 |
| Providence Inn, on left c1905. Credit Folkestone Library |
Canterbury Journal 8-12-1849
On the morning of the 30th ult., Mr. William Clout, carpenter, aged 62 years, went to the Providence Inn, as was his usual custom, for a glass of beer, and on returning from the bar, fell down and expired. An inquest was held by Mr. Bateman, and a verdict of “Died by the visitation of God” returned.
Kentish Gazette 11-12-1849
On Friday morning last, Mr. Wm. Clout, carpenter, aged 62 years, went to the Providence Inn, as was his usual custom, for a glass of beer, and on returning from the bar, fell down and expired. An inquest has been held before Mr. Bateman, and a verdict of “Died by the visitation of God" returned.
Dover Telegraph 8-12-1849, Maidstone Gazette 11-12-1849
On Friday morning, Mr. Wm. Clout, carpenter, aged 62 years, went to the Providence Inn, as was his usual custom, for a glass of beer, and on returning from the bar, fell down and expired. An inquest has been held before Mr. Bateman, and a verdict of “Died by the visitation of God" returned.
Maidstone Journal 11-12-1849
On Friday morning se`ennight, Mr. W. Clout, carpenter, aged 62 years, went to the Providence Inn, as was his usual custom, for a glass of beer, and on returning from the bar, fell down and expired. An inquest has been held before Mr. Bateman, and a verdict of “Died by the visitation of God" returned.
Dover Chronicle 15-12-1849
Sudden deaths: Within a fortnight, Mr. Clout, carpenter, whilst taking his allowance at the Providence, as was his usual custom, fell, and was soon a corpse.
Dover Chronicle
26-2-1853
Petty
Sessions, Thursday: Before W. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, Wm. Major, Samuel
Mackie, Thomas Golder, and Wm. Bateman Esqs.
Francis Fox, of the Providence public house in this town, and late in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, was brought up in custody for having in his possession two coloured lithographic prints, and other articles, the property of the South Eastern Railway Company. Mr. Church appeared on behalf of the company, and Mr. Ford, clerk to Mr. Hart, for the prisoner.
John Carpenter deposed – I am a sergeant of the R division of the Metropolitan Police at Greenwich. From information I received, I applied for a warrant, and searched the prisoner`s house. I told the prisoner he was suspected of stealing some lithographic prints. He said “I have nothing of the sort in my house, and you are welcome to search it.” I told him I should do so. On searching the top room of the house, in a sort of cupboard, I found a good number of prints of different descriptions; I should think about twenty, as near as I could judge. I did not find the print I was in search of. Mr. Chinnery, the Company`s agent, came in, and I then showed him the prints, and came away, leaving them there. On Monday last I again went to the house with Mr. Chinnery, and again examined the prints, but found there was not so many as I found on Saturday. I asked Fox what had become of the remainder and he said “For what I know, they are all there.” I then called his attention to the two prints now produced, which are quite alike. I asked him where he got those prints from, and he told me he had bought them of a man of the name of Clarke, and had given him seven francs for them, with the one I now produce. I then found 50 other prints, which I now also produce. I asked him where he got them from, and he told me he bought them of a man of the name of Joe Smith, who lived in Folkestone, but he did not recollect what he gave for them. I found several other things in the house which he could not account for – there was some leather and a camp stool. I made a memorandum, copying the reading at the bottom of the prints, and told him I should make further enquiries respecting them. I then went downstairs, but was immediately called back by Mr. Chinnery, who said “Fox has given another account of those – he says he bought them of my brother.” I then said to Mr. Chinnery “Where is your brother?”, who replied “He is gone to Australia.” I then asked Fox if he knew Mr. C.`s brother had gone to Australia, and he said “Yes, he did.” I asked him why he had told a falsehood about it, and not told me that at first. He said he did not like to do so, and did not want to get anyone into trouble. I then asked him where he was when they were given to him, and he replied “I was in the office, and he told me to take them and not let his brother see them.” I then said “You must have been aware that something was wrong, or else there was no need to conceal them.” I took the whole of the prints (nine in number) to London, and went to Messrs. Ackermann`s in the Strand, and showed the two prints first produced to Mr. Ackermann, who said he had lost two like them.
Mr. Church, on behalf of the Company, asked for the prisoner to be remanded until Friday next, which was granted.
Mr. Ford, on behalf of the prisoner, applied for bail, but the Magistrates, after considering for some time, refused to accept it.
Southeastern Gazette
1-3-1853
At the Patty Sessions on Thursday, before W. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, W. Major, W. Bateman, T. Golder, and S. Mackie, Esqrs., Francis Fox, harbour porter, and packer in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, at the Custom House, was charged with stealing some lithographic prints. Mr. Church, solicitor to the Company, attended to prosecute. It appeared from his statement that property bad been frequently missed, and at last suspicion fell on tbe prisoner, who had been in the company's service some years.
John Carpenter, sergeant of police, R division, deposed: Yesterday week I received information of robberies at Folkestone. I procured a search warrant, and proceeded to the prisoner's house; it is a public-house called the Providence Inn. I told the prisoner that he was suspected of stealing a lithographic print, which I described. I searched the tap-room, and found in a locker behind the screen, a sort of portfolio, which contained a number of prints of various sorts, I should say twenty. I did not find the print I was in search of. At this time Mr. Chinnery, the company's agent came in. I showed him the prints, and came away and left them there. On Monday last I again went to the house, and found there were not so many prints as on the last visit I made. I remarked this, and the prisoner said they were all there for what he knew. I then called his attention to the two prints (which I produce); I asked him where he got them from; he said he bought them of a man named Clark, and had given him seven francs for them. I asked where he was to be found, and he said on board the Undine at Dover. I then found these five other prints (produced). I asked where he got those from, and he said he had bought them of Joe Smith, who lived in Folkestone; he could not recollect what he gave for them. I found many other things, some leather and a camp stool; he said he could not tell how they came into his house. I made a copy of the reading at the bottom of the prints, and told him I should make further enquiry respecting them, and went downstairs. I was immediately called back by Mr. Chinnery, who said that the prisoner had made another statement, namely, that the prints had been given him by his (Mr. Chinnery's) brother, who had gone to Australia. I said, "Why did you tell me a falsehood; why not have said so at first?" He replied he did not like to do so, as he did not like to get anybody in trouble. He told me to take them and not let his brother see them. I then took the prints, nine in number, and proceeded to London. On showing them to Mr. Ackermann, in the Strand, he exclaimed, “Those are the two missing out of the twenty-five that were consigned to me.” He showed me the invoice, where those were included; he said there were fifty prints sent from Paris to him, being twenty-five pairs, from a Mr. Sinett. I went to the prisoner's house, and saw four prints, framed and glazed, which I particularly observed; when I went again they were removed from the frames, and the frames put away. Prisoner said he had had the prints about twelve months, and that be bought them of Clark.
Mr. Church asked for a remand, to enable the officer to make further enquiries.
Mr. Ford (who attended from Mr. Hart's office), for the prisoner, asked to have the prisoner admitted to bail.
Mr. Church thought that as there were a series of robberies committed, the ends of justice might be defeated by doing so. After a short consultation, the prisoner was remanded till Friday next. Bail refused.
The hall was crowded to hear the examination of the prisoner, who was always considered a respectable man, and was doing a good business as a publican.
Dover
Chronicle 5-3-1853
Petty Sessions, Friday: Before William Kelcey Esq., Mayor, W. Major, W. Smith, Thomas Golder, Wm. Bateman and S. Mackie Esqs.
Francis Fox, who was remanded till this day, was again placed in the box, when the following evidence was adduced:-
Mr. Church appeared for the Railway Company, and Mr. Ford, Mr. Hart`s clerk, for the prisoner.
James Steer, Superintendent of Police for this Borough corroborated the evidence given by Carpenter, of the R division of Metropolitan Police, on the last hearing.
Samuel Chinnery, the Company`s agent, deposed:- I went to the prisoner`s house on Saturday, the 19th of February last. I went upstairsm and found the witness, Carpenter, searching. No-one was with Carpenter but the prisoner. Steer was at the bottom of the stairs. Some part of the house was searched in my presence, and Carpenter found the 2 large and 1 small print, now produced, and several others. There might have been as many as 40 prints altogether in the portfolio, but I will not say positively. On the Monday following, I again went to the prisoner`s house; I was with Carpenter and Steer. We proceeded upstairs to the top room, where we found the prints, which are now produced, but there appeared to be fewer than there were on Saturday. Before we went downstairs, Carpenter asked the prisoner where he got the two large prints from, and he stated he had received them from a man of the name of Clarke, who was a seaman on board the Ondine, of Dover. He then asked prisoner how long he had had the prints, and he said “One year, or more”; he might have said twelve months. Whilst I was going downstairs (Carpenter and Steer having gone first) and was on the lower flight, the prisoner called me back, and said “Mr. Chinnery, your brother gave me those prints, but, of course, I did not like to bring you into trouble, and therefore my statement where I had the prints from was not true.” I said “Good heavens! You don`t mean to say it? I never thought him dishonest. Where did he give them to you?” He said “In the office.” I said, upon that, “Painful as the explanation is, the truth is always the best in these matters.” I then called out for Carpenter, and told him. Carpenter said to me “Where is your brother?” I replied “In Australia.” He then asked the prisoner if he knew that, and he said he did. We then went downstairs, and in the lower room, referring to the statement made upstairs, I asked the prisoner if he thought it was probable that my brother had given him the prints out of those left behind by passengers, and he said he thought it was probable – he did not think he had taken them out of cases. I never knew dishonesty imputed to my brother. My brother is abroad; he left England in March, 1852. I now produce a letter of advice, dated from Boulogne the 21st of September, 1852, together with a bill of lading of the same date. The letter of advice contains an entry of a case of prints directed to Messrs. Ackermann and Co. I produce my entry book, which contains an entry of 234 prints as the contents of the case of prints consigned to Messrs. Ackermann, mentioned in the bill of lading. The entry of the number in that book is for the purpose of paying the duty. The prisoner`s salary is 18s. or 20s. a week; at least, I believe so. He was a porter in the Company`s employ, and has been for three years, up to the time of the discovery of these prints. His duty as harbour porter would be to assist in unloading the goods from the ship, and conveying them into the examining room at the Custom House, and loading the goods from the Custom House upon the trucks on the railway. The prisoner has access to the examination room at the Custom House. I produce the duplicate of the ship`s manifest containing the goods in question.
Thomas James Greenop, Mr. Chinnery`s clerk, deposed:- I produce my entry book, containing the entry of a case of prints consigned to Messrs. Ackermann and Co. The entry in this book is in my handwriting. It is my invariable practice to count the prints, and, I believe, I did in this instance. I put down the number 234. I cannot recollect who packed or unpacked this individual case of prints.
Richard Cocks deposed:- I am landing waiter at this port. It is part of my duty to check the number of prints contained in cases passed through the Custom House. I produce a book containing an entry made by myself of the number contained in a case marked F.S. 943 BOT. There were in that case 234 prints. The number was called out to me by the weigher, and I wrote them down. The weigher`s duty would be to count them. Prints generally come over in large numbers. We generally count over two or three bundles, and if they prove correct, we do not count the others. I cannot tell if there was more than one bundle in the case now in question. We adopt the numbers we find upon the bundles if we find those we have counted are correct. If there was only one bundle, and the number was given on the outside of it, that bundle would be counted.
John Rodgers deposed:- I am packer in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, and have been for two years. I produce my entry book. The entry F.S., one case of prints, is in my own handwriting. I got that entry from the ship`s manifest. I have upon occasions seen the prisoner in the Examination Room at the Custom House with the other porters.
Nicholas Keating deposed:- I am a warehouse keeper in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. My duty is to take an account of all goods and packages imported from the packets. I enter those particulars in the Company`s Warehouse Book, which I produce. I was present on the occasion when the good in question were landed. They were forwarded on the evening of the 22nd September last to the Bricklayers Arms.
Ferdinand Ackermann deposed:- I am Publisher of Prints, residing in the Strand, London. I received a consignment of prints from Mr. Sinnett, of Paris, on the 23rd of September last; they were accompanied by an invoice, and a letter of advice, which I produce. I know Mr. Sinnett`s writing. The letter and the invoice are both in his handwriting. I checked the prints themselves against the invoice; they were not correct. I received twenty three copies of the print “Repose de les dames”, coloured, instead of twenty five as mentioned in the invoice. The price of the prints that were missing would be about 10s. each. The number of the companion prints was correct. I believe, when I received the prints, that it was their first publication. I can account for all the copies of the print except one, and I suppose that must have been sold for cash. I never sold two copies of the print and its companion to any one person at one time. I never sold one copy of the print to any dealer or individual in Folkestone, nor to anyone in the county of Kent. The prints were contained in one case, and were not in bundles.
Richard Beasley:- I am checker at the Bricklayers Arms Station, in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. I examined the way bill now produced, and it contains an entry of the case containing the goods in question.
John Lock deposed:- I am delivery carman in the
employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. I produce the delivery ticket of
the goods in question, which I had delivered to Messrs. Ackermann and Co. on
the 23rd of September last. They were in good condition, and the box
was not broken.
This being the whole of the evidence, the Mayor read the usual caution, but the prisoner, acting under the advice of his solicitor, refused to say anything until his trial.
Mr. Ford applied for bail, which was granted, the
prisoner in £200, and two
sureties of £100
each.
Kentish Gazette 8-3-1853
At the Patty Sessions or Thursday, before W. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, W. Major, W. Bateman, T. Golder, and S. Mackie, Esqrs., Francis Fox, harbour porter, and packer in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, at the Custom House, was charged with stealing some lithographic prints. Mr. Church, solicitor to the Company, attended to prosecute. It appeared from his statement that property bad been frequently missed, and at last suspicion fell on tbe prisoner, who had been in the company's service some years.
John Carpenter, sergeant of police, R division, deposed: Yesterday week I received information of robberies at Folkestone. I procured a search warrant, and proceeded to the prisoner's house; it is a public-house called the Providence Inn. I told the prisoner that he was suspected of stealing a lithographic print, which I described. I searched the tap-room, and found in a locker behind the screen, a sort of portfolio, which contained a number of prints of various sorts, I should say twenty. I did not find the print I was in search of. At this time Mr. Chinnery, the company's agent came in. I showed him the prints, and came away and left them there. On Monday last I again went to the house, and found there were not so many prints as on the last visit I made. I remarked this, and the prisoner said they were all there for what he knew. I then called his attention to the two prints (which I produce); I asked him where he got them from; he said he bought them of a man named Clark, and had given him seven francs for them. I asked where he was to be found, and he said on board the Undine at Dover. I then found these five other prints (produced). I asked where he got those from, and he said he had bought them of Joe Smith, who lived in Folkestone; he could not recollect what he gave for them. I found many other things, some leather and a camp stool; he said he could not tell how they came into his house. I made a copy of the reading at the bottom, and told him I should make further enquiry respecting them, and went downstairs. I was immediately called back by Mr. Chinnery, who said that the prisoner had made another statement, namely, that the prints had been given him by his (Mr. Chinnery's) brother, who had gone to Australia. I said, "Why did you tell me a falsehood; why not have said so at first?" He replied he did not like to do so, as he did not like to get anybody in trouble. He told me to take them and not let his brother see them. I then took the prints, nine in number, and proceeded to London. On showing them to Mr. Ackermann, in the Strand, he exclaimed, “Those are the two missing out of the twenty-five that were consigned to me.” He showed me the invoice, whore those were included; he said there were fifty prints sent from Paris to him, being twenty-five pairs, from a Mr. Sinett. I went to the prisoner's house, and saw four prints, framed and glazed, which I particularly observed; when I went again they were removed from the frames, and the frames put away. Prisoner said he had had the prints about twelve months, and that be bought them of Clark.
Mr. Chureh asked for a remand, to enable the officer to make further enquiries.
Mr. Ford (who attended from Mr. Hart's office), for ths prisoner, asked to have the prisoner admitted to bail.
Mr. Church thought that as there were a series of robberies committed, the ends of justice might be defeated by doing so. After a short consultation, the prisoner was remanded till Friday next. Bail refused.
The
hall was crowded to hear the examination of the prisoner, who was always
considered a respectable man, and was doing a good business as a publican.
Kentish Independent
12-3-1853
At the Petty Sessions on Thursday, Francis Fox, harbour porter and packer, in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, at the Custom House, was charged with stealing some lithographic prints. The hall was crowded to hear the examination of the prisoner, who was always considered a respectable man, and was doing a good business as a publican.
Mr. Church, solicitor to the company, appeared to prosecute. It appeared from his statement that property had frequently been missed, and at last suspicion fell on the prisoner, who had been in the company`s service some years.
John Carpenter, sergeant of police, R division, deposed: Yesterday week I received information, and proceeded at once to the prisoner`s house. I told the prisoner that he was suspected of stealing a lithographic print, which I described. I searched the tap room, and found in a locker behind the screen a sort of portfolio, which contained a number of prints of various sorts; I should say twenty. On Monday last I again went to the house, and found there were not so many prints as on the last visit I made. I remarked this, and the prisoner said they were all there for what he knew. I then called his attention to the two prints (which I produce); at the same time asking him where he got them from. He said he bought them of a man named Clark, and had given him seven francs for them. I asked him where he was to be found, and he said on board the Undine, at Dover. I then found these five other prints (produced). I asked where he got those from, and he said he had bought them of Joe Smith, who lived in Folkestone. He could not recollect what he gave for them. I then took the prints, nine in number, and proceeded to London. On showing them to Mr. Ackermann, in the Strand, he exclaimed “those are the two missing out of the twenty five consigned to me.” He showed me the invoice, where those were included. He said there were fifty prints sent from Paris to him, being twenty five pairs, from a Mr. Sinnett. I went to the prisoner`s house and saw four prints, framed and glazed, which I particularly observed. When I went again, they were removed from the frames, and the frames put away. Prisoner said he had the prints about twelve months, and that he had bought them of Clark.
Mr. Church asked for a remand, to enable the officers to make further enquiries. Mr. Ford (who attended from Mr. Hart`s office, for the prisoner), asked to have the prisoner admitted to bail. Mr. Church thought that as there were a series of robberies committed, the ends of justice might be defeated by doing so. After a short consultation, the prisoner was remanded until Friday, bail being refused.
Kentish Gazette 15-3-1853
Friday: (Before VV. Kelcey, Esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, T. Golder, W. Bateman, W. Major, and W. Smith, Esqrs.)
The evidence of police sergeant Carpenter, of the detective force, was read, and also additional evidence adduced. The case having been concluded, the Mayor, having duly cautioned the prisoner, asked him for his defence.
Mr. Ford, on behalf of the prisoner, declined to make any defence, and the prisoner was committed for trial at the next quarter sessions. Mr. Ford asked the magistrates to admit the prisoner to bail, as he thought the case a very slender one, and as the object had been accomplished, viz., giving time to the prosecutors to obtain information, there could be no objection to admit the prisoner to bail.
Mr. Church urged upon the magistrates not to do so, as he considered a very serious case had been made out against the prisoner.
The magistrates consulted together and retired, and after some lime consented to take bail, the prisoner in £200, and two sureties in £100 each, and to give forty-eight hours’ notice of such bail.
Dover
Chronicle 2-4-1853
Quarter Sessions: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder, W. Kelcey Esq., Mayor, R.D. Brockman Esq., M.P., D. Major, W. Major, S. Mackie, T. Golder, J. Bateman, W. Bateman and W. Smith Esqs.
The Recorder charged the Grand Jury very briefly, merely regretting that he could not congratulate them as heretofore upon the lightness of the calendar; although the cases were not numerous, they were very serious. He did not apprehend they would experience any legal difficulties in the execution of their duty.
The first bill of indictment handed to them charged Francis Fox with robbing his employers – the South Eastern Company. Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Church appeared for the Company; Mr. Clarkson, instructed by Mr. Hart, for the prisoner. During the absence of the Grand Jury the counsel on both sides complained loudly of the want of accommodation – especially of the absence of any place in the nature of consulting rooms. The Recorder entirely coincided; and lamented the inconvenience to which they were put: he pronounced it disgraceful, the Grand Jury Room being the only one, which, of course, was then occupied.
The Grand Jury having found a true bill, the prisoner appeared to his bail, and having taken his place in the dock, his counsel, having conferred with Mr. Bodkin, rose and said that the prisoner was charged first with larceny, in that he had stolen two prints, of the value of 10s.; and secondly with receiving them. He should certainly have adopted a different course to that which he was about to take, had not more evidence been brought forward than had been adduced before the Magistrates, He did not complain that such was the case. He could not struggle against the charge in its matured state. There was no doubt the prisoner had been betrayed into a breach of trust towards his employers, which he could not, and would not attempt to justify. He should therefore take upon himself the responsibility of advising the prisoner to plead Guilty to the charge of simple larceny.
Mr. Bodkin said the only motive of the prosecutors was to promote the ends of justice. He thought that those ends would be served by allowing the prisoner to plead Guilty to the first count; he should not offer any evidence upon the second; there was a third, but he should withdraw that altogether.
The prisoner having pleaded Guilty, Mr. Clarkson, in mitigation, urged that his character hitherto had been unsullied, and proposed to call witnesses to substantiate that statement; but the Recorder said it was not necessary.
The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said – The offence of which he had declared himself Guilty was one of a very serious nature, which was aggravated by the attempt to screen himself by throwing the charge upon another, who, being abroad, was unable to vindicate himself. That course was most unfavourable to him; morally it was a greater offence than the original crime. The punishment he should award was twelve months` imprisonment, with hard labour.
We are told the scene outside of the Court was most distressing, as soon as the wife and family heard the sentence. The prisoner has been keeping a public house, and up to this time considered by his neighbours as a respectable and rather prospering tradesman.
Maidstone Journal 5-4-1853
Quarter Sessions, Friday, before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.
Francis Fox, a respectable looking man, who had been in the company`s service, was charged with stealing two lithographic prints, value 10s., the property of the South Eastern Company. Another count charged him with receiving the same articles, knowing them to have been stolen.
Mr. Clarkson briefly addressed the learned Recorder, admitting that his client had been betrayed into the receipt of the articles named in the indictment, under circumstances into which it would not necessary to enter, for, after conferring with the prisoner, and his learned friend, Mr. Bodkin, who appeared on the part of the highly respectable body, whose object was the protection of the property in their possession, as trustees for the public, he begged that the prisoner might be allowed to plead Guilty to so much of the indictment as charged him with larceny, which he believed would substantially carry out the object of the company.
Mr. Bodkin said his learned friend had correctly stated the object of the company, which was to protect the property of the public. The prisoner had previously borne a good character; indeed, if he had not, he would not have been trusted; and the facts which had come to his knowledge appeared to justify him in acceding to the proposition, and allowing the prisoner to plead Guilty to the simple larceny.
A plea of Guilty was accordingly recorded.
Mr. Clarkson said there was no doubt that up to this unfortunate transaction the prisoner`s character was unassailable, and he could call numerous witnesses to show that he was esteemed by his fellow townsmen as a respectable man.
The Recorder did not think it necessary to call witness to character; addressing the prisoner, he said the offence was doubly serious in his view, because he had endeavoured to screen himself by throwing the guilt upon another person, who was not there to defend himself, being in fact out of the country. After what had been said in his favour, he should not inflict so heavy a sentence as otherwise, but it must still be sufficiently weighty to convince persons in his situation that they must not tamper with the goods of others. He would therefore be imprisoned for twelve calendar months, with hard labour.
Canterbury Journal
9-4-1853
At the Quarter Sessions last week, Francis Fox appeared to his bail. His counsel (Mr. Clarkson) having conferred with Mr. Bodkin, rose and said that the prisoner was charged first with larceny, in that he had stolen two prints, of the value of 10s., the property of his employers, the South Eastern Railway Company, and, secondly, with receiving them. He should certainly have adopted a different course to that which he was about to take, had not more evidence been brought forward than had been adduced before the Magistrates. He did not complain that such was the case. He could not struggle against the charge in its matured state. There was no doubt the prisoner had been betrayed into a breach of trust against his employers, which he could not and would not attempt to justify. He should therefore take upon himself the responsibility of advising the prisoner to plead Guilty to the charge of simple larceny.
Mr. Bodkin said the only motive of the prosecutors was to promote the ends of justice. He thought that those ends would be served by allowing the prisoner to plead Guilty to the first count; he should not offer any evidence upon the second; there was a third, but he should withdraw that altogether.
The prisoner having pleaded Guilty, Mr. Clarkson, in mitigation, urged that his character hitherto had been unsullied, and proposed to call witnesses to substantiate that statement; but the Recorder said it was not necessary.
The Recorder sentenced him to twelve months` hard labour.
We are told the scene outside the court was most distressing, as soon as the wife and family heard the sentence. The prisoner has been keeping a public house, and up to this time considered by his neighbours as a respectable and rather prospering tradesman.
Kentish Gazette 12-4-1853
Borough Sessions: These sessions were held on Friday, before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq., Recorder. On the Bench were also the Mayor (W. Kelcey, Esq.), J. Bateman, W. Bateman, W. Smith, S. Mackie, D. Major, T. Golder, and W. Major, Esqrs.
Francis Fox, harbour porter in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing two prints, value 19s., the property of the said company.
The prisoner had been engaged as harbour porter for some years, and was considered a very respectable man. He also kept a public-house called the Providence, where he was doing a good business. The articles were found in his house, and he having stated to the detective officer, Carpenter, of the R. division, that he purchased them of a man named Clark, and afterwards that they were given to him by one of the company's clerks, who had gone to Australia, both stories were proved to be false at the examination of the prisoner before the magistrates.
Mr. Clarkson, for the prisoner (who had been advised to plead guilty), stated that he had hitherto borne an irreproachable character, and that he felt that it was useless to struggle against a conviction, but he trusted that the court would, in passing sentence on the prisoner, consider all the circumstances.
The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, told him that the offence to which he had pleaded guilty was one of a very serious nature, and that the punishment must be for a lengthened period; that the prisoner's crime was aggravated by an innocent person being accused by him, and who was not now in this country to defend himself from that accusation. The Recorder then sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned for twelve calendar months, with hard labour.
The prisoner, who appeared surprised at his sentence, was then removed.
Southeastern Gazette
23-8-1853
Petty Sessions, Wednesday: Before W. Kelcey Esq., Mayor, and W. Smith Esq.
William Lester appeared to answer a charge of assault preferred against him by Mary Ann Barton, the wife of John Barton.
Complainant stated that on Saturday evening, the 6th inst., she was at the bottom of the town, near Beach Street, looking for a lodger, and that the defendant stated he could find him for her,, and if she would accompany him he would take her to him; that she accordingly went with him into the Providence beer-shop, where she partook of a glass of beer, but her lodger not being there she came out again, and the defendant seized her by the wrists, and pulled her some short distance up the tram-road, when the defendant, who was compelled to desist in his endeavours to force her further along, snatched her shawl from her shoulders and ran up the road with it, where he was shortly afterwards found.
Fined £1 and costs, with an emphatic caution from the bench as to the probable consequences of such conduct.
Dover Chronicle 24-2-1866
Police
Court, Friday. Feb. 23rd: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.
Charlotte Glasgow, a young woman, was charged with having assaulted another young woman, named Margaret Ann Mullett, on December 22nd.
Complainant
said she was a single woman, and got her living by service and needlework. She
lived in North Street with her mother. On Friday, December 22nd,
just before two in the afternoon, she went to Mr. Warman`s public house to
fetch a half pint of beer. The defendant was in the bar, and served her with
the beer; defendant asked her to stop, saying she wanted to speak to her.
Complainant did stop. A young man named Iverson then came out of the tap-room,
when the defendant called out to him “Here, Stephen, take her. I don`t see why
she shouldn`t be served out as well as me,” upon which defendant pushed her
into the tap-room and held her; she supposed it was done so that Iverson might
kiss her under the mistletoe, and her earrings got broken. This was all that
defendant did to her, but it was through her that the earrings were broken. She
had let the charge stand over till now because defendant had promised to pay
for the earrings, but now she refused to do so.
The
magistrates told complainant that she had summoned the wrong party and in the
wrong court. They should dismiss the case.
The court was crowded to hear the case.
Dover Chronicle 21-8-1867
Police Court, Monday: Before Messrs. J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith.
Richard Underdown was summoned was summoned by Stephen Saunter for assaulting him on the 15th of August last. He pleaded not guilty.
Complainant said: I am a bootmaker and reside in Tontine Street. On Thursday night last, between 12 and 1 o`clock, I was coming out of the Providence, in Beach Street, when I saw a policeman, the defendant and another man. There had apparently been a scuffle, and I said to the other man, Neville, “You`d better put on your coat and go home.” I was then standing on the doorstep of the Providence, inside the passage, and defendant came across the road to me, and while I was looking another way he struck me a violent blow in the mouth with his fist, so that I have not been able to work since. I gave him into custody, but when we got to the police station Newman said I had better summon him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Minter for defendant: I did not see the fighting. Defendant had received a blow on the face. I gave defendant into custody, and went up to the police station. Defendant might perhaps have gone as far as Powell`s, for that is only a few steps off. It is not true that police constable Smith offered to take him into custody, and I refused to give him in charge. Defendant has not offered me an apology on account of the blow being unintentional, but someone came to me about it on Saturday night.
Police constable Edward Smith said: On Friday morning between 12 and 1 o`clock I was on duty at the bottom of the town and heard a noise of quarrelling. I went into Beach Street and saw defendant and another man fighting. I told them to go home quietly and not make a disturbance. Neville went away and defendant crossed the road to where complainant was standing and without any provocation struck him a violent blow on the face, knocking him backwards into the passage. Defendant was not sober; he was drunk. I took him into custody, but Sergeant Newman persuaded complainant to summon him instead.
Cross-examined: I told defendant he had better go home and he went away a few steps, perhaps as far as Powell`s eating house, and complainant gave him into custody. I have never threatened to take defendant up the first time I had a chance.
Mr. Minter, for the defence, said that no doubt an assault in law had been committed, but that under the circumstances a nominal fine would be sufficient. The conduct of the policeman was most extraordinary. He first of all told the man to go home, and then as he was going took him into custody. The defendant was a man well-known in the town, and the constable was not justified in taking him. The sergeant knew his duty better, and recommended the complainant to summon him. It appeared that defendant and a man named Neville had had blows, and defendant thought it was complainant who struck him, and went up to him and gave him a smack in the face.
He called William Burvill, who stated that he was with defendant on Thursday evening, in the Providence, and saw Neville strike him, and directly afterwards he went up to complainant and struck him. Police constable Smith said to complainant “Give him in charge, and I`ll take him” but he (witness) did not hear any reply made, and defendant and himself went away. When they got opposite Powell`s two policemen took defendant into custody. On Saturday night he went to complainant to offer an apology and any payment required. To the best of his knowledge defendant and complainant have always been the best of friends. Defendant was not sober at the time.
The Bench were sorry to see respectable men come before them for fighting while in liquor. Defendant was fined 5s. and costs; in default 14 days.
Dover Express 23-8-1867
Police Court, Monday: Before Messrs. J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith.
Richard Underdown was summoned was summoned by Stephen Saunter for assaulting him on the 15th of August last. He pleaded not guilty.
Complainant said: I am a bootmaker and reside in Tontine Street. On Friday morning last, between 12 and 1 o`clock, I was coming out of the Providence, in Beach Street, when I saw a policeman, the defendant and another man. There had apparently been a scuffle, and I said to the other man, Neville, “You`d better put on your coat and go home.” I was then standing on the doorstep of the Providence, inside the passage, and defendant came across the road to me, and while I was looking the other way he struck me a violent blow in the mouth with his fist, so that I have not been able to work since. I gave him into custody, but when we got to the police station Newman said I had better summon him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Minter for defendant: I did not see the fighting. Defendant had received a blow in the face. I gave defendant into custody, and went up to the police station. Defendant might perhaps have gone as far as Powell`s, for that is only a few steps off. It is not true that police constable Smith offered to take him into custody, and I refused to give him in charge. Defendant has not offered me an apology on account of the blow being unintentional, but someone came to me about it on Saturday night.
Police constable Edward Smith said: On Friday morning between 12 and 1 o`clock I was on duty at the bottom of the town and heard a noise of quarrelling. I went into Beach Street and saw defendant and another man fighting. I told them to go home quietly and not make a disturbance. Neville went away and defendant crossed the road to where complainant was standing and without any provocation struck him a violent blow on the face, knocking him backwards into the passage. Defendant was not sober; he was drunk. I took him into custody, but Sergeant Newman persuaded complainant to summon him instead.
Cross-examined: I told defendant he had better go home and he went away a few steps, perhaps as far as Powell`s eating house, and complainant gave him into custody. I have never threatened to take defendant up the first time I had a chance.
Mr. Minter, for the defence, said that no doubt an assault in law had been committed, but that under the circumstances a nominal fine would be sufficient. The conduct of the policeman was most extraordinary. He first of all told the man to go home, and then as he was going took him into custody. The defendant was a man well-known in the town, and the constable was not justified in taking him. The sergeant knew his duty better, and recommended the complainant to summon him. It appeared that defendant and a man named Neville had had blows, and defendant thought it was complainant who struck him, and went up to him and gave him a smack in the face.
He called William Burvill, who stated that he was with defendant on Thursday evening, in the Providence, and saw Neville strike him, and directly afterwards he went up to complainant and struck him. Police constable Smith said to complainant “Give him in charge, and I`ll take him” but he (witness) did not hear any reply made, and defendant and himself went away. When they got opposite Powell`s two policemen took defendant into custody. On Saturday night he went to complainant to offer an apology and any payment required. To the best of his knowledge defendant and complainant have always been the best of friends. Defendant was not sober at the time.
The Bench were sorry to see respectable men come before them for fighting while in liquor. Defendant was fined 5s. and costs; in default 14 days.
Kentish Express 24-8-1867
Police Court, Monday: Before Messrs. J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith.
Richard Underdown was summoned was summoned by Stephen Saunter for assaulting him on the 15th of August last. He pleaded not guilty.
Complainant said: I am a bootmaker and reside in Tontine Street. On Friday morning last, between 12 and 1 o`clock, I was coming out of the Providence, in Beach Street, when I saw a policeman, the defendant and another man. There had apparently been a scuffle, and I said to the other man, Neville, “You`d better put on your coat and go home.” I was then standing on the doorstep of the Providence, inside the passage, and defendant came across the road to me, and while I was looking another way he struck me a violent blow in the mouth with his fist, so that I have not been able to work since. I gave him into custody, but when we got to the police station Newman said I had better summon him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Minter for defendant: I did not see the fighting. Defendant had received a blow in the face. I gave defendant into custody, and went up to the police station. Defendant might perhaps have gone as far as Powell`s, for that is only a few steps off. It is not true that police constable Smith offered to take him into custody, and I refused to give him in charge. Defendant has not offered me an apology on account of the blow being unintentional, but someone came to me about it on Saturday night.
Police constable Edward Smith said: On Friday morning between 12 and 1 o`clock I was on duty at the bottom of the town and heard a noise of quarrelling. I went into Beach Street and saw defendant and another man fighting. I told them to go home quietly and not make a disturbance. Neville went away and defendant crossed the road to where complainant was standing and without any provocation struck him a violent blow on the face, knocking him backwards into the passage. Defendant was not sober; he was drunk. I took him into custody, but Sergeant Newman persuaded complainant to summon him instead.
Cross-examined: I told defendant he had better go home and he went away a few steps, perhaps as far as Powell`s eating house, and complainant gave him into custody. I have never threatened to take defendant up the first time I had a chance.
Mr. Minter, for the defence, said that no doubt an assault in law had been committed, but that under the circumstances a nominal fine would be sufficient. The conduct of the policeman was most extraordinary. He first of all told the man to go home, and then as he was going took him into custody. The defendant was a man well-known in the town, and the constable was not justified in taking him. The sergeant knew his duty better, and recommended the complainant to summon him. It appeared that defendant and a man named Neville had had blows, and defendant thought it was complainant who struck him, and went up to him and gave him a smack in the face.
He called William Burvill, who stated that he was with defendant on Thursday evening, in the Providence, and saw Neville strike him, and directly afterwards he went up to complainant and struck him. Police constable Smith said to complainant “Give him in charge, and I`ll take him” but he (witness) did not hear any reply made, and defendant and himself went away. When they got opposite Powell`s two policemen took defendant into custody. On Saturday night he went to complainant to offer an apology and any payment required. To the best of his knowledge defendant and complainant have always been the best of friends. Defendant was not sober at the time.
The Bench were sorry to see respectable men come before them for fighting while in liquor. Defendant was fined 5s. and costs; in default 14 days.
Maidstone Journal 26-8-1867
At the Borough Police Court on Monday, before J.
Tolputt and A.W. Leith Esqs., Richard Underdown was charged with assaulting
Stephen Saunter, on the 15th August. It appears on the night in
question defendant, who was tipsy, had been fighting with another man, and
complainant endeavoured to induce his adversary to go home, whereupon defendant
struck him in the mouth, preventing him from working, and constituting the
assault complained of. The Bench fined the defendant 5s. and costs.
Kentish Gazette 25-2-1873
On Thursday at the Police Court Mary Bean, a married woman, was charged with having stolen a glass, the property of William Warman, Providence Inn. The prisoner was seen on Wednesday, by the servant, to leave the bar hurriedly, and after her departure five glasses were missed. P.C. Smith afterwards apprehended her with two glasses under her apron. Prisoner`s husband subsequently gave up a glass to the police, which he said was not his. The prisoner admitted having taken one glass, but said she only took one. The other was her own.
Mr. Bateman, the chairman, told the prisoner that he had known her some years and always believed her to be an honest woman, but the case had been clearly proved against her. Considering it was her first offence, the Bench would deal leniently with her. She would be committed to Dover Gaol for 21 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment