Even More Tales From The Tap Room: Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street 1841

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.

Thursday, 24 April 2025

Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street 1841 - 1987

The Prince Albert, 1978

Prince Albert c1870. Credit Roy Clare


Former Prince Albert, with clock showing French Revolutionary Time, July, 2011

Prince Albert 1970s. Credit Eamonn Rooney

Prince Albert c1928 (from http://www.dover-kent.com/Prince-Albert-Folkestone.html)

Licensees

William Free 1841 c1848
George Berry c1848 c1850 Post Office 1851
Sarah Berry c1850 1855
David Baldock 1855 c1862
Thomas Spicer c1862 c1864
Thomas Clark c1864 1866
Edward Jull 1866 1868
Henry Stay 1868 1869 Licence Revoked 1869-70
Stephen Forward 1870 1870
Mr. Brockman 1870 1870
William Snelling 1870 1887 To Blue Anchor
Ernesto Hoad 1887 1887 Holding Manager

George Terry 1887 1887
Dudley Jeffrey 1887 1890 Later Guildhall Tavern
Harriett Small 1890 1893
Horace Small 1893 1906
Lizzie Jacobs 1906 1915
Albert Valder 1915 1918
George Manger 1918 1923
Samson Roberts 1923 1928
Christopher Andrews 1928 1929
Leonard Barker 1928 1945 Also Railway Bell 1942-45. To West Cliff Shades
Reginald Winterton 1945 1949
Gordon Epsom 1949 1953
Harry Williams 1953 1956
James Booth 1956 1958
Maurice Tillman 1958 1962
Frederick Charman 1962 1963
Arthur Wood 1963 1964
Alan White 1964 1986
Mark Griffin 1986 1988 Renamed Bertie`s

Folkestone Chronicle 29-12-1855

Wednesday December 26^th :- Before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, William Major esq., and James Kelcey esq.

The following licences were transferred : - Prince Albert – from Sarah Berry to David Baldock

Southeastern Gazette 1-1-1856

Petty Sessions, Wednesday.—(Before J. Tolputt, Esq., Mayor, W. Major and J. Kelcey, Esqrs.)

Transfer of Licence.—The Prince Albert, Folkestone, from Sarah Berry to David Baldock

Folkestone Chronicle 26-4-1856

Monday April 21^st :- Before James Tolputt Esq., Mayor, and James Kelcey Esq.

Harriet King was charged by police constable Nicholls with being drunk, and breaking a square of glass at the Prince Albert, in Rendezvous Street. Fined 1 s. damage, and 8s. 6d costs, also 5s. for being drunk, and in default committed for one week to Dover.

Southeastern Gazette 29-4-1856

Local News

Monday: Before the Mayor and Jas. Kelcey, Esq.

Harriet King, for drunkenness and wilfully breaking a pane of glass at the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street, and was committed for seven days in default of paying costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 21-2-1857

Birth: Feb 17, at Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, the wife of Mr. David Baldock, of the Prince Albert Inn, of a son.

Kentish Express 23-4-1859

Williams v Banks; Court of Common Pleas, Tuesday: Before Mr. Justice Wightman.

The plaintiff is a painter, &c., residing at Sandgate, where he was born, and the defendant is an upholsterer and auctioneer carrying on business at Folkestone. On the 27^th May last he was at work at the Castle Tavern, Sandgate, when he required some paper hangings, and he went to Folkestone to procure some. He called at the defendant`s shop, who was out, and saw his mother, who went upstairs with him, where he selected five pieces at 1s. a piece.

The plaintiff stated that Mrs. Banks could not inform him the price of the paper, on which he desired her to send it to Mr. Hills, baker, Folkestone, who served his father with bread, and that he would sent the money by him. A boy was sent with him and the paper to Mr. Hills, to see that all was right. He heard nothing direct from the defendant till about three months afterwards, when he was apprehended by the police, committed and tried at the sessions on a charge of obtaining the paper under false pretences. He, however, was acquitted, but had been put to £11 10s. 11d. expenses in defending himself from the charge. He was locked up from four o`clock in the afternoon, when apprehended, till eleven o`clock the following morning, when the magistrate admitted him to bail.

In his cross-examination, he said he went into the Prince Albert, Folkestone, the same day he had the paper. The landlady asked him for a debt a friend of his had contracted, but he declined to pay it, unless she gave up some wearing apparel of his which he lent his friend. He denied that he had lodged there with a female, and that the debt was contracted in consequence; he said he was married in January, 1855, and about twelve months after he sold off his furniture, and subsequently went through the insolvent court at Maidstone, owing £150 debts. He denied that he took the paper away without the consent of Mrs. Banks, or that he made any false pretences.

In his re-examination the plaintiff stated that after his marriage he came to London to bury his aunt, and returned home unexpected, when he found several gentlemen in his house with his wife. On seeing him they all made off, some out of the door and others out of the window; in consequence of that he broke up his establishment and separated from his wife, and it was the cause of his petitioning the court; he had since renewed many of his debts, and had paid off £50 of them.

The defence was that the plaintiff represented the paper was for Mr. Hills, who would pay for them. On applying to Mr. Hills, he denied the debt, and under the circumstances he applied to the magistrates` clerk, who advised the apprehension of the plaintiff for obtaining goods under false pretences.

The jury found that the paper was sold to the plaintiff on the credit of Hills, but that the plaintiff had no intention to defraud the defendant of the value of the paper.

On that finding, the learned Judge suggested that the damages should be taken at £11 10s. 11d., the expenses the plaintiff had been put to, which was assented to by the learned counsel.

Verdict for plaintiff, damages £11 10s. 11d.

Folkestone Chronicle 15-12-1860

Monday December 10^th:- Present the Mayor, W. F. Browell, R.W. Boarer, and J. Kelcey esqs.

Richard West was brought up in custody charged with stealing a piece of timber, value 1s., the property of Mr. George Pledge.

George Pledge deposed he was a coal merchant living in Rendezvous Street. The prisoner had worked for him at different times for some years, and also for his father. Was employed by him in the week ending in last month. Saw the timber now produced, and also a tub, on his premises, which he identified as his property.

William Morris, a labourer, in the employ of Mr. Pledge deposed he knew the prisoner by sight. About a fortnight ago saw him take the piece of wood from Mr. Pledge`s coal store across to the Prince Albert.

David Baldock, landlord of the Prince Albert Inn, deposed he knew the prisoner from his working for Mr. Pledge. The piece of wood produced had been lying behind his yard door for a fortnight. On Friday afternoon last prisoner came into his house and asked for a pint of beer; he then said there is a barrel with whitewash and a piece of timber, which he offered to me for fourpence. At his own request I gave him a pint of beer and twopence for the timber and barrel.

A previous conviction was here put in, but the necessary witnesses to prove his identity not being present, it could not be received.

Mr. Pledge, recalled, - on Saturday I saw the prisoner and accused him of the theft, but when I threatened to send for a policeman, he said he had stolen it but hoped he could be forgiven.

By the Court. – The exact words used by the prisoner were “I hope you won`t prosecute me”.

The prisoner having been asked the usual questions, pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to fourteen days hard labour.

Folkestone Observer 18-10-1862

Saturday 11^th October: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and W.F. Browell Esq

Stealing from a public house

Henry Williams and Phoebe Andrews, on remand from Friday, were charged with stealing a portmonnaie, a purse, half-sovereign, and £2 10s in silver from the Prince Albert public house on Thursday the 2^nd instant.

Mrs. Baldock was preparing her children for bed, between 7 and 8 in the evening, when Williams, who had been walking up and down the passage, came and leant on the kitchen door and she ordered him away. She heard him arranging with Andrews to go with her to the concert room at Sandgate that evening. Andrews had done half a day`s washing for Mrs. Baldock that day, and before going upstairs with the children, she went to the till and paid her, locking the till, and putting the key on the second shelf. The till then contained rather more than £3, being a half sovereign and silver, chiefly half crowns and florins. She was upstairs only two or three minutes, and when she came down the prisoner was in the bar, the key in the till, the till drawn out, and the money gone. Andrews said she had served a pint of beer. Giving information to the police, P.C. Ovenden went to the Inkerman Arms, Sandgate, at ten o`clock, where he found Williams, drunk. Taking him unto custody and searching him, he found on him a half sovereign, 8 half crowns, 4 florins, 12 shillings, 10 sixpences and 2 1/2d.

Mr. Edwin Le Batt said that Williams worked for him, and on Thursday came to him for 1s to purchase materials for his trade. He came again to him later in the day and asked for 2s –a friend having come from London with whom he wanted to spend the evening.

Williams now pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to six months` hard labour. Andrews, pleading not guilty, was committed to the Quarter Sessions, bail being taken.

Folkestone Chronicle 3-1-1863

Quarter Sessions

“Not a true bill against Phoebe Andrews”

Folkestone Observer 3-1-1863

Quarter Sessions Extract

Thursday January 1^st:- Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

“The next bill, against Phoebe Andrews, 47, charwoman, for stealing two purses and £3, the property of David Baldock, was thrown out.

Dover Chronicle 20-1-1866

Police Court, Wednesday, January 17^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

George Pledge did not appear in answer to a summons charging him with having stolen a silver brooch value 10s. 6d., the property of Wm. Pilcher, on Christmas Day. Service of summons having been proved, a warrant was granted for his apprehension.

Police Court, Thursday January 18^th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

George Pledge, a young man, was brought up under a warrant charging him with having stolen, on December 25^th, a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher.

Elizabeth Pilcher, wife of Wm. Pilcher, painter, North Street, said that on Christmas Day she went for dinner at her father-in-law`s, who kept an eating house in Seagate Street. While there she missed a silver brooch from the mantelpiece; the brooch she should know again, as it was made in coils. She had put it on the mantelpiece about an hour and a half before she missed it. After she missed it she asked her mother whether she had taken it, but when her mother said she knew nothing about it, she suspected that a man named James Jacobs had taken it, as he was in the room and because she saw him leave the room and come back again. She gave information to the police, and on Friday last Police constable Smith showed her a brooch which she identified as the one she had lost by the pin and by a hole in the back of it; she valued the brooch at 10s. 6d.

By the prisoner: Are you sure it was on Christmas Day that you missed the brooch?

Witness: Yes, I am sure it was.

Prisoner: was it before or after you gave information to the police that you heard the brooch had been exposed for sale at the Prince Albert public house?

Witness: It was afterwards.

Prisoner: Did you hear who had offered it for sale?

Witness: Yes, a man named James Jacobs; the man I had previously suspected of stealing it.

The prisoner was about to ask another question when he was cautioned by the Bench as to the course he had adopted when there was nothing in the evidence to connect him to the charge.

Charles Frederick Mills said he was a licensed victualler, and kept the London Stores in Bayle Street. He knew the prisoner perfectly well. About a fortnight ago he brought a brooch to his house and asked him to buy it. It was in the evening because he had to go into the large room to look at it. Prisoner said he had picked it up in Mill Lane. He used the words “You don`t often pick up such things as these (producing a brooch) but I picked this up in Mill Lane.” He asked witness to buy it as it was of no use to him. Witness said that it was almost sure to be cried and told prisoner if it was cried or if he could find an owner for it if they came to him he would give it up; he then gave prisoner half a crown for the brooch, which he handed over to his wife.

Prisoner: Was anyone with me when I came to your house?

Witness: There was.

Prisoner: What kind of man was he?

Witness: A man with sandy-coloured moustache and whiskers.

Lucy Mills, wife of last witness, said that she received the brooch from her husband the day after Christmas Day. On Friday last she gave it up to Police constable Smith. When prisoner sold the brooch to her husband she heard him say he had picked it up in Mill Lane.

Prisoner: Last Friday morning did I not come to your house and want you to give up the brooch to me, because I said I had heard it had been stolen?

Witness: You did.

Prisoner: Was it from me you first heard that the brooch had been stolen?

Witness: Yes, it was.

Police constable Smith said that last Monday week he received information that a brooch had been stolen, and on Friday last he found that it had been sold to Mr. Mills at the London Stores. He went there and received the brooch produced.

Witness asked Mills of whom he had bought the brooch, and he said he bought it of George Pledge, the prisoner. The prisoner did not attend in answer to a summons, and he apprehended him on a warrant at 1.50 on Wednesday. He asked prisoner where he got the brooch from, and he said he picked it up in Mill Lane.

Cross-examined by the prisoner: First received information about the loss of the brooch last Monday week. Did not go to the Prince Albert last Monday to make enquiries there; the information which he got on Friday was given to him by the prisoner himself; prisoner asked him whether he was looking for a man who had stolen a brooch, and said he could give him some information respecting it. He then said he had sold it to Mr. Mills at the London Stores.

Prisoner was cautioned in the usual manner, after which he pleaded not guilty, and made the following statement: “This man Jacobs – I don`t know that his name is Jacobs, but that is the name he is known by here – became acquainted with me at Mr. Faulkner`s coffee house. He told me he was hard up and asked me to give him some work, as I had a vessel at that time unloading in the harbour, and I was giving hands employment. I gave him employment on board this ship, and he was there for three or four days. I think a day or two preceding this charge he was locked up; at any rate it was the night after I paid him off the ship. He came to me again and wanted me to lend him some money, as all his money had been detained here, and he had been turned out without a single farthing. I lent him some money; this was on Saturday, and I asked him to come and have some dinner with me on Sunday, knowing that he was short of money. He did not come on Sunday, but on Christmas Day he came to the house, in South Street, where I was lodging. There was a wedding in the house that day, so that I could not ask him to dinner, but told him he could get a very good dinner at Faulkner`s. He went away, but I don`t know where he went to, and I did not see any more of him till eight o`clock at night, when I went up to the Prince Albert public house and saw him sitting there. I asked him how he got on for dinner, and he said “Pretty well,” or something of that kind, and that he had found something to make up for dinner. He then showed me a brooch which he said he had picked up near the church in Mill Lane. I said “What a lucky fellow you are,” or something of that kind. He wanted me to sell the brooch for half a crown, but I told him it was sure to be cried, that he would get more than half a crown for it, and advised him to keep it. He put it into his pocket again, and I heard no more about it that night. The next day he came again to my house in South Street, and said he had had no breakfast, and asked me to give him some. We went for a walk, and as we were coming home he asked me whether I could sell the brooch for him as he wanted the money to pay for his bed. He said he had offered it to several parties, but they would not buy it of him. I said “If you`ll come with me, I`ll see what I can do for you.” I took it to Mr. Mills, and he bought it for half a crown. I used the same assertion the man had made – that I had picked it up in Mill Lane; because they would not have bought the brooch of him if he had offered it, but would of me because they knew me. I told them if it was cried I should want it again. Last Friday I heard that the brooch had been enquired for at the Prince Albert public house, and went to the police station and told them where it was. Until then I did not know the brooch had been stolen.”

Prisoner said he had some witnesses, if he might call them. He called Thomas Clark, who said: I am a carpenter, but was formerly landlord of the Prince Albert public house, which I left last Friday. On Christmas Day a brooch was offered for sale at my house by a man they called Mr. Jacobs, but he was a stranger to me. The brooch produced is the same one. He offered to sell it to two or three people and wanted half a crown for it. It was some time in the evening; did not see prisoner there at the time. The man said he picked it up near the old church – the parish church, and he made the remark that it was a wonder the person who lost it did not hear it fall on the pavement.

In answer to the Bench witness said he did not know the names of any of the people to whom the man offered the brooch for sale – he could not remember even one.

Prisoner said Mrs. Clark and the servant knew their names, but they were not in court. As he had been away from home for a day or two he knew nothing about the summons till he was apprehended yesterday, and had no time to get witnesses, and the policeman would not let him have any writing paper. Mrs. Hunter, the person at whose house he lodged, could prove that he did not go out at all on Christmas Day till the evening.

Superintendent Martin said that both Mrs. Hunter and Mrs. Clark had been asked to attend, but they refused to do so.

The Clerk told prisoner he could summon them, but he must pay for the summonses.

Prisoner said he could not do so, as he had no money.

The magistrates committed prisoner for trial to the quarter sessions, but were willing to liberate him on bail on his own recognisance of £50 and two sureties of £25 each.

Folkestone Chronicle 20-1-1866

Police Court, Thursday, January 18^th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Pledge, a young man, was brought up under a warrant charging him with having stolen, on December 25^th, a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher. After a lengthened enquiry he was sent for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Observer 20-1-1866

Thursday January 19^th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

George Pledge was brought up in custody on a warrant issued the day previously charged with stealing a brooch.

Elizabeth, wife of William Pilcher, residing in Beach Street, said: On Christmas Day I missed a silver brooch from a mantelpiece in Mr. Faulkner`s Coffee House, in Seagate Street. Mr. Faulkner is my brother-in-law, and I was there that day on a visit. I put the brooch on the mantelpiece about an hour and a half before I missed it. A fortnight after I gave information to the police, and P.C. Smith brought the brooch to me last Friday. The brooch produced is the one I lost. The value of it is 10s.

Prisoner: It was on Christmas Day that you missed the brooch?

Witness: Yes.

Prisoner: Did you see me in the house on that day?

Witness: No, I did not.

Prisoner: Did you hear that the brooch had been offered for sale at the Prince Albert public house before or after you gave information to the police?

Witness: After I gave the information.

Prisoner: And who did you hear had offered it for sale there?

Witness: A man called James Jacobs.

Charles Frederick Mills, licensed victualler keeping the house called The London Stores, said: I know the prisoner perfectly well. About a fortnight ago he came to my house towards the evening and said “You don`t often pick up a thing such as this”. I said “What is it?”. He said “A brooch”, and added that he had picked it up in Mill Lane. He also further said that it was of no use to him, and asked me if I would buy it of him. He said that it would no doubt be cried, and in that case they could come to my place for it. I gave him half a crown for it. I told him if itv was cried I should give it up, or if anyone owned it I should give it up. The brooch produced is the same I bought of the prisoner.

Prisoner: Was there not someone with me on that day?

Witness: There was, but I did not know the man.

Macy Mills, the wife of the last witness, said: I received the brooch produced from my husband I believe the day after Christmas Day. On Friday afternoon last I gave it up to P.C. Smith.

The Clerk: Did you have a conversation with the prisoner at any time?

Witness: No, but I heard him say that he had picked it up in Mill Lane.

Prisoner: On Friday last did I not come and tell you that I had heard the brooch had been stolen?

Witness: You did.

Prisoner: And did I not tell you that I was going to give information to the police?

Witness: You did, and I told you it would be given directly they came for it.

P.C. Smith said: Last Monday week from information I received respecting a brooch having been stolen from Mr. Faulkner`s Coffee House, Seagate Street, I made inquiries, but could not trace it until last Friday, when I heard it had been sold to Mr. Mills, at the London Stores. I went there and received the brooch now produced from Mrs. Mills. I asked her who they bought it of, and she said George Pledge, the prisoner. The prisoner not attending on a summons, I apprehended him yesterday afternoon. I asked him where he got the brooch from, and he told me he picked it up in Mill Lane. I took the brooch to the prosecutrix, and she identified it as her property.

Prisoner: When did you first receive information about the brooch being lost?

Witness: Last Monday week.

Prisoner: On Monday last did you not go to the Prince Albert public house and make inquiries about the brooch?

Witness: I did not.

Prisoner: Who first told you where the brooch was?

Witness: You did yourself, on Friday last, and I then went to Mrs. Mills and got it.

Prisoner: Did I not ask you if you were looking for a man who had stolen a brooch?

Witness: You did.

Prisoner: Did I not tell you I could give you some information respecting it?

Witness: You did.

Prisoner: I told you where you could get the brooch, did I not?

Witness: You told me you had sold the brooch to Mr. Mills, at the London Stores.

Prisoner: Did I not tell you – now mark my words – that I had found it?

Witness: You did.

The charge was then read over to the prisoner and the usual caution given, when he pleaded Not Guilty.

The prisoner then made the following statement:- The man Jacobs – I don`t know that his name is Jacobs, but that is the name he is known by here – became acquainted with me at Mr. Faulkner`s Coffee House. He told me he was hard up, or something of that sort, and asked me to give him work, as at that time I was unloading a vessel in the harbour and giving hands employment. I gave him employment on board the ship, and he was there for three or four days. I believe the night after I paid him off he was locked up. The money it appears was stripped from him and he was turned out without a penny. He came to me again and wanted me to lend him some money. I did so. That was on the Saturday preceeding Christmas Day, and on the Sunday I asked him to come and have dinner with me, knowing he was rather short. He didn`t come till the following day – Christmas Day – when he came to the house where I lodged, and I told him I could not ask him to dinner as there was a wedding in the house, but he could get a very good dinner at Faulkner`s. He then went away, but where he went to I don`t know. I did not see any more of him until seven or eight o`clock at night, when I saw him sitting in the Prince Albert public house. I asked him how he got on for a dinner, or something like that, and he said he did pretty well, for he had found something to make up for dinner. I asked him what he had found and then he showed me the brooch. I asked him where he found it and he said “By the church”. I said “What church?” and he said “In Mill Lane”. I said “What a lucky fellow you are”, or something of that sort. He offered to sell it to me for half a crown. I told him he had better keep it for it would be sure to be cried, and he would get more for it. So he put it in his pocket, and I heard no more about it that night. The next day he came again to my house in South Street, and said he had had no breakfast and wanted me to give him a breakfast. We went for a walk together, and he then asked me if I could not sell the brooch for him as he had got no money to get a bed. He said he had offered it for sale himself to several parties, but they would not buy it of him. I said if he would come with me I would see if I could sell it. I went up to Mr. Mills and used the man`s words, and said that I had picked it up, as they, knowing me, I thought would buy it of me. I believed the man`s assertion that he had picked it up, and I told them that it would sure to be cried and that I would then want it again. I heard no more about it until last Friday, and I was sitting down in the Prince Albert public house when I heard that the constable had been there enquiring for this man. I then came up immediately and told the constable where to go and get the brooch. I told him the whole of the circumstances as they occurred. Until then I did not know the brooch had been stolen.

Thomas Clarke was then called by the prisoner, who said: I occupied the Prince Albert public house up to Friday last.

Prisoner: On Christmas Day did you have a brooch offered for sale in your house?

Witness: Yes.

Prisoner: Who offered it to you?

Witness: A man called Jacobs. I didn`t know who the man was – he was a stranger to me.

Prisoner: You heard him offer it to other persons besides yourself, did you not?

Witness: Yes, he offered it to two or three persons.

Prisoner: Was I in the house at the time?

Witness: I did not see you.

The Clerk: What kind of brooch was it?

Witness: The brooch produced is the same; I had it in my hands some little time looking at it.

The Clerk: Who was there in the room besides yourself when it was offered fro sale?

Witness: There were several there, but I did not know them.

The Clerk: Surely you can tell us one man?

Witness: I do not know their names.

Mr. Leith: Do you wish the magistrates to understand that you did not know one single person there?

Witness: I did not; I should know them again if I were to see them, but I do not know their names.

Prisoner: Did he say where he picked it up?

Witness: Yes, by the Old Church.

Capt. Kennicott: You are positive he said the Old Church?

Witness: Yes.

Prisoner remarked there were two other witnesses who could give evidence in his favour if they were sent for.

The constable said he had been for two he had named, but they had declined to come.

The Clerk said they could be summoned if the prisoner liked.

Prisoner said he was not in a position to do that,

The magistrates then committed the prisoner for trial at the next Quarter Sessions of the borough.

Prisoner asked for bail, and the magistrates consented – himself in £25 and two sureties of £25 each, which not being forthcoming he was removed in custody.

Kentish Gazette 23-1-1866

Police Court, Thursday:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.N. Leith Esqs.

George Pledge, a young man, was brought up under a warrant charging him with having stolen, on December 25^th, a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher, a painter.

It appeared from the statement of Mrs. Pilcher that on Christmas Day she went to dinner at her father-in-law`s house in Seagate Street, and while there she placed her brooch on the mantelpiece. About half an hour afterwards she missed it, and suspected a man named James Jacobs, who had been in the room, had taken it. She gave information to the police and on Friday last police constable Smith showed her the brooch produced, which she identified as her property.

Mr. Charles Frederick Mills, who keeps the London Stores in Bayle Street, stated that he bought the brooch a fortnight since of the prisoner, who told him he had picked it up in Mill Lane.

Mrs. Mills gave confirmatory testimony, and in reply to prisoner, said he came to her on Friday morning, and asked her to give up the brooch because he had heard it had been stolen. It was from him that she first heard it had been stolen.

Police constable Smith stated that he received the brooch from Mr. Mills, and afterwards apprehended the prisoner, who said he picked it up in Mill Lane. In reply to prisoner, witness said it was he (prisoner) who told him that he had sold the brooch to Mr. Mills.

The prisoner made a long defence, the substance of which was that having made the acquaintance of the man Jacobs, before alluded to, at Faulkner`s Coffee Rooms, he gave him employment in loading a vessel, and afterwards treated him kindly, as he represented himself as being destitute. A day or two after Christmas he again came in contact with the prisoner, who said he had not got anything to eat, and produced the brooch in question, which he said he had picked up near the church in Mill Lane. He (defendant) recommended him to keep it and see if a reward was offered, but on the following day Jacobs prevailed on him to try to sell the brooch. He took it to Mr. Mills, and used the assertion Jacobs had made, thinking he would buy it of him because he knew him. He told them, however, that if it was cried he should want it again, and on Friday last, hearing that the brooch had been enquired for at the Prince Albert public house, he went to the police station and gave information of where it was to be found.

He then called evidence in corroboration of his statement, but the magistrates committed prisoner for trial at the Quarter Sessions. He was admitted to bail.

Southeastern Gazette 23-1-1866

Local News

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Thursday, a young man named George Pledge was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day.

It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, of North Street, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate-street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the Albert public house. Next day the prisoner went to the London Stores, Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it.

The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

Canterbury Weekly Journal 27-1-1866

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Thursday, a young man, named George Pledge, was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day. It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, of North Street, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate Street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the Albert public house. Next day the prisoner went to the London Stores, on Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it. The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the Bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

Dover Express 27-1-1866

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions, on Thursday, a young man named George Pledge was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day. It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate Street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the Albert public house. Next day the prisoner went to the London Stores, on Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it. The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the Bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

Faversham Mercury 27-1-1866

Kentish Express 27-1-1866

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Thursday, a young man, named George Pledge, was charged with stealing a silver brooch, value 10s. 6d., the property of William Pilcher, on Christmas Day. It seemed that Mrs. Pilcher, the wife of a painter, of North Street, missed a brooch from a mantelpiece in an eating-house in Seagate Street, kept by her father-in-law, on the above day. She suspected a man named Jacobs, who had been in the room, and on the same evening he offered the brooch for sale at the Albert public house. Next day the prisoner went to the London Stores, Bayle Street, kept by Mr. Mills, where he sold the brooch for 2s. 6d., saying he had found it. The prisoner now said that Jacobs represented his distress to him, and said he had found the brooch, and could not sell it. He then, out of kindness to Jacobs, went with him to Mr. Mills, and sold it, as above stated. The prisoner was committed for trial, but the Bench intimated their willingness to accept bail.

Dover Chronicle 4-4-1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

The Deputy Recorder addressed the Grand Jury: The first case was that of George Pledge, indicted for stealing a brooch, value 10s., the property of William Pilcher, on the 25^th December last, and there was another count on the indictment charging him with receiving the brooch knowing it to have been stolen. The circumstances attending this case were rather curious. It appeared that a brooch belonging to the prosecutor was missed on Christmas Day, and the prisoner was afterwards found to have sold it, but from the evidence of a witness it appeared that the prisoner made some remarks at that time which, in his mind, were hardly consistent with the fact that he had stolen the brooch, and they ought to take a fair and common-sense view of what he then said. It certainly was in favour of the prisoner that at the time he sold the brooch he said it was sure to be cried, or something of that kind, and that he made some provision for having it returned in such a case. Another witness said that a man named Jacobs offered the brooch for sale, and said that he picked it up, which corroborated the statement made by the prisoner that Jacobs picked it up and gave it to him to sell for him, and whether Jacobs picked the brooch up or Pledge stole it was for them to determine. He did not see but that the whole of the evidence taken before the Magistrates applied as much to Jacobs as it did to the prisoner, and he did not think, under the circumstances, it would be necessary for them to find a true bill against Pledge; but before they came to that conclusion he should advise them to have such witnesses before them in order to determine in their own minds whether there was or was not a prima facie case against him. In a very short time afterwards the foreman came into court and said that the Grand Jury had found “no true bill” against George Pledge.

Dover Express 6-4-1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

The Deputy Recorder addressed the Grand Jury: The first case was that of George Pledge, indicted for stealing a brooch, value 10s., the property of Wm. Pilcher, on Christmas Day last, and there was another count on the indictment charging him with receiving the brooch knowing it to have been stolen. The circumstances attending this case were rather curious. It appeared that a brooch belonging to the prosecutor was missed on Christmas Day, and the prisoner was afterwards found to have sold it, but from the evidence of a witness it appeared that the prisoner made some remarks at that time which in his mind were hardly consistent with the fact that he had stolen the brooch, and they ought to take a fair and common-sense view of what he then said. It certainly was in favour of the prisoner that at the time he sold the brooch he said it was sure to be cried, or something of that kind, and that he made some provision for having it returned in such a case. Another witness said that a man named Jacobs offered the brooch for sale, and said that he picked it up, which corroborated the statement made by the prisoner that Jacobs picked it up and gave it to him to sell for him, and whether Jacobs picked the brooch up or Pledge stole it was for them to determine. He did not see but that the whole of the evidence taken before the Magistrates applied as much to Jacobs as it did to the prisoner, and he did not think, under the circumstances, it would be necessary for them to find a true bill against Pledge; but before they came to that conclusion he should advise them to have such witnesses before them in order to determine in their own minds whether there was or was not a prima facie case against him. In a very short time afterwards the foreman came into court and said that the Grand Jury had found “no true bill” against George Pledge.

Folkestone Observer 6-4-1866

Quarter Sessions

Monday 2^nd April:- Before A. Biron Esq, Deputy Recorder.

Extract from Mr. Biron`s preliminary address: Of the two prisoners for trial that day, the charge against Pledge exhibited some singular circumstances. He was charged on two indictments, one with having stolen a brooch, and the other with receiving it knowing it to have been stolen. It would be their duty to say whether the bill against him was true or not. It appeared that on Christmas Day last a brooch was missing from the house of the prosecutor, Mr. William Pilcher, of Folkestone, and the prisoner Pledge was known to have offered it for sale to a man for 2s 6d, but at the same time making use of most curious expressions, cautioning the man to whom he offered the brooch that it might be cried, and if it were he might give it up. The presumptive evidence was decidedly in Pledge`s favour. According to the evidence of another witness it appeared that the brooch was offered for sale at another place by Pledge, saying he had picked it up. It was for them to say how Pledge got the brooch into his possession. He thought under the circumstances it would be better for them not to return a true bill in Pledge`s case.

After some time the foreman of the grand jury returned into court, having found no true bill against George Pledge. Who was discharged from custody.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-4-1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

Kentish Express 7-4-1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

The Deputy Recorder addressed the Grand Jury: The first case was that of George Pledge, indicted for stealing a brooch, value 10s., the property of Wm. Pilcher, on the 25^th December last, and there was another count on the indictment charging him with receiving the brooch knowing it to have been stolen. The circumstances attending this case were rather curious. It appeared that a brooch belonging to the prosecutor was missed on Christmas Day, and the prisoner was afterwards found to have sold it, but from the evidence of a witness it appeared that the prisoner made some remarks at that time which in his mind were hardly consistent with the fact that he had stolen the brooch, and they ought to take a fair and common-sense view of what he then said. It certainly was in favour of the prisoner that at the time he sold the brooch he said it was sure to be cried, or something of that kind, and that he made some provision for having it returned in such a case. Another witness said that a man named Jacobs offered the brooch for sale, and said that he picked it up, which corroborated the statement made by the prisoner that Jacobs picked it up and gave it to him to sell for him, and whether Jacobs picked the brooch up or Pledge stole it was for them to determine. He did not see but that the whole of the evidence taken before the Magistrates applied as much to Jacobs as it did to the prisoner, and he did not think, under the circumstances, it would be necessary for them to find a true bill against Pledge; but before they came to that conclusion he should advise them to have such witnesses before them in order to determine in their own minds whether there was or was not a prima facie case against him. In a very short time afterwards the foreman came into court and said that the Grand Jury had found “no true bill” against George Pledge.

Southeastern Gazette 10-4-1866

Quarter Sessions, Monday: Before J. Biron Esq., Deputy Recorder.

The Deputy Recorder addressed the Grand Jury: The first case was that of George Pledge, indicted for stealing a brooch, value 10s., the property of William Pilcher, on the 25^th December last. He did not think, under the circumstances, it would be necessary for them to find a true bill against Pledge; but before they came to that conclusion he should advise them to have such witnesses before them in order to determine in their own minds whether there was or was not a prima facie case against him. The Grand Jury, acting on the suggestion of the Deputy Recorder, threw out the bill against Pledge.

Folkestone Chronicle 9-1-1869

Thursday January 7^th: Before R.W. Boarer and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Mary Wilson was brought up in custody charged with stealing on the 1^st inst. a bundle of mangling clothes, the property of Henry Stace, landlord of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, which she pledged on the following day at Mr. Hart`s pawn shop. Prisoner pleaded guilty to pawning the goods, but not guilty of stealing, as she found them in the street.

Mary Jane, wife of Henry Stace, the prosecutor, deposed: I recollect Friday the 1^st of January. On that day I had a bundle of clothes (consisting of ten pinafores – two diaper and the rest Holland -, two chemises, six pairs of drawers, one glass cloth, four bedroom towels, one pocket handkerchief, one tablecloth, one calico jacket and one wrapper apron, valued altogether at about 30s.) lying on a chair in the bar. They were placed there about six o`clock in the evening. Next morning about twelve o`clock I missed them. I do not know the prisoner. I have not seen her in the house, and my husband, who was in the bar all the evening of the 1^st does not remember any woman coming in. In the afternoon I gave information to the police, and in the evening went down to Mr. Hart`s shop, where I found part of my goods – nine pinafores, three towels, four drawers, the tablecloth, one chemise and the glass cloth. Last night I came up to the police station and identified the rest of my property, except the apron and a pair of drawers, and one chemise which the prisoner says she has on. The articles produced by P.C. Woodlands are my property, and are the same that were stolen. The towels and tablecloths were marked. No mark was on the others, but I can swear to them. I made them myself.

William Hart, assistant to Messrs. Hart and Co., High Street, pawnbrokers, said that on Saturday the 2^nd inst., about five o`clock, prisoner brought the goods in the first bundle produced to the shop to pledge. She obtained two shillings on them. Last night she cam about seven o`clock and brought the second bundle produced. A police constable was found and he took prisoner into custody. She said she picked them up in the street.

By the Bench: There was no dirt on the wrapper.

P.C. Woodlands deposed: From information received I apprehended prisoner in Mr. Hart`s shop last evening, and charged her with stealing the articles produced, from the Prince Albert. She said she did pledge them, but had found them in the street. They were no use to her and so she pledged them for 2s. On arriving at the station she gave me twp pair of drawers, a towel (forming the second parcel), and a pawn ticket, with the jacket and pocket handkerchief she had on. Last evening, at half past eight, I received the first parcel from Mr. Stroud at Mr. Hart`s.

This was the case.

Prisoner was charged and cautioned. She pleaded guilty of being drunk, and picking them up in the street, so that she pledged them. She did not steal the bundle.

She was then committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, to take place next Friday.

Another charge of larceny in stealing a glass tumbler from Mr. Boult was withdrawn, as Mr. Boult could not positively swear to the glass, although it was of a particular pattern. Mrs. Pearson, of High Street, had the glass in her possession, and gave it up to Mr. Boult.

Notes: More Bastions lists the licensee as Henry Stay. Boult was licensee of the Victoria, South Street.

Folkestone Express 9-1-1869

Thursday, January 7^th: Before R.W. Boarer and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Mary Wilson was charged with stealing a bundle of clothes from the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street.

Mrs. Mary Jane Stay deposed that she wasd the wife of William Stay, of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. On Friday, the 1^st inst. she missed a bundle of clothes. At ten p.m. it was on a chair in the bar. It contained eight Holland and two diaper pinafores, two chemises, six pair of drawers, one glass cloth, four bedroom towels, a pocket handkerchief, tablecloth and a calico jacket; she valued them at 30s. The things were put on a chair in the bar at six in the evening. She missed them on the following morning about twelve o`clock. They were not seen in the bar that morning. She did not know the prisoner. Her husband served in the bar that evening, but did not recollect anything about the prisoner. After witness missed the things she gave information to P.C. Woodlands, on Saturday afternoon, between four and five o`clock. The policeman afterwards fetched her to go to Mr. Hart`s pawn shop. She saw a bundle of the clothes there; it only contained a portion of the missing clothes. Saw the rest of the things last night at the police station. The things produced are the things lost. She could recognise them by the marks and workmanship.

William Hart was then sworn. He said he was an assistant at the pawn shop of Mr. Philip Hart, High Street. The prisoner pledged a bundle of clothes on Saturday last, about five o`clock. He examined the bundle, but could not tell exactly the articles it contained. The bundle produced, he thought, was the one. He lent the prisoner 2s. on them; he asked her if it was her property; she answered “Yes”. She came again on Wednesday evening at seven o`clock and offered the other bundle in pledge. Witness examined them, and then got one of the other assistants to remain in the shop while he fetched a constable. Police Constable Woodlands came and asked her where she got the bundle of clothes that she pledged on Saturday. (Prisoner: He didn`t ask me that.) She said she picked them up in the street. He then took her into custody. He gave all the things to P.C. Woodland.

P.C. Woodland said that on Saturday, between four and five in the afternoon, from information he received from Mr. Stay, who had lost a bundle of clothes from the bar, he went to Mr. Hart`s in High Street, and between six and seven he found a bundle there answering the description. He communicated with the prosecutor, and Mrs. Stay went with him, and she identified it as her property. He went to the shop again last night and saw the prisoner in the pawn shop, and asked her if her name was Mary Wilson; she said it was. Asked her if she pawned the bundle on Saturday. She said she did. He then asked her if it was her property; she said no, she picked them up in the street in the upper part of the town, and the clothes was of no use to her, so she pledged them for 2s. She produced some of the articles after being taken to the station last night.

The prisoner was then cautioned in the usual way, and asked if she had anything to say in answer to the charge, when she reiterated her statement of finding them in the street.

The Bench committed her for trial at the next Quarter Sessions on Friday, and ordered that she should be confined at Petworth till that day.

Kentish Gazette 12-1-1869

On Thursday Mary Wilson was charged before A. M. Leith, Esq., and R. W. Boarer, Esq., with committing a felony at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street.

Mary Stay, the wife of Henry Stay, was called, and deposed that on the evening of the 1^st inst., she left a bundle of things on a chair behind the bar. It contained several pinafores and other linen. On the following day, about twelve o’clock, she missed them, and she at once gave information to P.C. Woodlands, and in the evening he called and asked her to go with him to Mr. Hart’s pawn shop, High Street, where she saw a bundle containing a portion of the articles. She saw the rest of the things at the Police-station on Wednesday night, and P.C. Woodlands said he had found them. She recognised the articles produced as her property.

William Hart said he was an assistant in Mr. Hart’s shop, and the prisoner came there on Saturday and pawned a bundle containing various articles. He lent her 2s. on them, and asked her if it was her property. She said, “Yes.” She came a second time on Wednesday evening and offered more articles. He examined them, and then got another assistant to look after the shop while he fetched a constable.

P.C. Woodlands deposed that he received information from Mr. Stay of the robbery, and accordingly went to Mr. Hart’s in HighStreet between six and seven o'clock in the evening, where he saw the bundle produced. He went there again on Wednesday evening at seven o’clock and saw the prisoner. He charged her with the offence. She said the things were not her property; she picked them up in a street in the upper part of the town. He then took her into custody, when she gave him a handkerchief and two pairs of drawers, which she said were a portion of the articles she had found, and a pawn ticket. The prisoner, being cautioned, said she did not steal the things, but was a little the worse for drink, and picked them up in the street.

The Bench committed her for trial at the Sessions on Friday, ordering her to be confined at Petworth till that day.

Folkestone Chronicle 16-1-1869

Quarter Sessions

Friday January 15^th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

The only business before the court was, as we stated last week, the trial of Mary Wilson for larceny.

The learned Recorder reviewed the case to be brought on, stating that he saw no difficulty in it. The woman was found in possession of the stolen property soon after it`s loss, and her justification of herself must come before the court. The Grand Jury were dismissed to their duties. Shortly after, the foreman returned to say the jury were not agreed as to their finding: they found a true bill of unlawful possession, but not of stealing. His Honour said that there not being two counts there must be a bill or no bill found, and soon after the Grand Jury returned a “True Bill”, and were dismissed with the thanks of the Borough for their services, and the learned Recorder said he thought they had given themselves unnecessary trouble in trying the case, instead of merely seeing that there was a case that should be inquired into.

The prisoner, Mary Wilson, having been placed in the bar, pleaded “I`m not guilty of taking them out of the bar. I found them on the street”. A jury was then empanelled, and the evidence of Mrs. Stay, William Hart and P,C, Woodland, as stated last week, taken. Our readers will remember that on the 1^st of January, prosecutrix had a bundle of mangling clothes brought home, constisting of ten pinafores, two chemises, six pair of drawers, a glass cloth, four bedroom towels, a pocket handkerchief, a tablecloth, a calico jacket, and an apron, value about 30s., which she placed on a chair inside the bar; that at twelve o`clock next morning the bundle was missed, and on enquiries being made, part of the property was found to have been pledged at Mr. Hart`s shop for 2s., and that on the following Wednesday prisoner was arrested trying to pledge the remainder. She now declined to cross-examine the witnesses, and her only defence was that she found the things.

The case being concluded, the learned Recorder recapitulated the evidence, remarking that the law was, that any person found in possession of stolen property, without giving a satisfactory account of it, would presumably be the thief, and it was not sufficient to find an article to lay claim to it, but the finder must believe it to be lost, and that there are no means of ascertaining the owner. In this case the prisoner appeared to have taken no pains to discover the owner, even if her tale were true that she found them. It was for the jury to decide, and if they were satisfied with her account of how she became possessed of the clothes they would acquit her, but if not they would find her guilty.

The jury retired, and after an absence of nearly half an hour, to the astonishment of the whole court, the prisoner included, returned a verdict of “Not Guilty”, and the prisoner was discharged.

Folkestone Observer 16-1-1869

Quarter Sessions

Friday 15^th January: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Mary Wilson was indicted for feloniously stealing 10 pinafores, two chemises, two pairs of drawers, one glass cloth, four towels, one pocket handkerchief, one tablecloth, one calico jacket, and one apron, of the value of £1 10s., the property of Mrs. Mary Ann Stay, at Folkestone, on the 1^st instant.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The following evidence was then taken:

Mary Ann Stay said she recollected Friday, the 1^st January. She placed a bundle of clothes which had been brought from the mangle on a chair in the bar. Any person could reach them by getting up on the counter of the bar. Missed the clothes on Saturday the 2^nd, about six o`clock, about which time she went to the bar for the clothes and found they were gone. Witness went out about seven o`clock on the evening of Friday, and returned home about nine. Did not look in the bar when she went out. Gave information to P.C. Woodland on Saturday evening, and went to Mr. Hart`s. Identified the towels by the mark “H.M.J.S.”. Could not swear to the clothes by the cut, as she made them. The goods she saw at the pawnshop were not all marked. Had not seen the prisoner before she was brought before the magistrates.

William Hart said he was an assistant to Hart & Co. On Saturday, January 2^nd, prisoner pledged a bundle of clothes for 2s. Did not specify the articles on the ticket as there was not room, but simply stated it in the books as “tablecloths &c.”. Asked the prisoner if it was her property, and she said it was. The cloth they were wrapped in was clean. On Wednesday, January 6^th, prisoner came to the shop again and offered two pairs of drawers on pledge. Witness left the shop in charge of another assistant, and met P.C. Woodland in the High Street. Did not examine the last bundle. The policeman went back to the shop with witness, and asked the prisoner where she got the clothes she pawned on Saturday, and she said she picked them up in the street.

P.C. Woodland said he recollected going to the shop of Mr. Hart on Wednesday, January 6^th, when he saw the prisoner there, and upon his asking whether she was the person who pawned some clothes at the shop on the Saturday previous, she said she did as she had no use for them herself. He then took her into custody and charged her with stealing them. She then handed him a bundle of clothes, which she said were a part of the bundle she pledged. When at the station prisoner took off a jacket from under her dress, and a handkerchief from the breast of her dress and gave witness. The clothes had been in her possession since they were taken from Mr. Hart`s shop.

The prisoner still adhered to her former statement that she picked the clothes up in the street.

The Recorder summed up the facts of the case and explained the law touching the same.

After an absence of a quarter of an hour, the jury returned with a verdict of Not Guilty.

The prisoner was then discharged.

Folkestone Express 16-1-1869

Quarter Sessions

Friday, January 15^th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Mary Wilson was charged with stealing a bundle of clothes, the property of Henry Stay, at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. The circumstances attending the case were fully detailed in our impression of last week. The prisoner was given in charge of P.C. Woodland while offering a portion of the property lost at Mr. Hart`s pawn shop, High Street. In answer to the charge she said she “found them on the street”.

The Recorder, in summing up, said Mrs. Stay placed the property behind the bar in her house on the 1^st inst., and she missed it the next morning. The prisoner was found in possession of the property at Mr. Hart`s, dealing with it as her own. Then she said she picked the bundle up – if so she should give a satisfactory account of how it came into her possession. If they believed her statement, someone else must have stolen it, but no evidence was produced to show that, and the prisoner had disposed of the things in a clandestine manner. Then, did she make reasonable inquiries? As to the identity of the articles, there was no doubt about it.

The jury, after a quarter of an hour`s deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, to the surprise of those present, and the prisoner was discharged.

This finished the business of the session.

Southeastern Gazette 18-1-1869

Quarter Sessions

These sessions were held on Friday before the recorder, J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.

A true bill was brought in against Mary Wilson for stealing a bundle of clothes, the property of Henry Stay, at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. The prisoner had been apprehended while offering a portion of the property for pledge, at Mr. Hart’s pawn shop, High Street.

The prisoner declared that she found the bundle in the street, and the jury after considerable deliberation found her not guilty, and she was discharged.

Folkestone Chronicle 6-2-1869

Wednesday February 3^rd: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Timothy Danaher, private in the 3^rd Buffs, was charged with housebreaking.

Harriett Ballard, 35, Cheriton Place, said: About three o`clock on Tuesday morning I heard a crashing noise. I rang the bell violently and the noise ceased. In the morning I found the glass of the area door broken, but the key was not in the door, so that it could not be opened. Then the window of the housekeeper`s room was broken, and a round brass dial and inkstand was missing from the room. On the previous evening I saw the house properly fastened. There were drops of blood outside the window, and spots of ink on the steps, also in the direction of the square.

Prisoner: I know nothing of the affair.

P.C. Charles Smith said: Yesterday between ten and eleven my attention was called to the robbery. I made enquiries and subsequently detained the prisoner at Hythe. I ascertained that he had offered the timepiece and inkstand for sale. I charged him with housebreaking and with having had the goods in his possession at seven o`clock. He said he knew nothing about the affair and had not had the things in his possession. I could not find the property. On searching him at the police station, I found a pair of gloves and the pocket of his trousers all smeared with ink. His hands and coat were also smeared with ink. His hands were not cut.

Cross-examined: I went to three public houses and asked if you had offered for sale anything. One man told me you fell and cut your nose outside his house.

Henry Stay, landlord of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, said: On Tuesday morning, about half past twelve, prisoner came into my house and wanted a pint of beer, but I refused. He said he had been absent two days. I gave him a glass of beer to go home, and he went away.

Superintendent Martin asked for a remand to Friday, which was granted.

Friday, February 5^th: Before R.W. Boarer and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Timothy Danaher, on remand from Wednesday, was charged with housebreaking.

Miss Ballard, the prosecutrix, re-called, said she and her mother only lived in the house. The window of the housekeeper`s room was not open, but the square of glass broken was large enough to allow anyone to get through. A net blind on the door was also torn down and taken away. The value of the goods taken was 7s. 6d., and they were the property of my mother, Harriett Ballard.

John Brooks said he saw the prisoner on the road to Hythe about eight o`clock on Tuesday morning, and he asked him if he would buy a clock for a pot of beer. He also had a netted window blind in his hand.

Cross-examined: Your nose was not cut when I saw you.

George Hall said he saw prisoner about half past ten on Tuesday morning in a street at Hythe, cut about the face, and dirty. Witness took him into a public house and gave him a pint of beer. Afterwards, in walking along the street, prisoner asked him if he could “push anything”, and if he were a detective. He then said “I broke into a house at Folkestone and stole a small clock”. Witness thought it was a public house lark, and advised him to take it back. Prisoner said he would go to O`Grady`s and get it, and while there a policeman took him. The clock was in his trousers pocket when witness first saw him.

Cross-examined: It was not your gloves that made your pocket gape. You told me you were in Folkestone till about twelve, and then slept in a stable at Hythe. I did not ask you anything about a clock. You were bleeding at the nose when I first saw you.

Henry Stay, re-called, said prisoner was about twenty minutes in the house. He was drunk.

Pay-Sergt. Sam Scragg, 3^rd Buffs, said prisoner was a private in his company. Prisoner was absent from Camp at 8-30 tattoo on Sunday and Monday last.

P.C. Smith, re-called, said it was in O`Grady`s house he apprehended prisoner. On charging him with stealing, he denied all knowledge of it.

Cross-examined: I searched O`Grady`s house when I took prisoner, but found nothing.

This was the case.

Mr. Boarer having cautioned prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, and said if he did break into the house he must have cut himself, and had he stolen the goods he should not have told Hall about it. No-one saw him break into the house, and no-one saw the articles in his possession. He wished to call the persons who saw him fall and cut his face about eight o`clock, and that there was no blood about him before.

Prisoner was then committed for trial at the ensuing Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Observer 6-2-1869

Wednesday, February 3^rd: Before Alderman Gambrill and R.W. Boarer.

Timothy Danaher, a private in the 3^rd Buffs, was charged with housebreaking.

Harriett Ballard said: I live at 25, Cheriton Place. On Tuesday morning about three o`clock I heard a noise at the lower part of the house. I rang the bell violently and the noise ceased. On going down in the morning I found the glass window of the back door smashed. The key was not left in the door. Found the window in the housekeeper`s room broken, and missed from that room a round glass dial and an inkstand, which were left on the mantelpiece. I saw the house locked up and went to bed about 11 o`clock on the night previous. There was some ink spilt on the steps, and I saw some blood a little distance from the house, near Miss Sankey`s. It was the area door in front of the house.

P.C. Smith said: My attention was called to the robbery on Saturday, the 30^th January. Went to the house of the prosecutor and found the windows broken, and the ink and blood spilt, as described by the last witness. From further information I received I went to Hythe, where I found the prisoner in a private house in Durham Road. Heard that the prisoner had been offering the inkstand and timepiece to a man named Parks. I charged him with stealing the property, and also with having it unlawfully in his possession. Prisoner said he knew nothing about it, and that he had not had the property in his possession. I then locked the prisoner up in the police station at Hythe and made further enquiries about the missing property. On searching the prisoner at Folkestone I found the gloves produced, which are smeared with ink. Asked him how the ink came on the gloves, and prisoner said it had been on them since Saturday night. His hands and coat were also smeared with ink. His hands were not cut.

Henry Stay said: I live at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street. On Tuesday morning, about half past 12, prisoner came to the bar and begged me to draw him a pint of beer. He said he had been absent from the camp two days. I at first refused, but on him promising to go to the camp immediately, I drew him a glass of beer, which he drank and left the house. Prisoner did not then have the mark on his nose which he now has.

On the application of Supt. Martin the prisoner was remanded until Friday for the production of a witness who had refused to come.

Friday, February 5^th: Before Alderman Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Timothy Danaher, on remand, was charged with housebreaking.

Harriett Ballard repeated her evidence given on Wednesday, and in addition to that she said her mother and herself lived in the house alone at present. The inkstand was left on the table in the housekeeper`s room. There was some mud on the inside of the blind of that room. The blind from the area door was also gone; it was a knitted blind. The value of the property was 7s. 6d. The articles were the property of her mother.

John Brook deposed: I live at Hythe. Saw the prisoner on Tuesday morning last about half past seven o`clock, between the Bell Inn and the Canongate, Hythe. He asked me if I would buy a clock. Did not see the clock. I told him I did not want it. Prisoner showed me an inkstand, which he took from his pocket. He asked if I would give him a pint of beer for it, and I told him I did not want it. The inkstand appeared to be lead or prewter. Prisoner had also a window blind in his hand. I was in my cart at the time, so that I did not examine the articles.

By the prisoner: Could not exactly see the inkstand. It was about six inches in diameter. You did have a piece of sticking plaster or dirt on your nose when I saw you.

George Hall, a shoemaker living at Hythe, deposed: I saw the prisoner on Tuesday morning last about half past ten. He was going round Theatre Street. I passed by him, but seeing his trousers covered in mud I called him, and said “Hello. What is the matter?”. He said he had only lost his belt. I took him into the Blacksmith`s Arms and gave him a pint of beer, thinking that he might get himself clean. Prisoner asked me if I knew where a person named O`Grady lived. I then went into the house and waited about an hour. I afterwards went up the lane leading to the church in company with the prisoner, when he asked me if I could push anything. I asked him what he meant, and he said “Are you a detective?”. I said I was not, and he then said “Give me your hand as a friend”. I gave him my hand. I asked him what he had done, and he said he had broken into a house at Folkestone, and broken two windows and stolen a clock. I told him to take it back, thinking it was only a drunken lark. He said he would go back to O`Grady`s and get the clock. There was a hole in his right hand trousers pocket, through which I saw the brass, I suppose, of the clock. I did not see the clock, but prisoner told me it was a clock that he had got. Prisoner did not say anything about an inkstand. He left me to go to O`Grady`s for the inkstand.

By the prisoner: You told me you were in Folkestone until 12 o`clock, after which you came to Hythe and slept in a stable. I did not ask you whether you took the clock to Folkestone. You were not bleeding from the nose, but you had a piece of sticking plaster on it.

Sergeant Samuel Scragg, of the 3^rd Buffs, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, said the prisoner was reported absent on Sunday and Monday at roll call. The roll was called at half past eight.

P.C. Smith repeated his former evidence, adding that when he asked the prisoner if he had been to Folkestone on the night in question, prisoner said he had been lodging in a stable at Hythe.

Prisoner, in answer to the charge, having previously received the usual caution, said that if he had broken into the house, and broken glass as described, he could not have done so without having cut himself. If he had stolen the articles he would have told the man Hall about it. There was no-one saw him break into the house, nor were the things seen in his possession. He would like to call the landlord and the woman, who, he said, would prove that his nose was not cut when he was there.

The Bench said they thought the evidence the prisoner wished to bring insufficient to cause the adjournment of the court. The prisoner was therefore committed for trial at the next Borough Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 6-2-1869

Wednesday, February 3^rd: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Timothy Danaher, a private in the 3^rd Buffs at Shorncliffe, was brought up charged with committing a burglary.

Miss Annie Ballard, of 25, Cheriton Place, sworn, said: I heard a crashing noise about three o`clock on Tuesday morning and rang the bell violently; after that it became quite quiet. When I came down in the morning I saw that the glass was broken in the glass door, and I suppose that they key not being left in the lock, the thieves could not get in that way. I then saw the window was broken in the door leading to the housekeeper`s room, and in going through there the ringing of the bell must have frightened them. I missed a round brass dial and an inkstand from the mantelpiece in the housekeeper`s room. The house was properly locked up when we retired to rest about eleven o`clock. I saw some ink spilled and some drops of blood on the pavement and on the blind. I did not miss anything else. The door was at the front of the house.

The prisoner, when asked if he had any questions to ask, said he knew nothing about the affair.

P.C. Smith said: Yesterday morning between ten and eleven my attention was drawn to 25, Cheriton Place. Miss Ballard told me she had missed a time-piece and inkstand. I examined the window and saw it was broken, and blood and ink splashes in several places. From information I received I went to Hythe in search of the prisoner. A man named John Brooks told me the prisoner had offered him a time-piece and inkstand for sale the same morning. I then went to Durham Street, and found the prisoner in a private house, and I charged him with breaking into a house that morning, and having the stolen property in his possession. He said that he knew nothing about it and had not had the things at all. I then took him to the Hythe police station. I made several enquiries for the property, but could not hear anything further. I then brought the prisoner to the police station at Folkestone and searched him, and I found a pair of gloves all smeared with ink, and one of the pockets of his trousers and his hands were all smeared with ink. His hands were not cut.

By the prisoner: I was told at a public house I went to with you that in going out of the door you fell and cut your nose.

Mr. H. Stay, of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, said: On Tuesday morning, between twelve and one o`clock, the prisoner came into my house and begged me to draw him a pint of beer, which I denied. He said to me then that he had been absent for two days, and I then said I was in the service for some years and I would give him a glass of beer if he would go home. He had no bruise on his nose then.

The prisoner said he was drunk when he went to the house of the last witness.

Upon the application of Mr. Martin the case was remanded till Friday.

Friday, February 5^th: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Timothy Danaher was brought up on remand.

Miss Ballard was re-examined, but the only additional evidence adduced was that the mother was in the house at the time, and the property missing was hers. She valued the property lost at 7s. 6d. They had also missed a window blind.

John Brooks, of Hythe, said: I know the prisoner and saw him on Tuesday morning between seven and eight on the road. He asked me if I would buy a clock. I told him I did not want such a thing. He then pulled an inkstand out of his pocket. I told him I didn`t want it. He said I could have it if I gave him a pot of beer. It looked like a pewter one, gilded. He had something like a window blind in his hand.

George Hall, shoemaker, said: I live at Hythe. I know the prisoner by sight, and saw him on Tuesday about half past ten in Theatre Street. I said “Hallo, what`s up with you?”, as I saw he was all over mud and his nose cut about. He said he had lost his belt. I took compassion on him and took him into a public house and gave him a pint of beer. Asked him if he knew a person of the name of O`Grady here, and he said “Yes”, and I told him he would clean his tunic for him. He went and came back and we had a pot of beer, Afterwards I went along a lane at Hythe with him, and he asked me if I could “push” anything. I did not understand him, and he repeated the question. He then said “Are you a detective?”. I said “No”. He said “Give me your hand as a friend”. I gave him my hand and I asked him what he had got. He said he had a small clock for sale, and he had broken into a house at Folkestone and broke two windows. I advised him to take it back again. He said he would go back to Mrs. O`Grady`s and get the article. While he went back the policeman came and took him. He was going to take it back. He said he had lost his belt. I said “No, my good man. The belt is in your pocket.”, and he said that was a clock. He did not take it out of his pocket.

The prisoner made a statement.

The Bench: We don`t think there is anything in the case to prevent it`s being sent for trial. We therefore commit you for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Southeastern Gazette 8-2-1869

Local News

Timothy Danaher, soldier, was charged on Wednesday, before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer, Esqs., with breaking into 5, Cheriton Place, and stealing a timepiece and inkstand therefrom.

Miss Ballard was called, and she deposed to hearing a smashing of glass on Tuesday morning last. She rang the bell and it suddenly ceased. On going downstairs when she got up, she found some glass broken in the glass door and in the window leading to the housekeeper’s room. She missed a timepiece and an inkstand off the mantelpiece. There were several stains of ink and blood about. The house was properly locked up when she retired the previous evening.

P.C. Smith said he arrested the prisoner at Hythe, having heard that he had offered an inkstand and timepiece for sale. On searching him at the Folkestone police station he found a pair of gloves stained with ink; the inside of his pockets and his hands were also stained with ink.

Mr. H. Stay, of the Prince Albert, said that the prisoner called at his house a little after twelve o’clock on Monday night, and asked for a pint of beer. He said he belonged to the 3rd regiment and had been absent two days. Witness gave him a glass of beer, and told him to go home. He was drunk.

The case was remanded for further evidence till Friday.

The case was again brought up again on Friday, before the same magistrates, and the prisoner was committed for trial.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-4-1869

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday, April 14^th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

The Recorder delivered his charge to the Grand Jury. He remarked he was sorry so many gentlemen had been called away from their business, because there was one prisoner to be tried, but as the law at present stood it was necessary. There was but one case to be brought before them – one of housebreaking, and they would experience no difficulty in returning a true bill, according to the depositions, for the housebreaking and entering was actual, and not constructive, so there was no need for him to tell them waht was the law as to constructive housebreaking; in fact the crime was one of burglary, a very much more serious offence than mere housebreaking, having been committed between the ours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., which was punishable with penal servitude for life. He could not tell what was the reason the magistrates did not commit the prisoner to the Assizes, but whenever the greater offence included the less he considered it contrary to the intention of the legislature to commit for the smaller offence, more especially as it was in the province of a jury, where they could not find guilty of the greater offence, even if there were only one indictment, they could find a prisoner guilty of a less crime. The reason the magistrates committed prisoner for the less offence might have been to save expense and trouble, but if that had been the reason they might even have gone further and argued, that as it was only a 7s. 6d. case, they might, on the prisoner pleading guilty, convict him summarily. He need not say that in either case the magistrates would be committing an unjust act. He was not blaming the magistrates, because he did not know their motive. Some magistrates again felt a pleasure in exercising their jurisdiction, as in cases of serious assault, and dealt tenderly with a prisoner, so that his family might not have to go to a workhouse. All this was not right, and he (the Recorder) was satisfied that magistrates had no business to commit for a smaller offence than could be proved to have taken place. If this case had not been sent there for trial, they would have held a maiden session, and they might perhaps think he wanted to have the white gloves, but he considered that no chairman of the bench of magistrates should take the gloves, if during the quarter any cases had occurred in the borough which might have been sent for trial in the discretion of the bench.

The Grand Jury were then dismissed to their duties, and in the course of about three quarters of an hour returned with a true bill against Timothy Danoher, a private in the 3^rd Buffs, stationed at Shorncliffe, for feloniously breaking and entering the premises of Harriett Ballard, the elder, in Cheriton Place, Folkestone, and stealing therein a round brass clock, a glass inkstand, and a knitted blind, value 7s.6d., on the 2^nd of February last. A second count charged him with feloniously stealing the same articles.

Prisoner pleaded guilty, saying he was bad enough without telling a lie.

He also pleaded guilty to having been convicted at that court on the 9^th day of April, 1867, of felony, having previously been convicted of housebreaking.

Being asked what he had to say in extenuation, prisoner said he was drunk, and did not know how he committed the offence. In the morning he kept close, with the intention of replacing the stolen property.

The learned Recorder said that would have done, had it been his first appearance as a prisoner, but he had been convicted before himself twice before, and received nine months and three months hard labour. But that was not all. When they came to his military offences they found he was guilty of habitual drunkenness – the cause, doubtless, of many of his crimes, but no extenuation – of desertion, of being absent without leave, and making away with his regimental necessaries, provided at the National expense, to procure the means of obtaining drink, of using insubordinate language in the orderly room, drunk and riotous, drawing a knife on a comrade, and committing every possible military offence, having been on the regimental defaulters` book more than fifty times. Did he think it possible there could be a worse character short of actual murder? Prisoner had had every chance, but now it was his (the Recorder`s) duty to inflict a severe punishment, for prisoner was a dangerous person, and, had he been disturbed on this occasion, and had there been a knife in his way, doubtless he would have used violence. It was necessary that the public should be protected, and the punishment imposed on the prisoner would be five years` penal servitude.

On the application of Mr. Minter, who appeared to prosecute, the property stolen was ordered to be given up to Mrs. Ballard.

This terminated the business of the court.

Folkestone Express 17-4-1869

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday, April 14^th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Timothy Danaher, 30, private of the 3^rd Buffs, was arraigned for burglary. He pleaded Guilty. It will be remembered the prisoner was brought up in February before the magistrates for breaking into a house at 25, Cheriton Place, in the occupation of Mrs. Harriett Ballard, and stealing therefrom a brass dial, inkstand, and a knitted blind. He had been seen in Folkestone the same night as the offence was committed at the Prince Albert Inn. He was found the day afterwards at Hythe, where he had offered some of the property for sale.

The prisoner asked to say a few words to the court. He said a witness appeared against him that proved he was drunk. If he had been sober, he should not have committed the offence, and to prove that, he, the next morning, was sorry for what he had done, and was going to bring the things back. He met a man and asked him to put him out of sight of the provost. He took him into a loft, where he stopped half an hour. He said he would not tell any person, but he told a policeman who came and took him into custody.

The Recorder said: This would be all very well if it had been a first offence, but you have been tried before me twice, and you have been sentenced to nine months` imprisonment in this court on the 9^th July, 1867, for felony. You were sentenced for three months` hard labour for stealing a bundle of clothes. This is your offences, as far as civilians are concerned. Then you have been convicted in military courts. On the 27^th February, 1861, you were found guilty of habitual drunkenness, and deprived of a portion of your pay for 168 days, and imprisoned for 42 days. On the 11^th Dec., 1862, for being absent without leave you were sentenced to 42 days` imprisonment. On the 17^th Dec., 1864, for using insubordinate language, you were sentenced to 28 days` imprisonment. On the 3^rd of July, 1865, for being absent without leave you were sentenced to 42 days. On the 28^th Sept., 1865, you deserted, and were sentenced to 112 days` imprisonment. On the 18^th June, 1866, you were absent without leave, and for drawing a knife on Private Bowman, of the 2^nd Dragoon Guards, you were sentenced to 168 days. In addition to this you appear 42 times in the Regimental defaulters book for getting drunk &c. Does any worse character exist? You have had every chance to do better, and you must be shown that people are not to have their night`s rest disturbed by houses being broken into. And then again you have been convicted for drawing a knife on a fellow soldier, and although you have not been up for so great a crime as murder, yet in this case, if you had been interfered with, and a knife had been within reach, no doubt you would not have hesitated to use it. Such a character ought to be sent out of the country, but it is only in my power to sentence you to penal servitude. The sentence is that you be kept in penal servitude for five years.

Mr. Minter said he had an application to make on behalf of the prosecutor, that the things stolen be returned.

The Recorder: Certainly.

This finished the business of the sessions.

Southeastern Gazette 19-4-1869

Quarter Sessions

The spring session was held on Wednesday last, in the Town-hall, before the Recorder, J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.

Timothy Danoher, a private in the 3rd Buffs, was charged with breaking into the house of Harriet Ballard, No. 25, Cheriton Place, and stealing therefrom a round brass clock, an inkstand, and a knitted blind, on Feb. 2nd.

The prisoner pleaded guilty, and admitted a previous conviction, on the 9th of April, 1867, for felony.

The Recorder said he had been twice convicted by him, and he would also read a number of sentences passed upon him by the military authorities. On Feb. 27th, 1861, 42 days’ imprisonment for habitual drunkenness; Dec. 10th, 1862, 42 days’ for being absent without leave; Dec. 17th, 1864, 28 days’ for using insubordinate language; July 3rd, 1865, absent without leave, 42 days’ imprisonment; Sept. 8th, 1865, for desertion, 112 days’ imprisonment; June 18th, 1866, for being absent without leave and threatening Private Bowman of the 2nd Dragoon Guards with a knife, 168 days’ imprisonment. He also appeared 42 times in the defaulter’s book. He thought that a worse character could not exist, and he must severely punish him. He therefore sentenced him to penal servitude for five years.

Folkestone Express 28-8-1869

Wednesday, August 25^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman. J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Spirit Licenses (Renewal)

The renewal of the license at the Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street, was refused.

Southeastern Gazette 30-8-1869

Local News

Annual Licensing Day.—A full bench of magistrates attended on Wednesday to grant renewals and hear fresh applications.

Several licenses were suspended owing to the complaints of the public, and the renewal of the licences of the Bricklayers’ Arms, kept by Mr. William Peel; the Prince Albert kept by Henry Stay; and the Royal Engineer, kept by George Dawkins, was refused altogether.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-9-1869

Coroner`s Inquest

An inquest was held yesterday afternoon at the Town Hall, before J. Minter Esq., and a respectable jury, on the body of Sergt. Alfred Hooper, of the Army Hospital Corps, who was found dead in bed at the Prince Albert Inn on Thursday morning.

Supt. Martin said: I went to the Prince Albert yesterday morning, and found deceased lying in bed in an upstairs room. He was on his back with his head on the pillow. There was no sign of a struggle.

Harriet Hobden said: I live in George Lane. I met deceased at Sandgate on Wednesday evening about half past ten. I did not know him. I had some brandy, and afterwards came with him to the Prince Albert to get a bed. We went upstairs directly, but deceased came down again for some soda water. I got into bed and went to sleep. I was intoxicated, and did not remember his getting into bed. I believe this was about half past eleven. I did not wake up till nine o`clock, and then I found him dead by my side. I got up and gave an alarm. Deceased appeared to be sober coming from Sandgate. He complained of his head being giddy.

Cross-examined by Mr. Martin: We did not have half a pint of brandy at the Prince Albert.

Sergeant Charles Godfrey, Army Hospital Corps, identified the body as that of Colour Sergt. Alfred Hooper, of the same corps, stationed at Netley.

Austin Jones Fergusson, assistant surgeon, Shorncliffe Camp, said: I have this day made a post mortem examination of the body of deceased, and ascertained to my own satisfaction the cause of death, which was disease of the heart, complicated with extensive disease of the kidneys of long standing. The whole of the internal organs were diseased. I believe he has been drinking for the last eight or ten days, and has not eaten anything for some time, as the stomach and intestines were empty.

A verdict in accordance with the evidence.

Folkestone Express 25-9-1869

Inquest

On Thursday morning information was received at the Police Station that a soldier had been found dead in bed at the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street. It appeared that a woman met the deceased the previous evening at Sandgate, and yielding to her persuasions he passed the night with her at the above house. The next morning, to the woman`s surprise, she found that the soldier was dead. Dr. Tyson was called in, but too late to render any assistance. From enquiries made, it appears that the name of the deceased was Alfred Hooper, and he was a Colour-Sergeant of the Army Hospital Corps.

The inquest was held at the Town Hall on Friday afternoon before the Coroner, J. Minter Esq., and a respectable jury. After proceeding to view the body, the following witnesses were examined;

Superintendent Martin said yesterday morning from information received he proceeded to the Prince Albert Inn and found deceased in bed upstairs, undressed. He was quite dead. His clothes were folded up on a chair. In his trousers pocket was 6s. 3d. and a tobacco pouch. A medal was on his tunic, and he had a ring on his finger. There was no sign of any struggle having taken place.

Ellen Hobden, a single woman, living with her mother in Goerge Lane, Folkestone, said she was an unfortunate. She met the deceased at Sandgate on Wednesday evening. Had never seen him before. She had a glass of brandy at Sandgate, but the deceased had nothing. Left Sandgate in his company and went to the Prince Albert, at her suggestion, to sleep together. They went upstairs directly.He went down to fetch some soda water; this was about half past eleven. Did not speak to him after that; she was intoxicated. Witness woke at 9 o`clock next morning and found deceased dead by her side. She at once gave an alarm to Charles Clements, who she saw on the landing. Deceased appeared sober; he did not drink in her company. He complained of giddiness while walking from Sandgate.

Sergeant Charles Cooper, A.H.C., identified the body. Deceased was about thirty years of age. The last time he saw him was at Netley Hospital. (A soldiers` ticket from London to Folkestone, dated September 22, was produced. It was found on the body.) Did not know what brought him to Folkestone.

Austin Jones Fergusson, assistant surgeon in the army, having made a post-mortem examination of the deceased, had no doubt that death was caused by disease of the heart of long standing. Believed he had been drinking very much lately.

Charles Clements, an itinerant musician, lodging at the Prince Albert, was examined and deposed to being called into the room by the female.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical testimony.

Southeastern Gazette 27-9-1869

Local News

On Thursday morning, Colour-Sergeant Alfred Hooper, of the Army Hospital Corps, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, died suddenly at the Prince Albert Inn, Rendezvous Street. He met with a woman named Franks, at Sandgate, and was persuaded to accompany her to the above house, where they passed the night. In the morning she was horrified at discovering that her paramour was dead. A medical man was sent for, but the deceased had been dead for some time. The deceased is reported to have a wife and three children living at Southampton.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-11-1869

Wednesday, November 23^rd: Before W. Bateman, J. Tolputt, R.W. Boarer, and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

This was a special sessions for the transfer of licenses.

George Bates, gardener, of Lydd, applied for a renewal of the license to the Prince Albert, kept by Henry Stay, whose license was refused at the last meeting.

This application was also refused, and Mr. Martin afterwards stated that it was only an attempt to blind the Bench. This applicant was the father of Mr. Stay, and it was intended for Stay still to keep the house.

Folkestone Express 27-11-1869

Wednesday, November 24^th: Before W. Bateman, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and C. Dashwood Esqs.

Applications for license

The Prince Albert: George Bates applied for a license for this house. Mr. Minter read a petition and memorial in favour of the application.

The Chairman stated they were advised they had no power to grant the application in the case without notices.

Mr. Minter said he was of the same opinion, but as the Magistrates` Clerk had prepared the applicant`s petition and memorial, he (Mr. Minter), supposed there must be some power to grant a license, of which he was not acquainted, otherwise it was perfectly useless to prepare the petition and memorial.

Mr. Bradley: It is one thing to prepare the petition and memorial; it is another to prepare the notices.

Even More Tales From The Tap Room

Thanks And Acknowledgements

Welcome

Contrast Note

Contribute

Search This Blog

Thursday, 24 April 2025

Prince Albert, Rendezvous Street 1841 - 1987

No comments:

Post a Comment

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