man (who appeared to be unwilling to be sworn), deposed: I am employed by Mr. Willis to work and superintend the bathing machines; I have only the assistance of a person named Thomas Hart. On Saturday last deceased and his friend went into a double machine, and in about ten minutes afterwards I heard an alarm from my daughter, who said “A man is drowning.” I ran to the boat-house for a rope, but there was none there; we have no rope except the clothes line. I then ran for the boat, which is provided by Mr. Willis, the owner of the machines, in case of accident, but there were no oars, plugs or tholes, and the boat could not be launched. I ran into the sea up to my neck and tried to reach the deceased, who was about 60ft. out at sea from shore, and as I could not swim I returned. I don`t think the boat was seaworthy if it had been launched but it might have lasted to have saved the deceased. I never asked anyone to assist me down with the boat; it would have taken 6 men as she was half-sunk in the beach. I never went to the gas house for the oars, although I knew they were there. I saw the men running out of the gas house with the oars when it was too late. I went back to the machines, three of which were occupied. I could not be everywhere, and as the tide was coming in I was obliged to wind them up to save them floating. I consider the safety of my master`s property was as much my duty as to save life. I tried to save life first, and finding I could not, I directed my attention to the machines. I would not lose my machines to save life (sensation).

The Coroner said he hoped the witness was not so inhuman as to say that he would not risk his machines to save life.

Witness: Well, life first, and machines afterwards; I would try to save life certainly first. I have been 40 years off and on with the machines, and never lost a life. I am 63 years of age.

By a juror: The deceased appeared to be resting, as it were, on his back.

The Coroner: You say the deceased was 60 feet from the shore; how could you expect to save him if you could not swim?

Witness: I went to assist Mr. Warren, who was trying to reach the deceased.

Mr. Tatham, re-examined: Never saw the bathing man in the water at all.

Mr. Warren, re-called: The witness Rolfe rendered me no assistance whatever.

The Coroner told the witness Rolfe that he did not render all the assistance that he ought to have done, and that if he had called the excavators the deceased might have been saved; in common humanity he ought to have tried every means to save live, and others would have been found to have helped up with the machines.

Eliza Rolfe, bathing woman, deposed: I attend Mr. Willis`s bathing machines. On Saturday morning I saw a gentleman go into the water; he dived, and on coming up he went down again. When he came up the second time, he looked dark in the face; he was then out of his depth; he went under as if he was drowning or sinking. I called to the other gentleman to assist the deceased, and called out to the workmen near, who came. I did not see the deceased go down again, or struggle, or hear him call out at all, and he appeared dead.

By the Coroner: The lady at No. 1, Pleydell Gardens told me that when the body was picked up, it was to be taken to the house, where everything was prepared, and I told the men, when close to the Pavilion Hotel, to go to the house.

By the foreman: There were ladies in each of the other machines.

Mr. John Warren deposed: About six months since the deceased was ill from rheumatic fever. I heard him once or twice, during the time he was in Folkestone, complain of indigestion, but he seemed remarkably well on Saturday last, when we went to bathe.

Mr. George Courtauld, sworn: I am brother to the deceased, who about four or five months since was ill of rheumatic fever, and confined to his bed. He has since been in a delicate state of health, and we partly attributed it to his profession as a medical student, he being constantly in the dissecting room. He was 22 years of age. Several times he had been obliged to leave his studies and go to the country. Neither myself or parents had reason to think the deceased had disease of the heart.

This being the whole of the evidence, the Coroner summed up, pointing out the various important parts of the evidence, and the probability that deceased had a fit in the water, the medical evidence giving no decided cause of death. In reference to the body being refused admittance to the Pavilion Hotel, that had been satisfactorily explained by the witness Hall. The evidence of the witness Rolfe certainly showed either great ignorance or the want of common humanity; he believed it to be attributed to his ignorance, but his evidence certainly showed a want of exertion to save the deceased. The jury would also take into consideration the manner in which the bathing establishment was conducted; the bathing man being unable to swim, and there being no ropes or other things at hand to save life in case of accident.

The jury retired for ten minutes and returned the following verdict: “That the deceased died suddenly whilst bathing from a machine, and not by any violence; and the jury are of opinion that means and appliances ought to be at hand in case of an accident, and that the proprietor of the machines should have ropes, boats, oars, and if possible life-buoys, to prevent the recurrence of such a melancholy accident; and that a competent person should be employed to attend the machines.”

It would be fair to state, on behalf of Mr. Willis, that he has notice to leave the bathing ground in October, and that he had not taken that interest in the bathing business this year as formerly; still that would be no excuse for not having a few ropes and the boat in working order during the time he lets out the machines; but the fact of an accident not having occurred for fifteen years appears to have led him to suppose that precautions were hardly necessary.

The melancholy affair has created quite a sensation amongst the numerous visitors here. Deceased was the second son of George Courtauld Esq., silk manufacturer, of Bocking, Essex.

Kentish Independent 7-10-1854

An inquest was held on Saturday, on the body of Mr. S.A. Courtauld, a gentleman. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. John Warren, taken at his house before the coroner and jury, on account of the illness of witness from immersion, that he was second cousin to the deceased, and went with him to bathe on Saturday morning, between nine and ten o`clock. He and deceased took a double bathing machine, and witness having undressed first went into the sea, and shortly afterwards saw the deceased on the steps of the machine, and then dip his head under the water and swim out; the deceased was a better swimmer than witness, and passed him towards Sandgate. Witness was swimming towards the shore, when he observed persons running to and fro, and saw something was the matter. As soon as his feet touched the beach he heard a cry of “Save him. He is drowning;” there was no cry from the deceased, but on looking round he saw his head turned up out of the water and his lips moving. After he had taken breath he swam out and took hold of him, but he had not power to bring him in, being exhausted. Nothing was done by the persons on the shore to save him; he returned and asked for a rope; a piece of clothes line was given to him and he returned with it in his mouth, thinking that the persons on shore had hold of it, but on reaching the deceased he found that it had been let go, and he felt he must be lost. Deceased appeared to be in the same position as before, and did not clutch hold of him, as a drowning man, and witness thought he must have been in a fit. Afterwards saw the colour of deceased`s face change to a purple hue, and finding he could not bring him to shore, he returned himself, being quite exhausted.

Mr. Tyson, surgeon, said: Upon examining the body, I found that life was quite extinct, and that it would be of very little service to use any applications to attempt restoration; yet, at the most urgent requests of deceased`s friends, those means were used which, under ordinary circumstances, we should make use of, but, without producing the slightest effect. Another medical gentleman, a friend of the deceased, was with me, and assisted in using those restoratives. From the appearance of the body, I believe deceased came to his death by drowning; but I would add that, from the evidence of Mr. Warren, as to the deceased making no effort to grasp him on being touched, and also from having learnt that he had been subject to rheumatism, I think it possible that he might have had disease of the heart, and that that was the immediate cause of his death. My opinion is that he was dead before he sunk.

After a lengthened inquiry, the jury returned the following verdict: Died suddenly whilst bathing in the sea from a machine, and not by any violent means. The jury are of opinion that means and appliances ought to be at hand in case of an accident, and that the proprietor of the machines should be recommended to have a boat and oars and rope, and if possible life-buoys, to prevent the recurrence of such a melancholy accident; and that a competent person should be employed to attend the machines.

Kentish Gazette 8-5-1855

On Monday, Nyssen Peeters, the booking-clerk of the Harbour Station, was charged before the magistrates, with having stolen a tartan cloak and a black silk mackintosh coat, the property of a gentleman named Oswald, who had come down by the boat train on Friday, and, on leaving the carriage to go to the Pavilion Hotel, the valet left a bundle, containing coats, cloaks, &c., in the train, which was taken to the booking-office by the carriage-searcher, and given up to the prisoner, whose duty it was to receive it. Shortly after arriving at the hotel, the bundle was missing, and, on inquiry being made, it was found in the office; but, during the short interval, the two articles were abstracted. Mr. Oswald had proceeded to Paris, and the prisoner was remanded, to enable Superintendant Steers to find that gentleman.

Kentish Gazette 29-5-1855

At the Pavilion, this day, we understand a dinner is to be given to Captain Heartley, as a mark of respect for his long military services. It will be in the recollection of our readers that Captain Heartley, at a review in Eastwell Park, many years since, of the East Kent Yeomanry, now the East Kent Mounted Rifles lost an arm by the accidental discharge of a cannon. Notwithstanding this loss, we have had frequent opportunities of witnessing the indefatigable exertions of Captain Heartley in the discharge of his duties, and we have no doubt that the company present today will do every justice to the services of so valuable an officer.

Kentish Mercury 1-9-1855

On Wednesday last information was received that Mrs. Granville, of Elliot Vale Brook, near Hastings, whilst in the refreshment room of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, had been plundered of her purse, containing a 500f. note, a 100f. note, and £15 in gold, besides silver. The room was instantly closed, but the thief could not be found.

Maidstone Journal 4-9-1855

On Thursday information was received that Mrs. Granville, of Elliot Vale Brook, near Hastings, whilst in the refreshment room of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, had been plundered of her purse, containing a 500f. note, a 100f. note, and £15 in gold, besides silver. The room was instantly closed, but the thief could not be found.

Canterbury Journal 8-9-1855, Kentish Gazette 11-9-1855

A day or so ago Mrs. Granville, of Elliot Vale Brook, near Hastings, whilst in the refreshment room of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, was plundered of her purse, containing a 500f. note, a 100f. note, and £15 in gold, besides silver. The room was instantly closed, but the thief could not be found.

Dover Telegraph 6-10-1855

Petty Sessions, Monday: Before a full bench.

Two persons giving their names as Thomas Whately and Robert Parkin were brought in custody of Superintendent Steer charged with obtaining, under false pretences, 10 shillings from Mr. Breach, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoners represented themselves as belonging to a society called “The Sailors` Improvement Benefit Society”. They were remanded till Friday. From enquiries since made, it appears that they collect between £500 and £600 per annum, which their balance sheet shows to be expended to their agents, who comprise only Whately and his son. The former, who is inferred embracing in himself director, secretary, treasurer, &c., &c., is quite notorious in the profession, and is believed to have visited Dover for the purpose of levying contributions from the benevolent. He is said for the last 10 years to have been pursuing his present course, first in connection with one society, and then starting another, as exigencies needed. The public are cautioned against gross impositions of this character, and if a little trouble were taken by those who are solicited for aid by strangers, a check would often be put to practices that have a tendency to stop the current of benevolences from the really deserving channels.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-10-1855

Friday October 5^th:- Before W. Major Esq., James Kelcey Esq., Thomas Golder Esq., and Capt. Kennicott, R.N.

William Whitely and Robert Parkins were brought before the bench on remand, charged with having endeavoured to obtain money under false pretences.

Mr. Lewis of Ely Place, Holborn, appeared for the witness Whitely, and Mr. Minter, of Folkestone, for the defendant Parkins.

It appeared from the evidence of several gentlemen, viz, Mr. Sibeth, now staying at the Pavilion, Mr. Breach, of the Pavilion, and a lady called Martin, that the defendants had called upon them representing themselves as being collectors and agents for a society called the “Sailors` Improvement Society”, and professing to emanate from some obscure street in Shadwell; from the apparent respectability of the prisoners and their very plausible manners they had succeeded in obtaining several sums of money varying in amounts from a guinea to 2s 6d., in aid of the above society.

Superintendent Steer, on going to London ascertained that the office of the society was held at a small shop, but with no external recognition of it to be seen. When he called he saw the son of the defendant Whitely, who showed him a bookcase, containing about 150 books, which he said was the library of the society. One or two Rev. Gentlemen whose names appeared on the circular of the society, on being written to, replied that they had no connection with the society.

Mr. Lewis having briefly addressed the bench, pointed out there was not the slightest foundation for the charge against his client. The magistrates dismissed the prisoners.

A balance sheet appended to the circular, showed that during four years the society had collected over £600, at the trifling charge of only £552 for Agent`s and Collector`s expenses.

Kentish Gazette 9-10-1855

Two persons, giving their names as Thomas Whately and Robert Parkin, were had before the magistrates last week, charged with obtaining under false pretences 10s. from Mr. Breach, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoners represented themselves as belonging to a society called the “Sailors' Improvement Benefit Society.” They were remanded. From inquiries since made it appears that they collect between £500 and £600 per annum, which their balance sheet shows to be expended on the agents, who comprise only Whately and his son. The former, who is in inferred as embracing in himself directors, secretary, treasurer, &c., is quite notorious in the profession, and is believed to have visited Dover for the levying contributions from the benevolent. He is said for the last ten years to have been pursuing his present course, first in connection with one society, and then starting another, as exigencies needed. The public are cautioned against gross impositions of this character; and if a little trouble were taken by those who are solicited for aid by strangers, a check would often be put to practices that have a tendency to stop the current of benevolence from really deserving channels.

Southeastern Gazette 9-10-1855

Local News

Monday: Before W. Major, J. Kelcey, T. Golder, W. Bateman, J. Kingsnorth, and G. Kennicott, Esqs.

William Whitely, dressed in the garb of a dissenting minister, and Robert Parkins, similarly dressed, were brought up in custody, having been arrested on the previous Saturday, charged with obtaining money under false pretences from several clergymen and gentlemen.

The defendants represented that they were agents for the “Sailors’ Improvement Society,” and were authorized to receive subscriptions. The ground of their apprehension was that there was no such society existing. After the magistrates had heard the evidence of several gentlemen they were remanded.

Friday: Whitely and Parkins were again brought up, having in the interim been confined in Dover gaol. Mr. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, Ely Place, Holborn, attended for the defendants. The court was thronged with respectable individuals.

Mr. Lewis wished to know who were the prosecutors, and on being informed that Superintendent Steer was asked what charge there was against the prisoners, as he was prepared with witnesses to prove the respectability of his clients and of the existence of the Society.

Superintendent Steer deposed that he proceeded to London, to the residence of the defendant Whitely; he saw no name on the door indicating the name of the society; it was a bookseller’s shop. He saw the son of Whitely, who showed him a room which he said was the office; he saw the library, which contained about 200 books. Witness was proceeding to state what Mr. Whitely, jun., said, but was stopped by Mr. Lewis.

John Nicholas Sibeth, gentleman, residing at No. 2, Bouverie Villas, deposed: The defendants came to me and exhibited to me a book containing a list of subscribers to a society, the name of which I could not recollect. I thought they were belonging to the town, and I gave them a guinea. Afterwards they talked of tlie salubrity of the air and fine hotel, &c., and I advised them to go and see Mr. Breach, the proprietor, and I would speak to him about them. I don’t recollect telling them to use my name.

James G. Breach deposed: I am the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. Defendants came to me and said they were sent by Mr. Sibeth; they wanted to go and solicit subscriptions from the visitors in the hotel, which I refused, and as they were so importunate I gave them 10s. to get rid of them.

Miss Martin also proved that the defendants called upon her for the Sailors’ Improvement Society, and she gave them 5s., for which they gave a receipt.

From the papers taken from the defendants, it appeared that the balance sheets showed that out of ￡432 5s. 4d received for subscriptions, about £390 went to the 7 paid agents.

The name of the Rev. B. C. Sayer, of the Rectory, Shad-well, also appeared-on the printed papers, but that gentleman, on being written to, denied belonging to the society; he only knew one of the defendants, from his living opposite his house at Shadwell.

Mr. Lewis argued that there was no case for him to answer. The defendants had not been guilty of using any false pretence; they had merely solicited subscriptions like any other agents.

The magistrates, having consulted together, said as there was not sufficient evidence to send the case for trial, the defendants must be discharged. The defendants then left the court accompanied by their friend.

Dover Chronicle 13-10-1855

Petty Sessions, Friday

William Whitely, dressed in the garb of a dissenting minister, and Robert Parkins, similarly dressed, were brought up in custody, on remand, having been arrested on the previous Saturday, charged with obtaining money under false pretences from several clergymen and gentlemen. The defendants represented that they were agents for the “Sailors’ Improvement Society,” and were authorized to receive subscriptions. The ground of their apprehension was that there was no such society existing.

Mr. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, Ely Place, Holborn, attended for the defendants. The court was thronged with respectable individuals. Mr. Lewis wished to know who were the prosecutors, and on being informed that Superintendent Steer was asked what charge there was against the prisoners, as he was prepared with witnesses to prove the respectability of his clients and of the existence of the Society.

John Nicholas Sibeth, gentleman, residing at No. 2, Bouverie Villas, deposed: The defendants came to me and exhibited to me a book containing a list of subscribers to a society, the name of which I could not recollect. I thought they were belonging to the town, and I gave them a guinea. Afterwards they talked of the salubrity of the air and fine hotel, &c., and I advised them to go and see Mr. Breach, the proprietor, and I would speak to him about them. I don’t recollect telling them to use my name.

Miss Martin also proved that the defendants called upon her for the Sailors’ Improvement Society, and she gave them 5s., for which they gave a receipt.

From the papers taken from the defendants, it appeared that the balance sheets showed that out of £432 5s. 4d received for subscriptions, about £390 went to the 7 paid agents.

The name of the Rev. B. C. Sayer, of the Rectory, Shadwell, also appeared-on the printed papers, but that gentleman, on being written to, denied belonging to the society; he only knew one of the defendants, from his living opposite his house at Shadwell.

Mr. Lewis argued that there was no case for him to answer. The defendants had not been guilty of using any false pretence; they had merely solicited subscriptions like any other agents.

Kentish Gazette 11-12-1855

The corporation had prepared an address for presentation to the King of Sardinia before his embarkation, but in consequence of his hurry to get, to save the tide, at Boulogne, his Majesty was prevented receiving the address with the usual ceremony -the Mayor and Town Clerk only being presented at the top of the grand staircase, at the Pavilion, as the King passed out on his way to the Quay. The King graciously received the address, although in a great hurry, and the Marquis d’Azeglio, speaking for him (in English) said, that his Majesty was highly pleased with the reception he had met with, and the attention shown him. He regretted that time did not permit him to reply to the address, hut he would do so from Paris.

Dover Chronicle 28-6-1856

Dover News: On Thursday, considerable interest was excited in the neighbouring town of Folkestone, by the flight of a young Frenchman, named Auguste Hastier, who filled the responsible position of manager of the Pavilion Hotel at that place, under Mr. Breach, the proprietor, taking with him a sum of nearly £1,500, principally in bank notes and bills of exchange, which had been left in his keeping for security by a foreign gentleman staying at the hotel. In the morning of the day Hastier left the Pavilion, stating that he was urgently called to London upon business connected with the hotel, but that he would return immediately. This circumstance, it appeared, excited no suspicion in the mind of anyone, and nothing more was thought of him until about five o`clock in the afternoon, when his prolonged absence, coupled with the knowledge that the sum of money in question had been entrusted to his keeping, created an alarm in the mind of Mr. Breach, who ordered Hastier`s bureau to be broken open, when the money was not to be found. The Superintendent of Police at Folkestone, Mr. Steer, was immediately put into possession of the particulars, and he proceeded to London, while another officer (Sergeant Fleet) was despatched to Dover in company with a commission agent named Richards, who was well acquainted with Hastier`s person, and whose assistance was therefore deemed valuable. Telegraphic messages were in the meantime sent to Dover and to other ports by which it was thought probable that Hastier might make his escape from the country. In consequence of the message despatched to Dover, Mr. Wheeler, of the Lord Warden Hotel, who had also obtained information of the fact that Hastier had arrived in Dover, sent for our Superintendent of Police, Mr. Coram, about 11 o`clock, and gave him such instructions as induced him to proceed as quickly as possible to the Union Club House, where he found Hastier, whom he took into custody. The sergeant of the Folkestone police, however, came up directly after Mr. Coram had secured the man, and at the sitting of the magistrates yesterday the prisoner was handed over to the Folkestone authorities. Nearly the whole of the missing property was discovered upon Hastier when he was apprehended. The prisoner is a sharp, intelligent fellow about twenty five years of age, speaks English well, and is very gentlemanly in his manners.

Dover Police Court, yesterday: Before S.M. Latham, C.B. Wilkins and G.F. Jennings Esqs.

Auguste Hastier, a good looking young Frenchman, about 23 years of age, formerly the manager of the Lord Warden Hotel, at Dover, was placed at the bar by Superintendent Coram, on a charge of embezzling £1,500, the property of a gentleman staying at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, and entrusted to the care of the prisoner, as manager of that establishment.

Mr. Coram said that at eleven o`clock on the preceding evening he was sent for by Mr. Wheeler, the proprietor of the Lord Warden Hotel, who had received a telegraphic message from Folkestone, stating that the prisoner had absconded from that place, stealing about £1,600. Mr. Wheeler told him (the Superintendent) that he wanted Hastier arrested, and that he had heard he was at Mr. Galante`s hotel (the United Service Club House). He (the Superintendent) therefore took a fly immediately and drove to Galante`s, where he found the prisoner in one of the rooms with a person named Richards, a commission agent, who at first said he was a constable. He soon discovered, however, that Richards was not a constable, and he therefore took the prisoner into his custody. He had already done so, when Sergeant Fleet, of the Folkestone police, cane up and claimed Hastier as his prisoner. As he (Superintendent Coram) had taken him into custody, however, he did not deem himself justified in giving Hastier up previous to bringing him before the Bench. The sergeant of the Folkestone police had followed him into the room, but he was unknown to him (the Superintendent).

Mr. Hart, solicitor, of Folkestone, was in attendance, and submitted that Mr. Coram had not acted in the way he should have done in the proper discharge of his duty. Police officers were bound to assist one another as much as possible, but, in this case, instead of assistance being given, obstruction had been offered.

The Bench, after a private consultation, said they thought Superintendent Coram had acted very properly in pursuing the course he had. They felt, however, that the case was in the jurisdiction of the Folkestone magistrates, and they should, therefore, order that the prisoner be handed over to the Folkestone authorities.

The prisoner was immediately handed over to Sergeant Fleet.

Dover Telegraph 28-6-1856

Dover Petty Sessions, Friday: Before S.M. Latham, C.B. Wilkins and G.F. Jennings Esqs.

Auguste Hastier, formerly manager of the Lord Warden Hotel, was brought before the Bench under the following circumstances:- Prisoner was engaged at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, and had absconded from that place with the property of a gentleman staying at the hotel, amounting to £1,600. Information was communicated to Mr. Wheeler, the present proprietor of the Lord Warden Hotel, who forthwith informed Superintendent Coram, and the latter immediately commenced a search. He found prisoner at Galante`s United Club House, in the company of a person named Richards, who had been instructed by the Folkestone authorities to assist Sergeant Fleet in the search for Hastier. Superintendent Coram and Sergeant Fleet entered the room at the same time, and as Richards said he was not a police officer, Mr. Coram took the prisoner into custody. Mr. Hart, the clerk of the Folkestone magistrates, now applied for the delivery of Hastier to the Folkestone police, with which the Bench complied, after approving the conduct of Superintendent Coram in the matter. £1,500 of the property was found upon the prisoner.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-6-1856

Friay, at 3 o`clock :- Before the Mayor, S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major and J. Kelcey esqs.

Augustus Hastier, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, was brought up in custody of sergeant Fleet, charged with having absconded from the hotel, and having stolen certain monies to the value of £1600, the property of a gentleman named Alfred De la Motte who was staying at the hotel.

Joseph Ollivier sworn as interpreter.

Alfred De la Motte, being sworn, deposed – I am an independent gentleman residing at Paris. I came to the Pavilion Hotel on Sunday afternoon last, about half past 2, on my way to London. I had in my possession 430,000 francs, more or less. I had made no arrangement with Mr. Breach about it. I gave it to John Francis Bond, a waiter in the hotel, on Sunday evening. There was a large portfolio containing money to the value of 385,000 francs, in French notes of 1,000 francs each: it was locked. I had a sac or courier bag containing about 12,500 francs in value, in gold, English bank notes and Post Bills, and a few French notes. I do not know the amount exactly; I had not counted it when I put it in. The gold was in English coin, sovereigns and half sovereigns. I had in the sac about 35,000 francs in notes, or about £1500. I gave both the sac and portfolio to Bond (who acted as my interpreter, Mr. Breach not speaking French). Bond went and sought Mr. Breach, and when he came in I told him there was a considerable amount of money in them, and that I did not wish to keep so much in my room, and wished him to take charge of it. Mr. Breach took it, and they both went away. Both the sac and the portfolio were locked. I had no further conversation with Mr. Breach then. On the same evening, or the next day I saw Mr. Breach; he told me he was going from home, and said if you want your money today or tomorrow, I will give it you, but if you should want it after my departure you must apply to Mr. Hastier, and he will give it to you. Hastier was not there then. Mr. Breach told me Hastier was his representative, and it would be just the same as if he was there himself. He did not tell me where the money was placed. Mr. Breach left by the eight o`clock express train on Tuesday morning. On Wednesday morning I asked Mr. Hastier for my money, as I had an intention of going to Dover and thence to London. He said if you wish it I will fetch it directly. Soon after I saw him again and told him that I had altered my mind, and as I was going to Dover in a small boat I did not wish to take it with me, and wished him to take charge of it until Thursday. I started for Dover about one o`clock on Wednesday, in a small four-oared boat, and left Dover on the 2 p.m. train on Thursday, coming direct to the Pavilion Hotel. When I returned I asked for Hastier, and was told he had gone to London during the night. I waited until about three o`clock on the Thursday afternoon but he did not return. They showed me a telegraph message from him which stated he should be back by half past 2. I waited about half an hour before anything was done. I then went to Bond, as he knew my position. Fearing that the money would not be recovered by the next day, I wished the house to be searched. I sent for the housekeeper and asked for this to be done, requesting them to force the locks and offering to pay the expenses. Search was made and in a small cupboard the bag was found, but I was not present. I think it was Bond who showed me the bag, and found that it had been cut open.

There was a silk purse full of gold in it, none of which was missing. But there were no notes, they had all been abstracted. The purse was twisted and knotted in a peculiar manner, so that no other person could undo it and do it up again the same but myself. They gave me the portfolio, which was not touched, and on opening it, found that nothing had been removed from it. All my French money was there. It was quite full of notes, &c. I am in the habit of carrying my money in bundles of notes of 10,000 francs each, and by the respective Nos. written on the bundles, and the peculiar manner of pinning them together, I identify the notes (produced) as part of my property. I had 28 notes of 1,000 francs each. One packet I cannot identify, but I think they might be at the bank in Paris. I had ten £5 and one £10 Bank Of England notes, and I believe those produced are the same which I got changed in Boulogne on Sunday morning by an Englishman named Pay, residing on the quay at Boulogne. All my English notes which I received from Pay were put in the sac; and were marked by him, with the exception of 1 or 2. Those I retained, were not marked by Pay. The rest I received from Pay himself at his house. The two bank Post Bills, value £50 each, I received from Monteau in Paris. Those produced I believe are the same.

Various other notes, Post Bills, and Bills of Exchange were identified as those which the prosecutor had received from a person named Chaigneau, living in the Rue de la Paix, Paris.

Examination resumed – The prisoner knew there was a large sum in the portfolio and sac. I told him so myself on the Monday, when Hastier came to speak to me. He said “I have your money, and when you want it I will give it to you. There is a portfolio and a bag which Mr. Breach has put in my charge”. I said to the prisoner take great care of them, as they contain a large sum of money (describing the amount in each).

This closed the examination of the prosecutor, when the case was adjourned till eleven o`clock on Tuesday.

The prisoner was committed to Dover.

Southeastern Gazette 1-7-1856

Local News

Robbery at the Pavilion Hotel.

On Thursday afternoon information was received by the magistrates’ clerk, that a most extensive robbery had taken place at the Pavilion Hotel. Upon inquiry it appeared that a French gentleman, of large fortune, had arrived on Sunday evening, bringing with him several thousands of pounds, which he had entrusted to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the hotel, until he left. Mr. Breach having occasion to leave Folkestone for a short time, gave the money into the care of his manager, Mr. Augustus Hastier. Mr. Alfred de la Motte went to Dover, and on his return asked for the money. The manager left the hotel at two o'clock that morning for London; he telegraphed down to say he should be home next day, which message arrived while the waiter Bond was conversing with Mr. de la Motte, who became uneasy about the money, and wished the place to be searched. A cupboard was broken open, and the bag in which the money was placed found there, but it had been cut open, and £1,500 abstracted in English and French notes. Telegraphic messages, with a description of the manager, were sent to all parts of the kingdom, and Superintendent Steer was dispatched to London to make enquiries, and Mr. Mark Richards (Custom-house agent) was dispatched to Boulogne, via Calais, to get the number of the notes; Sergeant Fleet was also sent to Dover to look out. As Mr. Richards left the train, he thought it would be possible Hastier might also be there, and watching, saw him come out muffled up, and at once gave him into custody, taking charge of the money. On searching him the whole of the notes were found upon him, and some loose cash of his own, a handsome bag, containing every requisite for the toilet, and a passport for Belgium.

On Friday, at three o’clock, the prisoner was brought before The Mayor, Wm. Major, S. Mackie, S. Godden, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey, and J. Kingsnorth, Esqs,, borough magistrates, when the following evidence was adduced:—

Alfred de la Motte sworn, through Mr. Olivier, interpreter: I am a private gentleman, residing in Paris. I came by the Folkestone steamer from Boulogne to Folkestone on Sunday, intending to go to London. I had with me a leather bag containing about 430,000 francs, but I could not exactly say how much. I made an arrangement with Mr. Breach about the money, through Mr. Bond, the waiter. I gave him the bag, and he told Mr. Breach, interpreting my words, that he was to take charge of it, that it contained about 430,000 francs, and that I did not wish to have such a large sum by me in my room. The money was contained in a leather bag, and enclosed in a portfolio, and no one could open it but myself. The notes were English and French, the latter of 1,000 francs each, with a quantity of sovereigns and half-sovereigns. Next day Mr. Breach told me that he was going from home, and that he had given the money to his manager, Mr. Hastier, whom he introduced to me. I told him what it contained, and he said I could have it when I wanted it. Having an intention to go to Dover I asked for the money, but as I was going in an open boat I thought the money would not be safe. I returned from Dover on Thursday afternoon, at 2 o’clock, and asked for my money, when I was told that Mr. Hastier was in London. Feeling uneasy about it, I asked them to search the house and break open locks, and I would pay expenses. At this moment a telegraphic dispatch came, saying he would return next day. A cupboard was opened, and the bag was found, but the notes were gone; the portfolio was not broken. Nearly all the notes produced I can identify as those I left in the bag.

The prisoner (who appeared to be very downcast and was leaning on the dock) said that when the matter was explained there would be no occasion to proceed further with it. He was then remanded to Tuesday next.

The prosecutor was most anxious to forgive the prisoner, and said he would freely give him the money. This, however, did not occur in court, but previously. He agreed, however, to be bound over in £1,000 to appear at the sessions next Friday, to prosecute.

Singular Disclosures. Since the examination of Mr. Hastier, some very curious circumstances have come to light respecting the money brought over by the prosecutor. After the prisoner had been conveyed to Dover gaol, Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent (and to whom great credit is due for the vigilance he exercised in apprehending the prisoner at Dover) was employed by Mr. de la Motte to go with a lady, then supposed to be his wife, to London, with the money, and to place the same in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild, for investment. Mr. Richards proceeded there, but the money was declined, and they returned to Folkestone. These suspicious circumstances induced Superintendent Steer to telegraph to London, making enquiries, and particularly as the sister and uncle of the prosecutor had arrived from London, having been in search of him there. They stated that Mr. de la Motte had had the money entrusted to him in France to invest in French securities, but that he had brought it to England and also another man’s wife, and they wished him to be apprehended. Mr. Hart, the magistrate’s clerk, having been consulted, could not advise that course and soon afterwards, Saunders, one of the Detective force from London, arrived, having been deputed by Sir Richard Mayne, commissioner or police, to make enquiries; it was ultimately agreed that the balance of cash, about £15,000, should be sealed up and deposited in the joint names of Mr. Hart and Mr. Saunders, and taken to the French Embassy, there to await the issue of events. Mr. de la Motte still remains at the hotel, possibly till the final examination of the prisoner.

The affair has created some sensation in the town, and it is generally believed that the prosecutor has made the prisoner aware that he was not the owner of the property, and that, as he was not returning to the hotel till Friday he would by that time have been out of the country. Prosecutor, however, returning on Thursday, the whole affair was discovered and the delinquent apprehended. We believe that very great exertions were made by Mr. Hart his clerk (Mr. Davidson), Superintendent Steer, and Sergeant Fleet, to trace the prisoner and recover the money. The prisoner Hastier did not attempt to change the notes so that no clue could be obtained, and he sent a stranger to the station to telegraph to the Pavilion station when he proposed returning; on the same evening he made for Dover, a route it was hardly likely he would take, being well known and recently manager at the Lord Warden Hotel, Mr. Richards particularly deserves a handsome reward for his vigilance in the apprehension of the prisoner and the recovery of the money.

Kentish Gazette 1-7-1856

On Thursday, considerable interest was excited by the flight of a young Frenchman, named Auguste Hastier, who filled the responsible situation of manager of the Pavilion Hotel at this place, under Mr. Breach, the proprietor, taking with him a sum of nearly £1,600, principally in bank notes and bills of exchange, which had been left in his keeping for security by a foreign gentleman staying at the hotel. In the morning Hastier left the Pavilion, stating that he was urgently called to London upon business connected with the hotel, but that he should return again immediately. This circumstance, it appeared, excited no suspicion in the mind of anyone, and nothing more was thought of Hastier until about five o’clock in the afternoon, when his prolonged absence, coupled with the knowledge that the sum of money in question had been entrusted to his keeping, created an alarm in the mind of Mr. Breach, who ordered Hastier's bureau to be broken open, when the money was not to be found. The superintendent of police at Folkestone, Mr. Steer, was immediately put in possession of the particulars, and he proceeded to London, while another officer (Sergeant Fleet) was despatched to Dover in company with a commission agent named Richards, who was well acquainted with Hastier’s person, and whose assistance was therefore deemed valuable. Telegraphic messages were in the meanwhile sent to Dover and to other ports by which it was thought probable that Hastier might make his escape from the country. In consequence of the message despatched to Dover, Coram, the superintendent of police, proceeded to the Union Club House, where he found Hastier in the temporary charge of Richards, who it appeared had met him at the railway terminus upon the arrival of a recent train, Fleet being engaged at the time in watching the departure of the packets, to see if he could detect Hastier among tiie passengers. Mr. Coram, on learning that Richards was not a regular constable, took the prisoner into custody, and had him before the magistrate's on Friday, by whom he was delivered up to the Folkestone authorities. Nearly the whole of the missing property was discovered upon Hastier when he was apprehended. The prisoner was had before the magistrates on Friday, when evidence was taken confirmatory of the above particulars, after which the case was adjourned till to-day.

Canterbury Weekly Journal 5-7-1856

Embezzlement from the Pavilion Hotel: On Friday, at three o`clock, the prisoner was brought before Jas. Tolputt Esq., Mayor, Wm. Major, S. Mackie, S. Godden, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey and J. Kingsnorth Esqs., borough magistrates, when the following evidence was adduced:

Alfred de la Motte, sworn, through Mr. Olivier, interpreter:- I am a private gentleman, residing in Paris. I came by the Folkestone steamer from Boulogne to Folkestone on Sunday, intending to go to London. I had with me a leather bag containing about 4,300,000 francs, but I could not say exactly how much. I made an arrangement with Mr. Breach about the money through Mr. Bond, the waiter. I gave him the bag and he told Mr. Breach, interpreting my words, that he was to take charge of it, that it contained about 430,000 francs, and that I did not wish to have such a large sum by me in my room. The money was contained in a leather bag and no-one could open it but myself. The notes were English and French, the latter of 1,000 francs each, with a quantity of sovereigns and half-sovereigns. Next day Mr. Breach told me that he was going from home, and that he had given the money to his manager, Mr. Hastier, whom he introduced to me. I told him what it contained, and he said I could have it when I wanted it. Having an intention to go to Dover I asked for the money, but as I was going in an open boat I thought the money would not be safe. I returned from Dover on Thursday afternoon at two o`clock, and asked for my money, when I was told that Mr. Hastier was in London. Feeling uneasy about it, I asked them to search the house and break open locks, and I would pay expenses. At this moment a telegraphic dispatch came, saying he would return next day. A cupboard was opened, and the bag was found, but the notes were gone; the portfolio was not broken. Nearly all the notes produced I can identify as those I left in my bag.

The prosecutor was most anxious to forgive the prisoner, and said he would freely give him the money. This, however, did not occur in Court, but previously. He agreed, however, to be bound over in £1,000 to appear at the Sessions next Friday to prosecute.

Since the examination of Mr. Hastier some very curious circumstances have come to light respecting the money brought over by the prosecutor. After the prisoner had been conveyed to Dover gaol, Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent (and to whom great credit is due for the vigilance he exercised in apprehending the prisoner at Dover) was employed by Mr. de la Motte to go with a lady, then supposed to be his wife, to London, with the money, and to place the same in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild, for investment. Mr. Richards proceeded there, but the money was declined, and they returned to Folkestone. These suspicious circumstanced induced Superintendent Steer to telegraph to London making enquiries, and particularly as the sister and uncle of the prosecutor had arrived from London, having been in search of him there. They stated that Mr. de la Motte had had the money entrusted to him in France to invest in French securities, but that he had brought it to England, and also another man`s wife, and they wished him to be apprehended. Mr. Hart, the magistrates` clerk, having been consulted, could not advise that course, and soon afterwards Saunders, one of the detective force from London, arrived, having been deputed by Sir Richard Mayne, commissioner of police, to make enquiries; it was ultimately agreed that the balance of cash, about £15,000, should be deposited in the joint names of Mr Hart and Mr. Saunders, and taken to the French Embassy, there to abide the issue of events. Mr. de la Motte still remains at the hotel, possibly until the final examination of the prisoner.

The affair has caused some sensation in the town, and it is generally believed that the prosecutor had made the prisoner aware that he was not the owner of the property, and that, as he was not returning to the Hotel till Friday, he would by that time have been out of the country. Prosecutor, however, returning on Thursday, the whole affair was discovered and the delinquent apprehended. We believe that very great exertions were made by Mr. Hart, his clerk (Mr. Davidson), Superintendent Steer and Sergeant Fleet, to trace the prisoner and recover the money. The prisoner Hastier did not attempt to change the notes, so that no clue could be obtained, and he sent a stranger to the station to telegraph to the Pavilion stating when he proposed returning; on the same evening he made for Dover, a route it was hardly likely he would take, being well known and recently manager at the Lord Warden Hotel. Mr. Richards particularly deserves a handsome reward for his vigilance in the apprehension of the prisoner and the recovery of the money.

Dover Chronicle 5-7-1856

On Thursday afternoon week information was received, as stated in our last, by the magistrates` clerk, that a most extensive robbery had taken place at the Pavilion Hotel. Upon enquiry it appeared that a French gentleman of large fortune had arrived on Sunday evening, bringing with him several thousands of pounds, which he had entrusted to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the hotel, until he left. Mr. Breach having occasion to leave Folkestone for a short time gave the money into the care of his manager, Mr. Auguste Hastier. Mr. Alfred de la Motte went to Dover, and on his return asked for the money. The manager left the hotel at two o`clock that morning for London; he telegraphed down to say he should be home next day, which message arrived while the waiter Bond was conversing with Mr. de la Motte, who became uneasy about the money, and wished the place to be searched. A cupboard was broken open, and the bag in which the money was placed found there, but it had been cut open and £1,500 abstracted in English and French notes. Telegraphic messages, with a description of the manager, were sent to all ports of the kingdom, and Superintendent Steer was despatched to London to make enquiries, and Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent was despatched to Boulogne via Calais, to get the number of the notes; Sergeant Fleet was also sent to Dover to look out. As Mr. Richards left the train he thought it would be possible Hastier might also be there, and watching, saw him come out muffled up, and at once gave him into custody, taking charge of the money. On searching him the whole of the notes were found upon him, and some loose cash of his own, a handsome bag containing every requisite for the toilet, and a passport for Belgium.

On Friday, at three o`clock, the prisoner was brought before James Tolputt Esq., Mayor, William Major, S. Mackie, S. Godden, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey and J. Kingsnorth Esqs., borough magistrates, when the following evidence was adduced:

Alfred de la Motte, sworn, through Mr. Olivier, interpreter:- I am a private gentleman, residing in Paris. I came by the Folkestone steamer from Boulogne to Folkestone on Sunday, intending to go to London. I had with me a leather bag containing about 430,000 francs, but I could not say exactly how much. I made an arrangement with Mr. Breach about the money through Mr. Bond, the waiter. I gave him the bag and he told Mr. Breach, interpreting my words, that he was to take charge of it, that it contained about 430,000 francs, and that I did not wish to have such a large sum by me in my room. The money was contained in a leather bag, and enclosed in a portfolio, and no-one could open it but myself. The notes were English and French, the latter of 1,000 francs each, with a quantity of sovereigns and half-sovereigns. Next day Mr. Breach told me that he was going from home, and that he had given the money to his manager, Mr. Hastier, whom he introduced to me. I told him what it contained, and he said I could have it when I wanted it. Having an intention to go to Dover I asked for the money, but as I was going in an open boat I thought the money would not be safe. I returned from Dover on Thursday afternoon and asked for my money, when I was told that Mr. Hastier was in London. Feeling uneasy about it, I asked them to search the house and break open locks, and I would pay expenses. At this moment a telegraphic dispatch came, saying he would return next day. A cupboard was opened, and the bag was found, but the notes were gone; the portfolio was not broken. Nearly all the notes produced I can identify as those I left in my bag.

Since the examination of Mr. Hastier some very curious circumstances have come to light respecting the money brought over by the prosecutor. After the prisoner had been conveyed to Dover gaol, Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent (and to whom great credit is due for the vigilance he exercised in apprehending the prisoner at Dover) was employed by Mr. de la Motte to go with a lady, then supposed to be his wife, to London, with the money, and to place the same in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild, for investment. Mr. Richards proceeded there, but the money was declined, and they returned to Folkestone. These suspicious circumstanced induced Superintendent Steer to telegraph to London making enquiries, and particularly as the sister and uncle of the prosecutor had arrived from London, having been in search of him there. They stated that Mr. de la Motte had had the money entrusted to him in France to invest in French securities, but that he had brought it to England, and also another man`s wife, and they wished him to be apprehended. Mr. Hart, the magistrates` clerk, having been consulted, could not advise that course, and soon afterwards Saunders, one of the detective force from London, arrived, having been deputed by Sir Richard Mayne, commissioner of police, to make enquiries; it was ultimately agreed that the balance of cash, about £15,000, should be sealed up deposited in the joint names of Mr Hart and Mr. Saunders, and taken to the French Embassy, there to abide the issue of events. Mr. de la Motte still remains at the hotel, possibly until the final examination of the prisoner.

Dover Telegraph 5-7-1856

Petty Sessions, Friday: Before the Mayor, and S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Auguste Hastier, removed from Dover this morning, on a charge of absconding from the Pavilion Hotel with £1,600 in his possession, alleged to be the property of a gentleman staying at the hotel, was brought up for examination this afternoon. The particulars of his arrest we gave last week. Hastier was formerly manager of the Lord Warden Hotel, Dover, where he was highly and deservedly respected, and up to the moment of the present occurrence, it is said that he bore an irreproachable character. The evidence adduced at the examination was as follows.

Alfred de la Motte, being sworn, deposed:- I am an independent gentleman, residing at Paris. I came to the Pavilion Hotel on Sunday afternoon last, about half past two, on my way to London. I had in my possession 430,000 francs, more or less. I had made no arrangement with Mr. Breach about it. I gave it to John Francis Bond, a waiter on the hotel, on Sunday evening. There was a large portfolio containing money to the value of 380,000 francs, in French notes of 1,000 francs each. I had a sac, or courier bag, containing about 12,500 francs in value, in gold, English bank notes and Post Bills, and a few French notes. I do not know the amount exactly, as I had not counted it when I put it in. The gold was in English coin, sovereigns and half sovereigns. I gave both the sac and portfolio to Bond, who acted as my interpreter, Mr. Breach not speaking French. Bond went and sought Mr. Breach, and when he came I told him there was a considerable amount of money in them, and that I did not wish to keep so much in my room and wished him to take charge of it. Mr. Breach took it, and they both went away. Both the sac and portfolio were locked. I had no further conversation with Mr. Breach then. On the same evening, or the next day, I saw Mr. Breach; he told me he was going from home, and said “If you want your money today or tomorrow I will give it you, but if you should want it after my departure, you must apply to Mr. Hastier, and he will give it you.” Hastier was not there then. Mr. Breach told me Hastier was his representative, and that it would be just the same as if he was there himself. He did not tell me where the money was placed. Mr. Breach left by the eight o`clock express train on Tuesday morning. On Wednesday morning I asked Hastier for my money, as I had an intention of going to Dover, and thence to London. He said “If you wish it I will fetch it directly.” Soon after I saw him again and told him that I had altered my mind, and as I was going to Dover in a small boat I did not wish to take it with me, and wished him to take charge of it until Thursday. I started for Dover about one o`clock on Wednesday, in a small four-oared boat, and left Dover by the 2 p.m. train on Thursday, coming direct to the Pavilion Hotel. When I returned I asked for Hastier, and was told he had gone to London during the night. I waited until about three o`clock on Thursday afternoon, but he did not return. They showed me a telegraph message from him, which stated he should be back by half past two. I waited about half an hour before anything was done. I then went to Bond, as he knew my position. Fearing that the money would not be recovered by the next day, I wished the house to be searched. I sent for the housekeeper, and asked to have this done, requesting them to force the locks, and offering to pay the expenses. Search was made, and in a small cupboard the bag was found, but I was not present. I think it was Bond who first showed me the bag, and found that it had been cut open. There was a silk purse full of gold in it, none of which was missing. But there were no notes, they had all been abstracted. They gave me a portfolio, which was not touched. All my French money was there. I am in the habit of carrying my money in bundles of notes of 10,000 francs each, and by the respective Nos. written on the bundles, and the peculiar manner of pinning them together, I identify the notes (produced) as part of my property. I had twenty eight notes of 1,000 each. One packet I cannot identify but I think they might be at the bank in Paris. I had 10 £5 and one £10 Bank of England notes, and I believe those produced are the same, which I got changed in Boulogne on Sunday morning by an Englishman named Pay, residing on the quay at Boulogne. All my English notes which I received from Pay were put in the sac, and were marked by him with the exception of one or two. Those I retained were marked by Pay. The rest I received from Pay himself at his house. The two Bank Post Bills, value £50 each, I received from Monteau in Paris. Those produced I believe are the same. The prisoner knew there was a large sum in the portfolio and sac.

(Previously to the examination, it is alleged that Mr. de la Motte was most anxious to forgive the prisoner, and would have freely given him the money abstracted: since the examination some very curious circumstances have transpired touching the real ownership of the property. From inquiries instituted by Superintendent Steer, it has been discovered that the money was entrusted to Mr. de la Motte for investment in French securities, but that, accompanied by another man`s wife, he had crossed to England and endeavoured to place the money in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild for investment, but it was declined.)

When, on Tuesday last, Hastier appeared before the Bench, Mr. Lewis, of London, attended as his attorney, but as it was apparent that the case could not be completed in time for the Quarter Sessions of Friday, and as Richards, an important witness, was not in a fit state for examination, the case was again adjourned, until Tuesday next.

Folkestone Chronicle 5-7-1856

Tuesday July 1^st :- Before the Mayor, S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major, W. Bateman. J. Kelsey esqs., and Captain Kennicott.

Augustus Hastier was brought up on remand from Friday last, for the robbery at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Lewis of the firm Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, attended on behalf of the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis demanded the privilege of cross-examining Mr. De la Motte, on the evidence given by him on Friday last. This being refused, Mr. Lewis said, from circumstances which had come to his knowledge, he might not have another opportunity of cross-examining this gentleman.

Sergeant Fleet said he had investigated the case, and in order to complete it he must ask for a further remand.

This the clerk to the magistrates advised, as the case was so incomplete, there not having been sufficient time to procure the necessary evidence. The magistrates having consulted for a short time, again remanded the prisoner till Tuesday next, at 11 o`clock.

Mr. Lewis then applied for some portion of the money, found upon the prisoner, and which he could prove was his own property, to be given up to him for the purposes of his defence, but this the magistrates agreed they could not allow.

Kentish Mercury 5-7-1856

On Thursday afternoon information was received by the magistrates` clerk that a most extensive robbery had taken place at the Pavilion Hotel. Upon inquiry, it appeared that a French gentleman, of large fortune, had arrived on Saturday evening bringing with him several thousands of pounds, which he entrusted to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the hotel, until he left. Mr. Breach having occasion to leave Folkestone for a short time gave the money into the care of his manager, Mr. Augustus Hastier. Mr. Alfred de la Motte went to Dover, and on his return asked for his money. The manager left the hotel at two o`clock that morning for London; he telegraphed down to say he should be home the next day, which message arrived while the waiter, Bond, was conversing with Mr. de la Motte, who became uneasy about the money, and wished the place to be searched. A cupboard was broken open, and the bag in which the money was placed found there, but it had been cut open, and £1,500 abstracted in English and French notes. Telegraphic messages, with a description of the manager, were sent to all parts of the kingdom, and Superintendent Steer was dispatched to London to make inquiries, and Mr. Mark Richards (custom-house agent) was dispatched to Boulogne, via Calais, to get the number of the notes; Sergeant Fleet was also sent to Dover to look out. As Mr. Richards left the train, he thought it would be possible Hastier might also be there, and watching, saw him come out muffled up, and at once gave him into custody, taking charge of the money. On searching him, the whole of the notes were found upon him, and some loose cash of his own, a handsome bag, containing every requisite for the toilet, and a passport for Belgium.

On Friday, at three o`clock, the prisoner was brought before James Tolputt Esq., Mayor, Wm. Major, Samuel Mackie, S. Godden, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey, and J. Kingsnorth Esqs., borough magistrates, when the above facts were deposed to.

The prisoner (who appeared to be very downcast and was leaning on the dock) said that when the matter was explained there would be no occasion to proceed further with the case. He was then remanded.

Since the examination of Mr. Hastier some very curious circumstances have come to light respecting the money brought over by the prosecutor. After the prisoner had been conveyed to Dover gaol, Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent (and to whom great credit is due for the vigilance he exercised in apprehending the prisoner at Dover) was employed by Mr. de la Motte to go with a lady, then supposed to be his wife, to London, with the money, and to place the same in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild, for investment. Mr. Richards proceeded there, but the money was declined, and they returned to Folkestone. These suspicious circumstances induced Superintendent Steer to telegraph to London making enquiries, and particularly as the sister and uncle of the prosecutor had arrived from London, having been in search of him there. They stated that Mr. de la Motte had had the money entrusted to him in France to invest in French securities, but that he had brought it to England, and also another man`s wife, and they wished him to be apprehended. Mr. Hart, the magistrates` clerk, having been consulted, could not advise that course, and soon afterwards Saunders, one of the detective force from London, arrived, having been deputed by Sir Richard Mayne, commissioner of police, to make enquiries; it was ultimately agreed that the balance of cash, about £15,000, should be deposited in the joint names of Mr Hart and Mr. Saunders, and taken to the French Embassy, there to abide the issue of events.

Maidstone Journal 5-7-1856

Some excitement was caused last week by the flight of a young Frenchman, named Auguste Hastier, who filled the responsible situation as manager of the Pavilion Hotel at that place, under Mr. Breach, the proprietor, taking with him nearly £1,500, principally in banknotes and bills of exchange, which had been left in his keeping for security by a foreign gentleman staying at the hotel. Telegraphic messages were in the meanwhile sent to Dover and to other ports, in consequence of which he was arrested at Dover, and nearly the whole of the missing property found upon him.

Southeastern Gazette 8-7-1856

Local News

The Pavilion Hotel Robbery.—On Tuesday last, Auguste Hastier, late Manager of the Pavilion Hotel, was brought before the sitting magistrates for re-examination, charged with stealing £400. Mr. Lewis, of the firm ot Lewis and Lewis, of London, attended for the prisoner. After some consultation, the prisoner was remanded to Tuesday (this day.) It is generally thought that a special sessions will be held by the Recorder, and the prisoner tried here.

Kentish Gazette 8-7-1856

Subsequent to the examination of Mr. Hastier, some very curious circumstances have come to light respecting the money brought over by the prosecutor. After the prisoner had been conveyed to Dover gaol, Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent (and to whom great credit is due for the vigilance he exercised in apprehending the prisoner at Dover) was employed by Mr. De la Motte to go with a lady, then supposed to be his wife, to London, with the money, and to place the same in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild for investment. Mr. Richards proceeded there, but the money was declined, and they returned to Folkestone. These suspicious circumstances induced Superintendent Steer to telegraph to London, making inquiries, and particularly as the sister and uncle of the prosecutor had arrived from London, having been in search of him there. They stated that Mr.De la Motte had had the money entrusted to him in France to invest in French securities, but that he had brought it to England and also another man's wife, and they wished him to be apprehended. Mr. Hart, the magistrate’s clerk, having been consulted, could not advise that course, and soon afterwards, Saunders, one of the Detective force from London, arrived, having been deputed by Sir Richard Mayne, Commissioner of police, to make inquiries; it was ultimately agreed that the balance of cash, about £15,000, should be sealed up and deposited in the joint names of Mr. Hart and Mr. Saunders, and taken to the French embassy, there to abide the issue of events. Mr. De la Motte still remains at the hotel, possibly until the final examination of the prisoner. The affair has created some sensation in the town, and it is generally believed that the prosecutor had made the prisoner aware that he was not the owner of the property, and that, as he was not returning to the hotel till Friday, he would by that time have been out of the country. Prosecutor, however, returning on Thursday, the whole affair was discovered and the delinquent apprehended. The prisoner Hastier did not attempt to change the notes, so that no clue could be obtained, and he sent a stranger to the station to telegraph to the Pavilion, stating when he proposed returning; on the same evening he made for Dover, a route it was hardly likely he would take, being well known and recently manager at the Lord Warden Hotel.

Dover Chronicle 12-7-1856

Petty Sessions, Tuesday: Auguste Hastier was again brought up. The evidence of Mr. Bond, the head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, Mr. Breach, the proprietor, and Mr. Coram, the Superintendent of the Dover Police, was taken, when application was made by Superintendent Steer for a further remand till Tuesday next, the 19^th inst., which was complied with. Mr. Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, again appeared for the prisoner. At the close of the hearing, he again made application to the Bench for a portion of the money found on the prisoner at the time of his apprehension, to be given up for the purpose of his defence. The Bench ordered that £25 should be allowed for that purpose.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-7-1856

Tuesday July 8^th :- Before J. Tolputt esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, G. Kennicott, S. Godden, W. Major, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey and J. Kinsnorth esqs.

Augustus Hastier was brought before the bench on remand, for re-examination, charged with robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone. Mr. Lewis, of the firm Lewis Brothers of Ely Place, Holborn again attended for the defence. No solicitor was present to support the charge.

John Francis Bond deposed he was a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, and remembered Mr. De la Motte coming to the hotel on June 22^nd; he came by the Boulogne boat, about a quarter past 2; it was a Sunday. He wished to have a sitting room and bedroom on the first floor. He then said he wanted to see Mr. Breach to deposit some money. The witness took him to Mr. Breach, with a bag and portfolio, (the bag was quite full of something). The witness saw some bank notes put in the bag; there were some Bank Of England notes and some French bank notes; the bag was locked before it was given to him. Did not see the portfolio opened. The bag appeared heavy. Witness did not see any coin. Gave both bag and portfolio to Mr. Breach. Mr. De la Motte went with him, and they were handed over in his presence; the prisoner was not present at the time. Mr. De la Motte told witness to tell Mr. Breach that they contained gold and notes; witness interpreted for him. Mr. Breach left home on the Tuesday, and witness had no instructions about the money until the following day, when Mr. De la Motte went to Dover. He told witness he should not return until the following day, and he wished to see the prisoner. They left the hotel and met prisoner on the beach, and witness handed Mr. De la Motte`s keys to him. (The witness was about to give a conversation that passed, but Mr. Lewis interposed, and said it was proposed to give as evidence a conversation that took place; now as both parties who heard that conversation were present, and one of them would be examined as a witness, he held it was more to the purpose to elicit that conversation from a principal rather than a witness; he should therefore object to this witness stating the conversation that took place).

Mr. Hart advised the magistrates to accept the witness` evidence.

Mr. Lewis said there was an act of Parliament expressly to prevent magistrates` clerks from being advocates, and strongly condemned the practice.

Examination continued – Mr. De la Motte gave his keys to witness, who handed them to prisoner; did not give the message, Mr. De la Motte being there himself. On the Thursday Mr. De la Motte came back from Dover, about half past 2. Witness saw him in his room, and he immediately asked him about his money. Witness told him that the prisoner had gone to town by the 2 o`clock a.m. mail train. Witness made enquiries, and found that no message had been left for Mr. De la Motte, who became very anxious about his money, and suggested that locks might be opened; if he could but see it he would be satisfied. Witness consented, with the other principal servants, and the result was that a cupboard was opened by a locksmith, who picked the lock, and witness took out the bag and portfolio, the same as Mr. Breach received.The bag was cup, and all the top part of it was emptied; there were no notes in it. Mr. De la Motte was called in immediately. The portfolio was also there, but apparently not opened. Witness showed Mr. De la Motte the bag, and he immediately remarked it had been cut. He took out his keys and opened the bag, and also the portfolio. There were a number of sovereigns at the bottom – about 485. The portfolio, Mr. De la Motte said, had not been opened. Saw a large number of bank notes in it. The prisoner was not present when this took place. Mr De la Motte gave a receipt for the money left to the housekeeper of the Pavilion. Measures were afterwards taken to recover the missing money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – After the conversation on Wednesday, recollected having one with the prisoner on the Monday about the gentleman who had arrived on Sunday. Witness did not remember that prisoner said Mr. De la Motte had given him (prisoner) some money. Would not swear that prisoner said nothing about it. He (witness) told the prisoner that the gentleman had given him as much gold as he could carry. Had some conversation with Mr. De la Motte about exchanging the money for him; offered £39 2s. for every 1,000 francs. Prisoner did not tell Mr. De la Motte he could get better exchange in London than that offered by witness. Believed the conversation ended there. After the money was counted, Mr. De la Motte stated that he had lost from £1,400 to £1,600 or about 35,000 francs. When Mr. De la Motte was pressing for his money, witness, for the first time, heard of the serious amount of the whole, about 400,000 or 500,000 francs. The bag produced was stuffed at the top with notes; could not say if they were in the divisions. Mr De la Motte took the notes from separate packets and pressed them into the bag; they were not pinned together. Mr. De la Motte`s hand passed from his pocket to the bag more than twice; his hand was moderately full each time.

By the Bench. – The cupboard was relocked after Mr. De la Motte had his money.

James Gaby Breach deposed he was proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner was manager of the hotel, and had been so for three months. On Sunday, June 22^nd, the witness Bond came to him with a gentleman, having a bag and a portfolio. The gentleman was Mr. De la Motte; the bag produced was the one given to witness. Bond put the bag and portfolio in his hands, and told him they contained money, which he was requested to take car of until Monday. Mr. De la Motte told witness (through Bond) that the bag contained gold, and the portfolio notes of the Bank Of France, and there was much in value. Witness took them and locked them up; no-one knew where they were put. Later in the day the prisoner gave witness two rolls of bank notes, one of the Bank Of England, the other of France; the French notes were pinned together. The prisoner did not know how much money there was; he told witness they were as the gentleman had given them to him. Witness counted the notes, but could not recollect if there were 38 or 39 1,000 franc notes; there were 65 £5 Bank Of England notes. The prisoner was not present when the notes were counted. Witness kept the notes in his possession until the following day, when, going home for a week, he told the prisoner there was a considerable sum of money deposited with him by the gentleman in No. 21, and that on the following morning he should have possession of the money. When the prisoner gave witness the notes he (witness) remarked to him that the gentleman had already deposited a great amount of money with him. On the following morning (Tuesday) witness called prisoner into his private sitting room, unlocked a cupboard, and took the two bundles of notes given him by the prisoner, and put them into the drawer in the cupboard: there was a nest of drawers that the door enclosed. Witness then showed prisoner the portfolio and the bag of money, which were in the cupboard, but forgot whether they were taken out, drew the prisoner`s attention to them, locked the door, and gave him the key. Told the prisoner to ascertain if the gentleman would take the money away that day, if not, the prisoner was to take the money to the bank, and deposit it there, as he (witness) did not like the responsibility of having such a quantity of money, it being more than he liked. Witness did not say which bank, but it was understood that he meant the bank in Folkestone, there being only one here. Witness added he did not like the manner in which the money was brought to him, and wished it taken away, as he understood he was only taking care of it for one night. Witness also told him that if anything occurred he was to telegraph to him, as he would travel too fast for a letter to overtake him. This had reference to the general business of the hotel of sufficient importance to communicate. Witness left by the 8 a.m. express train, and received a telegraphic message in Dublin, on the following Saturday, about 8 p.m., the first communication from Folkestone. On witness` return he found the cupboard locked, but was informed it had been opened, and the money removed, and the receipt was now put into his hands. Witness afterwards obtaine the key of the cupboard from the police; he then opened the cupboard, and found the rolls of notes, &c., were gone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Prisoner had been in his employ about 3 months; he had been manager of the Lord Warden at Dover for 2 years previous. Witness told the prisoner what the proprietor of the Lord Warden had told him respecting him. The proprietor might have told him what his duties had been, but he had not been told that he had entire control of the money department. The money was brought to witness by the prisoner between 8 and 9 o`clock on Sunday evening. Could assign no reason why he did not count the money given him by the prisoner: it was the confidence he had in the prisoner that induced him to receive it without counting it. Witness afterwards counted it, but not in prisoner`s presence. If there had been fictitious money, or lead, he should have placed it where he did. Might have told the prisoner to be careful of the Frenchman, as he did not like the way in which the money had been deposited, it appeared such a careless way of doing business. When the money was deposited by Mr. De la Motte he might have named there was upwards of £400 in gold, but that the other was of the most value. Witness counted the notes given him by the prisoner, and was quite sure there were 38 or 39 French ones. The notes the prisoner gave him he kept in his own possession till the morning of leaving, when they were put into the cupboard with the bag and portfolio. Between the Sunday and the Monday the money was put in a private drawer by night, but was kept by witness about his person in the daytime. When witness was about to leave he re-deposited the money with the prisoner that he received from him, and showed him where the other was deposited, and gave him the key of the cupboard. Between the Sunday and Tuesday that witness kept the key, it was never out of his possession the whole time. Others had access to that room at all times; the outer door is never fastened. Never heard that the gentleman had other valuable property in the house.

From a question here put by the clerk to the magistrates, Mr. Lewis again addressed the bench, and said he must again press upon the bench that the magistrates` clerk must not be allowed to act as an advocate; he might look and appear very innocent, but he was afraid he was not so.

Cross-examination continued – Witness meant by his last answer to imply that he put the notes into the cupboard, and gave him the key. He meant by this that he redelivered the money he had received from him. Witness did not know whether any letters had been received for the prisoner since his return, but he understood letters had been received, addressed to the prisoner, and he had been told they were given to Mr. Hart.

John Coram deposed he was superintendent of the Dover police. He was sent for on the 22^nd June by Mr. Wheeler, the proprietor of the Lord Warden. The witness went and was informed that a telegraphic message had been received from Folkestone. While in conversation a person came and said the prisoner was at Galantie`s Hotel in Dover. I went to the hotel. On being informed there was no officer there, he entered one of the rooms and found the prisoner in company with a custom-house agent from Folkestone, named Richards. On entering the room witness apprehended the prisoner, but before he could charge him, Richards said it was all right, that Mr. Hastier was going back to settle the matter. Witness enquired what he meant, when witness said there was no charge against him, and that everything would be amicably arranged, and that he had the property in his possession in a bag. Witness asked Richards if he was a constable, when he said he was, and also a commission agent. Witness had doubts about it, and pressed Richards for a direct answer, when he said he was not a constable. Witness then required possession of the property from him, Richards however handed the bag to sergeant Fleet who was also present. Witness detained the prisoner about two hours and ultimately locked him up at the station, prisoner was searched and there was found on him five £5 Bank Of England notes, £5 6s. in gold and silver, two 20 franc gold pieces, a Tuscan lottery ticket, a passport, a railway through-ticket, a gold watch and key with small compass attached, all these articles were afterwards given up to sergeant Fleet.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Witness was fetched by Mr. Way, station master, Dover station, to Galantie`s Hotel. When witness got there he was told they had sent for a fly to return to Folkestone. Some person in the room said this. The prisoner and Richards were the only persons in the room when he went in. The landlord of the Inn followed, and Fleet came close after. Witness waited 2 hours because some persons were coming from Folkestone, one named Davidson, and another named Palmer, when everything would be arranged. When Davidson arrived he told witness that the matter was going before the magistrates, where he would prefer a charge of stealing or embezzling £1,600. No-one signed the charge sheet. This occurred after the prisoner was in custody, and after Richards told him no charge would be preferred. Witness would have detained the prisoner without the conversation between Davidson and himself. Would have detained him till he had seen the person to whom the property belonged. Was not present when anything else was said about a settlement. Ten minutes elapsed after Davidson arrived before the prisoner was locked up. Davidson wanted the prisoner to be taken before the police at Folkestone. The prisoner was ultimately locked up about 2 a.m.

Mr. Steer the superintendent here applied for another remand until Tuesday next.

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench requested that a portion of the money found on the prisoner and not owned, might be handed over to him for the purpose of the prisoner`s defence.

A female witness, we understand from London, was bound over in the sum of £100 to attend and give evidence on Tuesday next.

West Kent Guardian 12-7-1856

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, Auguste Hastier, the late manager at the Pavilion Hotel, at Folkestone, who stands charged with stealing the sum of £1,600 and upwards from the establishment, the property of a Frenchman named de la Motte, was further examined by the magistrates. After a lengthened examination of witnesses the prisoner was again remanded for a week.

Southeastern Gazette 15-7-1856

Local News

Sessions Hall, Tuesday: Before the Mayor, W. Major, S, Mackie, S. Godden, J. Kelcey, W. Bateman, J. Kingsnorth, and G. Kennieott, Esqs.

The Pavilion Hotel Robbery.—Auguste Hastier, late manager at the Pavilion Hotel, was brought up from Dover gaol, for re-examination, charged with stealing £1,500. The hall was numerously attended by the inhabitants, anxious to hear the proceedings.

Mr. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, of London, attended for the prisoner.

John Francis Bond examined: I am a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel. Mr. de la Motte came to Folkestone on Sunday, June 22nd, by the Boulogne steamer, at about half-past 2; he wished to have a bed-room and sitting-room, which I gave him on the 1st floor. He then told me he wished to see Mr. Breach, the proprietor, to deposit some money with him, I took the money (in a bag) and a portfolio to Mr. Breach ; it was a leather bag, and appeared quite full. I partly saw it crammed with notes, which he took out of different pockets. The bag appeared very heavy. Mr, de la Motte went with me, and I handed the articles to Mr. Breach in his presence; prisoner was not present. Mr.de la Motte told me to translate to Mr. Breach his request, which I did, that he should take charge of it, as it contained notes and gold. I heard no more about the money until Wednesday, the 25th. Mr. Breach left home on the 24th. I had no direction about the money from Mr. Breach. On Wednesday Mr. de la Motte was going to Dover, and said he would be back on Thursday. He asked me to see Mr. Hastier, whom we found sitting on the beach. I handed the keys of Mr. de la Motte's apartments to the prisoner on Thursday. Mr. de la Motte returned, he came by the 2 o’clock train from Dover. As soon as I had seen him to his room, he asked me for his money. I told him Mr. Hastier had gone up by the 2 o’clock mail train that morning. I made enquiries, and found that no message had been left. I then went to Mr. de la Motte, and asked him to wait until 4 o’clock. While I was talking a message came down from London, that the prisoner would not return till next day. Mr. de la Motte being very impatient, and offering to pay for breaking open any locks, I consulted 4 or 5 of the other servants, and we decided to break open a cupboard in No. 1 room. It was my suggestion. Mr. Francis’s man “picked” the lock. I opened the door and took out the bag; it was cut, and the top part was empty; there were no notes in it. 1 then called Mr. de la Motte, and ne unlocked the bag and also his portfolio. There was a large lump of sovereigns at the bottom of the bag. I assisted to count sovereigns; there were 485, as near as I can recollect. The portfolio had not been touched. I saw a number of French bank notes. We took a receipt for the rest, and then handed the money to Mr. de la Motte. The housekeeper (Miss Pollock) had the receipt. Goldsmith and Leggatt (waiters) were present.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—No conversation took between me and any other persons about the money between Sunday and Tuesday. I do not recollect the prisoner stating that Mr. de la Motte had given him money. I had some conversation changing some French money with Mr. de la Motte. I offered £39 5s. for a 1000fr. note. I limited it to taking 10,000fr. I told Mr. de la Motte he would get a better exchange in London. He told me that the bag contained about 400,000 or 500,000 francs when we were searching for the money. The notes were pressed into the bag with the hand.

James Gaby Breach, examined: I am the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. Prisoner was manager in my establishment about three months. On Sunday afternoon, 22nd June, Bond came to me with Mr. de la Motte, who, he said, wished me to take care of portfolio and bag, containing money, until Monday. Mr. de la Motte also told me they contained gold and notes, and were very valuable. I locked them up; no one knew where I put them. Later in the day the prisoner gave me two rolls of notes; one was French, the other English; the French notes were pinned together. I asked him how much money there was, and he said they were in the same state as when he received them. I counted the notes; there were 38 or 39 French notes of 1,000fr. each and £65 in English notes. I had a memorandum of them, which I cannot find. I did not count them in the prisoner’s presence. I kept them in my possession. Nothing more occurred until the following day, when told the prisoner I was going away for a week. I told him I had a considerable sum of money deposited with me by the gentleman in the No. 21 room, and that on the following morning I would hand over the money to him to take care of. I recollect that when the prisoner gave me the notes, I said that the gentleman had also deposited a large sum of money with me. On Tuesday morning, before 8 o’clock, I called the prisoner into my sitting-room. I unlocked the cupboard, took out the bundle of notes, and put them into the drawer of the cupboard, which is enclosed. I showed him the portfolio and the bag of money which were in the cupboard, and I particularly drew his attention to them. I then locked the cupboard door and gave him the key. I told him to ascertain from the gentleman whether he was going to take it away that day; if not, to take it and deposit it in the bank, in the same state as I left it, as I did not wish it to be left in the house. I did not feel comfortable in going away and leaving such a sum of money in the louse, as it was throwing considerable responsibility on those I left behind. I said I did not like the manner in which the money was brought and left with me, but I did not expect to keep it for more than one night. I told the prisoner to telegraph me if anything particular occurred. I received a telegraphic message in Dublin on Saturday evening, at about 8 o`clock, to return home. When I returned I found I could not open the cupboard. I got the key from the police officer Fleet, and found that both bag and portfolio were gone.

Cross-examined—The prisoner was formerly manager at the Lord Warden Hotel; he did not tell me he conducted all the money transactions there. I had other strong recommendations with him, and I had no reason for doubting him. It was the confidence I had in the prisoner that induced me to receive the notes from him as I did, without counting them. If the bag had contained lead or fictitious paper, I should have been placed in a position of great difficulty. I think it likely I said to the prisoner “Be careful of the Frenchman”. I did not like the way in which the money was left; there appeared so much carelessness about it.

By the Mayor: The prisoner gave me no guarantee or sureties.

John Coram, superintendent of the Dover police, examined: I was sent for on the 25th last month, by the proprietor of the Lord Warden (Mr. Wheeler), who told me that he had had a telegraphic message from Folkestone to get Hastier stopped for stealing £1,600 from Mr de la Motte. While I was there a person came and told me that the prisoner was at Galante s, and had been stopped by a person, but there was no officer present. I went there, and saw the prisoner in company with a Custom-house agent (Mr. Richards). On entering the room I told Mr. Hastier he must come with me. Before I could state the charge, Richards said “lt is all right. He is going back with me to Folkestone”. I asked mm what ne Meant; he said everything would be amicably settled, and there would be no charge against the prisoner, and also that he had got the property there (holding it in his hand.) I asked him if he was a constable and he said he was. I had my doubts and cautioned him; he then said he was not. I told him as he was not a constable he must deliver the property up to me. He refused to do so, and handed it to Sergeant Fleet, who was also present. I took the prisoner to the police-station, and found a quantity of property on him, which I have since delivered up.

At this stage of the proceedings, upon the application of Supt. Steer, the prisoner was remanded to Tuesday, at 11 o clock. Upon the application of Mr. Lewis, £25 was ordered to be given up to him for the prisoner’s defence. The prisoner looked very dejected, and appeared to feel his degraded position.

Kentish Gazette 15-7-1856

At the Petty Sessions, on Tuesday, Auguste Hastier, the late manager of the Pavilion Hotel at Folkestone, who stands charged with stealing the sum of £1,600 and upwards from the establishment, the property of a Frenchman named De la Motte, was further examined before the magistrate. After a lengthened examination of witnesses, the prisoner was again remanded for a week, on which day it is arranged that the matter shall be concluded. The money alleged to have been stolen is part of a sum of £16,000 deposited by the prosecutor with the proprietor of the hotel, who, being about to leave his business for a short time, handed the property to the prisoner, who held the confidential situation of manager, having previously filled a similar position at the Lord Warden Hotel, Dover. All the money alleged to have been abstracted was found in the possession of the prisoner. On the application of Mr. Lewis, £25 was ordered to be returned towards the defence of the prisoner, by the officers who had the money. (Is not this an extraordinary proceeding? What! Return a portion of that which may prove to be stolen property, to defend the prisoner against the accusation of such theft ?)

Folkestone Chronicle 19-7-1856

Tuesday July 15^th – Before J. Tolputt, esq., Mayor, G. Kennicott, J. Kelcey, S. Mackie, W. Major, S. Godden and W. Bateman esqrs.

Augustus Hastier, charged with the robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, was again brought up on remand from Tuesday last, for further examination. Mr. Lewis again attended on behalf of the prisoner.

The first witness examined was Emily Hamilton, who deposed that she had known the prisoner 2 years, and that she had last seen him about 5 months since. (Some objection was made here by Mr. Lewis to a question regarding some letters). The witness here fainted in court so that her examination could not be proceeded with.

The next witness called was William Smith, who deposed that he was a detective officer in the Metropolitan Police, and that on Sunday, 30^th June, he went to the lodgings of Miss Hamilton, Hanover Place, Pimlico, and asked her if she had hear from Hastier lately; she said she had. Asked her if he could see the letters. She answered “Yes” and gave them up. The two now produced are the same witness received. They had remained in his custody since then.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis, - She told me she had been in the habit of receiving letters from Hastier. She showed me more than the two produced; I only asked for them. Did not read any of the letters she had received. There might have been about 100 more in a bundle; did not take charge of them.

The witness Hamilton returning into court, her examination was resumed. – She desposed that the letter (No. 1) handed to her she received by the post on Wednesday 25^th or 26^th June. It was in the prisoner`s handwriting, and in the following terms:-

Pavilion Hotel,

Wednesday

Dearest Emily; - When you receive this note send me the following telegraphic message and I will settle with you when in town. Yours ever,

A. Victor.

“From Hamilton, London, to Mr. Hastier, Pavilion, Folkestone”

“Come up immediately, I must see you; urgent”

Sent a telegraphic message as required from an office in Westminster, according to the instructions in the letter received from the prisoner, and in the same words as the letter produced. Did not see the prisoner in London, nor till she saw him here. The second letter produced witness received after she had written to know if the telegraphic dispatch had reached him. The answer was received about 3 days after, and was in the following terms; -

June 27^th

I must pray you, my dearest Emily, not to write to me any more until you hear from me, for your letter would not reach me. You will hear from me in a few days, and believe me ever yours.

Victor,

In haste.

Did not keep a copy of the letter she wrote. The letter came in reply to the one written to Hastier. The letter was in the handwriting of Hastier.

Cross examined by Mr. Lewis – Had never seen Hastier write. This was the first telegraphic dispatch of a similar kind she had received from him. Never had telegraphed that she would receive him. She might have written in reply. Had written to him many times. Never received a visit from Hastier in consequence of letters written to him. Hastier did not visit the witness in consequence of the telegraphic message. In March or April 1855 the prisoner did visit the witness in Church Street, London. Could not say if that visit was in consequence of a telegraphic dispatch. Witness visited Dover in consequence of a dispatch. Left Dover by the 3.20 train for London. (Witness here again fainted and was obliged to leave the court.)

Frances Pollock deposed she was housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel. Remembered Mr. Breach leaving Folkestone on Tuesday morning before the prisoner`s departure. Prisoner left on the night of the 26^th. Saw him about 11 o`clock in No. 1. (Mr. Breach`s private sitting room). Prisoner said he was to leave for London on the mail train at 2 a.m., from the upper station. Witness was surprised, and said to the prisoner, “am I to be left alone when Mr. And Mrs. Breach are both away – a poor little nervous housekeeper – I shall feel as if all the bricks in the house are falling on my head”. Tried to persuade the prisoner to stay till the morning; thought the matter was not of much importance. The prisoner said he would lie down on the couch until the train left – he had had a telegraphic dispatch and must go. The prisoner requested witness to get up early, so as to keep the other servants out of mischief. Noticed the prisoner was very agitated, and asked him if he was unwell. Witness left the prisoner in the room and retired to rest about 12 p.m., and came down again about half past 8. Before she left her room she received a telegraphic dispatch from the prisoner, which she destroyed – thought it of no consequence – it merely informed her where she could find the key of Mr. De la Motte`s room to give him in the morning. It was from Mr. Hastier. Witness was directed by it to give the keys to Mr. De la Motte only. This was on Thursday morning. Received another telegraphic dispatch about 3 p.m. from the prisoner, as follows : -

“Hastier, London, to Miss Pollock, Folkestone”. “Cannot come down tonight. Will be at Folkestone by first train tomorrow morning”. Mr. De la Motte did not return till about half past 2. She gave him his keys after receiving the message. Mr. De la Motte enquired if prisoner had returned, and was very anxious about his money. Witness told him she knew nothing about any money, but it would be all right when prisoner returned later that night or the next morning. Mr. De la Motte was very excited, and said it was a large sum of money. Witness told him if she knew where it was she could not give it to him; to which he answered if he saw it he would be satisfied. Witness and the principal waiters then consulted together, and they agreed to search for the money. Bond, the waiter, suggested that if the money were anywhere it must be in No. 1 (Mr. Breach`s private room). A locksmith was then sent for and the lock of an escritoire in No. 1 was picked; inside was a portfolio and a courier`s purse. Bond felt in and thought the money was all right, and immediately called Mr. De la Motte, who opened the portfolio, and found the money all right. The purse was found cut. Could not understand what Mr. De la Motte said, but was told that notes had been abstracted and the gold left.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - Mr. De la Motte took the money away, put the gold in little piles, but did not count it in witness` presence. Mr. De la Motte gave witness a receipt for the money. Mr. Davidson was present. Mr. De la Motte did not take the money away before the receipt was given. Believed she had received the receipt from Mr. Bond`s hand. It was an error when she said Mr. De la Motte gave her (witness) the receipt; an hour had passed since the discovery of the money and the giving of the receipt. Could not say if any other person beside Mr. De la Motte had counted the money. After the receipt was given nothing further was done. Prisoner had had a conversation with witness regarding some articles of vertu, which Mr. De la Motte had shown him in his room. The prisoner told witness Mr. De la Motte had filled his (prisoner`s) pockets with money, prisoner named a gold basin and ewer that Mr. De la Motte had shown him, and also some pictures. Prisoner did not say that Mr. De la Motte had “done the custom house officers”. With reference to the “telegraphic message” first received, it was not written on half a dispatch paper, did not sign for the same, it was given to witness by “Sarah”, one of the still room maids. Did not recollect how the paper was folded, it was addressed to witness on the outside, formed an opinion it was a telegraphic message from the appearance of it. Could not recollect by whom it was signed. Cannot remember if it was signed by Hastier or not. The second telegraph message was folded and in an envelope, but could not recollect if the first was in an envelope or not.

William Bevan deposed, he was one of the night porters at the Pavilion Hotel. On the 28^th June was on duty at about half past 11 p.m. Mr. Hastier was on the lawn. Afterwards found he had gone to bed, saw a light in his room. This was about 12 p.m. Half an hour after Mr. Hastier had directed witness to get him a fly for the upper station, as he was going to London by the mail train at 2 a.m. He went into No. 1 (Mr. Breach`s room), soon after Mr. Hastier came out and asked for a sheet of brown paper. Mr. Hastier gave witness the key of No. 19 (his office) and asked him to give it to the housekeeper in the morning. At half past one Mr. Hastier left in the fly, had not seen the prisoner since, till now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - It was not unusual to see a light in Mr. Hastier`s room at 12 p.m., he generally went to bed at that hour. Prisoner told witness to call Miss Pollock at 7 o`clock in the morning, he answered it was all right she was booked.

Cross examined by the bench: - When the prisoner left the hotel he had a small brown paper parcel in his hand, he was dressed in his usual clothes.

Francios Miland Chaigneau being now about to be examined, Joseph Ollivier was sworn interpreter. Mr. Lewis addressing the interpreter said he understood at the last examination he had not interpreted correctly; he therefore cautioned him as he (Mr. Lewis) had now a check on him.

Francois M. Chaigneau deposed he was a money changer, residing at No. 32, Rue de la Paix, in Paris. Knew nothing of Mr. De la Motte. Recollected seeing him on the 20^th of June at his (witness`) place of business. This was Friday. He then requested to have English money for bank post bills, because they came from an agent and he was afraid they were bad ones. Witness gave change for them in French bank notes to the value of £200; there was no gold given in the change. Possibly he might be able to know the money given in change. Could not identify the English bank notes but identified an Irish bank note or bill now produced for £20; an order for £5 on the Glasgow bank; a circular note on the National Bank of Scotland for £10, dated 18^th June, payable at Glynn & Co., London, or what is known as a letter of credit. Knew the notes being produced as being the same from his signature being endorsed on the back, and from the entry in his book. Remembered the circumstance of giving those notes in change, it being the last transaction he had had that night. The book he now produced was the book in which the business done every day was first entered.

(Some remarks being made on the case, the Mayor said the bench only wanted to be put right on the matter. Mr. Davidson, clerk to the magistrates` clerk, here started up, and addressing the bench, said he wanted no putting right, he was always right)

Examination continued: - The circular letter or note was taken by the witness the same evening, the 13^th June, in the way of business. The particular entries referred to in the book produced were made by the witness himself. He was certain he gave the notes produced to Mr. De la Motte, as they were in the show case in the window of his place of business; one of these had been placed in the case but a short time before.

(Another discussion here took place, when Mr. Lewis interposed, and remarked that Mr. Davidson should not take upon himself to interfere in the manner he had done. He (Mr. Davidson) had addressed the bench in a very impudent manner; and he (Mr. Lewis) understood that all the witnesses had been examined by Mr. Hart previous to coming into court, without he (Mr. Lewis), as the attorney for the prisoner, being there. Mr. Hart, the clerk to the magistrates, explained that Mr. Lewis had interposed and created confusion by irrelevant remarks being introduced into the case before the bench).

Examination continued: - The £5 and £10 Bank Of England notes produced were there all day; that is to say, from the time they were purchased. Witness could not say whether from 1, 2, or 3 o`clock on that particular day. The £20 Bank Of Ireland post bill produced was the last purchase witness had made that day.

Mr. Lewis declined to cross-examine this witness.

Herny Pay deposed that he resided at No. 84, Rue de Boston, Boulogne sur Mer; he was by profession a money changer. On 22^nd June, Mr. De la Motte came to his place of business and requested change for French money into English. The amount changed was £328. Witness gave him part in notes and part in gold. There was a Bank Of England note for £100, one for £50, and £85 in five and ten pound notes, principally five pound notes of the Bank Of England, the remainder was in sovereigns and half sovereigns; could identify the £100 note produced but not the smaller ones. They were all stamped at the time he gave them to Mr. De la Motte. The notes were stamped with the witness` name; the stamp was coloured blue, (stamp produced) inscribed “H. Pay, House Agent, 84, Rue de Boston, Boulogne sur Mer”. No-one could have stamped them except witness as he kept no clerk; there was no date on the stamp. Had not the slightest doubt but that the notes produced were the same as given by witness to Mr. De la Motte.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - Was not in a larger way of business; had not used the stamp long; might have used it for 3 or 4 months; could not tell how many notes he had stamped in that time; always stamped the notes paid to private persons. If the notes produced had been shown to him in Boulogne, he should not be able to tell to whom they had been paid, nor how recently they had been in his possession – all witness could say was that the notes had been stamped by him and had been in his possession. Was requested to attend as a witness by Mr. Hart. Mr Hart had asked witness if he had sold any notes. Mr. Davidson had first written a note to witness to attend the examination – had seen Mr. Hart in Boulogne the day before yesterday; had had no conversation with Mr. Hart about this business. Mr Hart had called at his place of business yesterday, but witness was not at home. Saw Mr. Hart go on board the Folkestone boat. Had not seen Mr. Hart today before coming to the court, but saw Mr. Davidson who said nothing to witness.

Mr. Chaigneau re-examined: - The superintendent of police requested him to attend today. Mr. Hart came to his place of business and showed him the notes. Mr. Hart saw the entries made by witness. Mr. Hart spoke but the policemen were present. The conversaition was in English in the presence of witness` wife. Witness` wife was an Englishwoman.

Mark Richards deposed he was a custom house agent residing at Folkestone. On June 26^th witness was at the Pavilion Hotel in conversation with Bond the waiter, had been informed of what had taken place and offered his services. Mr. Hart and Mr. Davidson came past at the time and wished someone to go to Boulogne to get the number of some notes. No person was at this time in custody for the robbery. Witness offered to go. On which he was introduced to Mr. De la Motte, who gave witness the name of a commissioner in Boulogne. Witness was to proceed via Dover to Calais and thence to Boulogne and back to Folkestone. Witeness asked if he met prisoner on the way what should he do with him, was told he should take him into custody and bring him back. This was on the day the robbery was discovered. Bond had told witness Mr. Breach had been robbed. The witness then went to the Junction Station to go to Dover by the mail train at 11 p.m. Witness looked through the carriages at the Junction too see if the prisoner was in the train, but did not see him. Proceeded to Dover by that train; before the train stopped at Dover witness got out on the platform and saw the prisoner going towards the door. Did not see the prisoner get out of the train. Witness stepped up to him and said “Mr. Hastier, you must go back to Folkestone with me”, thought he touched him, prisoner replied “Must I? Then I shall go back in the morning”. Witness answered “You must go back tonight”, upon which Mr. Bayly, who was with witness, stepped up and said “I suppose you don`t want force to be used”, this was said to the prisoner. Prisoner immediately without witness asking him handed the bag he had in his hand, it was a small leather bag. The witness and prisoner walked on together to an hotel and witness told him he might have a fly to go back to Folkestone. Prisoner mentioned an hotel at the top of the town where flies could be obtained, but ultimately they went into Galantie`s Hotel. On entering the prisoner asked the landlord if he could send to Packham`s for a fly, and also ordered a room into which they all went. Witness then wrote a telegraph message to send to Mr. Hart at Folkestone. An answer was returned that Mr. Davidson was coming in a fly with Mr. Palmer. Shortly after a personn entered the room who gave his name as Mr. Coram, who spoke to the prisoner. Sergeant Flint of the Folkestone Police came in at the same time. Witness did not hear what passed between the prisoner and Mr. Coram, but the prisoner said “I am in the custody of Mr. Richards”. Mr. Coram spoke to witness, who replied he had no doubt he was a policeman, but not knowing him he refused to give him the bag prisoner had given him. Sergeant Fleet stepped up and said “You know me as a policeman”, and witness gave the bag to him. Witness had not opened the bag but the prisoner had, and had taken out a pocket handkerchief. There was no key to it; it opened with a spring. Witness returned to Folkestone by the mail train at 2 a.m. Witness on the way from the station charged prisoner with taking the money away, to which the prisoner answered how it came about. Witness told the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte had returned and had insisted upon seeing his money, and that he (prisoner) was suspected of having run away with it; that telegraphic dispatches had been sent to almost every port to detain him if he attempted to embark. The prisoner made an observation that it was his own fault, and that he had been a great fool and he must bear the consequences of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - The last observation was made while they were on the way to Galentie`s Hotel. No-one was present when the prisoner made the observation “I am a great fool”. Prisoner also said “I don`t know how it was, but I could not resist the temptation”. Bayly at this time was gone to the station with the telegraphic message. Mr. Galantie was in and out of the room during this time. Witness looked into all the carriages at Folkestone. Knew Mr. Taglioni, the father of the danseuse; did not see him in the train at Folkestone: saw him at Dover. Prisoner, when first seen by witness, was walking with a gentleman. Hear the prisoner wish someone goodnight as witness was going up to him; did not know if it was the Station Master. Witness spoke to Mr. Hipgrave, the commissioner of the Lord Warden Hotel, but did not recollect the prisoner speaking to him. Never told the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte had sent him to look after him. Had no recollection of saying anything about a fly before Bayly came up. The prisoner lit a cigar at the Dover Castle Hotel. The prisoner had given witness the bag before the corner was turned at the end of the station. Bayly was walking on one side of the prisoner, and witness on the other at the time the cigar was lit. A proposal was made that they should come to Folkestone in a fly. Witness thought Bayly proposed to come by the train. The prisoner, however, proposed to come by a fly. Witness told prisoner he might go to any hotel he liked; the Shakespeare was proposed as it was near to Packham`s, where a fly could be obtained. Never told the prisoner that it would be all right – that no charge would be preferred. Witness told Coram the prisoner was going to Folkestone with him. Coram never asked witness what he meant by “all right”. Never said all would be amicably arranged, and that no charge would be preferred against him. If Coram had sworn that it is false. (Sensation in court). Witness stayed at Galastie`s till the arrival of Mr. Davidson. They began talking about the technicalities of law, which witness did not understand. Mr. Davidson said a charge would be preferred against the prisoner, and it would save expense if it was done at Folkestone. Coram asked the question as to whether a charge would be preferred at Folkestone; but previous to that the prisoner had said to Coram “You don`t want to prefer a charge against me if I go back to Folkestone”. Witness had been a customs agent about 2 years; had never been in the police. Told Coram he was a constable. Witness supposed himself a constable while he had the prisoner in his charge. Never had been a constable at any time. (Mr. Lewis here recommended the witness, on any other occasion, to call himself “an amateur thief-taker”, as he (Mr. Lewis) liked things to be called by their proper names.)

The witness here added to his evidence – When the prisoner said he was very sorry for doing what he had done, witness told him that Mr. De la Motte had said he would rather have given him the money than it should have happened.

The magistrates here decided to adjourn the case till Wednesday, July 16^th.

From the report of the examination of Hastier being so voluminous, and with a desire to give our readers a full report, we are compelled to defer the second day`s examination until next week.

Southeastern Gazette 22-7-1856

Local News

The final examination of Auguste Hastier took place on Tuesday last, before a full bench of magistrates; the examination lasted two days. At the late hour we received the report, we are unable to give the evidence, but as the trial will shortly take place, we shall give a full report of it then.

The Special Sessions to be held by the Recorder for the trial of Auguste Hastier, for the robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, is fixed for the 30th July. The trial is likely to last two days.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-7-1856

The adjourned examination of Auguste Hastier, which was resumed on Wednesday, 16^th inst, (continued from our report of last week), took place before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, J. Kelcey, W. Major, W. Bateman, S. Godden, G. Kennicott and S. Mackie esqs.

The interest in this protracted inquiry continued unabated. Several ladies who sat through the hearing of yesterday were again in attendance, having taken their seats before the bench was occupied, and expressed a quiet determination to see, as it is popularly called, “the end of it”.

William Fleet, police sergeant, repeated his evidence in chief, as deposed to at the first hearing, and fully reported in our columns, and was cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Went from Folkestone to Dover about 7 o`clock on Thursday, the 26^th of June. Was watching the steam boats when the mail train arrived about 11 p.m.; saw the boats start. It was 20 minutes past 11 when witness first heard of the prisoner being in Dover; saw the prisoner first about 12 o`clock. It would take 5 minutes to go from the pier to Galantie`s Hotel. When witness first saw the prisoner Mr. Richards was with him. Mr. Galantie followed witness and Mr. Coram into the room. Heard Coram tell Hastier he must go with him; Hastier replied “no, I am going to Folkestone with Mr. Richards”. Richards answered “That is quite right”. Witness thought a Mr. Palmer came into the room with them; to the best of witness` recollection no other person was present; saw Bayly there afterwards. Upon his solemn oath, did not recollect seeing a person asleep in the corner of the room. Will swear he had no conversation respecting an engineer. Cannot say whether Bayly came into the room alone; did not recollect Bayly coming in to the room; Bayly was not in the room when witness first entered; could not say if Bayly came into the room alone or not. The room was a small parlour. It was unlikely for a person to be in the room without witness seeing him. Bayly came into the room and said something about a fly. Bayly belongs to Folkestone; does not know what Bayly is; has seen him with custom-house officers. Does not know (why) he went to Dover. Does not know if Bayly took any part in the matter after Mr. Coram came into the room. When Richards said it was all right, Coram asked him what was all right; Richards replied they were going back to Folkestone. Heard nothing about the matter being “amicably settled”, or that “no charge would be preferred”. Heard Richards tell Coram he had property in the bag. Arrived at the Union about 12 p.m.. There was a dispute between Coram and Richards as to who should have the prisoner. There were several persons in the room during the time. The bag was on the table a great part of the time – witness leant upon it. Witness carried the bag to the police station. Witness came to Folkestone during the time. On his return the prisoner was searched and property given up to witness. Prisoner was left in Dover in custody. Witness brought the bag to Folkestone; came over in a fly. Stopped at one place on the road; did not go into any house. It took the witness till 4 o`clock to search the prisoner and count the money. Witness then went into the Lord Warden and waited for the train. The bag was in witness` possession the whole of this time. Prisoner never expressed any wish to stay in Dover; on the contrary, he rather wished to come to Folkestone. On witness` arrival at the Union, believed the prisoner said he had sent for a fly to go to Folkestone. Was present when Mr. Davidson arrived. Thought he had heard the prisoner ask if any charge would be preferred. It might have been Richards that asked the question. Mr. Davidson answered, “Oh, yes, I will charge him, or give him in charge”. When the prisoner was searched, made a memorandum of what was found on him. Prisoner seemed surprised when Davidson said he would charge him, and wrote something in his pocket-book. Witness had had possession of the book ever since. Witness entered what was found in the bag; the paper produced was the original memorandum. Witness did not go to Mr. Pay`s, at Boulogne. Went to the witness Chaigneau`s house, in Paris. There was a difficulty in obtaining the number of the notes. Conversed with Mrs. Chaigneau in English; Mrs. Chaigneau spoke to her husband in French; part of the conversation was translated to witness. Witness told Mrs. Chaigneau her husband would be wanted in Folkestone, and that he must bring his book with him, and he said he would come. The difficulty was he (Mr. Chaigneau) could not speak English. Witness did not go to Paris alone – Mr. Hart went with him to advise him, and to speak French for him.

The witness here added to his examination in chief – That on the morning of the 27^th, on his way from Dover with the prisoner in a fly, he said to witness, “if Mr. De la Motte declines to prosecute will Mr. Breach do so?”; witness answered he thought he would. Prisoner then said “I don`t think he will, but if he does it will be in consequence of his establishment: but whether he does or not my character will be gone – time will only retrieve it and that not in this country. I must try some other; but it is not for myself I care, it is for my friends”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Nothing had occurred to cause prisoner to say this to him. Did not recollect Mr. Hart`s name being mentioned. Did not think the prisoner said it was wrong for Mr. Hart to act so harshly against him. This concersation took place after the charge was made against him by Mr. Davidson. The prisoner said nothing further about Mr. Hart, but he did about Mr. Breach – he said it would be an injury to the establishment. Witness did not caution the prisoner that anything he might say would be given in evidence against him. Witness told prisoner he was under a mistake in saying Mr. Coram had entered the room first: the prisoner said he was under the impression he had done so. All this was said without witness having cautioned the prisoner.

Angus Mackay Leith deposed he was manager of the National Provincial Bank, at Folkestone, and that no money had been deposited with him in a portfolio or bag.

Mr. De la Motte was re-examined, and repeated (through an interpreter) the evidence he gave at the first examination.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Witness resided at No. 7, Rue Trudon. Carried on business there for himself and friends. Witness` occupation was to buy and sell valeur. Was not a commercial man. He worked with his money. Could not tell better what he was; he had what belonged to him and lived on it. Could not say how long he lived at the Rue Trudon, but thought about 6 or 7 months; resided previously in the Faubourg, St. Germains. He bought valeur and sold them again; by this he meant everything that has a value, and is represented by paper, the paper now shown to witness was a receipt for the sale of some French Rente, it was his own; another paper was a receipt given by a broker for the sale of shares in the Credit Mobilier sold in Paris, it was his own. The whole of the money belonged to himself or somebody else, but that was business of the advocate: the money had come legally into his own hands, it was his own or those to whom he owed anything, friends had given him money to make profit of, and share with the witness, to whom he had given receipts; some might not have had receipts, (this witness showed an evident reluctance to answer the question put in cross-examination).

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench said by a recent Act of Parliament the evidence given at a preliminary enquiry like the present could be put in as evidence on trial, therefore the bench would see the necessity of his strictly cross-examining the witness.

Cross-examination continued – The money he had with him was about being deposited at Rothschild`s in London. Witness had not been called upon to pay the money to any person before he left Paris. Came to England to deposit the money himself; could have done so without coming. There had been no legal proceedings commenced against him before he left Paris; is not a bankrupt by the French laws; has a friend who resides at Paris, 62, Rue Chasse de Autin, her name is the Baroness de ------, had however telegraphed to her in the name of Stewart, it was not arranged before witness left Paris to do so, he had sent a telegraph to this person by Hastier. Can play billiards, played on the Monday night. Did not send Hastier to get £5 from that deposited with him. Hastier lent him £5 which he (Hastier) had borrowed from another servant in the Pavilion. Never asked Hastier to go to London in a special train, and that he (witness) would pay for it. Had asked permission of Mr. Breach to take Hastier to London to act as interpreter for him, Mr. Breach refused to let him go. He afterwards wished Bond to go, this was for the purpose of depositing his money. Witness counted his money in Paris, had then 15,000 francs in English money, he also received 15,000 francs in English money in Boulogne. Did not count his money at the Pavilion, he only looked at it and thought it was right by the sight, gave the money to Bond in his sitting room; he could not tell the exact amount he had when at the Pavilion. Had money in all his pockets. Hastier did not ask him on Sunday what he was going to do with all that money; did not recollect a conversation having taken place between Hastier and himself on the Sunday night; recollected Hastier coming into his room respecting a telegraphic dispatch, (witness here went into calculation to prove the amount of his loss which he estimated as being about 75,875 francs). Could not tell nearer that 1,000 or 2,000 francs because of various petty amounts he had expended. This closed the case against the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench said he supposed the bench had made up their minds to commit his client, he should therefore not take up the time of the court needlessly but would reserve the ample defence he had for another opportunity.

The prisoner having been cautioned in the usual way said that the greater part of Mr. De la Motte`s evidence was false, and that part of Richard`s was incorrect. The prisoner was then committed for trial, and the witnesses bound over to attend and give evidence. Mr. Breach being bound to prosecute, and the witness De la Motte was bound in the sum of £1,000 to attend and give evidence.

To the editor of The Folkestone Chronicle:

Sir, - In the report, in your last impression, on the proceedings before the magistrates on Tuesday week, touching a charge against Auguste Hastier, for an alleged robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, I am reported to have said that “I wanted no putting right – I was always right”. As such an observation by anyone making it must subject him to much ridicule, I beg you will allow me to state what actually occurred. In the examination in chief of Mr. Chaigneau, of Paris, he was interrupted by remarks from Mr. Lewis, which the latter was clearly out of order in making. I objected, and Mr. Lewis appealed to the magistrates, and after some conversation, I read from a previous part of the deposition what the witness had stated, (and which he then re-affirmed), and it was admitted on all hands, and especially by the witness, that there was no foundation for the interruption. I was about to proceed with the deposition, when an observation to Mr. Lewis fell from the Mayor to the effect that “all was right – that we only wanted to be put right”. I, knowing that it was purely a mistake or mis-recollection of Mr. Lewis, immediately stood up and observed “I beg your pardon, Sir, we did not want any putting right – we were right”. Now, what a difference there is between these words, and those in your report. I simply did not wish the public, or the prisoner, to be under the impression that either his interests, or the ends of justice, were furthered by continued interruptions, which were equally unjustified by law, and wholly uncalled for.

Yours, most obediently,

Thomas A. Davidson

Canterbury Weekly Journal 2-8-1856

Special Sessions, July 30^th: before the Recorder.

This was a special Sessions, held for the purpose of disposing of the case of Auguste Hastier, a young Frenchman, late in the employ of Mr. Breach, of the Pavilion Hotel, who was charged with embezzling £1,500, that amount being a portion of a large sum of money left in the custody of Mr. Breach, and subsequently transferred to the charge of the prisoner as manager of that establishment.

Mr. Sergeant Parry, with Mr. Biron, were for the prosecution, and Mr. Robinson, instructed by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, appeared for the defendant.

The Court opened at eleven o`clock and was soon crowded, the case exciting considerable interest amongst the townspeople.

The indictment charged him with stealing £1,500, the property of Mr. James Gaby Breach, at the Pavilion Hotel, on the 26^th of June. A second count charged him with stealing the same money, the property of Mr. de la Motte, and a third count charged him with stealing it as the servant of Mr. Breach.

The prisoner, who is a young man of remarkably prepossessing exterior and intelligent demeanour, stood forward to the bar and pleaded Not Guilty. He did not seem at all discomposed throughout the day, until within a few moments of the proceedings being concluded.

Evidence was taken at considerable length, and the Recorder having summed up, the jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty, but with a recommendation to mercy on the ground of the temptation thrown in the prisoner`s way, and of his previous good character.

The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to three years` imprisonment, with hard labour.

On hearing the sentence, the prisoner appeared much moved, and there was also a general expression of similar feeling throughout the Court.

The trial lasted between six and seven hours.

Dover Chronicle 2-8-1856

Special Sessions, Wednesday: Before J.J. Lonsdale, Recorder.

This was a special sessions, held for the purpose of disposing of the case of Auguste Hastier, a young Frenchman, late in the employ of Mr. Breach of the Pavilion Hotel, who was charged with embezzling £1,500, that amount being a portion of a large sum of money left in the custody of Mr. Breach, and subsequently transferred to the charge of the prisoner as manager of that establishment.

Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Biron were for the prosecution; and Mr. Robinson, instructed by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, appeared for the defendant.

The court opened at 11 o`clock and was soon crowded, the case exciting considerable interest among the townspeople.

The following magistrates were upon the Bench with the Recorder: William Major, James Kelcey, Captain Kennicott, Thomas Gaolder, James Tolputt, Mayor, William Bateman, and J. Kingsnorth Esqs.

The usual forms having been disposed of, the Recorder, in briefly charging the grand jury, said he was sorry to have to call the gentlemen of the grand jury together in this unusual manner, but he had no doubt that they were all aware that at the time when the usual sessions were last held there was a case undergoing investigation by the magistrates, upon which the magistrates were unable to come to a conclusion. The prisoner in that case was therefore not committed for trial at those sessions, but he had since been committed, and the case being one of considerable importance – whether looked at in relation to the amount of property alleged to have been stolen, or the position in life of the party accused of the theft – this circumstance, connected with others which appeared upon investigation, had rendered it desirable that no time should be lost in having the person charged put upon his trial, in consequence of which this sessions had been convened. The prisoner was charged under the 7th and 8th Geo. IV., c.29; and although the case was of the serious nature he had intimated, the jury would, he thought, find no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion upon the facts, and very little of their time would, he believed, be occupied. The learned Recorder then briefly reviewed the facts of the case, which will be found in the particulars given below, remarking that it would only be necessary for the jury to find that the person accused of the robbery was off the premises of his employer, Mr. Breach, with the money in his possession, without satisfactorily accounting for his absence, in order for them to find a bill and send the case for further investigation by another jury. It would not, therefore, to call the whole of the witnesses whose names were placed at the back of the bill, or to go through the depositions, which were exceedingly long, if, at an earlier stage of the evidence they arrived at the simple fact to which he alluded. The name of Mr. Breach, he might observe, appeared upon the indictment as the owner of the property, and he begged the jury to understand that it would not be necessary for them to inquire further into the question of ownership, as in cases where property left in the custody of an individual was stolen, the law regarded the person so having the custody of the property the owner of it as against the person accused of the robbery. The Recorder, after a few observations upon the nature of their functions, then dismissed the gentlemen of the grand jury to their duties.

After an absence of about an hour the foreman of the jury returned into court with a true bill against the prisoner, who was therefore put upon his trial.

The indictment charged him with stealing £1.500, the property of Mr. James Gaby Breach, at the Pavilion Hotel on the 26^th of June. A second count charged him with stealing the same money, the property of Mr. de la Motte, and a third count charged him with stealing it as a servant of Mr. Breach.

The prisoner, who is a young man of remarkably prepossessing exterior and intelligent demeanour stood forward to the bar and pleaded not guilty. He did not seem at all discomposed throughout the day until within a few moments of the proceedings being concluded.

Mr. Sergeant Parry, in opening the case for the prosecution, begged the jury to dismiss from their minds all that they might have heard out of doors with reference to the case at issue, and confine their attention strictly to the evidence that would be sworn to on that occasion. In alluding to the circumstances under which the alleged offence had been committed, he said that in all probability the prisoner had yielded to a momentary temptation, for he believed that prior to this matter there had never arisen any complaint against him. What aggravated his conduct, however, was the fact that Mr. Breach had placed him in the highest confidence, as, indeed, he was justified in doing, the prisoner having come to the Pavilion Hotel from the Lord Warden Hotel, at Dover, where he had been acting as manager of that establishment, and Mr. Breach having received with him an excellent character. The circumstances of the case were briefly these:- On Sunday, the 22^nd of June, Mr. de la Motte, a French gentleman, came from the continent to the Pavilion Hotel, at Folkestone. Mr. de la Motte had travelled from Paris to Boulogne, and from Boulogne to the latter port, where he arrived during some portion of Sunday – probably in the afternoon or evening. Having arrived at the hotel, he spoke to one of the principal waiters, a person named Bond, from which it appeared that Mr. de la Motte had about him a very large sum of money – indeed a sum which it was most unusual for persons to carry with them, and he was bound to say that the circumstances of a person coming from the continent with such a sum of money in his possession was calculated to arouse suspicions as to whether such money was properly his or not. Indeed, in the course of the case, it would turn out that the money was not really his, although it was not at all important for the purposes of this enquiry as to how this might be. It was sufficient that he had in his possession a sum of 485,000 f., or about £19,000 sterling. This money consisted of notes, among which there were a great many 1,000f. notes of the Bank of France. There were as many as 383 of these notes, representing a sum of 383,000f. There were also a considerable number of Bank of England notes and a large quantity of gold, consisting of about £600 in sovereigns and half sovereigns. There were also – and this it was very important for the jury to know – a Bank Post Bill of the Bank of Ireland for £30; a Bank Post Bill of the city of Glasgow for £5; and a letter of credit upon Messrs. Glyn and Co., drawn by the National Provident Bank of Scotland for £10. These three securities were in the possession of Mr. de la Motte, and it was important that this should be borne in mind, because, although it was possible to identify other property belonging to Mr. de la Motte, and entrusted to Mr. Breach, yet these three securities could be identified as having formed part of such property beyond all doubt. Now Mr. de la Motte would appear before the court as a witness in custody of a civil officer, for, since he had been in this country, he had been arrested for debt, but it would also be clear to the jury, beyond all doubt, that Mr. de la Motte came from Paris with his money, not with the intention of appropriating it for himself, but that it was money belonging to his creditors in France, and that it had since been lodged at the French Embassy for their benefit. It had always been the intention of Mr. de la Motte to take this course, and the circumstances under which Mr. de la Motte left Paris were simply these:- He was an agent for the French Stock Exchange and employed by persons of position in the government of France; there came a crash and a settling day; Mr. de la Motte was not enabled to meet it, and he came over to this country with this property, which belonged to his creditors, and which would be distributed amongst them. Having traced the money to the possession of the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, the learned sergeant adverted to the position of Mr. Breach, as the legal prosecutor in this case, remarking at the same moment, that Mr. Breach had, independent of the £1,500 which was the subject of this enquiry, been held responsible for other money to the extent of several hundreds of pounds. It appeared that on the evening of Monday, the 23^rd June, Mr. Breach stated to the prisoner, as his manager, and so holding a superior and confidential position that he was going from home on the following morning for a week, and that on the following morning before the eight o`clock train started Mr. Breach called Hastier into his private room, No. 1, where the money brought by Mr. de la Motte had been deposited in an escritoire. Mr. Breach then showed the prisoner the money, and said to him “If Mr. de la Motte asks for this money today, let him have it; if he does not, and he still remains, I do not wish it to be left longer in the hotel; therefore, under those circumstances, lodge it in at the Folkestone Bank.” On Tuesday morning, Mr. Breach left, giving Hastier the key of the door of room No. 1, in which the escritoire containing the money still was, and on that day nothing particular happened. On the Wednesday Mr. de la Motte stated to the prisoner that he wanted to go to town by way of Dover and that he would take his money with him. Subsequently, however, he decided that he would not take it with him as he was going to Dover in an open boat. but that he would return to Folkestone on Thursday. It was then, in all probability, that the robbery was planned by the prisoner; and when he stated the circumstances under which it was committed, he thought the jury would consider it had been planned with a great deal of cut. The contrivance he adopted to get to town and to deceive the housekeeper of the hotel, Miss Pollock, would be seen by the following letter, which the prisoner addressed to a young lady residing in London: “Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, Wednesday. “Dearest Emily, When you receive this note, send immediately the following telegraphic message, and I will settle with you when I arrive in town”. Yours ever, A. Victor. “From Hamilton, London, to Mr. Hastier, Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone.” “Come up immediately. I must see you. Urgent.” Miss Hamilton would tell the jury that on receipt of that note she went to the Westminster Telegraph Office in London, that being the nearest telegraph office to her residence, and sent the message in question. There was no doubt about the prisoner having sent for and received this telegraphic message, for it was found upon him when taken into custody; and when he stated that the prisoner on getting to London did not go near Miss Hamilton, it would be for the jury to say whether this was not simply a sham telegraphic message to deceive Miss Pollock and the waitress at the Pavilion Hotel? On the prisoner telling her of his intention to go to London, Miss Pollock, as it might be easily understood, was extremely nervous, not liking to be left by herself in charge of so large an establishment as the Pavilion Hotel, but the prisoner said “I must be in town on urgent business. I go by the 2 o`clock train in the morning, and shall come back by the half past two o`clock down train on Thursday”. All the representations she made to him were vain, and she retired to bed about 12 o`clock on Wednesday night, leaving the prisoner in the room No. 1, where he remained for upwards of an hour and a half by himself. He went at half past two. What became of him in town was unknown, but on Thursday afternoon Miss Pollock received of him a telegraphic message stating that he could not come down that day, but that he would return on the following day, viz., by the first train on Friday morning. Mr. de la Motte, it would appear, returned from Dover on the Thursday afternoon, heard that Hastier had gone to London, compared that fact with certain circumstances he had observed in the prisoner`s manner previous to leaving Folkestone, and insisted that the escritoire should be unlocked. No-one had the key, and he then insisted it should be broken open. It was opened, and it was then discovered that a sum of nearly £3,000 had been abstracted. Mr. de la Motte would not be able to tell the particular securities which mad up this amount, but he would be able to say that the £3,000 was in notes and securities, English and French, and Bank Post Bills, and that the amount had been taken from the leather bags, which, it would be seen, had been cut open at the top. The learned sergeant then went on to state that a search was instantly instituted, and detailed circumstances, which are fresh in the minds of our readers, leading to the prisoner`s apprehension with about £1,600 in his possession, remarking, however, that among the property found upon the prisoner at the time of his arrest were the two Bank Post Bills and the letter of credit already alluded to, which were somewhat curiously placed together with two £5 notes, having been pinned by Mr. de la Motte with his left hand. What had become of the rest of the money it was impossible to say. The prisoner might have left it behind him in London, or otherwise disposed of it. These were the facts of the case, and the learned counsel for the prosecution having again begged the attention of the jury to the evidence that would be adduced, called the following witnesses:-

Alfred de la Motte, stockbroker upon the Paris Stock Exchange, examined: I arrived in Folkestone on Sunday, the 22^nd of June last, when I had a large sum of money in my possession. I had with me a black portfolio, containing 383,000f., also a portmanteau, containing about £60 to £80 English money, but I do not recollect whether it contained any French money. I also had a leather sac containing English bank post bills, French bank notes, and some English gold in a silk purse. The whole amount of money it contained was about 36,000f. to 40,000f; and altogether in my possession I had about 475,000f. The portfolio and sac were both locked. On arriving at the Pavilion I gave the portfolio and bag to a waiter at the hotel, named Bond, to give to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, and Bond, holding the portfolio and sac in his hand, went with Mr. Breach into his room. On the same evening I learned that the prisoner spoke French, and I therefore sent for him, and gave him about 40,000f. from my portmanteau, to be delivered to Mr. Breach, and placed along with the other money. On the following day, and subsequently, I had several conversations with the prisoner On the Wednesday I told Hastier that I was going to Dover and that on my return I should want the money I had left with Mr. Breach, as I desired to deposit it at Rothschild`s, in London. I went to Dover on that day, and, on returning on Thursday I asked for Hastier, when I found he was not there. The escritoire in which the money was deposited was then broken open, and 394,135f. given up to me, about 70,000f. being missing.

Ny Mr. Robinson:- I have come here from the Queen`s prison, London, where I found my way from Maidstone Gaol. I was arrested on Thursday last. When I gave my evidence before the magistrates I was an independent gentleman, and I had not left France in a hurry because I could not pay my debts. I was arrested because my money was taken at Folkestone, in consequence of which I was prevented from depositing it at Rothschild`s. I left France because my accounts were not in order, and I could not regulate them at the moment. When first examined I said I had £17,000 sterling when I landed. I have since found the amount was £13,000, but I have not made the discovery in consequence of my arrest, and finding that I should have to answer my creditors in France. On the day the bag was opened, after the robbery, I said that there should be about 35,000f. in it, speaking from memory, and not 70.000f. I had previously enquired of Bond how much he could get my French notes changed for, and Bond said the rate of exchange was 15s. upon a thousand francs. I subsequently asked Hastier whether that was too little or too much, when Hastier said that Bond has asked too much, and that he thought he could get them exchanged at a more advantageous rate. He said he would write to London and ascertain and I believe he wrote to Messrs. Speilmann and Co., and obtained an answer from them. I swear I told the prisoner I should return from Dover on Thursday. I played at billiards with Hastier and two or three other persons. I asked Mr. Breach to permit Hastier to go to London with me for the purpose of depositing my money at Rothschild`s, and after Mr. Breach went away I asked Hastier to allow Bond to go, and Hastier refused. All I received at the Bank of France on the evening previous to leaving Paris was 510,000f., out of which I paid about 40,000f., and that is why I state there remained to mem 475,000f.

By Mr. Parry:- After making certain payments in France, I arrived in Folkestone with 475,000f. in my possession. The money remaining after the robbery, viz., 390,000f. has been deposited for me at the French Embassy. My arrest was a civil arrest.

Mr. James Gaby Breach, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, examined:- The prisoner was in my employment as manager about three months previous to this transaction. I had had a good recommendation with him from the Lord Warden Hotel, at Dover, and placed every confidence in him. I recollect Bond giving me some money in the presence of Mr. de la Motte, who wished me to take care of it. The amount was not stated, but Mr. de la Motte said that the sac contained notes of the Bank of France to a great amount, and that the portmanteau contained English gold. The same evening Hastier brought me two rolls of banknotes containing in all thirty nine 1,000f. notes. I had an engagement which called me away from home for a week. I therefore told Hastier I was going away for that period, stating that I had in my possession some money belonging to Mr. de la Motte and that in the morning I should give it into his charge. On the next morning I took him with me into room No. 1 and unlocked the escritoire, showed him the money and gave him the key of the escritoire, telling him that if the gentleman did not go on Tuesday to deposit in the Folkestone Bank. I heard nothing further of the matter till I got home, having arrived in consequence of having received a telegraphic message requesting me to come home immediately.

By Mr. Robinson:- The prisoner is a very intelligent man and speaks several languages.

By Mr. Parry:- I placed great confidence in him in consequence.

John Francis Bond, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, examined:- I recollect Mr. de la Motte coming to the Pavilion Hotel. He gave me a leathern bag and a portfolio. He locked the bag after putting in some money, and I gave both to Mr. Breach in his presence. On the following Thursday Mr. de la Motte enquired for his money, in consequence of which, and as Hastier had gone to town, I assembled about half a dozen of the principal servants, and consulted with them about breaking open the cupboard. The cupboard was ultimately broken open, and it was then discovered that the leathern bag had been cut. Mr. de la Motte counted the money remaining.

By Mr. Robinson:- I have not seen a letter from Messrs. Speilmann, of London, to the prisoner, nor heard of such a letter. I was present at the last examination of the prisoner, and I do not remember seeing a letter of the kind produced, but I will not swear one way or the other. I told Hastier there was such a weight of gold in the bag that I could hardly carry it.

By Mr. Parry:- On returning from Dover on the Thursday Mr. de la Motte asked me where Hastier was? I said Hastier had gone to town by the 2 o`clock train, and that I would make enquiries as to whether any message had been left by him.. The bag appears to have been cut. The gold was at the bottom of the bag.

Frances Pollock, housekeeper at the Pavilion, examined:- I know Hastier, who was manager of the hotel. On Wednesday evening, the 25^th of June, about ten o`clock, the prisoner said he was going to town by the mail train at two o`clock the following morning. I said “What? Leave me all alone when Mr. and Mrs. Breach are away?” (A laugh) I described myself as a poor little nervous housekeeper, and said I should not feel as though all the bricks in the building were tumbling about my ears if I was left by myself. (Renewed laughter) He said, however, that his business was important, and that he must go. When I said I should not like to be left alone, he observed “Only get up a little earlier and show yourself to the servants, and it will keep them out of mischief.” He then said he should return the next day in time for dinner – that would be before half past two. On Thursday I received from the prisoner a telegraphic message to the following effect: “Cannot come down tonight. Will be down by the first train tomorrow morning.” In the afternoon of that day Mr. de la Motte returned from Dover. Eventually, after some discussion, it was agreed that the escritoire should be broken open. I saw Mr. de la Motte open the portfolio and count the notes, and saw some gold remaining in the bag.

Mr. de la Motte, re-called by Mr. Robinson:- I asked for the money before I went to Dover, but before starting I recollected it might not be safe with me in the boat. When I first asked the prisoner for the money he said he would get it directly.

By Mr. Parry:- I was searching for Hastier all the morning until noon, before I could find him, and I then discovered him on the beach. I never authorised the prisoner to take up notes to London to change for me, nor to cut open the bag and help himself. (A laugh)

Bond, re-called by the Recorder:- The bag was cut in this way when first discovered, I am quite sure.

William Bevan, night porter at the Pavilion, examined:- On the night of the 25^th June, about half past twelve, Hastier asked me to go for a fly for him. He said he was going to London by the two o`clock train, and wanted to go to the upper station. I found the prisoner lying on the couch in No. 1 room when I returned with the fly. I was about an hour.

Emily Hamilton, residing at Hampstead:- I know the prisoner. On Wednesday, the 25^th of June last, I received from him the following letter: (the letter read by the learned counsel in opening the case was again read.) In consequence of receiving that letter, I sent a telegraphic message to the prisoner. I was quite unaware of the purpose for which it was wanted. I sent the message between six and seven on Wednesday evening. I did not see him on the Thursday. I wrote to him afterwards and received a reply.

By Mr. Robinson:- I have telegraphed to him before.

Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent at Folkestone, examined:- I was at the Pavilion Hotel on the 26^th of June when the cupboard was being broken open. I thereupon started for Boulogne to obtain the number of some of the missing notes which had been obtained at Boulogne by Mr. de la Motte in exchange for French money. I went by way of Dover, intending to come to Calais and go thence to Boulogne. On jumping out of the train, just as it stopped at Dover, I saw the prisoner going out of the door. I went up to him and told him he must go to Folkestone. He said he would go back tomorrow. I retorted that he must go that night. He then said “If I must, I must.” Mr. Bayley was with me, and he immediately stepped up to the prisoner and said “I suppose you don`t want force used.” We then all three walked on together. I said to the prisoner “You can go to any hotel you like, and I will order a fly, and we will go back to Folkestone.” As we walked on, and when we had got to the corner of the terminus, he gave up to me a leather travelling bag, which he said contained the money. We went to Galante`s hotel. Bayley went in with me, and after about an hour had elapsed Superintendent Coram, of the Dover Police Force, and Sergeant Fleet, of Folkestone, came in. I then gave the bag to Fleet. I did not leave Hastier till two o`clock. On the way from the station I told the prisoner that Mr. de la Motte had come back again, and that he had insisted on having his money given up to him, and that his (Hastier`s) absence had raised suspicions that the money was wrong. Whilst sitting at Galant`s I sent Bayley to telegraph to Mr. Hart, solicitor, of Folkestone. The prisoner, in reply to my observations, said he did not think it was de la Motte`s own money, and that he could not resist the temptation of taking part of it away. He also said he wished de la Motte had never come over the water, and that he had never seen him. When Mr. Coram entered the room he shook hands with the prisoner saying he was sorry to see him in that situation, and demanded the prisoner from my custody.

By Mr. Robinson:- I volunteered to go to Calais. I did not stipulate to be paid for it. I have before said that the prisoner stated the money was not de la Motte`s. I have made this statement in Folkestone, but not before the magistrates, and cannot recollect where, but it was previous to my examination. I cannot say Bayley was present when the prisoner first told me this. The prisoner spoke when in the house as well, however, and I am certain Bayley was present then. Bayley is not here today. I did not tell the prisoner when I apprehended him that it was all right, nor did I say in Coram`s presence that everything would be amicably settled. I led the prisoner to believe it was a serious matter. I did not say in anyone`s presence that no charge would be made against the prisoner. I did not give up the bill till I saw Fleet. I did not know Superintendent Coram. I had never seen him before. I was smoking and drinking with Hastier when the officers entered, but what I had I paid for.

By sergeant Parry:- When I left Folkestone for Boulogne Mr. Hart gave me instructions that if I fell in with Hastier to detain him. The moment Fleet came in I gave him the bag. When Coram came in he appeared to be on friendly terms with the prisoner, and spoke in such low tones that I could not hear what he said.

Sergeant William Fleet, of Folkestone, examined:- I heard of the robbery about five o`clock on Thursday, the 26^th of June. I went to Dover at half past seven o`clock, and at about half past eleven that night I found the prisoner in the custody of Mr. Richards at Galante`s. Mr. Coram followed me in. I don`t know whether he is a friend of the prisoner`s. He told the prisoner he must go with him, to which the prisoner replied “No, I am going to Folkestone with Mr. Richards.” There was some dispute between Coram and myself as to who should take the prisoner. I charged Hastier with stealing from the Pavilion Hotel the sum of £1,600 – the property of Mr. Breach, I think I said – and he replied “I have told Richards about it. I have given him the bag.” The prisoner also said “Had I not seen my folly, you would not have caught me these two or three months.” He afterwards said “I am guilty to a certain extent.” Mr. Coram searched the prisoner in my presence, and I saw him produce several articles from his person. They consisted of a passport to Paris, a through ticket to Paris, issued at the Regent Circus, in London, and dated the 26^th of June, 1856, a first class return ticket from Folkestone to London, five £5 notes, a gold watch, cigar case, and some gold and silver. The bag, which was opened at Folkestone, was found to contain twenty eight 1000f. notes, two parcels of ten being placed in a particular way; two Bank Post Bills of £30 each; twenty three bank notes of £5 each; nine bank notes of £10 each; two bank notes of £20 each; and, pinned together, a Bank Post Bill of the Bank of England for £30, one of the Bank of Glasgow for £5; and a letter of credit, drawn by the National Provident Bank of Scotland on Messrs. Glyn and Co. for £10, making together £1,500.

By Mr. Robinson:- Mr. Coram is Superintendent of Police at Dover. I don`t know how long he has been so, but he has been at Dover, in that capacity, as long as I have been at Folkestone.

Mr. F.M. Chaigness, money changer, Paris, examined:- I exchanged some French money for English for Mr. de la Motte in June last. The Bank Post Bills produced are some of the securities I gave him on that occasion. The bills are all endorsed by me.

Fleet, re-called by Mr. Robinson:- Before there was any talking of locking up, the prisoner said he had sent for a fly, and was going to Folkestone. He also said “The money is in the bag, which I have given up to Richards.”

Mr. Henry Pay, money changer, Boulogne, examined:- I exchanged for Mr. de la Motte, on Sunday, the 22^nd of June last, notes to the extent of £330. The notes were all stamped, but I cannot swear positively that the notes produced are the same. Among the money there was a £100 and a £50 note which I could have sworn to, but they are not here.

Mr. de la Motte, re-called by Mr. Parry:- The two £5 notes and the 3 Post Bills produced are part of the property stolen from me. I had placed them together as they are at present. The £5 notes produced are those I received from Mr. Pay, at Boulogne. There was also among the notes I received from Mr. Pay a £50 note, but I do not recollect if there was one for £100.

William Cook, night watchman at the upper station, Folkestone, said that he issued to the prisoner a first class return ticket to London on the night of the 25^th of June.

Mr. F.M. Faulkner, consul at Folkestone, said that the passport had been vised for France on the 26^th June by Mr. Delepierre, the Belgian consul in London.

By Mr. Robinson:- I have known the prisoner as manager of the hotel, and knew nothing adverse to his character previous to this transaction.

Superintendent Coram, called for the prosecution by the Recorder, on the application of Mr. Robinson, said:- I have been Superintendent of Dover Police six years. I have known prisoner as manager of the Lord Warden Hotel. I have often seen him there and have known him to speak to. On the 26^th June I went to Galante`s. Fleet went in at the same time. The moment I entered the room I went to the prisoner and put my hand on him, saying “You must come with me.” Before I had finished what I was saying, Richards said “It is all right. He is going back to Folkestone with me.” I asked Richards if he was a constable, and he said “I am.” I had seen Richards previously at the Pavilion and had seen him at Folkestone on two occasions serving warrants. Richards also said that it would all be “amicably arranged.”

By Sergeant Parry:- I learnt from the Lord Warden Hotel, about twenty minutes to twelve in the morning, that a robbery had been committed at the Pavilion. I should have taken Hastier into custody. There was a dispute about him being my prisoner, and when Mr. Davison, Mr. Hart`s clerk, came, he wished me to give him up. I refused, however, and took the prisoner before the magistrates at Dover.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Robinson then replied on behalf of the prisoner, characterising the prosecution as one of the most vindictive it had ever been his lot to experience, and analysing what he alleged to be the motives of the parties who had appeared the most prominently against the prisoner. In this strain he commented upon the part which Mr. Mark Richards had taken in the matter, and drew the attention of the jury to the fact that his statement that day, with respect to the admissions of the prisoner at the time of his apprehension were altogether new, and had not been brought out at either of the examinations before the magistrates. He also adverted with some severity to the fact of Mr. Hart being the solicitor for the prosecutor in this case while he also held the post of magistrates` clerk, and consequently the magistrates` adviser in any step they might have deemed it their duty to take with reference to the prisoner; and, after contrasting the credibility of Superintendent Coram with that of Mr. Mark Richards, he proceeded to reply to the facts which had been advanced in evidence. He did not attempt to deny that Hastier took to London the notes and securities found upon him, but he denied that the prisoner took any greater amount than the amount found upon him, or that he even took it with a felonious intention. He could well understand how it suited the purpose of Mr. de la Motte to represent to his creditors that he brought to England £1,500 more than he really did bring, and how, therefore, it answered the object of those acting on de la Motte`s behalf to make out that the prisoner had taken from the escritoire £3,000, instead of £1,500. But on discovering that the notes had been taken, what was de la Motte`s first observation? Why, that there ought to be 35,000f. in the bag – a sum representing but £1,500, and this was the sum which Hastier had been originally charged with stealing. The £3,000 was an afterthought, and he left the jury to put their construction on it. The prisoner, he admitted, went to London with the notes, but for what? To appropriate them for his own purpose? Certainly not. He had had a conversation with de la Motte, they would remember, as to the rate of exchange for which he could get these notes converted into English money, and he had informed Mr. De la Motte that he could get the notes changed at a more advantageous rate to the holder than the rate proposed by Bond, the waiter; and what, then was more natural to conceive than that, being left in possession of those securities, the prisoner yielded to the force of temptation presented to him of making a few pounds by their exchange in London? This, he urged, was a construction of which the prisoner`s proceeding was fully compatible, and it was further borne out by the prisoner not taking with him any of the gold. Not that he contended for a moment that even this construction exonerated the prisoner from blame of the severest character. Undoubtedly the prisoner had greatly violated the confidence reposed in him, and whether found guilty or not guilty of the present charge, he had done that which irretrievably ruined him and blunted his character for life; but this, the jury must remember, was not a felonious intention, and however great a breach of confidence, it was not an act which would warrant them returning a verdict of guilty of the offence with which the prisoner was charged. The learned counsel went with great minuteness over most of the questionable parts of the prisoner`s conduct, and combated the deductions made by the prosecution with great ability. His speech occupied nearly an hour and a half in its delivery, and more than once elicited in the court an ebullition of sympathy, which, however, was immediately suppressed.

The learned Recorder then summed up, and the jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty, but with a recommendation to mercy, on the ground of the temptation thrown in the prisoner`s way, and of his previous good character.

The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to three years` imprisonment, with hard labour.

On hearing the sentence, the prisoner appeared much moved, and there was a general expression of similar feeling throughout the court.

The trial lasted between six and seven hours.

Dover Telegraph 2-8-1856

On Wednesday, the Recorder, J.J. Lonsdale Esq., held a special sessions for the trial of Auguste Hastier, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, and formerly of the Lord Warden Hotel, Dover, charged with stealing £1,600, the portion of a larger sum of money entrusted into his care by the proprietor of the Pavilion, Mr. Breach, who had received charge of it from a visitor staying at the house. The particulars of the affair we have before given. The case occupied about 6 hours, the prosecution being conducted by Mr. Parry, with Mr. Biron as junior, while Mr. Robinson was engaged for the defence of Hastier. The result of the trial was a verdict against the prisoner, with a strong recommendation to mercy on the ground of the temptation that the possession of so much money proved. The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to three years` imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 2-8-1856

A special sessions was holden at the Guildhall, on Wednesday last, July 30^th, before J.J. Lonsdale esq., the Recorder, J. Tolputt esq., (Mayor). S. Mackie, W. Bateman, W. Major, J. Kelcey, G. Kennicott, and J. Kingsnorth esqs. Were on the bench.

These special sessions were held for the purpose of trying Auguste Hastier, the late manager of the Pavilion Hotel, on a charge of stealing £1,500, the property of Alfred De la Motte.

The Recorder, in addressing the grand jury, said he was sorry for the occasion that induced him to hold these sessions. They, the grand jury, had no doubt heard of the prisoner who was there to take his trial. He however need not detain them long, but would offer briefly a few remarks on the case that would be brought before them. The bill of indictment to be laid before the grand jury contained three counts: - 1^st, for stealing £1,500 the property of James Gaby Breach; 2^nd, for stealing £1,500 the property od Alfred De la Motte; and the 3^rd, for stealing £1,500 from the same J.G. Breach, the prisoner being then a servant of the said J.G. Breach. The grand jury however, in considering this case, had more particularly bear in mind that the tracing of any portion of the property stolen to the possession of the prisoner would be sufficient for them to return a true bill. By a recent Act of Parliament the foreman of the grand jury was empowered to administer the oath to witnesses to be examined before them, but he would impress upon the foreman to be very careful at to the manner in which the oath was administered. He (the Recorder) had now been a County Court Judge for a year and a half, and he had had sufficient experience in that time to observe that the sanctity of an oath was not regarded with that reverence it ought to command. The learned Recorder then desired the grand jury to withdraw and consider the bill to be brought before them.

Some delay arose to the grand jury by the bill of indictment not being prepared properly; the time of the jury and court being wasted while the counsel and solicitors were arranging a new form of indictment. This being handed to the grand jury they very shortly returned a true bill.

Mr. Sergeant Perry and Mr. Biron appeared to support the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Robinson, instructed by Mr. Lewis, of Ely Place, Holbord.

On the prisoner being called upon to plead, he in a loud and confident tone answered “Not Guilty”.

Mr. Sergeant Parry then opened the case by observing that he had the honour to appear before the court to conduct the prosecution, assisted by his friend Mr. Biron. He begged the jury to dismiss everything from their minds that they might have heard out of doors, and be guided entirely by the evidence that would then be adduced. The prosecutor would be Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, and the prisoner Auguste Hastier was the manager. He would be indicted under three counts as the learned Recorder had explained to the jury. The prisoner had committed a serious crime in a crafty manner, and he was happy to say one not common to his class, (that of a waiter) who he (Mr. Parry) must bear testimony were generally most trustworthy persons. The prosecutor had received a most excellent character with the prisoner, and reposed the most implicit confidence in him.The circumstances of the case were briefly as follows: Mr. De la Motte, the gentleman who had lost the money, it appeared had arrived at the Pavilion Hotel on June 22^nd, by the boat from Boulogne; he then saw Bond, a waiter, and spoke to him about a large sum of money which he (De la Motte) had in his possession, and which he wished to deposit for safe custody with Mr. Breach. He ultimately saw that gentleman, and deposited with him notes and gold amounting in the whole to about 485.000 francs, amongst which were one or two bank Post Bills, which he, Mr. Parry, desired the jury particularly to remember, as they would be positively identified, and be the chief means of bringing the robbery home to the prisoner. Mr. De la Motte would be brought before them in custody, he was an agent on the Bourse at Paris, and had in his possession a large quantity of money, the property of several persons, his clients. A crisis came in the money markets, and De la Motte being unable to meet his creditors, came to this country with this large sum of money which would now be given up, and he might add that Mr. Breach was personally liable for the loss Mr. De la Motte and his creditors might suffer from the robbery that had been committed. It would appear from the evidence that Mr. Breach being about to go to London, entrusted the money that had been deposited with him to the custody of the prisoner, giving him instructions that in the event of Mr. De la Motte not claiming it the next day he should take it to the bank and deposit it there. This however he did not do, but on a day or two after Mr. Breach`s departure, he left Folkestone by the 2 a.m. train and did not again return. Mr. De la Motte being anxious about his money a consultation took place amongst the principal servants of the hotel, and the result was that a cupboard was opened where the money had been deposited, and it was then discovered that a robbery had been committed. Suspicion at once fell on the prisoner, and means were immediately taken for his apprehension, which was ultimately effected at Dover by a witness named Richards, who would be examined before them. The learned Sergeant then concluded his address and called Alfred De la Motte, who was examined, through an interpreter, by Mr. Biron. The substance of his evidence, which has already appeared in extenso in our columns, was to the effect that he had brought a large sum of money from Paris to the Pavilion Hotel, which he had deposited with Mr. Breach, and that in the absence of Mr. Breach and the prisoner he, becoming anxious about it, had had the place where it was deposited opened, and found he had been robbed of a sum of 75,000 francs, or about £3,000.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was now a prisoner in the Queen`s Bench – went from Maidstone Gaol there; was apprehended on Thursday last. When at home was an independent gentleman, but was not so now. (A laugh). Was not in debt when he left France, but was so now from being robbed. His accounts were not in order so therefore he left. He brought with him about £19,000. Had stated at first it was £1,600 he had lost, but now found it was nearly double that amount. Had had conversations with the prisoner, and showed him several valuable articles he had with him, and also some pictures. Witness had a conversation with a waiter named Bond with reference to the amount of exchange he would give for French money.He had offered him £39 5s, being a discount at the rate of 15s. for every 1,000 francs. Prisoner told witness that Bond had asked too much, and that he would write to London and ascertain the amount he could get there for every 1,000 francs. Witness had heard that the prisoner had received a letter from Speilman, a money changer, with reference to this matter. Had played at billiards with Hastier; did not borrow £5 from him. Had asked prisoner to go to London with him to deposit his money at Rothschild`s, which Mr. Breach would not allow. Wished Bond to go with him after Mr. Breach had left home, but prisoner would not allow him to go. Had received 510,000 francs in Paris, and had expended about 50,000, making the sum he deposited to be about 475,000.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – The money was now deposited by Mr. Hart at the French Embassy. The arrest he was under was a civil, not a criminal one.

James Gaby Breach, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, deposed he was proprietor of the Pavilion, and repeated the evidence which has already appeared, to which nothing new was added.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Had received a good character with the prisoner. He was peculiarly useful to him in his hotel, and had placed great confidence in him.

Francis Bond, examined by Mr. Biron, added nothing new to his previous statement, and was cross-examined by Mr. Robinson. – Had had a conversation with Mr. De la Motte about changing money; had offered £39 5s. per 1,000 francs. Had never received a letter addressed to the prisoner from Spielman`s; would swear to it. The bag produced was the one given to him by Mr. De la Motte. Told Hastier that there was a great quantity of money in Mr. De la Motte`s possession.

Examined by Mr. Parry – The bag produced could not have been torn by the weight of the gold, but in his (witness`s) opinion had been cut.

Frances Pollock, housekeeper at the Pavilion, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, repeated her former evidence in chief, as given before the magistrates, and already reported.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Had heard from the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte was friendly with him. Mr. De la Motte, when the cupboard was opened, found out the cut in the bag. Bond took the bag out and gave it to Mr. De la Motte.

Francis Bond re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – The bag was cut when found in the cupboard.

Mark Richards, examined by Mr. Biron, also repeated his former evidence in chief as to the apprehension of the prisoner, and added that the prisoner told him at Dover that hi did not think it was Mr. De la Motte`s money at all, and that he (the prisoner) wished that Mr. De la Motte had never come across the water, he did not know why he took it, he could not resist the temptation.

Cross-eaxmined by Mr. Robinson – Was a custom house agent. Volunteered to go to Calais. Made no arrangements as to being paid for going.Had stated in conversation in Folkestone what the prisoner had said to him regarding the money, but did not give it in evidence before the magistrates. The conversation with prisoner about the money took place in the street, Bayly is not present when this was said. Bayly is not here today. Did not tell the prisoner it would be all right. Never said in Coram`s presence it would be amicably settled. Witness told the prisoner he was a very foolish young man; stated this before the magistrates. Never told the prisoner no charge would be preferred against him. Would not give up the bag till he had seen Fleet. Never saw Coram before. Did not know him. Stayed at Dover about three hours.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Went from Folkestone to go to Calais and then to Boulogne.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that the witness was an amateur police officer, who seemed more anxious that anyone else in this case, he (Mr. Robinson) thought it would not do him much good.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Did not know Coram; but gave up the bag to Sergeant Fleet. Coram shook hands with the prisoner and seemed to be on friendly terms with him, he also spoke to him in a low tone of voice, but the witness did not hear what was said.

Police sergeant Fleet, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, repeated his evidence in chief, as given at the examination before the magistrates, and added, that the prisoner after he was in custody said to him “had I not seen my folly you would not have caught me these three or four months”. He afterwards said “I am guilty to a certain extent”, this was after an answer to a question who would charge him, when Mr. Davidson said “that he would”. Witness here described the things found on the prisoner when searched.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was Sergeant of police at Folkestone.Coram is superintendent of police at Dover. Told the prisoner the loss was about £1,600. The prisoner before he was charged said that he was going to Folkestone.

Alfred De la Motte, re-called and examined by Mr. Sergeant Perry – The two £5 notes and the bank bills, &c., produced, were pinned together by him, and were his; he had received them from Mr. Pay, of Boulogne. Believed the whole of the money found on the prisoner was his.

William Cook, examined by Mr. Biron, proved that the prisoner had a first-class return ticket from Folkestone to London, but could not identify the half produced as being part of the one so issued.

Framcis Macnamara Faulkner, examined by Mr. Sergeant Perry, proved the passport produced to be a Belgian one, and that it was vised on the 26^th of June to enable the holder to pass through into Belgium.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Would have vised the passport himself for the prisoner if he had applied to him.

Mr. Sergeant Parry, addressing the bench, said that was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that he observed on the back of the bill of indictment the name of Coram, he would therefore call upon the learned Recorder to put Coram in the witness box, which his Honour having acceded to –

James Coram deposed he was superintendent of Dover police; had been so for six years. Had known the prisoner for about a year and a half. Was not on friendly terms with him, but saw him frequently in pursuance of his duty. Fleet and witness went into Galantie`s Hotel together, when he apprehended the prisoner. Never shook hands with the prisoner, but went up to him and apprehended him at once, laying his hand on his arm. Had seen the witness Richards before; received money from him with respect to one or two warrants he had to serve when he (Richards) was at the Pavilion Hotel. Richards said no charge would be preferred.

Examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Went to the hotel about 20 minutes to 12 o`clock. Would have taken the prisoner into custody from the information received. When Davidson came he wished the prisoner to be taken to Folkestone, but witness would not accede to this.

Mr. Robinson then proceeded to address the jury in favour of the prisoner, and occupied about an hour and a half in the luminous and certainly ingenious defence, urging that there was no proof that the prisoner intended to steal the money of Mr. De la Motte, but though he might have taken it to London for the purpose of exchanging it as was requested by Mr. De la Motte and so profit by the exchange, he strongly condemned the conduct of some of the witnesses, and concluded by exhorting the jury that if they had a doubt, they would give his unhappy client the benefit of it.

The learned Recorder then proceeded to sum up the evidence, and said no defence was attempted to be made, except the assumption brought before them by the counsel for the prisoner, but which he must beg to remind them did not appear in the evidence at all: the sending to London for a telegraph dispatch to be sent to him was not consistent with innocence, the getting his passport vised also told strongly against him, the suggestion also of the counsel that the bag was not cut was not borne out in the evidence, but rather to the contrary; the jury must however dismiss from their minds every suggestion then given, and give their verdict solely on the evidence brought before them, if they had reasonable doubt about the guilt of the prisoner he hoped they would give him the benefit of it but not otherwise.

The jury then retired for about 10 minutes, and on their return into court delivered a verdict of “Guilty” but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy from his previous good character, and also believing that he had yielded to a sudden temptation.

Mr. Sergeant Parry addressing the learned Recorder said he was instructed by the prosecutor Mr. Breach, also to recommend the prisoner to mercy on precisely the same grounds that the jury had done.

The Recorder then, addressing the prisoner, told him he had been convicted on the clearest evidence of having committed a very serious crime. It was most painful to see a young man like him, possessed of his superior advantages of education, and from the situation in life he previously occupied, placed in such a degraded position. From the serious nature of the crime, which was a double robbery, not only of Mr. De la Motte, but also of his employer, Mr. Breach, a clearer case could not be, and he had the power to sentence him to 15 years` transportation; but taking into consideration the recommendation to mercy of the jury, and also that of Mr. Breach, he should pass a comparatively lenient one, which would be 3 years` imprisonment, with hard labour.

The prisoner seemed astounded at the sentence, and burst into tears. Great surprise was also manifested by a number of persons in the court, at the heavy sentence, considering all the circumstances of the case.

Southeastern Gazette 5-8-1856

Local News

Special Sessions.

On Wednesday last,, a. special sessions for this borough, was held at the Guildhall, before J. J. Lonsdale,Esq., Recorder, for the purpose of trying Augustus Hastier, 24, late manager of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, charged with stealing £1,500, the monies of James Gaby Breach, at Folkestone, on the 26th June.

The case appeared to excite considerable interest, the court being crowded during the trial.

Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Biron were for the prosecution; and Mr. Robinson for the prisoner.

The Recorder briefly charged the grand jury. He said he was sorry to have to call them together in this unusual manner, but he had no doubt that they were all aware that at the time when the usual sessions were last held, there was a case undergoing investigation before the magistrates, upon which they were unable to come to a conclusion. The prisoner in that case was therefore not committed for trial at those sessions. The case, however, was one of considerable importance, whether considered in relation to the amount of property alleged to have been stolen, or the position in life of the party accused of the theft; and these, circumstances, connected with others which appeared upon investigation, rendered it desirable that no time should be lost in having the person charged put upon his trial. The prisoner was charged under the 7th and 8th Geo. IV., c.29; and although the case was of the serious nature he had intimated, the jury would, he thought, find no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion upon the facts of the case. After some, further remarks with respect to the case, already familiar to our readers, the Recorder dismissed the grand jury.

The witnesses were ordered out of court.

Mr. Sergeant Parry stated the case. After begging the jury to dismiss from their minds whatever they might have previously heard with regard to the case, he proceeded to observe that the prosecutor was the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, one of the best-conducted establishments in Europe. Prisoner was employed by prosecutor as manager of the hotel, and the highest confidence was reposed in his integrity, having previously filled a similar situation at the Lord Warden Hotel, Dover, the duties appertaining to which he had discharged most satisfactorily. On the-22nd June last, a French gentleman named De la Motte came direct from Paris, via Boulogne, to Folkestone, where he took apartments at the Pavilion Hotel. Mr. De la Motte had a considerable sum of money in his possession, amounting to about 475,000f. (£19,000.) A. large proportion of the money consisted of notes, many of which were 1,000f. notes, on the Bank of France; besides a number of Bank of England notes, consisting of £5, £10, £15,£20, one£50, and one £100. Mr. De la Motte had also a large quantity of gold, in sovereigns and half- sovereigns ; a bank post bill on the Bank of Ireland for£20, besides other property of a miscellaneous character, several of which documents were subsequently found in the possession of the prisoner. He (the learned sergeant) should here state that Mr. De la Motte would appear as a witness before them in the custody of a civil officer of this country; because since he had been in England he had been arrested for debt. He had come over from Paris with this money, not with the intention of appropriating it to himself—for the money belonged to his creditors in France, and was now lodged at the French embassy; but being a large speculator on the French Stock Exchange, he had become embarrassed, and not being able to meet his engagements, he had adopted this course in order to regulate his affairs, and the money at the embassy would ultimately be distributed among his creditors. The property, which was placed in a portfolio, leather bag, and a sac, was handed over by Mr. De la Motte to the custody of a waiter named Bond, who gave it to prosecutor, and the latter placed the bag in an escritoire, which he locked. On the following day Mr. Breach left Folkestone, having previously handed over the custody of the property in the escritoire, with the key, to the prisoner, giving him at the same time directions to lodge the money in the Folkestone Bank, as he (prosecutor) did not like the responsibility of having so much money in his possession. On the following Wednesday, after Mr. Breach’s departure prisoner told Miss Pollock, the housekeeper, that he had urgent business to transact in London, and he must leave that evening. Miss Pollock remonstrated with him on the imprudence of leaving her alone at the head of so large an establishment, and prisoner, finding he eould not leave without some excuse, wrote the following letter to a Miss Hamilton, of Hampstead, an acquaintance of his:-

“Dearest Emily, When you receive this note, send immediately the following telegraphic message, and I will settle with you when I arrive in town”.

The message was to the effect that Miss Hamilton urgently desired to see him, and that he must come up directly. On receiving this message, Miss Hamilton immediately telegraphed to Folkestone, and prisoner accordingly went to London by the two o’clock train the following morning. The learned sergeant then proceeded to describe the circumstances attending the discovery of the robbery, and the subsequent arrest of the prisoner, the details of which are given in the evidence of the witnesses.

Alfred De La Motte, a deafer and speculator on the Paris Bourse, deposed to having arrived in Folkestone on the 22nd June last, with a large sum of money in his possession, amounting to about 475,000f., which was partly placed, in notes and gold, in a portfolio. Witness had also a portmanteau which contained from £60 to £80 English money, and a small amount of a French coin. In a sac he also had some bank and French and English notes. On arriving at the Pavilion, Folkestone, witness gave the bags to a man named Bond, who gave them to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the hotel. Witness on the same day was informed that prisoner knew French, sent for him, and had some conversation with him; subsequently giving him 40,0000 francs in French notes, for the purpose of being given to Mr. Breach. On Wednesday witness, told prisoner that he was going to Dover, and that the next day he should return; and that he had deposited some money with Mr. Breach. Witness went to Dover and returned on Thursday, enquired for his money, and learned that Mr. Hastier had left Folkestone. Some of witness’s money, amounting to 394,000 francs, was then given up to witness; about 75,000f. were missing.

Cross-examined bv Mr. Robinson: Witness had since been arrested for debt, and was taken from Maidstone gaol to the Queen's prison. Was an independent gentleman at the time he gave hiss depositions before the magistrates. The reason why he left France was that his accounts were not in order, and he came to England in order to regulate them. Witness did not recollect what amount he had stated was stolen. On the day after his arrival witness had several conversations with prisoner; he took him into his room and showed him some pictures, a vase (silver-gilt,) and other things belonging to him (witness). Witness enquired of Bond, a waiter, what he could get for exchanging, and was told £39 5s. for 1OOOf., the discount being 15s. Witness thought Bond asked too much, and was told by Hastier that he could get more money, at a less discount. Would swear that he told prisoner he should be back on Thursday from Dover. Had a conversation about getting more money for the notes with Hastier, and the latter wrote to London on the subject. Played at billiards with prisoner, and told him to get £5 for him of the proprietor of the hotel, which prisoner obtained for him, and witness returned it next morning. Witness asked Mr. Breach to allow Hastier to go to London with him, to deposit the money with the Messrs. Rothschild. He afterwards requested that Bond might go. Received from the Bank of France 510,000f, That was all received. The evening before he left he received two bills, one for 310,000f., and the other for 200,000f., upon which he paid away to various persons the sum o about 40,000f., the amount remaining being 475,000f.

By Mr. Parry: About 390,000 francs were deposited with Messrs. Rothschild about twenty days before his arrest.

James Gaby Breach, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, deposed to the prisoner being in his employment as manager. Before this occurrence he had been in witness`s service for about three months. Remembered Mr. De la Motte coming to his house on the 22^nd June; a portfolio and a bag were deposited with witness, containing a large amount of money. Witness deposited the money in an escritoire in No. 1 room. Witness also took charge of a number of notes, which were placed in the escritoire. Witness told Hastier he was going away for a week, and that he had a large amount of property belonging to the French gentleman, which he should hand over to prisoner, which he did on the succeeding day, giving him the key to the escritoire. Witness also told him to deposit the money in the bank, as he did not like having so much money in his possession. On his return home witness found that prisoner had been apprehended. Witness did not receive an intimation in Dublin that the robbery had taken place.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson: I placed the utmost confidence in the prisoner. I had a very high character with him.

John Francis Bond, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed to receiving a bag and portfolio from Mr. De la Motte on the 22^nd June; also some money, which witness gave to Mr. Breach. On the succeeding Thursday, witness assembled about half a dozen of the principal servants, and in their presence the cupboard was opened where the property had been deposited, and the top of one of the bags was found to have been opened, and some of the notes abstracted. Witness did this at the request of Mr. De la Motte.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson: Did not receive a letter for the prisoner on Thursday or Friday from Messrs. Spielman, bankers, of London. Was present at the examination of the prisoner before the magistrates. Mr. De la Motte, on his return from Dover, immediately said “Well, Bond, about money?” Witness said he would go and inquire, and afterwards, on telling him that Hastier had gone to London, De la Motte requested that the cupboard should be opened. He told Hastier that one of the bags was so heavy that he could hardly carry it.

Frances Pollock, housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed: On Wednesday, the 25^th June, prisoner told witness about 10 p.m. that he was going to London, Mr. Breach having left on the previous day. Prisoner said he should go by the mail train at 2 o`clock, and witness remonstrated with him, as he master and mistress were absent. Prisoner, however, persisted in going, as he alleged it was of importantance that he should be in London early in the morning. Prisoner said he would return in time for dinner next day. On Thursday witness received a telegraphic message from the effect that he could not come down that night, but would return on the following morning. Mr. De la Motte returned on Thursday, and the escritoire was broken open, when a bag was found to have been cut and notes extracted.

Cross examined by Mr. Robinson: Prisoner was on friendly terms with Mr De la Motte. Bond took the bag out of the escritoire, and found it was cut.

Mr. De LaMotte, re-called by Mr. Robinson: Before going to Dover witness asked Hastier for his money, but on subsequent reflection he determined on not taking it, as some accident might happen.

By Sergeant Parry: Before going to Dover witness searched for several hours for Hastier and found him on the beach. Never authorised the prisoner to carry any notes for him to London.

Mr. Bond, re-called by the Recorder: —The bag was perfect when given into my custody.

William Beavan, night porter at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed to prisoner’s having told him to fetch a fly for him on the night of the 25th June, about half-past 12. The fly was obtained an hour after. Witness found him in No. 1 room. Prisoner said he was going to London, and that he should leave by the 2 o’clock train.

Emily Hamilton, of Hampstead, deposed to receiving a letter from the prisoner on the 25th June, and in consequence of this letter she sent the message as requested. Was quite unaware for what it was required. Sent it off between 6 and 7 on Wednesday evening. Did not see prisoner on Thursday. Wrote to him afterwards, and received an answer.

Cross-examined: Had telegraphed to the prisoner before, and received replies.

Mark Richards, a Custom-house agent, Folkestone, deposed to starting for Boulogne via Dover, on the 26th June. He jumped out of the train at Dover, and looked at the passengers who were coming out of the railway station. Witness then saw prisoner coming towards the door. He bade someone good night. Witness immediately stepped up to him, and after informing him of the suspicions excited at his absence, and also about the robbery, he told prisoner he must go back with him to Folkestone. Prisoner said “Must I?”, and on witness replying in the affirmative he said that he would return in the morning. This, however, was not acceded to, and he was taken into custody. Prisoner subsequently gave up a leather travelling bag to witness. Witness told prisoner that telegraphic messages had been forwarded to all the principal ports and towns to arrest him on the charge of the robbery Prisoner told witness that he did not think the money belonged to Mr. De la Motte; that he could not resist the temptation of taking away the money; and that he wished De la Motte had not come over the water. Superintendent Coram came into the hotel at Dover, where they had retired, and took the prisoner in charge.

Cross-examined: I did not, in evidence before the magistrates, state what I have above related. I did not say in Coram’s presence that no charge would be preferred against the prisoner. Prisoner would not give up the bag until I saw a police officer. I paid for whatever refreshments we had at Dover.

By Sergeant Parry: It was by accident that I met the prisoner. I was to go to Boulogne in order to find out the number of the notes. Had been told that the escritoire had been opened before he started on his errand. Did not bring the prisoner back himself. The bag was given up to Fleet, the constable of Folkestone.

Police-Sergeant Fleet deposed to having heard of the robbery on Thursday afternoon, the 26th June, about 5 o’clock, and to going to Dover the same evening. Found prisoner in custody at Galantie’s Hotel Mr. Richards was also there. A black leather bag was handed to witness by Mr. Richards. Witness told prisoner the nature of the charge, when he said “l have handed over the money to Mr. Richards; it is in the bag.” Prisoner said “Had I not seen my folly, you would not have caught me for two or three months.” He also said “I am guilty, to a certain extent.” Prisoner said “Who is to charge me?” A Mr. Davidson said “Mr. Breach is out, but I will charge you.” Coram searched prisoner in my presence. On his person was found a passport (produced) for Paris, a through ticket to Paris, (issued at the Regent Circus, and available for 7 days), a half ticket (first class return ticket from London to Folkestone,) five £5 notes, a pocket-book, &c. In the bag was the telegraphic despatch already referred to, 28 one thousand franc notes, pinned in a particular manner, two lots of 10 notes each, pinned together and the remainder loose; two bank of England post bills for £5 each, 23 £5 bank notes, 9 £10 ditto, and a bank post bill on the Bank of Ireland for £20, &c.

Francis Mc.Chaigneau, a money changer of Pans, deposed to having changed some money for Mr. De la Motte, in June last. Witness identified various notes and securities which he had given to Mr. De la Motte, and which were found in the possession of the prisoner.

Henri Pay, money changer of Boulogne, deposed to changing some money to the amount of £328, for Mr. De la Motte, on Sunday the 22nd June last. The transaction was entered in a book by his wife, under his (witness’s) own direction, and in his presence. The notes (produced) bore his stamp of that day. Could not swear that the notes produced were the same.

Mr De la Motte, re-called by Sergeant Parry. The five £5 notes, and the post-bills produced, are part of the property stolen from me. Witness had pinned them together in a peculiar manner.

William Cook, night watchman, in the employ of the South Eastern Railway, identified various tickets found on the prisoner.

Francis M. Faulkner, French consul, of Folkestone, identified the passport found on the prisoner visaed for France to Belgium. It was dated 26th June.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

At the request of Mr. Robinson, Superintendent Coram was put in the box. He deposed that he had known prisoner for about a year and a half. On Thursday, 26th June, witness saw the prisoner at Gallantie’s hotel, in company with Mr. Richards. The latter said it would be “all right,” and that the matter would be amicably settled.

By Sergeant Parry: Heard of the robbery about twenty minutes to 12. I should have taken him into custody had I seen him. Afterwards he was given in my charge, but I gave prisoner up on the order of the magistrates.

Mr. Robinson then addressed the jury at considerable length on behalf of the prisoner, characterising the prosecution as vindictive and harsh, and calling in question the unsupported testimony of Mr De la Motte, whose character was, he alleged somewhat questionable, while the character of the prisoner had been unblemished up to the time of this unfortunate occurrence. The learned gentleman also discanted at some length on the fact that prisoner had not taken the whole of the property (£19,000) which he might very easily have done, and have started for an outport where he was entirely unknown, instead of going to Dover where he was well known. He also affirmed that the prisoner had gone to London merely for the purpose of getting a liberal discount for the notes.

The Recorder then summed up, and the jury, after an absence of about ten minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy, on account of the great and unusual temptation to which the prisoner had been exposed.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said he could have sentenced the prisoner to fifteen years’ transportation, but under the circumstances, and taking into consideration the recommendation of the jury, the prisoner would receive a more lenient punishment. The Recorder then sentenced him to three years’ hard labour.

Kentish Gazette 5-8-1856

Quarter Sessions

On Wednesday, the Recorder, .J. J. Londsdale, Esq., held a special sessions for the trial of Augustus Hastier, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, and formerly of the Lord Warden Hotel, Dover, charged with stealing £1,600, being part of £50,000 (sic) which had been placed in charge of Mr. Breach, proprietor of the hotel. On account of doubts as to who was the exact owner of the money, it was laid in the indictment “money entrusted to the defendant’s master.” The prisoner, who is said to be most respectably connected, and speaks no less than nine languages, pleaded not guilty.

The facts were these: On Sunday, the 22^nd June last, M. De la Motte, a French gentleman, who said he was a merchant of Paris, arrived at the Folkestone Hotel from Boulogne, and asked for a bedroom and sitting-room on the first floor. He then called for Mr. Breach and handed him a portfolio and a leather bag, containing notes and gold. There was nearly 500,000f. in the bag, and 38 or 39 French notes for 1,000f, each, and £65 in English notes. Next day Mr. Breach called the prisoner (who for three weeks had been manager of the hotel), and told him he was going to Dublin for a week, and that he, prisoner, should take charge of Mr. De la Motte’s property. Mr. Breach unlocked the cupboard and took out the gold and notes in the prisoner’s presence, then locked them in a drawer, and gave the prisoner the key. The prisoner was told to ascertain from M. De la Motte whether he would take the money away that day, and if he did not, to deposit it in the bank, as Mr. Breach objected to its being left at the hotel. Mr. Breach left that day for Dublin, and on the next day M. De la Motte went to Dover, saying that he would return on Saturday. Late that night the prisoner told the housekeeper that he had received a telegraphic message requiring his immediate presence in London, and he showed her a message to this effect -“From Hamilton, London, to .Mr. Hastier, Pavillion Hotel, Folkestone. Come up immediately, I must see you. Urgent.” She urged him to stay till next day. as there was no one to manage the hotel, but he said he must go, and he went by the train at half-past one. Next day a telegraphic message came from him from London at three o'clock to Miss Pollock, the housekeeper, saying “I cannot come down to night, but I will be at Folkestone by the first train tomorrow morning.” Just previous to the delivery of this message, M. De la Motte unexpectedly returned to the hotel. On M. De la Motte finding that the prisoner had gone to London, he became alarmed for the security of his money. As none of the waiters would find the keys of the cupboard where the money was deposited, he had the place forcibly opened. The bag and portfolio were there, but the bag had been cut open and all the notes were gone. But the gold (482 sovereigns) and other valuable papers remained. The prisoner was suspected, and he was apprehended on that night, at Dover, on his way to a Belgian steamer, for the Continent. A Custom House agent had just taken him to a hotel in the vicinity, and Mr. Coram, the superintendent being sent for, took him into custody. The Custom House officer opposed his apprehension, and said that no charge would be preferred, as the prisoner was going back to Folkestone to make an amicable settlement. But Mr. Coram would not permit such a proceeding. All the stolen notes were found on the prisoner. It was proved that the telegraphic message was sent by a female in London to whom the prisoner had written on Wednesday night, telling her to telegraph the message which he enclosed. At the station-house the prisoner admitted his guilt, and said “I don’t know how it was, but I could not resist the temptation.”

Sergeant Parry addressed the jury for the defendant.

The Recorder then summed up, and the jury, after short deliberation, found tfie prisoner guilty, with a recommendation to mercy, which Mr. Breach joined in. The prisoner was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude.

It was stated that an attachment, was lodged on £1,600, by the sheriffs, and that proceedings have been instituted by parties in Paris, who claim it as belonging to them.

Kentish Independent 9-8-1856

On Wednesday week a special Sessions for this borough was held at the Guildhall, before J.J. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder, for the purpose of trying Augustus Hastier, 24, late manager of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, charged with stealing £1,500, the monies of James Gaby Breach, at Folkestone, on the 26^th June.

The case appeared to excite considerable interest, the court being crowded during the trial.

Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Biron were for the prosecution, and Mr. Robinson for the prisoner.

The Recorder briefly charged the grand jury. He said he was sorry to have to call them together in this unusual manner, but he had no doubt that they were all aware that at the time when the usual sessions were last held there was a case undergoing investigation by the magistrates, upon which they were unable to come to a conclusion. The prisoner in that case was therefore not committed for trial at those sessions. The case, however, was one of considerable importance, whether considered in relation to the amount of property alleged to have been stolen, or the position in life of the party accused of the theft; and those circumstances, connected with others which appeared upon investigation, had rendered it desirable that no time should be lost in having the person charged put upon his trial. The prisoner was charged under the 7th and 8th Geo. IV., c.29; and although the case was of the serious nature he had intimated, the jury would, he thought, find no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion upon the facts of the case. After some further remarks with respect to the case, already familiar to our readers, the Recorder dismissed the grand jury.

Mr. Sergeant Parry stated the case. After begging the jury to dismiss from their minds all that they might have previously heard with regard to the case, he proceeded to observe that the prosecutor was the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, one of the best-conducted establishments in Europe. Prisoner was employed by prosecutor as manager of the hotel, and the highest confidence was reposed in his integrity, having previously filled a similar situation at the Lodr Warden Hotel, Dover, the duties appertaining to which he had discharged most satisfactorily. On the 22^nd June last a French gentleman named de la Motte came direct from Paris, via Boulogne, to Folkestone, where he took apartments at the Pavilion Hotel. Mr. de la Motte had a considerable sum of money in his possession, amounting to about 475,000f. (£19,000). A large proportion of the money consisted of notes, many of which were 1,000f. notes on the Bank of France, besides a number of Bank of England notes, consisting of £5, £10, £15, £20, one £50, and one £100. Mr. de la Motte had also a large quantity of gold, in sovereigns and half sovereigns, a bank post bill on the Bank of Ireland for £20, besides other property of a miscellaneous character, several of which documents were subsequently found in the possession of the prisoner. He (the learned sergeant) should here state that Mr. de la Motte would appear as a witness before them in the custody of a civil officer of this country, because since he had been in England, he had been arrested for debt. He had come over from Paris with money, not with the intention of appropriating it to himself, for the money belonged to his creditors in France, and was now lodged at the French Embassy; but being a large speculator on the French Stock Exchange, he had become embarrassed, and not being able to meet his engagements, he had adopted this course in order to regulate his affairs, and the money at the Embassy would ultimately be distributed among his creditors. The property, which was placed in a portfolio, leather bag, and a sac, was handed over by Mr. de la Motte to the custody of a waiter named Bond, who gave it to prosecutor, and the latter placed the bag in an escritoire, which he locked. On the following day Mr. Breach left Folkestone, having previously handed over the property in the escritoire, with the key, to the prisoner, giving him at the same time directions to lodge the money in the Folkestone Bank, as he (prosecutor) did not like the responsibility of having so much money in his possession. On the following Wednesday, after Mr. Breach`s departure, prisoner told Miss Pollock, the housekeeper, that he had urgent business to transact in London, and he must leave that evening. Miss Pollock remonstrated with him on the imprudence of leaving her alone at the head of so large an establishment, and the prisoner, finding that he could not leave without some excuse, wrote the following letter to a Miss Hamilton, of Hampstead, an acquaintance of his:- “Dearest Emily, When you receive this note, send immediately the following telegraphic message, and I will settle with you when I arrive in town.” The message was to the effect that Miss Hamilton urgently desired to see him, and that he must come up directly. On receiving this message, Miss Hamilton immediately telegraphed to Folkestone, and prisoner accordingly went to London by the two o`clock train the following morning. The learned sergeant then proceeded to describe the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the robbery, and the subsequent arrest of the prisoner, the details of which were given in the evidence of the witnesses.

After the whole of the witnesses had been examined, Mr. Robinson addressed the jury at considerable length, characterising the prosecution as vindictive and harsh, and calling in question the unsupported testimony of Mr. de la Motte, whose character was, he alleged, somewhat questionable, while the character of the prisoner had been unblemished up to the time of this unfortunate occurrence. The learned gentleman also decanted at some length on the fact that the prisoner had not taken the whole of the property (£19,000), which he might very easily have done, and have started for an outport where he was entirely unknown, instead of going to Dover, where he was well known. He also affirmed that the prisoner had gone to London merely for the purpose of getting a liberal discount for the notes.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said he could have sentenced the prisoner to fifteen years` transportation, but under the circumstances, and taking into consideration the recommendation of the jury, the prisoner would receive a more lenient punishment. The Recorder then sentenced him to three years` hard labour.

Kentish Mercury 9-8-1856

At a special Sessions at Folkestone on Friday, Auguste Hastier was indicted for stealing banknotes and moneys to the amount of £1,600. It formed part of £50,000 which had been placed in the custody of Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the Pavilion. On Sunday, 22^nd June, a French gentleman named de la Motte arrived at the hotel by the Boulogne steamer. Soon afterwards he desired to see Mr. Breach, the proprietor, in order to place some money in his charge. Mr. Breach received from him a portfolio and a leather bag containing notes and gold. There were about 400,000 or 500,000 francs in the bag, and thirty eight or thirty nine French notes of 1,000 francs each and £65 in English notes. On the following day Mr. Breach called the prisoner, who had had the management for about three weeks, and told him he was going to Dublin, and that he (the prisoner) would have to take charge of Mr. de la Motte`s property. The next day Hastier absconded with the notes, leaving the gold. He was pursued and arrested. He said “I don`t know how it was, but I could not resist the temptation.” The jury found the prisoner Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. He was sentenced to three years` penal servitude

Folkestone Chronicle 27-9-1856

Local News

It has been suggested to us by a correspondent from the Great Western Hotel, Paddington, that as Mr. Giovanni, late manager of the Pavilion Hotel (which he left for the Great Western) was for a long time a resident here, and well known by most of our readers, it might be interesting to his friends to know that a handsome testimonial was presented to him the other day, on quitting that hotel, by all the servants of the establishment. The testimonial consisted of a chased silver inkstand for himself, and a handsome gold bracelet for Mrs. Giovanni, as a mark of the esteem in which they were held by all, and of the appreciation of their kindness and consideration towards them. The whole of the servants were assembled on the occasion, and the oldest of them deputed to present the testimonial with a suitable address.

Southeastern Gazette 27-1-1857

We regret to state that Mr. J.G. Breach is about to vacate the Pavilion Hotel. The generous support given to all public institutions and subscriptions has rendered that gentleman deservedly popular amongst his townsmen, and his excellent management and gentlemanly conduct to all visitors has rendered the Pavilion one of the most flourishing hotels in the kingdom. A misunderstanding with the directors of the South Eastern Railway Company is said to be the cause of the discontinuance of his tenancy.

Canterbury Weekly Journal, Dover Chronicle 31-1-1857

Mr. J.G. Breach is about to vacate the Pavilion Hotel. The generous support given to all public institutions and subscriptions has rendered that gentleman deservedly popular amongst his townsmen, and his excellent management and gentlemanly conduct to all visitors has rendered the Pavilion one of the most flourishing hotels in the kingdom. A misunderstanding with the directors of the South Eastern Railway Company is said to be the cause of the discontinuance of his tenancy.

Folkestone Chronicle 31-1-1857

Local News

Our readers at a distance will learn with equal regret to that manifested in the town that the excellent proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Mr. J.G. Breach, is about to quit that establishment, which his superior management has rendered so universally celebrated. The uniform courtesy and kindness of this gentleman have gained for him the esteem of all his fellow townsmen, and his munificent contributions to all benevolent purposes, both public and private, will be greatly missed, unless we should be fortunate enough to include him among our permanent or temporary residents.

Kentish Gazette 3-2-1857

The Pavilion: It is with regret that we have to record that Mr. Breach is about to quit this establishment, which his superior management has rendered so celebrated.

Kentish Gazette 10-2-1857

The Pavilion: On Saturday the servants of the establishment presented a testimonial to Mr. and Mrs. Breach on their retirement from its management. The testimonial consisted of a handsome 15-day ormolu clock, by Savory and Sons, which strikes the hours and half hours. The clock is of exquisite workmanship and tasteful design. The address was signed by 70 persons.

Southeastern Gazette 6-10-1857, Dover Chronicle, Dover Telegraph, Kentish Independent, Kentish Mercury 10-10-1857

A few weeks since, an Irish gentleman, worth some £10,000 or £12,000 a year, arrived at the Pavilion Hotel, and after staying a few days fell in love with a pretty chambermaid, to whom he offered his hand, which, after some conversation, was accepted. The wedding took place in London, and the happy couple are now sojourning in Ireland. The gentleman`s age was 65; his bride is about 36.

Kentish Gazette 13-10-1857

A contemporary tells the following interesting anecdote. A few weeks since an Irish gentleman, worth some £10,000 or £12,000 a year, arrived at the Pavilion Hotel, and after staying a few days fell in love with a pretty chambermaid, to whom he offered his hand, which, after some conversation was accepted. The wedding took place in London, and the happy couple are now sojourning in Ireland. The gentleman's age was 65; his bride is about 36.

Southeastern Gazette 17-11-1857, Canterbury Weekly Journal, Dover Telegraph 21-11-1857

On Sunday evening, at about half-past ten o`clock, two young men, employed at the Pavilion Hotel, took a walk on the pier, and when on the east side of the lighthouse, one of them, employed in the kitchen as a sculleryman, named Edward Turner, leant forward over the chains, and fell on the rocks into the sea. An alarm was raised, and boats put out to assistance, but he could not be seen. The body was found on Monday morning, and conveyed to the Shades Inn to await a coroner`s inquest.

Kentish Gazette 1-12-1857

A project for a winter garden, attached to the Pavilion Hotel, has been set on foot by the enterprising proprietor, Monsieur Doridant. The apace proposed to be taken is the west side of the Pavilion Hotel, and will extend down to the beach, forming a delightful addition to this well conducted hotel.

Even More Tales From The Tap Room

Thanks And Acknowledgements

Welcome

Contrast Note

Contribute

Search This Blog

Saturday 22 July 2023

Pavilion Hotel 1840s - 1859

No comments:

Post a Comment

If you`ve enjoyed this blog, why not buy me a pint?