Rendezvous (Old) High Street 1866 - 1912

The Former Rendezvous, Summer 2011

Rendezvous c1870. Credit Miss M. Patterson

 

Licensees
Stephen Hogben 1866 1878
James Homewood 1878 1879
John Mellows 1879 1882 From Shakespeare Hotel
George Burgess 1884 1888 From Richmond Tavern
Arthur Bruton 1888 1890
Alfred Cotton 1890 1896
George Collins 1896 1898 From Railway Bell
John Proctor 1898 1901
Alice Proctor 1901 1901
John Kolhammer 1901 1902
William Everest 1902 1904
George Godfrey 1904 1906
Mary Colbeck 1906 1907
George Ensink 1907 1911
James Hobson 1911 1912 Ex Belle Vue Hotel

Folkestone Chronicle 24-2-1866

Advertisement

To Builders

Tenders are invited for Re-Building the premises in Broad Street, late in the occupation of Mr. S. Hogben. The plans and specifications may be seen at my Office, on or after Wednesday, the 28^th inst. The tenders are to be sent in at or before six o`clock on Wednesday, the 7^th of March next. Early application is requested.

Mr. Hogben does not bind himself to accept the lowest or any tender.

Joseph Gardner, Architect, Folkestone,

23^rd February, 1866.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-3-1866

Local News

For building two houses and a shop in Broad Street for Mr. Hogben, the following tenders were received: Messrs. J. Bowley, £1,590; G. Lepper, £1,369 19s. 10d.; J. Hoad £1,330; Holdom and Co., £1,296; J.Q. Petts, £1,227 12s. The tender of Mr. Petts was accepted.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-8-1866

Advertisement

Opening of New Premises!!

The Rendezvous, No. 1, Broad Street, Folkestone.

The above will be opened to the public on Tuesday, August 28^th, 1866, for the sale of first class ales and stout in the highest perfection, on draught and in bottle.

Proprietor:- Stephen Hogben, who earnestly solicits a share of Patronage and Support.

Folkestone Observer 24-8-1866

Licensing Day

There were seven applications for new houses, and a certificate was granted for The Rendezvous, Mr. S. Hogben (another publican lost a £10 bet over this, we hear); 

Folkestone Chronicle 25-8-1866

Licensing Day

A Special Sessions was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the purpose of renewing old and granting new spirit licenses &c. The magistrates present were Captain Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs. There was a large attendance of publicans, some interest being excited in consequence of strong opposition being raised against the granting of several new licenses. The first business was to renew old licenses, and about 70 names were called over alphabetically.

The second applicant was Mr. Stephen Hogben, for a license to his new house in Broad Street, The Rendezvous, in support of which he presented a petition signed by a great number of the gentry and inhabitants of the town.

Mr. Minter opposed the application.

Mr. Foad, clerk for Mr. R. Hart, proved that the proper notices were served on the overseers and posted on the door of the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The house was not finished when the notice was posted. It was a new building in course of erection. The notice was posted on the door, but it was not hung on hinges.

Mr. Minter asked Mr. Hogben whether he explained to all the persons who signed his petition that it stated the house was necessary for the accommodation of the inhabitants and visitors.

Mr. Hogben said he did, and that all who signed had an opportunity of reading the petition for themselves. He said he did not ask them to sign the petition as a certificate of respectability for himself, but for the purpose of getting a license.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed to oppose the petition, on the ground that the license was not necessary, and it was ridiculous to think it was when the bench had only just granted licenses to a house next door, to several in High Street, Rendezvous Street, and the immediate neighbourhood. The bench would find by the memorial which he had presented that there were already 70 licensed houses in Folkestone, and no fresh ones ought to be granted unless under exceptional circumstances, and this one was not at all necessary. Besides, the application had been made too early, for by the evidence of Mr. Foad it had been shown that the house was not finished, but only in the course of erection. The Act says that the notice must be posted on the door of the house, and it was not a house till it was inhabited. He had no objection to Mr. Hogben personally, but there was no necessity for a license to the house which had The Rose staring it in the face only next door, and on which the landlord had lately expended a good deal of money for the accommodation of the public.

Mr. Hogben, in reply, said that The Rose had to let beds out for their commercial travellers. He wanted the license for the sake of his luncheon bar. Before he had the house built there he had been offered £1,000 for the ground to build an hotel on it.

The court was then cleared for a short time, and on the re-admission of the public Captain Kennicott said the magistrates had decided on granting licenses to Mr. Spurrier, Mr. Hogben, Mr. Lepper and Mr. Tolputt, and to refuse the application for the other three.

Southeastern Gazette 28-8-1866

Local News

Wednesday last was the annual licensing day, when the magistrates on the bench were Capt. Kennicott, R.N., J. Tolputt and A. M. Leith Esqrs.

All the old licenses were renewed. There were seven applications for new licences namely, Mr. Hogben for the Rendezvous, in Broad Street, (lately opened as a luncheon bar); Mr. Spurrier, for the Alexandra, in Harbour Street; Mr. Lepper, for a new house, the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Road; Mr. J. B. Tolputt, for a house in Bouverie Square; Mr. Elliott for the Gun, Cheriton- Road; Mr. Tite, for the Shakespeare, Oheriton Row; and Mr. Mullett, for the Star, in Seagate Street (sic). The Bench granted licences to the four first-named, and refused the other applications. Mr. J. Minter presented a petition signed by all the publicans in the town against new licences, and appeared specially to oppose the granting of licences to the Rendezvous and Star. 

Folkestone Chronicle 20-10-1866

Advertisement

The Rendezvous. Hotel

Broad Street, Folkestone

S. Hogben

Begs to inform the visitors and residents of Folkestone that he has opened the above premises for the sale of first class wines and spirits of the purest and finest quality, and hopes to be favoured with one trial to prove the correctness of this statement.

P.S. All orders will be executed with punctuality and despatch

Folkestone Chronicle 1-2-1868

Wednesday February 29^th: Before J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs.

Felony: Patrick O`Brian, a villainous looking fellow, was charged with stealing a watch, the property of William Parker Adams.

Prosecutor deposed he was a baker, in the employ of Mr. Hogben at the Rendezvous, Broad Street, and that on the previous morning, having left the bakehouse for a moment, he found the prisoner there when he got back, and went into the bar to have a glass with him, after which he went home to dinner, leaving his watch and chain hanging on a nail in the bakehouse. On his return from dinner it was gone, and he gave information to the police. About half past eleven o`clock in the evening he accompanied P.C. Swaine to the Royal Oak, at Sandgate, where they found the prisoner in bed, and on searching him the watch was found in his trousers pocket. The value of the watch was 30s.

John Moody, landlord of the Royal Oak, said on Tuesday evening prisoner came to his house, called for a pot of beer, and asked for a bed. He wanted trust for a pot of beer, saying he had more than the worth of a pot of beer in his hand, and witness saw a watch in his hand. He then went to bed, and just after twelve prosecutor and a constable came, and he took them up to prisoner`s room and saw the stolen watch produced.

P.C. Swain said he went with prosecutor down to the Royal Oak, and on awaking the prisoner and finding the watch, charged him with stealing it. This he at first denied, but afterwards said he had taken it in a lark.

Prisoner declined to cross-examine either of the witnesses, and pleaded guilty without making any defence. He was committed for six months hard labour. 

 

Folkestone Observer 1-2-1868

Wednesday, January 29^th: Before Captain Leith R.V., and James Tolputt Esq.

Patrick O`Brian was charged with stealing a watch and chain, the property of William Parks Adams.

The prosecutor said he was a journeyman baker and worked for Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Street. Mr. Hogben was proprietor of an inn adjoining the baker`s shop. Saw the prisoner about twenty minutes past twelve yesterday; prisoner came down the passage, looked into the bakehouse, and went into the yard. He afterwards came back to the bakehouse. Prisoner said “Then you have a bakehouse as well as a public house”. Prosecutor said “Yes”. Prisoner then entered the bakehouse and began to talk, and remained about five minutes, when he asked prosecutor if he would have anything to drink, and they then adjourned to the bar. Prosecutor left prisoner at the bar and went to dinner at his own home in Gloucester Place. He returned to the bakehouse about a quarter past one, and immediately missed his watch and chain from a nail on which they hung under a little shelf. It was in the reach of anyone who might enter the bakehouse. He then went to the bar and enquired if anyone had been to the bakehouse since he had been to dinner, and ascertained that the prisoner had been there, then went to Mr. Hart`s office, and afterwards gave information to the police. At half past eleven last night he accompanied P.C. Swain to the Royal Oak, Sandgate to ascertain if the prisoner was there. Went with Swain and the landlord upstairs, and found the prisoner in bed. Immediately identified prisoner as the man who had been in the bakehouse that day. P.C. Swain ordered prisoner to get up and then he searched the bed and his clothes, and in his trousers pocket the watch was found. Prosecutor identified it as his property. The constable asked the prisoner where he got the watch from, when he made no answer, but afterwards confessed to taking it from the bakehouse while prosecutor had gone to dinner. Prosecutor then gave prisoner into the custody of P.C. Swain. Valued the watch at £1. The last time he saw the watch safe was at half past twelve. No-one was left in the bakehouse when he went to dinner. The bakehouse was only locked up at night.

Mr. Moodie said he was landlord of the Royal Oak, Sandgate. Prisoner came to his house several times yesterday. The last time he came was about eight o`clock, when he asked if he could have a bed. He ordered a pot of beer, and paid for his beer and paid for his bed. About 11 o`clock prisoner was in the tap room and took a watch from his trousers pocket. He wanted witness to trust him with a pot of beer; witness told him he did not trust. With that the prisoner said that he had got more than the worth of a pot of beer in his hand. He then put the watch in his pocket and went to bed. Swain and the prosecutor came about 12 o`clock, as witness was just getting into bed. He let them in, and from what was said, let them upstairs and woke the prisoner up, and the watch was found under his pillow, in his trousers pocket. The prosecutor identified it as his property. The watch produced was that one he saw in prisoner`s hand in the taproom. Prisoner said that he took it out of the bakehouse.

P.C. Swain said that last evening about half past ten he received information of the description of the prisoner, and that a man answering that description was at Sandgate. Prosecutor and he shortly after 12 went to the Royal Oak Inn, called the landlord up, and asked if he had any lodgers. He said “Yes, several”. In consequence of what witness told him, he took him to a bedroom where there were four men sleeping, two in each bed. Prosecutor identified one of the four men as the one that had been in the bakehouse that day. He ordered the prisoner to get up, and he found the watch in his pocket under the pillow; wanted him to let him have his trousers before they were searched. In the left hand pocket he found the watch he produced. It was identified by the prosecutor as his property. He then charged him with stealing the same from a bakehouse in Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. Prisoner told him he took it for a lark; told him to be careful what he said as it would be taken in evidence. He said he had been on the drink two days; he was not drunk then. Witness took him into custody, and brought him to Folkestone, searched him there and found no money or property on him.

Prisoner now pleaded guilty, and the Magistrates, believing that prisoner was a very bad character, sentenced him to six months hard labour at Petworth gaol.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-4-1869

Monday, April 12^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith, J. Gambrill and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Waddell was charged on a warrant with embezzling 7s., the money of his employer, Mr. Hogben, of the Rendezvous, Broad Street.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Stephen Hogben, baker and publican, residing in Broad Street, said: The prisoner was in my employ as a barman. It was part of his duty to count the money in the till every morning, enter it into a book kept for the purpose, and give it to me. I have had suspicions for some time, and on Saturday night or Sunday morning, after going to bed, I came downstairs again, counted the money in the till, and marked a quantity of it. There was £10 3s. 4 1/2d. there at the time, made up of gold £4, small silver £3 6s., coppers 13s. 10 1/2d., halfcrowns 7s. 6d., florins £1 6s. I marked all the half crowns, florins and shillings. I do not know how many shillings there were. The halfcrowns I marked with a scratch under the head, the others at the back of the head. In the morning prisoner counted the money as usual, and booked it. I gave him the key of the bar about eight. He locked the money up himself, and put away the key of the till as usual. After counting the money I replaced the key of the till on the shelf. He booked £7 6s 6d. as the taking of Saturday. The entry £7 6s. 6d. in the book produced is in his handwriting.  There was £2 in the till besides for change, so that the cash handed to me yesterday was £9 6s. 6d. I then misses 16s. 10 1/2d. I did not say anything at the time. I called my brother in, and then went upstairs with the prisoner. I said “George, you`ve been robbing me”, and he made no answer. I stamped on the floor saying “Now then, out with it”, and he pulled out his purse, and that contained my money. My brother looked at it, and found some marked money. I locked the door, and went for Superintendent Martin, who came down. I had previously shown the marked money to my brother, George, to Mr. Wakefield, and to Mr. Reason. When Superintendent Martin went into the room, prisoner said “Master, I wish you`d let me speak to you. I`ll make it all up to you that I`ve robbed you of, if you won`t lock me up”. I said “speak to Mr. Martin”. Mr. Martin said “You`ve been robbing your master”, and prisoner made no reply. Mr. Martin then searched him, and took from him the marked money, his rings, and watch. He then searched the prisoner`s box. The money produced, one florin and nine shillings, were marked by me on Saturday night. I gave prisoner into custody.

Cross-examined: No-one could get access to the bar till I gave prisoner the key: that was about eight o`clock. He gave me the money on Saturday for Friday. I have found money short. I cannot tell what money is taken during the day. I pay prisoner 10s. a week, and board and lodging. When he gave me the money on Sunday I said “Haven`t you made a mistake?”. The money was then on the table. I counted it myself, and found it to be £7 6s. 6d. There was 10s. in gold more than on Saturday, because prisoner had given change for a half sovereign. I don`t know what it consisted of. I have for about a week previously marked money. I have counted it for about a month. I may have marked £2 worth of shillings. I have taken them out of the till again. Some of the shillings may have gone into circulation. The mark on the money was one scratch.

George Hogben, brother of the prosecutor, deposed: I am a plumber and glazier residing in Church Street. On Sunday morning between nine and ten o`clock I was standing in Broad Street, outside the Rendezvous, and my brother called me into the house. I went upstairs with him and the prisoner. My brother said to prisoner “You`ve been robbing me”, and he made no reply. My brother said “Out with your pockets, and let`s see what money you`ve got”. He pulled out his purse and threw some money on the table. My brother said to me “That`s mine. Look and see if there`s any there that`s marked like I`ve shown you”. I looked and found a 2s. piece and 2s. marked as described. I did not find any more then. My brother then went out and locked the door. Prisoner said “Where is the master gone? I wish I could see him to make it up. I should never do it again”. I said “Why did you do it at all? It could not be for want, but for temptation”. We were locked up till Mr. Martin came. He looked at the money and I told him what it was. He searched prisoner, and took three more shillings from his pocket, marked in the same way.

Cross-examined: There was about 19s. in prisoner`s purse. I cannot say the exact amount.

Superintendent Martin deposed: Yesterday morning about half past ten prosecutor came to my house, and in consequence of what he told me I went to his house. I went upstairs with him into a room where I found the prisoner and the last witness. I cautioned the prisoner, and told him he was charged with stealing a quantity of silver, and he must be cautious what he said. My attention was called to his purse and money (produced) which was lying on the table. There was 19s 6d. in silver and 1 1/2d in coppers on one part of the table, and a florin and two shillings on another part of the table. I showed three of the coins to the prosecutor, and he identified them as being coins that he had marked. Prisoner made no reply. I asked if he had any more silver about him, and he said no. I searched him and found three shillings loose in his trousers pocket, marked. I asked if he had any, and how much, money in his box. He replied £5 10s. in gold in a purse, wages that his master had paid him. He was given into my custody by prosecutor, and on coming down the stairs he said “Can I speak to you, Master?”. Mr. Hogben said “No, I`ve nothing to do with the case, `tis in Mr. Martin`s hands”. Prisoner said “If you forgive me, I`ll make up to you all I`ve ribbed you of”. I took possession of the money, and it has been in my possession ever since.

Prisoner was the formally charged with stealing the 7s., and pleaded guilty.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed by the friends of prisoner to appear for him. He could only plead in extenuation that it was a case of sudden temptation, he being in a situation of great trust and had given way. He could not defend prisoner`s conduct, but looking at his extreme youth, and at his previous good character, he asked the Bench to inflict a small punishment so as to deter him from again committing himself, should he regain the character he had lost.

Prosecutor expressed his regret at having to prosecute, and said he had no desire to press the charge.

The Bench inflicted a punishment of three months` hard labour, remarking that but for the recommendation of the prosecutor they should have been inclined to punish him severely.

Folkestone Observer 17-4-1869

Monday, April 12^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and J. Gambrill Esqs.

George Waddell was charged with stealing 7s., the property of his employer.

James Hogben said: The prisoner was in my employ as barman. On Saturday night last after I had closed the house and the barman had gone, I went into the bar and counted the money in the till; I found there was £13 4s. 3½ d., consisting of £4 in gold, £3 6s. in small silver, and 13s. 10½ d. in coppers, seven half crowns, and thirteen florins. I then made a scratch on the half crowns, florins and some of the shillings with my knife. I left the money in the till and went to bed. Prisoner got up a little after seven, which was rather an unusual thing for him to do. He got the money ready for me at breakfast time as usual, and I entered it in a book. I asked him what he made of it and he said £6 6s. 6d., but this did not include the £2 given prisoner for change. It was prisoner`s duty to book the money taken. He had done so ever since he had been with him. There was deficiency in the account of 16s. 6½ d. I did not say anything to him then, but went to the door and called my brother in. We then went upstairs into a front room, and I said to prisoner “George, you have been robbing me”. The prisoner did not make any reply. I then said “Out with it”, upon which he put his hand in his pocket and pulled out his purse. I then asked my brother if there was any money in the purse marked like I showed him during the week. He said there was. I then locked them both in the room and went for Supt. Martin. When I returned with Mr. Martin prisoner said he wished he could speak to me. I told him to speak to Mr. Martin. The money produced is part of that marked.

Cross-examined: Prisoner gave me the money for Friday`s takings on Saturday morning between nine and ten. I counted it and found it quite right. Had not always found it right, but had not previously made any complaint. Could not tell what money had been taken. On Sunday morning I asked him if he made the money right, and he said he made it £7 6s. 6d. There was £4 10s. in gold. Prisoner gave Weeks change for half a sovereign on Sunday morning, but I did not see him. I did not mark the sixpences because I knew he would not take them. Had marked money on previous occasions. Had not marked the money longer than a week past. On Saturday night the small silver consisted of £3 6s. Could not tell the number of coins, or the number of shillings. I might have marked £2`s worth. I took the marked money out of the till in the morning and reserved it for another night. The marked money had partly gone into circulation; a shilling or two, perhaps, but nothing more. Would swear the shilling produced is one that I marked. I marked them as near alike as I could. My mark on them was one scratch.

George Hogben, brother of the prosecutor, said: I am a plumber and glazier, living in Church Street. I was standing outside the Rendezvous Inn on Sunday morning last when my brother called me in. I went upstairs in company with my brother and the prisoner. When in the front room prosecutor said to prisoner “You have been robbing me”. Prisoner made no reply. My brother then said “Out with your pockets and let me look at the money you have got”. He put his hand in his pocket and took out his purse and threw it on the table. My brother said to me “This money is mine. Look and see if any of it is marked”. I saw a two shilling piece and two shillings; they were marked. The shillings were marked on the back of the head; the two shilling piece was marked on the bust at the bottom. Did not see any others, as I did not look into them. Prosecutor showed me some coins during the week which he had marked. After my brother had seen the marked money he went out and locked the door, saying “Wait there until I get back” When he was gone prisoner said “Where is the master gone?”. I said I didn`t know, unless he was gone to get the bar book. Prisoner then said “I wish I could see master to make it up with him; I would never do it again”. I said “Whatever did you do it at all for? It could not have been for want, but for mere temptation”. I waited some time when my brother returned in company with Supt. Martin. This was just upon 12. Mr. Martin asked for the money, and I told him it was on the table. He then searched him and found two shillings in his trousers pocket. Mr. Martin then charged him with robbing his master, and prisoner said to my brother “Master, I wish I could speak to you a minute”. My brother said he had left it entirely in Mr. Martin`s hands. After prisoner`s box had been searched, he was taken into custody.

Cross-examined: Could not remember any further conversation taking place. Prisoner said he would make it up; he could get the money from home. Did not know how much money there was in the purse. He believed there was 19s. and some odd coppers.

Supt. Martin said: On Sunsay morning about half past 10 prosecutor came to my house, and in consequence of what he said I went to the Rendezvous Inn. I went upstairs, accompanied by the prosecutor, and in a room over the confectionery shop I saw the prisoner and the last witness. I cautioned the prisoner as to what he might say, and charged him with stealing a quantity of silver. My attention was then drawn to the silver he now produced. Prisoner said nothing in answer to the charge. There was a florin and two shillings on the table, which prosecutor identified as his property. Asked the prisoner if he had any more silver about him, and he said he had not. I then put my hand into his pocket and found three shillings, which the prosecutor identified as his property. Asked him if he had any money in his box, and he said he had £5 10s. in gold, which his master had paid him for wages. I then took him into custody. On going downstairs prisoner said “Can I speak to master?”. Mr. Hogben said “No, I have left it in Mr. Martin`s hands”. Prisoner then said “If you forgive me I will make up all that I have robbed you of”. Mr. Hogben was behind me. I found other articles on the prisoner; a watch and chain, pins, rings, &c. I took possession of the whole of the articles.

Mr. Hogben said he did not wish to press the charge, and was very sorry to see the prisoner in the position that he was.

Capt. Kennicott, addressing the prisoner, said he was placed in a painful position in punishing so young a person. He had no doubt it was all owing to bad company, which was to be found right and left in this town. It was a very serious offence that he was charged with, and they had at first intended to punish him severely. The sentence of the court was that he be kept to hard labour for three months, and they hoped that when that term of imprisonment had expired he would seek to gain an honest livelihood.
 

Folkestone Express 17-4-1869

Monday, April 12^th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith, J. Gambrill, and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Waddell was brought up, charged with robbing his employer, Mr. S. Hogben, of the Rendezvous Tavern, Broad Street. Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Stephen Hogben, sworn, said: I am a baker and publican, and live at 1 and 2, Broad Street. The prisoner was in my employ as barman, and it was his duty to count the money left at night in the till, to hand it over to me, and book it. I had my suspicions of him, and on Saturday night after the house was shut I went to bed, as he supposed, but I came downstairs again and went to the till to mark some of the money. The amount in the till was £10 3s. 4½d., of which £4 was in gold, small silver £3 6s., coppers 13s. 10½d., besides seven half crowns and thirteen florins. I marked the half crown and florins, but I don`t know how many shillings there were. I marked them by a scratch from my knife. I left the money in the till and went to bed. Prisoner got up the next morning a little after seven, which was rather an unusual time for him. He got the money to hand it over to me the next morning at breakfast time. I said to him “What do you make, George, of your takings yesterday?”. He said £7 6s. 6d. (Witness here produced the book with the entry in the prisoner`s handwriting, and he explained that this amount did not include £2, which he had given prisoner on the Saturday morning for the purpose of giving change.) It was the prisoner`s duty to book the amount of takings, and he has done so ever since I employed him. The amount missing was 16s. 10½d. I did not say anything to him then, but I went outside, and seeing my brother, George, I asked him to come in. He came, and we went upstairs, followed by the prisoner, into a front room over the shop. I said to the prisoner “George, you have been robbing me, you have”. He made no answer, but put his hands in his pocket, and stood like a statue. I then said “Out with it”. He pulled out his purse that contained my money. I did not take the purse myself, but I asked my brother if there was any money there like I had shown him. He said “Here are some marked like you showed me”. I then locked them both in the room and went for Superintendent Martin, and I kept them locked in till he arrived, when we both went into the room together and I gave him in charge for robbing me. The prisoner said to me several times “I wish you would let me speak to you, master”. I said “You must speak to Mr. Martin”. He said “I will make it all up to you”. I said “It is now gone too far”. I treated the prisoner as one of my sons. Mr. Martin searched him and charged him with stealing the money. He made no answer that I know of. Witness identified the money produced as part of that marked by himself.

Cross-examined: I gave the key to the prisoner on Sunday morning, and no-one but him could get access to the till. He gave me the money for Friday on Saturday morning. I found that amount right. I have never made any complaint to him. I can`t tell what money is taken during the day. I have entirely to trust to him. I paid him 10s. per week with board and lodging. I counted the money on Sunday morning in his presence. It was all on the counter. I said to him “Have you counted it right?”, and he said “Yes”. Of the £7 6s. 6d. there was £4 10s. in gold in the morning, as he had given change for half a sovereign. I did not know that at the time, but I have heard it since. I did not mark the sixpences or smaller change as I knew he would not take them. I have marked the money on previous occasions, and kept the marked money by me and rang the changes at night. I did that for about a week past. The smaller silver on that night amounted to £3 6s., but I can`t specify the coins. I do not know how many marked shillings there were. I may have marked two pounds worth of shillings during the week. I have them all at home, with the exception of two or three. There is only a few marked shillings gone into circulation.

George Hogben, sworn, said: I am a plumber and glazier by trade, and I live in Church Street. I was standing outside my brother`s house between nine and ten on Sunday morning, when he came out and called me in. I went into the house and upstairs with him. When we got into the room he charged the prisoner with robbing him, to which charge the prisoner made no reply. He then told him to turn out his pockets, and the prisoner pulled out a purse, opened it, and threw the money on the table. My brother said “That`s mine. Look and see if there is any money there marked like I have shown you”. I looked, and saw two shillings and a two shilling piece marked. The mark on the shillings were on the head, and on the two shilling piece below the head. My brother had shown me two or three coins during the week, and said “I mark my money like that”. Afterwards he said “Wait here till I come back”, and went out of the room, locking us in. While he was gone the prisoner said “Where`s master gone?”. I said I did not know, unless to get the bar book. He then said “I wish I could see him to make it up. I should never do it again”. I said “What did you do it at all for? It can`t be for want, only temptation”. My brother then returned with Supt. Martin, who asked what money that was on the table, and I told him what the prisoner had taken out of his pocket. He then charged him, searched his box, and took him into custody.

Cross-examined: The prisoner said on leaving the room “I hope you will make it up. I can get the money from home”. I should say he had about 19s. in his purse.

Supt. Martin said: Yesterday morning about half past ten o`clock prosecutor came to my house. I returned to his house immediately, and going upstairs I found the prisoner and last witness. I cautioned the prisoner and told him he was charged with robbing his master. My attention was then drawn to this purse and some silver, which I now produce. There was 19s. 6d. in silver, and 1½d. in coppers. On one portion of the table was a florin and two shillings. I asked the prosecutor if these were the coins he had marked. He said yes. I then asked the prisoner if he had any more about him. He said no. I put my hand in his left hand trousers pocket, and found 3s. loose. I showed them to the prosecutor, and he identified them. I asked him if he had any money in his box, and what amount. He said he had £5 10s. in a purse, wages that his master had paid him. I then took him into custody. Coming down the stairs he said “Can I speak to you, master?”. Prosecutor said “No. I have nothing to do with it. The case is left in Mr. Martin`s hands”. Prisoner said “If you forgive me I will make up to you all I have robbed you of”. I have had possession of the coins ever since.

The prisoner was then charged by the Bench of robbing his master of 7s.

The prisoner: I am guilty

Mr. Minter said he was instructed to appear by the prisoner`s friends, and he considered it best to advise him to plead Guilty. No doubt he had robbed Mr. Hogben, his master, under a sudden temptation, and he hoped the Bench would take into their consideration his extreme youth, and the situation he was in, being one of trust. His parents are respectable, and the prisoner has always borne a good character. He was placed in a responsible situation, and although he could not defend such an error of conduct, the Bench might feel disposed, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, to temper justice with mercy, and a small amount of imprisonment might have the effect of deterring him from future dishonesty, and then he might be able to restore himself to the position he had forfeited. He did not know if Mr. Hogben was disposed to second his remarks, but would leave the case with confidence in the hands of the Bench.

Mr. Hogben had no desire to press the charge. He had previously placed every confidence in the prisoner, and had treated him as a son.

The Bench said they were placed in a painful position, and they were afraid all this had been brought on by bad company. They had the power to punish severely for this offence, but having hope that a lenient sentence would meet the justice of the case, they would sentence him to three months` imprisonment with hard labour.

Southeastern Gazette 19-4-1869

Local News

At the Petty Sessions on Monday George Waddell was charged with robbing his employer, Mr. J. Hogben, of the “Rendezvous,” Broad Street, of 7s. Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of defendant.

The prosecutor deposed that the prisoner was in his employ as barman. On Saturday night last, witness went into the bar and counted the money in the till; he found there was £10 4s. 3|d. He then marked the half-crowns, florins, and some of the shillings by a scratch made with his knife. The prisoner got up the next morning a little after seven o’clock, which was rather an unusual thing for him to do. He got the money to hand over as usual at breakfast time, and entered it in a book. Witness asked him what he made of it. He said £7  6s. 6d., but this did not include £2 worth of change he had given him the previous morning according to custom, and the total was £9 6s. 6d. There was a deficiency in the account of 16s. 10½d. He took him upstairs and charged him with the robbery, when he produced his purse, which contained some of the marked money.

Prosecutor’s brother gave corroborative evidence, and Supt. Martin proved apprehending prisoner.

Prosecutor did not wish to press the charge.

Three months’ hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7-5-1870

Thursday May 5^th: Before R. W. Boarer and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

William Fagg, charged with being drunk and riotous in the Rendezvous Inn, Broad Street, on Wednesday evening, was discharged, the magistrates having no jurisdiction.
 

Folkestone Express 7-5-1870

Thursday, May 5^nd: Before R.W. Boarer and C. Dashwood Esqs.

William Fagg, a labourer, pleaded Guilty to a charge of being drunk the previous day at the Rendezvous, Broad Street.

After referring to the Acts, the offence being committed in a public house, the Bench were advised by the clerk that they had no jurisdiction in this case, and the defendant was therefore discharged.

Folkestone Chronicle 24-12-1870

Wednesday, December 21^st: Before W. Bateman Esq., and Ald. Tolputt

S. Hogben, publican, was summoned for opening his house and selling beer during the hours of divine service on Sunday morning last.

Supt. Martin said he went to the house on the morning in question, and found five men there drinking. He had received complaints about the house.

Defendant said he was at the back of the house at the time, and was not aware that his son was serving any liquor. It was his first offence.

The Bench said they were determined to put down this Sunday trading in drink during prohibited hours. It was a most annoying thing to meet drunken men when returning from divine service, and defendant would be fined £2, and the costs, 9s.
 

Folkestone Express 24-12-1870

Wednesday, December 21^st: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Mr. Stephen Hogben, of the Rendezvous Tavern was charged with having his house open before half past 12 o`clock on Sunday morning last.

Mr. Hogben pleaded Guilty, but said he was out at the time. He left his front door open for the bakings, and he supposed the parties walked in.

Superintendent Martin said, a complaint having been made, he went to the Rendezvous. In the back room he found five men and four glasses of beer, and another quart pot was just brought in. Defendant`s son was at the bar; defendant was in the stable at the back. This was the first offence.

Mr. Bateman said this offence was so common that they were inclined to inflict the heaviest penalty. It was disgraceful to see people coming from church rolled against by drunken men. They could not inflict a fine of less than £2 and 9s. costs.

Southeastern Gazette 27-12-1870

 

 Local News

At the Police Court, on Wednesday, Stephen Hogben, landlord of the Rendezvous, was charged with having his house open tor the sale of liquor before 12.30 on Sunday morning.

In consequence of complaint Inspector Martin visited the house a little before twelve, and found four or five men in a little room behind the bar, with four glasses on the table. There was also another man m the passage with a quart pot in his hand. The front door was not fastened.

Defendant said he was m the bakehouse, and his son was cleaning up the bar when the men came in, and his son supplied them with beer. The reason the door was open was that persons came in with bakings.

The chairman (W. Bateman, Esq.) alluded to the frequency of these offences, and the annoyance of drunken men reeling against persons coming from places of worship.

A fine of £2, and 9s. costs, was inflicted and paid.

Folkestone Express 4-4-1874

Saturday, March 28^th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, and J. Tolputt Esq.

Filmer Tyas and Thomas Fricker were summoned by Superintendent Wilshere for having committed a breach of the peace by engaging in a prize fight on the Moors on Thursday, 19^th March, and believing that the offence would be repeated, prayed for sureties of the peace against defendants.

Edwin Pope, Bridge Street, said: About ten o`clock on the morning of the 19<sup>th</sup> March I saw defendants in one of Mr. Gambrill`s meadows.

Witness manifesting evident reluctance to answer the questions put to him, the Clerk said: I wish you would answer the questions, and not fence about so.

Witness continued: They were fighting; that`s all I saw. They had their coats off; that`s all. They were not fighting more than ten minutes. I did not count the people; there were not fifty; there might be forty, but not more. Defendants were not smothered with blood after they had done fighting. I was not at the Rendezvous Tavern when any money was staked on the fight.

Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern, was sent for, the Superintendent having stated that he told him that he was asked to hold the stakes, but refused to do so. Mr. Hogben sent word that he could not leave his business.

Tyas said: We had a few words in Hogben`s bar, and rather than give the police any trouble we went into the fields to settle it over a few rounds; it was merely for satisfaction. We know we have done wrong; it was merely over a paltry pint of beer. There can be no guilt of breaking a breach of the peace.

Fricker said: I wish to ask if it is a proper way to issue a summons, to tell a man he is wanted to fight at the Town Hall.

Superintendent Wilshere: I told Fricker he would have to come to the Town Hall, and to mind and be there.

Tyas: The Superintendent served the summons on me like a gentleman.

Mr. Hogben was again sent for, but as he refused to come, the Mayor said he must be summoned if he would not come without.

Defendant were remanded to Wednesday, and bound over in the sum of £5 each to appear on that day.

Wednesday, April 1^st: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad, J. Kelcey, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Filmer Tyas and Thomas Fricker, on remand from Saturday, surrendered on bail on a charge of committing a breach of the peace by fighting on the Moors on the 19^th March.

Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern stated the defendant were in his house on the night of the 18^th March, and were quarrelling. Tyas threw down two or three shillings on the counter, which witness told him to put in his pocket. He did not hear anything about any stakes for a fight, and told defendant if they wanted to be fighting they must go somewhere else, as he would not allow it in his house, and they went away.

Defendants were bound in their own recognisances of £5 each to keep the peace for three months.

Southeastern Gazette 6-4-1874

Local News

Filmer Tyas and Thomas Fricker, surrendered to their bail to answer a charge of having committed a breach of the peace by engaging in a prize fight on the moors on the 19^th March.

Edwin Pope was summoned as a witness, but he evidently did not mean to divulge more than he could possibly help, and what he did say had to be drawn from him word by word. It was to the effect that he saw defendants fighting in one of Mr. Gambrill’s meadows for about ten minutes.

Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern, stated that defendants were in his house on the 18^th March, and Tyas put down two or three shillings on the counter, and asked him to hold the stakes. Witness told him to put them in his pocket. Defendants quarrelled, and he told them he would have no quarrelling in his house, and if they wanted to fight they must go somewhere else.

Defendants were bound over in their recognisances in £5 each to keep the peace for three months.

Kentish Gazette 7-4-1874

 

At the Police Court on Wednesday, Filmer Tyas and Thomas Fricker were brought up on remand, charged with having committed a breach of the peace by engaging in a prize fight in Mr. Gambrill`s meadow.

Mr. Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern, said defendants were in his house on the evening of March 18^th, and quarrelled, whereupon he told them he would not have any fighting in his house. Tyas threw down a shilling or two on the counter, and witness told him to put it in his pocket. Mr. Hogben denied having been asked to hold the stakes, and indignantly asserted that he never allowed any kind of gaming in his house.

Tyas said they had a few words at Hogben`s and went into the field to settle it.

The Bench ordered defendants to enter into their own recognisances of £5 each to keep the peace for three months. 

Folkestone Express 12-9-1874

Saturday, September 5^th: Before S. Eastes, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Henry Clarke was charged with being drunk and disorderly in High Street.

P.C. Hills proved the case, and said prisoner was turned out of the Earl Grey, when two young men tried to get him home. He then went to the Rendezvous, where he was refused admission, and became very violent and used very bad language.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Wednesday, September 9^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. Stephen Hogben, Rendezvous Tavern, was charged with keeping pigs, so as to cause a nuisance.

Mr. Mowll said this was a similar case to the preceding ones, with the exception that the pigs were wallowing in the filth.

Mr. Springall said: I visited defendant`s pigsties on the 2^nd and 3^rd September, and defendant said it was the deposit of manure from the cow shed, the pigs being kept inside. There was a large quantity of manure and filth, and the pigs were up to the thighs in filth, but the stench was not so great as in the other cases, but there is no doubt it was a nuisance.

Cross-examined: It was straw from the cow shed and the pigs were kept upon it. The long straw had been taken away that morning and the manure left.

John Underwood, in the employ of the Corporation, said: I visited the pigsties, when there was a cart full of short manure. The pigs were wallowing about in the manure.

Mr. Edward Hayward, jeweller, said: My garden abuts within three or four yards of defendant`s pigsties. For the last six months the sties have been a nuisance. When the wind is in the north the stench blows into my house, and I have to shut my windows. I am quite sure the stench is from the pigs.

Defendant was fined £1 and 13s. 6d. costs, and defendant, on paying the money, said he only kept healthy cows, pigs, and horses, and he always thought the smell from them was healthy. Mr. Hayward ought to go and live on Sugarloaf Hill.

The Mayor told defendant if he was convicted again he would have to pay the full penalty of £2.

Mr. Hogben: Thank you. Very much obliged.

Folkestone Chronicle 28-8-1875

Tuesday, August 24^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt Esq., and Capt. J.W. Crowe

Edmund Hogben, 2, North Street, Sandgate, and James Drayton of Sandgate Broadway were charged with being drunk and riotous in Rendezvous Street on Monday night. Hogben was further charged with assaulting P.C. Keeler at the same time, and Drayton with assaulting Superintendent Wilshere and Private Isaac Brown, of the 41^st Regiment. William Cook was also charged with resisting the police in the execution of their duty.

It appeared that P.C. Keeler went to the Rendezvous Tavern to quell a row, when defendant Hogben threw him down, and he received several kicks from persons that he could not identify.

Superintendent Wilshere deposed to being outside the public house when Hogben was taken into custody, and when a large crowd had assembled he went into the house to interfere, when several interfered, the most prominent being Drayton. He turned him out of the house, and when in the street Drayton gave him a back-handed blow, and then rushed at a private of the 41^st Regiment and struck him in the face. Witness handcuffed prisoner, when Cook came up and tried to rescue him out of custody.

Isaac Brown, the private in question, corroborated the evidence.

The Bench fined Hogben 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs, or 14 days, and for his violence to P.C. Keeler, and because he was the cause of the other men attacking the constable, he would be fined £1 and 3s. 6d. costs, or 21 days. Drayton was fined 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs.

The charge against Cook was dismissed.

The fines were paid.

Folkestone Express 28-8-1875

Tuesday, August 24^th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Crowe, and J. Tolputt Esq.

Edmund Hogben, 2, North Street, Sandgate, and James Drayton, of Sandgate Broadway, were charged with being drunk and riotous in Rendezvous Street on the previous night. Hogben was further charged with assaulting P.C. Keeler at the same time and place, and Drayton with assaulting Superintendent Wilshere and Privete Isaac Brown of the 40^th Regiment of Foot. William H. Cook, of 4 St. Peter`s Street, was placed in the dock with the former defendants charged with resisting the police at the same time and place.

P.C. Abraham Keeler deposed that on the previous night about half past nine he was called into the Rendezvous Tavern, High Street, by the landlord, Mr. Hogben, to quell a row. Witness found defendant Hogben in the tavern, fighting with another man. Hogben refused to go out when advised to do so by witness. When witness endeavoured to put him out he caught hold of witness and pushed him against the counter. The bar was full of men and these assisted defendant Hogben in throwing witness down on the floor. When down, witness received several kicks in the side from various people whom he could not identify. P.C. Butcher subsequently came to witness`s assistance, and together they succeeded in getting defendant out. He was so violent that they were obliged to drag him across the street to the Police Station. Superintendent Wilshere then took the charge. Defendant was drunk and very riotous.

Defendant cross-examined the constable with a view to show that he was not the man who pushed him down, but failed to shake his evidence. Turning to the Bench, Hogben exclaimed “It`s no use asking him any more questions, as he`ll deny everything”.

P.C. Butcher deposed that about nine the previous evening he was passing the Rendezvous Tavern, when he heard a disturbance and looked in. He saw P.C. Keeler inside, and defendant Hogben was at the moment in the act of striking him, but witness stepped forward and prevented him from doing so. He assisted in getting Hogben towards the door, when defendant Drayton came from behind and dragged him back. Superintendent Wilshere afterwards came into the Tavern and ordered witness and P.C. Keeler to take Hogben to the station as drunk and riotous, and witness assisted so doing. Hogben was drunk, and Drayton also, but the latter was not so bad as Hogben.

Cross-examined by Drayton: You pulled Hogben back from me. You had not a basket in your hand at the time.

Superintendent Wilshere stated that on the previous night he was called to the Rendezvous Tavern. On arriving he found P.C. Butcher at the door struggling with a man and P.C. Keeler in the bar. Witness asked P.C. Keeler what he was doing, and he replied in the defendant`s hearing that he had been pushed down and kicked. On turning round witness saw that P.C. Butcher was trying to hold Hogben, but that Drayton was pulling Hogben back. Witness gave the constables directions to take Hogben to the police station, and then called the landlord, Hogben, forward, and drew his attention to the disorderly manner in which his house was being conducted, suggesting that he ought to clear the bar. The landlord replied, asking why witness did not himself turn out the fighting men. The road outside had then become impassable from the dense crowd, and the witness heard the shouting and hooting of the mob when at the Town Hall. When Hogben had been taken away to the station, the men in the house hustled witness backwards and forwards, asking him why he interfered with them. Defendant Drayton was one of the most prominent in the persons who attacked him, and witness eventually turned him out of the house. When they got into the street, Drayton, who was drunk, gave witness a back-handed blow and said he should not go to the station unless he had a go at someone. He then rushed back at a private of the 40^th Regiment, striking him in the face, making his nose bleed. Witness handcuffed Drayton with some difficulty, when the third defendant, Cook, came up and pulled Drayton back by his collar in order to rescue him. Cook was very violent, and followed witness into the police station, asking why he was locked up. As he was abusive, witness ordered him also to be detained in custody. Cook was the worse for liquor.

Cross-examined by Cook: his took place in the street, near Messrs. Poole`s premises. You followed me into the station, having hold of Drayton.

Isaac Brown, a private of the 40^th Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, deposed that on the previous night he saw a disturbance in the Rendezvous bar, where he was drinking, when two constables were present. Superintendent Wilshere came in and advised the landlord to clear his bar. Witness was pushed out of the house by the crowd, when Drayton, who was being held by the Superintendent, struck witness a violent blow in the face with his fist, making his nose bleed. Witness at once “slipped into” the man till the police took him away. He was pushed against Drayton by the crowd behind, and had just touched his shoulder.

Cross-examined by Drayton: I did not strike you before you hit me. You struck me first, directly the man pushed me against you.

Hogben, in defence, said he had been to see Captain Boyton, and afterwards had some drink with some friends, but was not as far gone in drink that night as not to know what was taking place. He complained that he was dragged off to the police station with unnecessary violence, and that the clothes were torn off his back without his being given a chance to explain, or the option of going quietly with the constables.

Drayner denied being drunk or striking the Superintendent of Police, saying that he did nothing to rescue Hogben at all. He said he had plenty of witnesses to prove his sobriety that night, and called George Crook, who was not present during the disturbance, but saw Drayton about three quarters of an hour before. He was not drunk then, byt had had a little beer.

Drayton also called Mr. Webster, builder, who, however, knew nothing of the occurrence, but considered the defendant sober when he saw him in the police station at midnight.

The Mayor remarked that the evidence only proved that he was not exactly drunk before or after the occurrence, but that the witnesses had said nothing as to his state at nine o`clock.

Defendant Cook pleaded that what he did in walking to the police station was to assist the police in getting Drayton to go quietly. He only held his collar for that purpose, and did not pull him away. When he asked the Superintendent why they were taking the man into custody, he told him to come to the station and see, and when they got there to shut the door behind him, and he had to remain in a cell till his friends came at midnight. (Laughter)

The Mayor said the Magistrates felt they must protect the police in the discharge of their duty, and must therefore punish the resistance that had undoubtedly been offered to them. The charge against Hogben of drunkenness had clearly been proved, and for that he would be fined 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs, or in default fourteen days` imprisonment with hard labour. For the violence he displayed towards P.C. Keeler and in the face of the fact that he was the cause of the other men attacking the constable as they did, he would be fined £1 and 3s. 6d. costs, or twenty one days` hard labour. As to Drayton, he would be fined 10s., and must pay the costs, 6s. 6d., in the charge of drunkenness. The assault on the Superintendent might have been, as defendant said, an accidental blow, and that portion of the charge would be dismissed, as also that of assault on Brown, who, it was evident, took the law into his own hands. In Cook`s case the Bench were inclined to accept his version of the story and to believe that he tried to preserve order. The charge against him would therefore be dismissed.

Hogben and Drayton then paid the fines and left the Court, as did Cook.

Folkestone Express 22-4-1876

Wednesday, April 19^th: Before The Mayor, J. Clark, T. Caister and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Emilia Major, alias Dodd, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Rendezvous Hotel on the previous evening.

P.C. Hills said he was called to turn the prisoner out of the Rendezvous Hotel. She was very drunk and shouting.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days` imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 29-7-1876

Tuesday, July 24^th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., and Captain Crowe

Henry Farson, dealer, of 4, Chapel Streetm Dover, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Knowles ststed that on the previous afternoon he was sent for to the Rendezvous Inn to eject the defendant, who was quarrelling with four or five other men. The defendant refused to go away, and made a great disturbance in the street, whereupon witness took him to the police station and locked him up. The defendant had previously been to the station in an excited state and demanded to know why the police had not taken into custody another man on the charge of stealing a pair of spectacles.

The Bench fined the defendant 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs, which were paid.

George Prescott, shoemaker, Maxton, Dover was charged with a similar offence at the same time and place.

P.C. Knowles said the defendant behaved in a similar manner to the last defendant. He also came to the police station and created a great disturbance.

The defendant said he came from Dover with the other man. There was some quarrelling about a pair of spectacles having been stolen from another man, and this gave rise to the disturbance.

He was ordered to pay a fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Francis Crowley, plasterer, of 4, Mill Bay, Folkestone, was also charged with being drunk and disorderly at the same time and place.

Superintendent Wilshere said the defendant came to him in a very excited manner and requested him to go and lock up another man on the charge of stealing a pair of spectacles. As he was in a very drunken state, and could give no rational account of the matter, witness requested him to go home and come and see him when he was sober. The defendant refused to take his advice, and by the disturbance he made caused a crowd to assemble. Witness therefore locked him up.

The defendant expressed contrition and asked the Bench to deal leniently with him as he had seven young children.

Superintendent Wilshere said the defendant was accused of begging in 1869, but discharged.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 1s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 17-3-1877

Wednesday, March 14^th: Before Dr. Bateman, R.W. Boarer Esq., and Alderman Caister

William Cook was charged with being drunk at the Rendezvous public house.

He pleaded guilty, and the Magistrates` Clerk said he had rendered himself liable to a fine of £5, but the Bench fined him in the mitigated penalty of 18s. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Express 17-3-1877

Wednesday, March 14^th: Before Dr. Bateman, R.W. Boarer Esq., and Alderman Caister.

William Cook pleaded Guilty to a charge of refusing to leave the Rendezvous when requested by the landlord to do so, in consequence of his drunken and violent conduct on the 5^th of March, and was fined 10s. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-8-1877

Annual Licensing Day

On Wednesday the annual licensing sessions were held at the Town Hall, the Magistrates on the Bench being J. Clark Esq. (Chairman), Col. De Crespigny, Ald. Caister, and Capt. Crowe. Complaints having been made against Mr. Hogben`s house in Rendezvous Street, his attention was called to them, and he promised to conduct his house more orderly in future. 

Folkestone Chronicle 24-11-1877

Wednesday, November 21^st: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, J. Clark and T. Caister Esqs.

Stephen Hogben was charged with permitting riotous conduct to take place on his licensed premises, The Rendezvous, on 5^th November last.

Defendant, for whom Mr. Mowll appeared, pleaded Not Guilty.

Supt. Wilshere, sworn, said: On the night of the 5^th November, soon after 10 o`clock, my attention was directed to defendant`s house. I saw a glare of light and smoke coming from it. I found about a score of people outside and several made complaints to me. I stayed there the whole of the time, and there was a continual firing off of squibs and fireworks. The disturbance could be heard as far as the Town Hall. I saw one come outside the door of the house. The people – men and boys – were going in and out of the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowle: Did not consider it my duty to go in. From the outside I could see a flare inside.

Thomas Dorrell, sworn, said he was a Special Constable on duty on the 5^th inst., and the evidence given by the Supt. Was true.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench.

Stephen Hogben, called in defence, said squibbing did take place, and he did his best to stop it.

Cross-examined by the Bench: I heard the Supt. Outside. I did not call him in. There were 30 or 40 people in the house.

The Bench dismissed the summons.

Folkestone Express 24-11-1877

Wednesday, November 21^st: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, Colonel De Crespigny, and J. Clark Esq.

Stephen Hogben, landlord of the Rendezvous Inn, was summoned for permitting riotous conduct in his house on the night of the 5^th November.

Mr. Mowll appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Superintendent Wilshere said on the night of the 5^th of November his attention was called to the Rendezvous Inn, soon after ten o`clock. There were about 20 people assembled outside, and several of them made complaints to him. He did not go inside the house, but stopped there about twenty minutes. Several people were in the house, but they could not stop long because of the smoke. There was a continual firing of the kind, and the bar was constantly lighted up with flames and filled with smoke. The shouting and laughing could be heard as far as the Town Hall.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: You say the firing was going on continually? – Yes.

And yet you did not go inside. Why not? - Because I was not called on.

Did you not think that if there were riotous proceedings going on it was your duty to go in? – I did not consider it was my duty to go in.

Have you ever been in there on a fifth of November? – Yes. Last year I think.

Were you “squibbed” then when you got inside the house? – I can`t remember.

Just recollect, will you. – I can`t recollect.

There was a great deal of this going on in the town on the fifth, wasn`t there? – Yes. I saw two or three landlords turn people out who attempted it.

Was your attention called to two other houses that were said to be on fire? – No.

Never heard of it until this moment? – Oh, yes; there was one. A new landlord in Guildhall Street, who complained of having his blind set on fire, and he turned all the lot out and closed the house.

No other cases in the town? – Not that I am aware of.

The fifth of November is observed here, is it not? – Yes, to some considerable extent.

And fireworks are extensively fired off on that night? – Yes.

I think you told the Bench the flames and smoke were coming out of the house? – I said the sparks from the rockets were to be seen in the house, which was in a constant flare.

You don`t mean to say they fired off rockets inside? You mean squibs? – They call them rockets here.

You say people were continually going in and out? – Yes.

And did you not go in and tell the landlord he ought to close his house? – No, sir; I did not consider it my duty unless I was asked.

Thomas Dorrell, who was on duty as a special constable, corroborated the Superintendent`s evidence.

In cross-examination witness said there was a great deal of squibbing going on, and someone tried to squib the Superintendent as thy were coming down the tramway.

Mr. Mowll, for the defence, said the Bench knew there had always been a good deal of squibbing going on on the fifth, and even such a high official as the Superintendent of police came in for a share of the squibs on that night. Under the section of the Licensing Act under which these proceedings were taken, he had the power of examining the defendant on oath, and he would say he endeavoured to put a stop to this practice. He, however, did not know whether the Bench would consider the case of sufficient moment for this, because their Worships probably knew the state of the town on the night of the 5^th. He submitted that there was no proof of riotous conduct, and he questioned whether the occurrence as described in evidence was really what could be termed riotous, which, he submitted, would imply some assault, or a congregation of persons together for the purpose of committing an illegal act.

He called Stephen Hogben, the defendant, who said the squibbing had been common in his house on the night of the fifth for eleven years, and he dreaded the day`s coming round. He used his best endeavours to put a stop to it, but did not call in the police, thinking it would only tend to increase rather than diminish the nuisance. He added that he heard two houses in the town were set on fire by the squibs.

Alderman Caister: The Magistrates have determined to put this down.

Defendant: I wish they would.

By the Bench: He heard the Superintendent was outside, but did not see him. He could not say how many persons were in the house – perhaps 30 or 40. The sqibbing continued for about an hour and a half.

The Magistrates having considered the case, The Mayor saud: The Magistrates can`t help thinking you were somewhat to blame in not calling in the police to assist you in clearing the house. For some years it has been determined to put down, and the Bench and other officials are endeavouring to put down, as far as possible, this practice of squibbing. We know the consequences it is likely to lead to, and you yourself have told us of the consequences it has led to. We feel that it is a very serious charge on which you appear before us this morning. It would interfere with your license, and the Magistrates have not the power to make the penalty a small one. They have no wish to strain the Act, but they have given their serious consideration to it, with the hope that it may at all events be a warning to others that such conduct may not take place again on licensed premises. We consider there is a doubt as to whether we ought to take the matter into consideration as riotous conduct, but the Magistrates would warn you against the consequences another year, and they dismiss the case against you.

The decision of the Bench was received with applause, which was at once suppressed.

Southeastern Gazette 24-11-1877

Local News

At the Police Court, on Wednesday, Stephen Hogben was summoned for permitting riotous conduct on his premises, “The Rendezvous”, on the 5th of November. Mr. Mowll appeared for defendant.

Supt. Wilshire said his attention was directed to defendant’s house by the glare of light and smoke coming from it on the night in question, and he heard the continual firing off of squibs and crackers. A great number of persons congregated outside and created a disturbance. In defence it was admitted on the part of defendant that squibbing was going on in the house, but defendant did his best to put a stop to it, and he could not help what was going on outside.

The Bench dismissed the summons. 

Kentish Gazette 27-11-1877 

At the Police Court on Wednesday Stephen Hogben was summoned for permitting riotous conduct on his premises, The Rendezvous, on the 5^th of November. Mr. Mowll appeared for defendant.

Supt. Wilshire said his attention was directed to defendant`s house by the glare of light and smoke coming from it on the night in question, and he heard the continual firing off of squibs and crackers. A great number of persons congregated outside and created a disturbance.

In defence it was admitted on the part of defendant that squibbing was going on in the house, but defendant did his best to put a stop to it, and he could not help what was going on outside.

The Bench dismissed the summons.     

Folkestone Chronicle 31-5-1879

Auction Advertisement

Mr. Richard Smith is instructed by the Proprietor to sell by Auction, on the premises, on Thursday, June 12^th, 1879, at five o`clock precisely, the very valuable property, known by the sign of the Rendezvous Wine and Spirit Vaults.

Situate at the top of the High Street, and directly facing Rendezvous Street, Folkestone. The property is held equal to Freehold, there being a lease of 500 years at a peppercorn rent.

The undeniable position secures for the house a trade of great importance. The premises are substantially built, in thorough good order and decorative repair, exceedingly well arranged both for domestic comfort and trade convenience, the bar being fitted in first class London style.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-6-1879

A sale took place at the Rendezvous Inn on Thursday, when that house was offered for sale by Mr. Smith, Auctioneer. £3,000 were offered, but it was not bought for that sum.

Folkestone Express 30-8-1879

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, J. Clark and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs., General Cannon and Captain Carter.

The license of the Rendezvous Tavern was transferred from Mr. Homewood to Mr. John Mellows, late of the Shakespeare Inn.

Henry James Liddell was charged with being found drunk on license premises, the Folkestone Cutter, on the 14^th inst.

Benjamin Barnes, a private in the Coldstream Guards, said about 8.30 on the 14^th inst. he went into the Cutter and saw the landlord in the bar. He was drunk, and not capable of attending to his business. Witness remained two or three minutes. He asked for a glass of beer, and saw there was a prostitute serving behind the bar. He had nothing to drink, but went outside and sent in a policeman.

P.C. Bashford said his attention was called by last witness to the Folkestone Cutter. He went there and found the landlord (defendant) was drunk, supporting himself by leaning on the bar, and threatening to put someone out of the house. A prostitute was serving in the bar. There was a great disturbance being made by a man lately discharged from prison, who was quarrelling with others. He reported the occurrence to the Superintendent.

Sergeant Ovenden, who visited the house about 9.30 with the Superintendent, said the defendant was then behind the bar dozing, and to all appearance drunk. There were several prostitutes in the bar, and one of them was waiting on the customers.

Defendant did not deny having had too much to drink, but said he had held a license at Taunton for 15 years without any complaint.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 10s. and 11s. costs, or seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 28-2-1880

Monday, February 23^rd: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and Captain Fletcher.

Kenneth Shaw was charged with being drunk and disorderly in High Street on Sunday night. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sharp said on Sunday night at ten minutes to ten he saw the prisoner opposite the Rendezvous, fighting. His coat and hat were off, and his nose and mouth covered with blood, and he was drunk. Just as witness got to the spot the man with whom prisoner had been fighting ran away. He took prisoner into custody. A great crowd assembled. Witness had previously cautioned prisoner at the bottom of High Street.

P.C. Hogben corroborated Sharp`s evidence as to his having cautioned the prisoner.

Prisoner denied that he was fighting. There was a skirmish in the Rendezvous, and he got a blow in the mouth. He then pulled off his coat to defend himself.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days`.

Folkestone Express 5-11-1881

Monday, October 31^st: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad, M.J. Bell, F. Boykett and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

James Rodgers, an army pensioner, was charged with stealing a watch, value 20s., the property of James Mullett, on the 22^nd inst.

Rebecca Mullett, wife of the prosecutor, residing at No. 6, St. Eanswythe`s Terrace, said on Saturday the 22<sup>nd</sup> she missed a watch from the dresser in the kitchen. She saw it at nine o`clock in the evening. She gave information to the police on Sunday morning. On Friday, the 28^th inst., a man named Charles Gilbert went to her and showed her a watch, which she identified as her property. She had had it for five years.

Charles Gilbert said on Sunday the 10^th October he was in the Rendezvous Tavern. Prisoner came in about one o`clock in the afternoon. Witness saw him take a watch from his pocket. He wound it up, and as it would not go witness thought it was broken. He offered prisoner 5s. for it, and he replied “It`s yours”. He gave prisoner 5s. and took the watch. On Friday, in consequence of something he heard, he went to see Mrs. Mullett. He showed her the watch, which she identified as her property. On Saturday afternoon he gave the watch up to Sergeant Butcher. He knew the prisoner by sight, as working at the Rose Hotel.

Sergeant Butcher said he went on Saturday afternoon to last witness, and in consequence of what he told him he went in search of prisoner, whom he found at Mrs. Worsley`s in Rendezvous Street. He told prisoner he had a watch in his possession. Prisoner replied “Oh”. He told him he should have to take him into custody on a charge of stealing it. He replied “I bought it one Sunday off a boy for one shilling at the Rose Corner”. He added “Joe saw me buy it” (meaning the ostler at the Rose). Witness took him to the ostler, who said he did not see him buy it. He then took prisoner to the station.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the magistrates and pleaded Not Guilty. He said a boy came up to him at the Rose corner and said “Will you buy this watch? I will sell it to you for 2s.”. He told him he had only got one. He said “You can have it”. He admitted subsequently selling it to Gilbert.

In reply to the Bench, Mrs. Mullett said two errand boys went into the kitchen between nine and eleven on the evening when she missed the watch. There was no-one else in the kitchen whilst they were there.

The Bench considered the case proved, and the prisoner was sentenced to six weeks` hard labour.
 

Folkestone Express 25-10-1884

Saturday, October 18^th: Before Captain Carter, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Fitness, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs., and Alderman Caister.

Temporary authority was granted to George Burgess, of the Richmond Tavern, to carry on business at the Rendezvous.

Folkestone Express 1-11-1884

Wednesday, October 29^th: Before Captain Crowe, F. Boykett and A.M. Watkin Esqs.

Transfer Of Licence

The licence of the Rendezvous  was transferred to George Burgess

Folkestone News 22-11-1884

Saturday, November 15^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Mr. J. Holden and Mr. J. Fitness.

Richard Oliver was charged with stealing nine pairs of stockings, value 12s., from the shop of Stephen Petts, on the 14^th inst.

Prosecutor said the stockings were hanging outside his shop on Friday morning. He identified the stockings produced as his property.

Charles Thew, a labourer, said he saw prisoner hawking some stockings for sale, at 3d. per pair, in the Fish Market, about half past eleven on Friday morning. Witness gave him 9d. for three pairs of them. Sergt. Ovenden subsequently came to his house and h gave them up.

Turner Court said he saw the prisoner selling stockings, and he went up to him, saying “What have you got?” Prisoner said “I will give you this pair”. As soon as witness heard they were stolen property he went to Mr. Petts`s and gave them up. A few minutes afterwards Sergt. Ovenden came in.

Edward Paine, a seaman, said the prisoner was offering stockings for sale in the Railway Inn on Friday. Witness bought a pair for 6d.

Sergt. Ovenden said he found the prisoner in the bar of the Queen`s Head public house about ten minutes after one. The man was apparently asleep, and the worse for drink. Witness took him to the police station. He made no reply on being charged with theft. Witness received the stockings produced from the above named witnesses.

Prisoner said he was Not Guilty. The stockings were handed to him by a person he had seen several times in the town, who asked him to dispose of them, as he might as well do that as stand about with his hands in his pockets. The person spoken of said he would be satisfied if prisoner brought back 1s. 9d., and appointed to meet him at the Queen`s Head. Prisoner had no idea they were stolen property.

The Bench found prisoner Guilty and sentenced him to six weeks` hard labour.

Prisoner was then further charged with stealing three jugs, value 2s., from the shop of John Surrey on Thursday night.

Prosecutor identified the jugs produced.

Thomas Venner, a porter, said he saw prisoner at the Rendezvous. They left the house together, and went along as far as Mr. Surrey`s, when witness saw prisoner take three jugs from the shop. Witness then turned back.

Mr. Bradley: Why didn`t you go into Mr. Surrey`s shop and tell him?

Witness: Well, I thought it was nothing at all to do with me, and I made no more to do but turned round and went back.

Mr. Bradley: Did you give information to the police?

Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Bradley: You thought he had a right to the things?

Witness: No, sir.

The Mayor: Do you mean to say you saw this man steal these jugs and didn`t think it was your duty to go and inform the police?

Witness: I could not say he stole them.

The Mayor: But you saw him take them?

Witness: Yes, sir.

The Mayor: Then why did you not go and inform them?

Witness: I did not know whether he bought them or not.

The Mayor: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, said the defendant came in on Thursday night between half past nine and ten with three jugs. A fisherman named Hart bought them of him. Hart left them with the landlord to go to sea.

Prisoner (in reply to the usual question): To this charge I must plead Guilty.

The Bench gave him a month`s hard labour, to follow the last sentence.

The Mayor: Venner, I wish just to speak to you. The Bench consider the way in which you have given your evidence is very unsatisfactory, and the fact is you have run a very good chance of being put in the same position as prisoner. You saw the man take the jugs and hadn`t the honesty to inform Mr. Surrey of his loss. Such conduct is very reprehensible. You must be more careful.

Venner: Yes, sir. Thank you.

The Mayor: The Bench wish me to make a remark with regard to the exposing of goods for sale by tradesmen. Now and then it acts as an incentive to men out of employ to steal. We hope in future they will not expose more goods than it is necessary.

Supt. Taylor said goods were very much exposed outside of the shops in the town.

Folkestone Express 18-6-1887

Wednesday, June 15^th: Before Capt. Crowe, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, and J.H. Brooke Esqs.

There were several applications for transfer of licenses. Mr. Burgess, of the Rendezvous Tavern, applied for the transfer of the licence of the Richmond Tavern, which was held by his late brother, who died leaving no estate for which letters of administration could be taken out. The Magistrates granted the application.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 15-2-1888

Monday, February 13^th: Justices Present: Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Richard Thompson, a private in the Oxfordshire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the High Street on Sunday night. He was further charged with breaking two glasses, value one shilling; a bottle of brandy, value four shillings; and damaging postage stamps, value two shillings, the property of George Burgess. Disy Burgess said that she was the daughter of George Burgess, who was proprietor of the Rendezvous Tavern, High Street. The prisoner was in the house about 9.50 on the previous evening with a civilian. The civilian called for drinks and witness served him with gin hot, gin cold, and a glass of beer. Prisoner then called for three gins hot, but as he was drunk she refused to serve him. He then took up the glass from which he had been drinking and threw it at the mirror behind the bar, breaking a bottle of brandy, value four shillings. He threw it on purpose, and he also broke two glasses, the value of which is one shilling. Two shilling worth of stamps which were on the shelf were spoiled by being saturated with the spirit. Witness`s mother was in the bar with her at the time. She sent a man who was in the bar for a policeman, but before Sergeant Butcher arrived the prisoner had left the house.

P.S. Butcher said that he was on duty in High Street about ten o`clock on Sunday night, and saw the prisoner in front of the Rendezvous, drunk and scuffling with a number of soldiers and civilians. He had his belt off and was shouting and swearing. Witness apprehended him, and afterwards learned that he had done some damage at the Rendezvous.

In answer to the Clerk, the prisoner said he had nothing to say, except that he hoped they would be lenient with him. He had been a teetotaller for seven months, but on the Sunday he had some spirits and was mad – must have been. He had been fifteen months in the service.

Col. De Crespigny said the prisoner would be fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs on the first charge, and on the second 2s. 6d. fine, 5s. damages (stamps not being included, as they could probably be used), and 5s. costs.

In reply to the Clerk`s question “Can you pay the money?”, prisoner said “I`ll pay nothing”, and he was accordingly removed to the “lower regions”.

Folkestone Chronicle 18-2-1888

Monday, February 13^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Richard Thompson, a private in the Oxfordshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in High Street the previous evening. There was a further charge against him for wilfully breaking two glasses, value 1s., a bottle of brandy, value 4s., and damaging 2s. worth of postage stamps, the property of Mr. Burgess, at the Rendezvous Hotel the same evening.

Daisy Burgess, daughter of the landlord, deposed that she was in the bar on the night in question about ten minutes to ten, when the prisoner came in with a civilian. There was another soldier in the bar and all three were served with drink and drank together. The prisoner was drunk and called for three glasses of gin, but she would not serve him in consequence of the prisoner being inebriated. The prisoner then took up a glass and threw it at the looking glass, and broke two glasses, which were worth 1s., a bottle of brandy worth 4s., and damaged 2s. worth of stamps through being saturated by the spirits. Witness sent for assistance and had him put out. She did not know who the civilian was but knew him by sight. Her mother was in the bar at the time.

Police constable Butcher said he was on duty at 10 o`clock last night in the High Street. He saw the prisoner in front of the Rendezvous, drunk. His belt was off and he was striking at several soldiers and civilians with him. Took him to the station and then found out that he had done some damage at the public house.

Prisoner: Don`t put it on quite so stiff. (Laughter)

Colonel De Crespigny said the prisoner would be fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs in the first offence: in the other he would be fined 5s. and 2s. 6d. costs and the amount of damage done, excepting for the stamps. In default of payment he would be sent to prison for 14 days.

Prisoner: I shall not pay anything.

Removed below.

Folkestone Express 18-2-1888

Monday, February 13^th: Before Col. De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Richard Thompson, a private in the Oxford Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and with wilfully damaging glasses &c., value 7s., the property of C. Burgess.

Daisy Burgess, daughter of the landlord of the Rendezvous, High Street, said the prisoner went into the bar on Sunday night about a quarter to ten with a civilian, who called for drinks, which she supplied. The prisoner then asked for more drink and she refused to serve him, and he threw the glass from which he had been drinking, and broke two glasses, a bottle of brandy, and damaged some stamps. The two glasses were valued at 1s., the brandy 4s., and the stamps 2s. She sent for the police.

Sergt. Butcher said he saw the prisoner in front of the Rendezvous on Sunday night. He was drunk, had his belt off, and was scuffling about with some civilians, and making a noise.

For being drunk and disorderly the Bench fined the prisoner 5s. and 2s. 6d. costs, and 5s. fine, 5s. for damage, and 2s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-1-1889

Bankruptcy

A sitting of the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court was held at the Guildhall on Friday, before the Refistrar (Mr. Walter Furley). The Official Receiver (Mr. Worsfold Mowll) was in attendance.

Re. George Burgess, former license victualler, Folkestone: Mr. Lewis (Dover) appeared for Messrs. Binfield, wine and spirit merchants, Dover; and Mr. Ward (Folkestone) for the debtor.

The Official Receiver said there was a deficiency of £707 11s. 2d. Debtor was a guarantor to the Folkestone Exhibition for £100. He had been bankrupt on a previous occasion.

Under examination, the bankrupt stated that in 1867 he took the Richmond Tavern, which he had carried on ever since. In 1881 he took a market garden and laid out a large amount on the construction of forcing pits, greenhouses, piggeries, stables, a well, &c. He subsequently bought the Dover Castle coffee house; in 1884 he took the Rendezvous Hotel; and he also purchased a house in Richmond Street and a cottage at Capel. Messrs. Flint and Sons, brewers, in July, 1888, proceeded against him for £900 which he owed them, and he had to leave the Rendezvous Hotel. He was next compelled to pay off a load he had obtained from the National Provincial Bank. His market crops had failed; he found in July that his potato crop was a total failure. In November or the beginning of December he made over his possessions to Messrs. Flint, in satisfaction of their Rendezvous Hotel account. Mr. Flint knew that he owed other people money at the time. He was left with £200, out of which he subsequently paid £167 more to Messrs. Flint. When he signed the deed making over the property to Mr. Flint he received £70 odd. Subsequently he went to the White Hart with Mr. Flint. They stayed about an hour, and witness got intoxicated. He then gave Mr. Flint the £70, as he was not in a condition to take care of it, and told him he might deduct £50 owing on the Richmond Tavern account. £15 of the remaining money was paid to Mr. Ward (solicitor, Folkestone) for the filing of witness`s petition. The money was forwarded by cheque, on witness`s order, by Messrs. Flint. Lord Radnor was the owner of witness`s garden. He owed His lordship £182 rental. He received nothing on account of the money he had laid out on the property.

The Official Receiver said the sum of £117 appeared to have been allowed for the improvements he had made.

The debtor said he considered that about £450 short. Mr. Banks (Lord Radnor`s agent) called in Mr. Pilcher, sen., to value the work done in the garden. Mr. Pilcher`s son had since taken possession of the garden on the payment of the valuation.

Witness only kept books in reference to the market garden business.

The examination was adjourned until the 8^th February.

Folkestone Express 26-1-1889

Re Burgess Bankruptcy:

The report is identical and verbatim as was in the Folkestone Chronicle of this date, but with the following footnote:

Mr. James Flint states that the evidence given by the debtor with reference to his having been with him at the White Hart for an hour is entirely incorrect. They were not in the house for more than five minutes, and subsequently took the bus from Hythe to Folkestone, where the bankrupt cashed his cheque, and certainly was not intoxicated when Mr. Flint left him.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16-2-1889

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court

A sitting of this Court was held at the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Friday, before Mr. Registrar Furley.

Re. George William Burgess, Folkestone: Mr. Ward represented the debtor, and the examination was adjourned for a week as a private examination was going to be held.

Folkestone Express 16-2-1889

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court

Before the Registrar (Mr. W. Furley), on Friday, at the Guildhall.

Re. George William Burgess, Folkestone: Mr. Ward represented the debtor, and the examination was adjourned for a week.

Folkestone Express 23-2-1889

Local News

Re. George Burgess. At the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court on Friday, the Official receiver (Mr. Worsfold Mowll), said the case was adjourned to enable certain parties to be examined privately. That had been done, and as a result of that private examination there would no doubt have to be motions before the court. As far as the bankrupt was concerned he had no further questions to ask him. The bankrupt was then allowed to pass the public examination.

Folkestone Express 20-7-1889

Local News

The Rendezvous Hotel: Very extensive alterations have just been completed by Messrs. Petts at this hotel for Mr. Bruton, the proprietor – in fact the place has been completely transformed. The old swing doors which used to open to the bar have given place to a handsomely designed portico entrance, illuminated by and artistic lamp of new design. The bar on the ground floor has been greatly improved both in appearance and accommodation. On the first floor there is now a commercial dining room and private sitting rooms, and there is also provided a comfortable smoking room. The hotel is centrally situated and under the new proprietor, who has made all these important alterations, there will doubtless be a large accession of business.

Folkestone Express 17-8-1889

Canterbury Bankruptcy Court

His Honour Judge Selfe held a sitting of this Court on Monday at the Guildhall.

Re. George Burgess

The petition was filed in December, 1888. This was an application for discharge. The total debts amounted to £650 14s. 1d., and the assets realised £142 8s. 5d. A dividend of 3s. 3d. had been paid.

The Official Receiver (Mr. Mowll) alleged that the debtor had not kept proper books of account, and that he had traded after knowledge of insolvency. The debtor had been bankrupt about 24 years previously. He also said that the bankrupt had put one of his creditors, viz., the Committee of the National Art Treasures Exhibition, to unnecessary expense by a frivolous defence to an action brought against him.

Mr. Ward said the debtor had intended to appeal against the decision given in the case of the Art Treasures Exhibition, but he had thought better of it. The defence was that the guarantee was obtained by fraud and that Lord Radnor had promised to contribute £3,000. The Official receiver drew the attention of the Court to the transaction with Messrs. Flint. The bankrupt, on the eve of his bankruptcy, and when he admitted he knew he was insolvent, gave a security to Messrs. Flint. This security was carefully considered by the Official Receiver and Messrs. Flint paid £100 to the trustee of the estate and were allowed to prove for £113, the balance of the account. A sum of £5 was also paid to a man named Barrow by the bankrupt after he knew he was insolvent.

The Judge: What are your prospects now?

Debtor: Haven`t any.

By the Official Receiver: The distress by Lord Radnor for rent was put in at the end of December. The valuation of the bankrupt`s garden was completed a day or two before the distress was put in.

The Official Receiver said the debtor ought to have filed his petition directly after the valuation was made.

In reply to His Honour, Mr. Mowll said that his own personal opinion was that the mere suspension of the discharge was no punishment at all. What he would ask was that where a man might be in a position to earn money, and where the liabilities were not large, that the man should be ordered to pay an increased dividend. He did not think it would be too hard to make up the dividend to 5s. in the £.

His Honour said that the question was what was a practical and proper order to make upon the facts made known. In one case the Court of Appeal strongly condemned the clogging of a case with conditions of payment. How could an order be made upon the debtor? It was useless to make an order when there was no probability of the money being paid. Under the Act of Parliament the report of the Official Receiver was made prima facie evidence of the facts of the case. It was for him to consider how far the charges were sustained. Having entered into the facts of the case, His Honour said with regard to the allegation of trading with knowledge of insolvency, there was no doubt that the debtor traded on in the hope that a good season would, as he said, “bring him back to his bearings”. It was not a thing which should be dealt with very seriously. Loss had occurred to the creditors from the debtor not having called independent advice upon his position. With respect to the Folkestone Art Exhibition, he thought if the promised guarantee was not obtained by fraud, as asserted in the defence of the debtor and others, it was at least obtained in such a way as to render the fact of the debtor`s objection to pay a very light matter indeed. In one case he knew, a railway guard, earning about two guineas a week, was induced to guarantee £25 towards the Exhibition upon the representation that he would only be liable for a small portion. He did not feel disposed to order a larger dividend to be paid. If no dividend had been paid it would have been a proper course to make such an order. The discharge would be suspended for 12 months.

Folkestone Express 13-12-1890

Wednesday, December 10^th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Alderman Banks and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Transfer

The licence of the Rendezvous Inn was transferred to Alfred E. Cotton

Folkestone Express 14-4-1894

Saturday, April 7^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, and H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Marshall William Hayes was charged with stealing a silver watch and a gold chain, the property of Mr. Joseph Bolton.

Prosecutor said: I live at Radford Boulevard, Nottingham. I am a commercial traveller, and staying at Gray`s Hotel, Road. I was in the Rendezvous Hotel last evening in company with Mr. Gray. The prisoner was in the smoking room, and we talked together casually. At closing time we all left. Prisoner went to Gray`s Hotel at my request. I had not known him previously. I went to bed between a quarter and half past twelve. I placed my watch and chain on a chair by my bedside. I did not lock the door of the bedroom. I missed my watch and chain when I woke about half past five. When I was dressed I found a purse and book had been shifted from one pocket to another. I sent for the landlord, and afterwards for the police. I afterwards saw my watch and chain in the constable`s possession. I had had them 35 to 40 years. The value put down is £3. I missed from my pockets all my money. I had collected during the previous day under £5, and I should think I had £3 in my possession, but I cannot say.

George Gray said the prosecutor slept on the second floor and the prisoner on the first. He generally confirmed prosecutor`s evidence. When the constable arrived he went to prosecutor`s bedroom. The watch and chain was found about three yards from prisoner`s door on a basket of linen. Prisoner was searched by the constable. Nothing relating to the charge was found on prisoner. He was the only stranger in the house.

P.C. Nash said he was called at 8.45 to Gray`s Hotel. He saw a basket of linen on the second floor. He searched it but found nothing besides linen. He went up to the top floor and searched Mr. Bolton`s room, and also the back servants` room. He then returned to the second floor and Mr. Gray pointed out the prisoner`s bedroom, which they entered. Mr. Gray told prisoner there had been some jewellery stolen, and asked if he would mind being searched. He said “No, it would be most satisfactory to be searched”. He found nothing on him, and left the room with Mr. Gray. He made a second search of the linen basket, and found the watch and chain there. About a quarter of an hour elapsed between the first and second search. He then told prisoner he should charge him on suspicion of stealing the articles. He asked who was going to charge him. Witness replied “I will”. When he first went into prisoner`s room he was washing. As he was leaving the house prisoner said “If I get a twelve month I can`t help it”. When charged by Superintendent Taylor he asked when he would go before the Magistrates, and was told eleven o`clock, and he said “What a good job”.

Mr. Gray said there were four visitors in the house and two female servants.

By Mr. Pursey: Was the prisoner intoxicated? – No.

In any state between that and sobriety? – He had certainly had a beer or two, but could walk straight and knew what he was about.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. He made the following statement: I met the prosecutor and the landlord in the Rendezvous as they say. The prosecutor first suggested that we should play cards, which we did. We had two or three drinks there. We then went to Gray`s Hotel. There we had another game of cards and some whisky.

The Mayor: It is a Temperance Hotel, isn`t it?

Prisoner: I don`t know. We did not pay for it – the landlord asked us to drink. Mr. Bolton went to bed, and we sat chatting for a little time, and the landlord showed me to my bedroom. After that I remember nothing more until the landlord called me about nine. Shortly after the landlord came back and told me of this loss, and then he went out and returned in a few minutes with the policeman, who, with my consent, searched my clothes. Up to that time I had not left my room. When I first left it I met the landlord on the landing, and he told me the watch had been found. When the constable said he should take me I said I was perfectly willing, but I have no recollection of making any such remark as the constable has made. I was taken aback by the affair.

The Bench considered there was not sufficient evidence to send the prisoner for trial, and he was discharged.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-12-1896

Wednesday, December 9^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Fitness, and General Gwyn.

Mr. Collins was granted an extension of temporary authority to sell at the Rendezvous Hotel.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23-1-1897

Local News

On Wednesday Mr. Collins was granted the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel.

Folkestone Chronicle 12-2-1898

Wednesday, February 9^th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. John Proctor received temporary authority to sell at the Rendezvous Hotel.