![]() |
Prince Albert c1870. Credit Roy Clare |
![]() | |
Former Prince Albert, with clock showing French Revolutionary Time, July, 2011 |
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
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
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 27th 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.
Dover Chronicle
20-1-1866
Police
Court, Wednesday, January 17th: 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 18th:- 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 25th, 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 18th: 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 25th, 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 19th:- 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 25th, 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
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.
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 25th 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 2nd 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.
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 25th 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.
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 25th 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 25th 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.
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 1st 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment