 |
Providence Inn, on left c1905. Credit Folkestone Library
|
Licensees
Jane Gittens Mentioned 1838
Margaret Fox Mentioned 1841
Francis Fox 1842 c1846
Thomas Fox c1846 c1847
Bagshaw 1847
Francis Fox c1847 1853
Zachariah Pope c1853 c1857
Maria Warren c1857 c1860
William Warman c1860 1895
Adelaide Warman 1895 1899
Joseph Charles Pettifer (As
Executor) 1899 1899
Walter Polhill 1899 1901
Arthur Mott 1901 1901
Henry Hoskin 1901 1902
Frederick East 1902 1903
Henry Green 1903 1906
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.
Southeastern Gazette 8-3-1853
Local News
In the evidence given against Francis Fox, the assertion
made by the prisoner, that the prints were given to him by Mr. Chinnery`s
brother, has been completely contradicted by the fact that a letter has been
received by Mr. Chinnery from his brother, who is in Australia. To have written
from there, he must have sailed early last year, whereas the prints stolen were
no published until the September following.
Friday, March 4th: Before The Mayor, S. Mackie,
T. Golder, W. Bateman, W. Major, and W. Smith, Esqs.
The evidence of police sergeant Carpenter, of the detective
force, was read, and also the following additional evidence adduced.
Mr. Church attended to prosecute for the South Eastern
Railway Company, and Mr. Ford (from Mr. Hart’s) for the prisoner.
Mr. Church, in his address, remarked that evidence would be
produced to show that the prints were published in September last, and that
they could not have been purchased, as stated by the prisoner, twelve months
since. He was unable to produce the publisher of the prints, Mr. Sinnett, as he
was that day engaged to attend the Emperor Napoleon’s secretary, to submit some
drawings of the Emperor and Empress, but that he would be produced on the
trial. The 50 prints were coloured on the 17th September last, and transmitted
to Boulogne on the 21st, arrived at Folkestone on the 22nd, and at Mr.
Ackermann’s in London on the 23rd.
James Steer, superintendent of the Folkestone police,
corroborated in every particular the evidence given by the witness Carpenter at
the last examination.
Sergeant Carpenter deposed: In the evidence I gave at the
last examination of the prisoner, I stated that some prints were seen at the
prisoner’s house, framed, and that I took the name of them and the marks; afterwards,
when I returned, they were gone, and the frames hid, which I produce. On going
to Mr. Carragetti, in Baldwin’s Gardens, I found duplicate copies of the three
prints. I was informed by him, that he was in the habit of having prints of the
same kind from France, through Folkestone.
Mr. Clurch wished the bench to know, that the prints from
the frames did not disappear till after the prisoner was in custody.
Mr. Samuel Chinnery deposed—I am Custom house agent, in the
employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. I went to the house of the
prisoner on Saturday, the 19th February. I went alone to the house, proceeded
upstairs, and found Sergeant Carpenter in the course of his search. We went
upstairs, and in my presence Carpenter found two large prints, a glazed print,
and the small one in a portfolio, in which there were, I should think, about 40
prints. I went again to the prisoner’s house on the 21st February, in company
with Carpenter and Inspector Steer, and in the tap room we saw the prints now
produced. They had diminished by 20, as near as I could guess. The prisoner was
asked where he got them from, and he said he had the two large ones from a man
named Clark, a seaman on board the Undine, and that he had had them by him a
year or more. As I was going downstairs he called me back, and he said “Mr.
Chinnery, your brother gave me those prints, but I did not like to bring you
into trouble, and therefore the statement I made was false.” I said, “Good
heavens, you don’t mean to say that. I believe, painful as the explanation is,
the truth is the best.” I then told Carpenter that the prisoner had made
another statement. Carpenter asked me where my brother was, and I told him in
Australia; he asked the prisoner if he knew that my brother was gone there, and
he replied that he did know it. I asked the prisoner if my brother had given
them to him as belonging to passengers, who had left them behind. He said,
“Yes”, and that he did not think they were taken out of cases.
By Mr. Church: My brother left England in March, 1852. The
prints referred to came over from Boulogne in September, 1852. I produce my
entry book and letter of advice, dated the 21st September, together with the
bill of landing. The prisoner’s salary is about 18s. or 20s, per week; he was a
porter in the employ of the company.
By the Mayor: It is usual for persons to complain of losses.
Other things have been lost. The prisoner has been in the employ of the company
three years in continuation, and off and on eight years.
Examination resumed: It is the prisoner’s duty to convey the
goods from the ship to the Custom-house ; he has access to the place where the
goods are laid out, and is allowed to go in and out; the goods were consigned
to the company.
By the Mayor: It would be no part of the prisoner’s duty to
assist in packing.
Thomas James Greenop deposed: I am clerk to Mr. Chinnery. I
produce an entry book containing the prints consigned to Messrs. Ackermann and
Co.; the entry is my own handwriting. The case was marked F. S. I counted the
prints; it is my invariable practice to do so, and I think I did so in this
instance, as I put down the number 234. I don’t recollect who packed or
unpacked them.
By Mr. Ford: They are generally opened in my presence.
Mr. Richard Cock deposed: I am landing waiter at this port;
it is part of my duty to check the number of prints that pass in cases through
the Custom-house. I produce an entry book containing the number. The entry is
marked F. S.; there were 234 prints (single French). The number is called out by
the weigher; his duty would be to count them.
Cross-examined: I don’t count one case in ten. I have no
recollection of this particular case going through the Custom-house. We have
quantities of 1,200 sometimes, when we count a bundle or two, and if correct,
we do not count the others, as it would spoil the prints to handle them.
John Rogers deposed: I am a packer in the South Eastern
Company’s employ. I have been employed there two or three years. I produce my
entry of the goods in question. I was there on the day referred to. I never
knew the prisoner to be off duty. I have seen the prisoner in the room where
the goods are exposed; the porters have access to those rooms.
Nicholas Keating, warehouse keeper, produced his book, and
swore to the goods being sent off by rail.
Ferdinand Ackermann deposed: I am a printseller, and live in
The Strand. On the 23rd September last. I received a consignment of prints from
Mr. Sinnett, Paris; they were accompanied by a letter of advice and invoice,
which I produce. At the bottom of the invoice is the number of the prints. I
checked the invoice; they were not correct, there being two short. I have since
looked at my books, and find that I can account for all except three; the two
stolen and one I suppose was sold for cash. The value of the prints is 10s.
each. I believe when they were first sent to me, it was just after the date of
their publication. I never sold any of the prints to anyone in Folkestone, or
in the county of Kent.
The guard of the train, the way-bill checker, and carman of
the company, were called to prove the transit of the package, and its delivery
unopened to Mr. Ackerman.
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 time consented to take bail, the prisoner in £200, and two sureties in
£100 each, and to give forty eight hours’ notice of such bail.
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.
Southeastern Gazette
5-4-1853
Quarter Sessions
Friday April 1st:
Before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.
Francis Fox, harbour
porter in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, pleaded guilty to a
charge of stealing two prints, value 10s., 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 he
imprisoned for twelve calendar months, with hard labour.
The prisoner, who
appeared surprised at his sentence, was then removed.
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.
Folkestone Observer 30-5-1863
Wednesday May 27th:- Before the Mayor
Mary Kane Skips was charged with being drunk. Pleaded Guilty.
P.C. Ovenden said that the prisoner came along Radnor Street and went into the South Foreland. She had not been there many seconds before she was put out. She was then going into Providence when she tripped over the step, and there lay in the passage not being able to get up, she being so drunk. He took her into custody and brought her to the station.
She was fined 5s., and costs 3s. 6d., to be paid in a week
Folkestone Chronicle 19-12-1863
Wednesday December 16th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and James Tolputt Esq
William Spearpoint was brought up on a summons, charged with an assault on Henry May.
Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.
It appeared from the evidence of plaintiff, who is a porter on the South Eastern Railway, that on the 11th inst. He went into the Providence Inn, when defendant came in, and after some altercation, struck plaintiff, who took up a wooden spittoon in self-defence. A scuffle ensued until they were separated.
Mr. Minter cross-examined the plaintiff, and for the defence called William Jenkins, who put a different complexion on the case. Ultimately the case was dismissed.
Folkestone Observer 19-12-1863
Tuesday December 15th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.
James Spearpoint appeared on summons for an assault on Henry May on Friday the 11th instant.
Henry May, in the employ of the S.E.R. Company said: Last Friday afternoon I called in at the Providence public house, Beach Street. I had been there about 20 minutes when Spearpoint came in. He had a piece of net, a needle and some twine in his hand, and asked where the man was he fetched that for. He asked if I could make a round bottom to the net: I said I could. He wanted to bet me 5s. that I could not. I said I had not got 5s. and handed the net back to him. He then swore at me and challenged me to fight, which I declined to do. He then wrung my nose, got hold of my whiskers, and gave me a back-handed blow across my eye. He was in the attitude of striking me again when I took up the spittoon in self defence. I told him if he struck me again I would hit him with it. He then struck me in the face and I threw the spittoon at him. I don`t think it hit him. He struck me again several times, and I then closed with him and held him against the table, when a shipmate of defendant`s took me away, and he struck me again on the lip and underneath the jaw. We were then separated by the bystanders.
Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Other people were in the room, amongst whom was Mr. Brown, a shoemaker; Mr. Jenkins was also there. I have called no-one as witness. I did not call defendant a ---- bully when he was engaged in an argument with another man. He didn`t say he would punch my head if I called him those names again. I didn`t jump up and seize him when he said those words. I didn`t hold him on the table with the spittoon in my hand over his head. Defendant didn`t call someone to pull me off. After Jenkins pulled me off I didn`t throw the spittoon at him.
Mr. Minter addressed the bench on behalf of the defendant, and said he was at the Providence holding an argument about the net, when May called him a ---- bully, and that was the commencement of the row and Spearpoint said “If you say that again I shall punch your head”. May then got up, and so did Spearpoint, and they wrestled together, when May pushed him on the table on his back, and picked up a spittoon, when Spearpoint called Jenkins to pull him off. May was not satisfied when separated, but he must throw the spittoon at him. Spearpoint then struck him in the mouth, not before, as he had a witness to prove.
He called William Jenkins, in the employ of the S.E.R. Company, who said: I went into the Providence on Friday afternoon. As I went in I heard May say “You are a ---- bully”. Spearpoint got up and said “If you call me a ---- bully again I shall punch your head”. May got up and closed on Spearpoint and pushed him on his back on the table. May had hold of him close by the neck with one hand, and had a spittoon in the other. Spearpoint called out “Bill, part us”. I jumped up and separated them. They went at it again, and May threw the spittoon at Spearpoint. Spearpoint then struck him in the mouth. I did not see any blow struck before that. May then went out of the house. When I went into the room the net was lying on the table.
By the complainant: I did not see you strike defendant with your fist, but you struck at him with the spittoon.
The bench said the case had entirely broken down because complainant had brought no witness to corroborate his evidence. They must therefore dismiss the case.
Southeastern Gazette 22-12-1863
Local News
At the Police Court, on Tuesday (before Capt.
Kennicott, R.N., and J. Tolputt, Esq.), William Spearpoint was charged with an
assault on Henry May. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.
It appeared
from the evidence of plaintiff, who is a porter on the South Eastern Railway, that,
on the 11th inst. he went into the Providence Inn, when defendant came in, and
after some altercation, struck plaintiff, who took up a wooden spittoon in
self-defence. A scuffle ensued until they were separated.
Mr. Minter cross-examined the plaintiff, and for
the defence called William Jenkins, who put a different complexion on the case.
Ultimately the case was dismissed.
Folkestone Observer 15-7-1865
Monday July 10th:- Before the Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.
A young man, described on the charge sheet as a tailor, and who gave his name as Daniel Harvey, was charged with being in the house of William Warman, landlord of the Providence public house, for an unlawful purpose on Sunday night.
William Warman said he was the landlord of the Providence public house. About eleven o`clock las night his wife, who had gone to bed, called to him and asked if he had been upstairs in the room overhead. He said he had not been there, and his wife asked him to go up and see if anyone was there because she had heard someone moving about. Thinking his wife must have been dreaming he went upstairs without taking a candle, and on going into the room he asked if anyone was there. He received no answer, but to make sure no person was there he felt round the room in the dark with his hands, when, to his great surprise, his hand came into contact with the leg of a person who was lying on the bed. Grasping it tight, he pulled the intruder off the bed onto the floor, and out of the room downstairs, and when he got into the light he found the prisoner. Asked him how he came there, when the prisoner said he had paid for his lodgings and had a right to sleep there. Witness said he never let lodgings, as his house was only just large enough to accommodate his family. Prisoner had evidently been drinking, but he was not drunk, and could walk up and down stair well enough. He said he was a stonemason by trade and had been working at Ramsgate. He had his shoes off when witness pulled him off the bed; gave him into custody of Swain, the policeman, and he was taken to the station house. Missed nothing out of the room. Had never seen the prisoner before.
The magistrates discharged the prisoner, who said he had been drinking all day on Sunday with some friends at Sandgate, and did not know how he came into the house.
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.
Folkestone Observer 24-2-1866
Friday February 23rd: Before the Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.
Charlotte Glasgow was charged with assaulting Margaret Ann Mullett.
Prosecutrix, a single woman living in North Street, said: On the 27th December last, just before two o`clock in the afternoon, I went to Mr. Warman`s, the Providence public house, for some beer. The defendant served me with the beer, and then asked me to stop a moment, as she wanted to speak to me, and I did so. Mr. Iverson came out of the room, and defendant said to him “Here, Steve, I don`t see why she shouldn`t have a serving out as well as me”. She them pushed me into the tap room, and Mr. Iverson kissed me under the mistletoe, and my earrings were broken.
The Clerk: Never mind what other people have done. What did defendant do?
Witness: She only pushed me.
The Clerk: What did she do afterwards?
Witness: She did not touch me any more.
The Clerk: Is that all you have to say?
Witness: That`s all, sir.
Mr. Boarer: How is it you left it over so long?
Witness: Because they promised to pay for the earrings, and they have not done so.
The Clerk: But the defendant did not break them?
Witness: No, sir, but it was through her they were broken.
The Clerk: You have summoned the wrong person.
Mr. Boarer: And in the wrong court, too.
The Mayor: You have proved no case. The case is dismissed.
Mr. Boarer: It is perfectly ridiculous to bring such a case here, taking up the time of the court with such a frivolous thing.
Folkestone Chronicle
24-8-1867
Monday, August 19th: Before J. Tolputt and A.M.
Leith Esqs.
Richard Underdown was summoned by Stephen Saunders for
assaulting him on the 15th 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 gone as far
as Powell`s, for that i 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 out 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
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 home 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 had struck him, and
went up to him and gave him a smack in teh 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 walked
away. When they got opposite Powell`s two policemen took defendant into
custody. On Saturday night he went 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`.
Folkestone Observer 24-8-1867
Monday, August 19th: Before J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.
Richard Underdown 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 your coat on and go home”. I was then standing on the doorstep of the Providence, in 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 Sergeant 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 gone as far as Powell`s, for that is only a few steps off. It`s 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 have 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 had stuck 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, and defendant and himself walked away. When they got opposite Powell`s, two policeman 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 friends. Defendant was not sober at the time.
The Bench was sorry to see respectable men come before them for fighting while in liquor. Defendant was fined 5s. and costs; in default 14 days.
Folkestone Chronicle 3-6-1871
Sudden Death
A melancholy sudden death happened yesterday to an old man named Richard Down. The deceased, who was an inmate of the workhouse, came to Folkestone to pass a little time with his friends, and went in the early part of the evening to the Providence Inn, Seagate Street, where he ordered some bread and meat. Whilst in the act of eating, he was observed by some in the room to lay his head back in the chair, as if asleep, and his appearance being rather strange, the attention of those in the room was attracted to him. On trying to rouse him, the deceased was found dead. Dr. Bateman was sent for, who examined the body, which awaits an inquest, to be held today at noon.
Folkestone Express 3-6-1871
Sudden Death
Last evening between five and six o`clock, as a man named Richard Downs was eating bread and meat at the Providence Inn, he suddenly fell down and expired. It is supposed that his death resulted from suffocation through a piece of the meat lodging in his throat.
Southeastern Gazette 6-6-1871
Local News
On Friday evening, between five and six o’clock, as a
man named Richard Downs was eating bread and meat at the Providence Inn, he
suddenly fell down and expired. It is supposed that his death resulted from
suffocation through a piece of meat lodging in his throat.
Folkestone Chronicle 10-6-1871
Inquest
An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Saturday morning last on the body of Richard Downs, who died at the Providence Inn whilst in the act of eating some food. From the evidence of a man named Austen, and other witnesses, it appears that the deceased went to the house where he met with his death on the previous evening. On the table was some liver that had been fried for a cat, and a man named Nash asked deceased to eat some of it with him. Both ate some of the liver, and Nash, when he heard someone coming to take away the liver, exclaimed “Have another piece, old Dick”, and deceased took a large piece and put it in his mouth. He then doubled up in an extraordinary manner, dribbled at the mouth, and manifested other alarming signs, and when they went to examine him the poor old man was found dead. The police were immediately sent for, and Dr. Bateman, but before the latter arrived, deceased had expired. Dr. Bateman made a post mortem examination on the following day, when he found that a large piece of liver had been lodged in his throat, which caused instantaneous death. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the above facts.
Southeastern Gazette 10-6-1871
Inquest
On Saturday last an inquest was held at the Town Hall,
before J. Minter, Esq., coroner, on the body of Richard Down.
From the evidence it appears that the deceased was at
the Providence Inn on the previous evening, eating liver which had been fried
for a cat. In attempting to swallow a piece 2in. long and l½in. wide, it stuck
in his throat, and caused almost immediate death.
The jury returned a verdict of death by accidental
suffocation.
Folkestone Express 22-2-1873
Thursday, February 20th: Before W. Bateman, J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.
Mary Bran was charged with stealing a pint beer glass, value 9d., the property of Mr. W. Warman, Providence Inn.
Fanny Hall, prosecutor`s servant, said prisoner went in the house when the family were upstairs on the 19th instant about half past four in the afternoon, and on witness coming downstairs she saw prisoner going out of the house with her apron tucked up. She afterwards missed five glasses from the bar.
P.C. Smith said from information received he went to prisoner in Seagate Street and asked her what she had under her apron. She pulled out a pint glass and said “only a glass”, which she had taken from the Providence to get her children some grub.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to 21 days` hard labour, Mr Bateman remarking that he was very sorry to see her in such a position, as he had known her for several years, and always thought her to be a respectable woman.
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.
Southeastern
Gazette 9-9-1873
Local News
On the
afternoon of Wednesday last an inquest was held before J. F. Till, Esq.,
(deputy coroner), to enquire into the circumstances of the death of John
Benfield, who was found dead in a sawpit in an outhouse in Mr. Redman’s
occupation, early that morning.
The
deceased was found by Joseph George Colley, who had been to work in his garden
early in the morning, and at half-past five, on going to put his tools in the
saw-pit, he observed deceased on his face, doubled up at the bottom of the
saw-pit. He had been with the deceased the night before at the “Providence”
where they had a pint of beer together.
Mr.
Bateman, surgeon, was sent for, and on his arrival found the deceased’s
extremities cold, but there was still slight warmth under his clothing. He had
no doubt death arose from suffocation. He should suppose the deceased was
stunned by the fall and was suffocated in the sawdust. There were no marks of
violence on the body, nor any evidence of a struggle.
The jury
returned a verdict in accordance with the facts as disclosed in evidence.
Southeastern
Gazette 21-12-1874
Local News
A mixture used as a lotion was
given instead of a cough mixture, to an infant fifteen months old, the child of
Mr. William Warman, of the Providence Inn, by a servant girl, on Friday last.
The poor little child lingered on until Tuesday, when it died, after suffering
most acutely. Dr. Eastes did everything possible to alleviate its suffering.
Folkestone Chronicle 5-6-1875
Monday. May 31st: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, J. Tolputt, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.
Francis Scott, remanded from Saturday, was charged with stealing a fowl and a duck, of the value of 7s., the property of Albert Attwood, High Street.
Henry Silvester, an errand boy, stated that he was behind the counter when he saw the prisoner take the chicken. He immediately informed Mrs. Attwood.
Mrs. Attwood stated that she charged prisoner with stealing the chicken, which he immediately produced, and pleaded to be forgiven, as he was hard up. She told him to go, and he left. She saw the prisoner pass the shop about 5 o`clock, and about half past 6 o`clock P.C. Smith came to the shop with a duck in his hand, and she then missed a duck from the window, and she identified that produced as the one she had placed there.
P.C. Swaine stated that he went to the Providence Inn, where he found prisoner offering the duck for sale for 3s., and he took him into custody.
The prisoner was further charged with stealing, on the 27th instant, a pair of boots, of the value of 18s. 6d., the property of John Saunders, boot maker, Tontine Street.
John Saunders stated that between one and two o`clock on Thursday afternoon he missed a pair of boots from his shop.
Charles Quintin, waiter, stated that he saw the prisoner on Thursday afternoon, a little before four o`clock, talking to a man named Gatehouse, whom he saw buy the boots of prisoner for 6s.
Prisoner was committed to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions on both charges.
Folkestone Chronicle 31-7-1875
Quarter Sessions
Thursday July 29th:
Francis Scott was charged with stealing one fowl and one duck, of the value of 7s., the property of Albert Attwood, at Folkestone, on the 21st of May, 1875.
Mr. Glynn prosecuted.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty.
The prisoner was then charged with stealing one pair of boots, of the value of 18s. 6d., the property of John Saunders, at Folkestone, on May the 27th, 1875.
Prisoner also pleaded Guilty.
Prisoner said he was not in the habit of doing these things, and attributed his guilt to giving way to drink, and asked that he might be dealt with leniently. He had passed two months in prison awaiting his trial, a circumstance he hoped that His Honour would take into merciful consideration.
The Recorder said he was sorry to see the prisoner in that position, but inasmuch as he had confessed his guilt, he would pass on him the lenient sentence of three months imprisonment for the first offence, and three months for the second, the sentence for the second to commence at the expiration of the first.
Folkestone Chronicle 14-7-1877
Inquest
Last evening an inquest was held at the Town Hall on the body of Albert Stephen Warman, aged 6 years, the son of William Warman, landlord of the Providence Inn, who was found dead in about four feet of water near the South Eastern Railway Company`s jetty on the harbour. There was no evidence to show how the deceased came into the water, and the jury accordingly returned a verdict of Found Drowned.
Southeastern Gazette 16-7-1877
Inquest
On Friday evening
an inquest was held at the Town Hall, before J. Minter, Esq., coroner for the
borough, touching the death of Albert Stephen Warman, aged six years, son of
Wm. Warman, of the Providence Inn, Beach Street, who was found in the harbour
about half-past two that afternoon.
The child was in
the habit of going to meet his father coming home to dinner, and on the day in
question left home about half-past eleven for that purpose. A lad named Thomas
Webb, thirteen years of age, was sculling in a boat and was about to pick up a
wooden pipe which he saw floating, when he observed the child about a foot
under water, standing upright, with one arm round a post. The body was
recovered and taken into the company’s shop, when every means was applied to
restore animation, but without effect.
The jury returned
a verdiot of “Found drowned,” there being no evidence to show how deceased got
into the water.
Holbein`s
Visitors` List 4-4-1888
Thursday, March 30th: Present: J. Hoad, J.
Sherwood, J. Fitness, S. Penfold and E.T. Wards Esqs.
Jane Cranner, an “old hand”, was charged with stealing
a counterpane, of the value of 2s. 4d., the property of Jane Harris, on the 29th
of February last. There have been more prepossessing ladies in the “cage” than
Jane.
Mr. Harris stated that on the night in question she put
out the counterpane to dry in the yard, and missed it on the following morning.
Access to the yard could be obtained by means of a gate which was left open.
Jesse Robus, who was deaf and appeared somewhat stupid,
deposed that he was at the Providence Inn in Beach Street yesterday morning,
and the prisoner – whom he did not know – requested him to take a bundle to the
pawn shop. He took it to Mr. Joseph, where the police were called in.
Sergeant Ovenden stated that he was called to Mr.
Joseph`s establishment, when the bundle containing the counterpane and a pair
of curtains were handed over to him. He accompanied Robus to the Providence,
where he pointed out prisoner. Witness arrested her and charged her with
stealing the articles from the house of prosecutor. She replied “I did not
steal it. Three soldiers of the Oxford Regiment tackled me. We had a scuffle
and I picked up the counterpane with my own curtains in a bundle. I threw them
in a window of Mr. Peden`s and called for them next day”.
James Harris, in the employ of Mr. Peden, fruiterer, of
Sandgate Road, said that on going to work on the morning of 1st
March he found a bundle containing curtains in the cellar. From the position
where he found them, they might have been thrown in through the window. He had
been told that a woman had since claimed them.
Mr. Joseph, jun., having given evidence, Jane was
called upon to answer the charge, when she said that what she had stated to the
police was correct.
Having been previously convicted, she was committed for
trial at the Quarter Sessions.
Folkestone
Chronicle 12-10-1889
Thursday, October 10th: Before The Mayor,
Alderman Banks, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and Major H.W. Poole
John Herron was charged with stealing a coat from Henry
Whiting.
The prosecutor said he lived at 35, Charlotte Street.
About three o`clock on Wednesday afternoon he went into the Providence Inn. He
had with him a pilot cloth coat. Witness was sitting in the taproom. The
prisoner and a man named Cox were in the room and witness treated the prisoner.
During the afternoon he fell asleep, and when he awoke the prisoner had gone
and he missed his coat at once. He went outside of the door and saw the
prisoner in the street. He was wearing the coat. Witness said “Give me my coat.
You have got it on your back”. He replied “I shall not until you give me 2s.
You sold the coat to me”. Witness did not sell it to him, and had never thought
of doing such a thing. He valued the coat at 10s.
P.C. Stannage said he saw the prisoner standing at the
corner of Harbour Street, with the coat produced across his arm. Whiting
pointed him out. Prisoner said he gave prosecutor 2s. for it, and the
prosecutor denied it. The prosecutor had been drinking but was not drunk. He
knew what he was doing. The prisoner was sober.
Herron asked for an adjournment until Saturday, in
order that he might secure Cox as a witness.
The application was granted.
Folkestone
Express 12-10-1889
Thursday, October 10th: Before Alderman
Banks, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and J. Brooke Esq.
John Heron was charged with stealing a cloth coat,
value 10s., the property of Henry Whiting.
Prosecutor, who resides at 35, Charlotte Street, said
on the previous afternoon he went into the Providence Inn, and threw his coat
on a chair. Prisoner came into the room, and he treated him. Witness went to
sleep, and when he woke up his coat was gone and also the prisoner. A man named
Cox was still in the room, and he asked Cox where his coat was. He went outside
and saw prisoner with the coat on. He asked prisoner to give it up, and he said
he would not unless he gave him 2s., saying he had bought it. Witness gave
information to the police.
Prisoner said he told the prosecutor he could go and
fetch a policeman, he should not run away, and he waited until the policeman
came.
P.C. Stannage, who took the prisoner into custody, said
he alleged that he lent prosecutor 2s. on the coat. Prosecutor denied it.
Prosecutor had been drinking.
The case was remanded until Saturday.
Folkestone Herald
13-11-1897
Local News
Yesterday Thomas Riley was remanded until Monday on a charge
of stealing a rabbit, the property of Wm. Stone, 21, Mill Bay.
Folkestone Express
20-11-1897
Friday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman
Banks, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Thomas Reilly was charged with stealing from a hut on the 8th
November a live tame rabbit, value 4s., the property of William Stone, of 21,
Mill Bay.
Prosecutor, a labourer, said the rabbit produced was his,
and it was kept at the back of his house in a hutch in Mill Bay in the yard. He
saw it on Monday evening at seven o`clock. At nine o`clock he saw the door of
the hutch was open, and on going to look for the rabbit found it was gone. He
saw it again on Thursday in the possession of a man named Bell, at 38,
Bradstone Road. Its value was 4s. The yard was open to several houses, and
prisoner had been there several times.
William John Bell, of 38, Bradstone Road, a mariner, said he
bought the rabbit of prisoner at the Blue Anchor about a quarter to nine on
Monday night. Prisoner asked half a crown for it, and witness bought it for 2s.
and a pint of beer. Prisoner said it was his rabbit, but he had no convenience
for keeping it.
Sergeant Dunster apprehended the prisoner and charged him
with the theft. He said “Yes. I bought the rabbit from a man they call “Chalky
Harry””. Afterwards he said he bought it from a man called “Bricky Tom”. At the
police station, when charged, he said he did not steal the rabbit – ho bought
it from another man and gave 1s. for it.
Prisoner persisted that he bought it, but did not know
whether he could find the man from whom he bought it. He was remanded
tillMonday.
Monday, November 15th: Before W. Wightwick and
W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Thomas Reilly, who had been remanded on Friday, was charged
with stealing a rabbit.
Joseph Compron, of 14, Radnor Street, said he was in the bar
of the Wonder Tavern on Monday evening, when he saw “Navvy Tom” speaking to
prisoner. Afterwards they went out, and when they came in prisoner was carrying
a parcel. Prisoner gave Tom a shilling and called for a quart of beer.
Adelaide Warman, of the Providence Inn, said that “Navvy
Tom” came into the bar one night, and asked her if she wanted to buy a tame
rabbit. She said “No”.
The Chairman: Well, prisoner, although you have called these
witnesses, there seems no doubt that you stole the rabbit. We might send you to
prison, but we think a fine will answer the purpose. We shall fine you £1, and
in default you will have to go to prison for 14 days.
Folkestone Herald
20-11-1897
Police Court Record
Thomas Riley was charged on remand with stealing a live,
tame rabbit.
In addition to the evidence previously taken as to the
rabbit being missed from a hutch in the back yard of William stone, 21, Mill
Bay, labourer, Joseph Compton, a labourer, 14, Radnor Street, deposed that on
the night of the 8th inst. he saw a man known as “Navvy Tom” speak
to defendant in the Wonder Tavern and hand him a parcel. The defendant returned
later and gave “Navvy Tom” a shilling, which “Tom” handed to another man, and
called for a quart of beer.
The daughter of the landlady of the Providence deposed that
one night a watercress seller (known as “Navvy Tom”) asked her if she wanted a
tame rabbit, and she replied in the negative.
The defendant`s defence at the first hearing of the case was
that he got the rabbit from another man.
The Bench fined defendant £1, or 14 days` hard labour.
The man called “Navvy Tom” was then charged with stealing
the rabbit from a hutch.
In view of the Bench`s decision in the previous case,
Superintendent Taylor asked that the charge might be withdrawn.
This was agreed to by the Bench.
Folkestone Chronicle
10-6-1899
Local News
Mr. Walter E. Polhill was granted a temporary licence for
the Providence Inn, Beach Street, of which he has recently become landlord.
Folkestone Express
17-6-1899
Wednesday, June 14th: Before J. Hoad, W.
Wightwick, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.,
The licence of the Providence Inn was transferred from
Joseph Charles Pettifer, one of the executors of the late licensee.
Folkestone Herald
17-6-1899
Folkestone Police Court
On
Wednesday the following transfer was granted: Providence Inn, Mr. Walter Henry
Polhill
Folkestone Up To Date
17-6-1899
Wednesday, June 14th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge,
W. Wightwick, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs.
Transfer of Licence
Providence Inn, Beach Street: Adelaide Warman to Walter Henry
Polhill
No comments:
Post a Comment