Royal Oak (1), North Street 1715 - 1941

Royal Oak, 1920Credit Folkestone Library

 

Royal Oak, 1923

 

Royal Oak, date unknown

 

 

Licensees

Richard Wood Listed 1717

William Wood Listed 1727

William Gardner Listed 1741

William Stevenson 1760s 1770s

Jeffrey Hunt Listed 1782 
William New 1792 1792

James Seal c1792 1798

Thomas Hall 1798 1803

William Taylor 1803 1806

Thomas Richardson 1806 1810

John Potts 1810 1815

George Bateman 1815 c1822

George Stoneham c1822 c1826

John Franks c1826 c1837 To Swan (1)

Henry Marsh c1837 c1848

John Smith c1848 1852

Thomas Saunders 1852 1855 
Richard Hills 1855 1855

Alfred Tookey 1855 1856

Filmer Chester 1856 c1859
Alexander Williamson c1859 1860

George Prebble c1860 1868

Charles Sinden 1868 1872 To Two Bells

Thomas Davis 1872 1875

John Halke 1875 1889

Henry Mercer 1889 1890

George Kirby 1890 1894

Thomas Hughes 1894 1896

Benjamin Spicer 1896 1899

Joseph Hanson 1899 1901

William Collar 1901 1917 To Red Cow

Herbert Baldock 1917 1933

Harry Wilson 1933 1936

Alfred Chick 1936 1939

Harry Powell 1939 1941 To Earl Grey

 

Kentish Gazette 21-5-1790 

To be sold by Auction, at the Royal Oak, in Folkestone, on Monday, the 31^st of May instant, at Three o`clock in the afternoon; the cutter Hopewell, burthen 160 tons, clinker-built at Folkestone in the year 1782, has been very little at sea, pierced for 18 guns, a fast sailer, is in good condition, exceedingly well found, and may be sent to sea in a very few days, now lying on Folkestone beach.

Inventories to be had at Mr. Hamilton`s, 4, Mincing Lane, London; of Messrs. Latham, Rice & Co., Dover; and of Mr. Solomon Harvey, Folkestone.

In case the cutter should be previously disposed of by private contract notice will be given in this paper.

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 26-6-1792

Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), Thomas Rolfe, John Harvey, Thomas Farley, John Minter, Michael Minter, and Robert Harvey

An ale licence was granted to James Seal at the sign of the Royal Oak until next licensing day.

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 11-12-1798

Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), John Minter, Edward Andrews, Joseph Sladen, John Castle and Joseph Stredwick.

The licence of the Royal Oak was transferred to Thomas Hall.

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 1-3-1803

Before John Castle (Mayor), Edward Andrews, Thomas Baker and Joseph Sladen.

Ordered that William Taylor be permitted to sell beer under the licence granted to Thomas Hall at the Royal Oak in this town until the next licence day.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 23-7-1810

Before John Bateman (Mayor), John Minter, Thomas Baker, John Castle and James Major.

John Potts and Pilcher Jones appeared and made complaint on oath against John Major and Richard Major (two of the constables of the said town) who had severally refused to execute certain warrants when requested to do so.

Potts, Royal Oak; Jones, George.

General Sessions 20-8-1810

Before John Bateman (Mayor), John Minter, Joseph Sladen, Thomas Baker, John Castle and James Major.

At this meeting John Major appeared according to a summons issued for that purpose on a complaint and information of Pilcher Jones against him for a neglect of duty as constable, when it is ordered that the said John Major be fined 20/- for such neglect of duty and the same to be paid into the hands of the Mayor this day and to be by him applied for the relief of the poor of the said town. Richard Major, another constable, was also summoned to appear this day, but as he was at sea, ordered to stand over till the next adjournment at Sessions.

Kentish Chronicle 5-1-1813 

A few days since, at Folkestone, a man known by the name of Little Captain, to the astonishment of a few friends, with which he supped at the Royal Oak, ate a beef pudding weighing six pounds, and for a trifling wager concluded his voracious meal with depositing in his belly one pound of pork sausages, together with bread and a gallon of beer.

Dover Telegraph 21-1-1837 

Advertisement: To Let, with immediate possession, the old-established public house, the Royal Oak, North Street, Folkestone.

Apply to John Franks, on the premises, Folkestone.

Maidstone Gazette 7-7-1846

An inquest was held on Monday, the 29^th inst., at the Royal Oak, before J. Bond Esq., Coroner for this borough, on the body of William Back, who came by his death under the following circumstances. John Punnett, fisherman, deposed that on the Sunday previous he left Folkestone in the fishing lugger, Sarah and Mary Ann, of which he was the master, bound for Dungeness roads, to anchor; when between New Romney and Dungeness, the boat was in stays, and by accident the foresail struck deceased and knocked him overboard. Endeavours were made for two hours to recover him, without success. Joseph Back, brother of deceased, deposed to seeing deceased struck by the foresail, and knocked overboard; he had repeatedly cautioned him as to the danger he was in, to which he paid no attention.

Verdict: “Accidentally drowned by falling out of a boat at sea”  

Dover Chronicle 14-10-1848

Marriage: Dec. 8, at Folkestone, Mr. John Hawkins, of the Post Office there, to Miss Mary Marsh, third daughter of Mr. Henry Marsh, late of the Royal Oak Inn.

Note: Earlier date for end of Marsh`s tenure.

Southeastern Gazette 23-11-1852

Advertisement: Folkestone, to publicans and others, to let, in a densely populated part of this improving town, an excellent public house, known as the Royal Oak; coming-in under £100, doing about 3½ barrels a week. Immediate possession may be had, as the advertiser had another business to attend to.

Enquire on the premises, North Street, Folkestone. 

Southeastern Gazette 6-12-1853, Dover Chronicle, Kentish Mercury 10-12-1853

 Inquest

An inquest was held on Friday last, at the Royal Oak Inn, before Silvester Eastes, Esq., coroner, upon the body of George Major, aged 72.

It appeared that the deceased went on Thursday morning, at 4 o’clock, to haul his nets in, which he had placed the night before in the sea near Copt-point, and was there observed by another fisherman and a coastguardsman, with a large cod fish Shortly afterwards the deceased was found lying dead on the rocks, and the fish near him. He had complained of a pain in the chest for two or three days previously.

Verdict, “Died by the visitation of God.”

Dover Telegraph 30-12-1854

Petty Sessions, Dec. 27: Before W. Major and J. Kelcey Esqs.

The following licenses were transferred: The Red Cow, Foord, from John Goodburn to William Prebble; the Mariners Arms, Radnor Street, from Thomas Hall to Richard Ovenden; the Royal Oak, North Street, from Thomas Saunders to Richard Hills, of Sandgate.

Note: Red Cow and Royal Oak transfers are earlier date

Southeastern Gazette 2-1-1855

Local News

The following license was transferred. The Royal Oak, North-street, from Thos. Saunders to Richard Hills.

Note: Hills not listed in More Bastions.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-8-1855

Advertisement: Alfred Tookey, Royal Oak Inn, North Street, Folkestone.

Spirits of superior quality. Fine ales and porter. A very superior bagatelle board. Good beds.

Dover Telegraph 7-6-1856

The license of the Engine, in South Street, was transferred from George Norris to William Whiting, of Tonbridge; and the Royal Oak from Alfred Sankey (sic) to Mr. Chester, of Hythe.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-6-1856

Wednesday June 4^th :- Before the Mayor, Samuel Mackie Esq., G. Kennicott Esq., W. Major Esq., and G. Bateman Esq.

The licence of the Royal Oak, North Street, was transferred from Alfred Tookey to Filmer Thomas Chester

Southeastern Gazette 10-6-1856

Local News

The license of the Royal Oak was transferred from Alfred Tookey to Mr. Chester, of Hythe.

 

Southeastern Gazette 24-5-1859

Local News

On Saturday evening last, a married woman named Williamson, committed suicide by hanging herself at the Royal Oak, North Street.  

Folkestone Chronicle 28-5-1859

Inquest

On Monday last an inquest was held before Silvester Eastes Esq., Coroner for the Borough, on the body of a married woman named Williamson, the wife of the landlord of the Royal Oak, North Street, who committed suicide by hanging herself at her residence on Saturday evening last. The deceased had lately led a dissipated life, and had several times left her husband`s home, and had also once before attempted suicide. The jury returned a verdict of “Temporary insanity”.

Note: No record of Williamson at the Royal Oak

Kentish Gazette 31-5-1859 

On Monday an inquest was held before Silvester Eastes, Esq., coroner for the borough, on the body of a married woman named Williamson, the wife of the landlord of the Royal Oak, North Street, who committed suicide by hanging herself at her residence on Saturday evening. The deceased had lately led a dissipa­ted life, and had several times left her husband’s home, and had also once before attempted suicide. The jury re­turned a verdict of “Temporary Insanity." 

Dover Chronicle 11-2-1860

Petty Sessions, Monday, Feb. 6^th: Before James Kelcey, R.W. Boarer and W.F. Browell Esqs.

John McEwan, a soldier in the Stirlingshire Militia, was charged with stealing a quantity of wearing apparel, one plated cruet stand, 2 cameo brooches and 2 photographic likenesses from the Royal Oak, in North Street, on Saturday evening last, and was committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions for this borough.

Dover Chronicle 7-4-1860 

Quarter Sessions: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

John McEwan, soldier, was indicted for stealing 2 dresses, 1 skirt, 1 pair of trousers, 2 jackets, I cruet stand, 2 cameo brooches, and 2 photograph likenesses, the property of Alexander Williamson, at Folkestone, on the 4^th February.

Alexander Williamson on being sworn, said he kept a public house called the Royal Oak. He knew the prisoner, and recollected on Saturday, the 4^th of Feb., between 10 and 11 o’clock in the evening he was in his house. He had been drinking and was drunk when he came in; he could walk. He saw him come down the bedroom stairs into the passage. Any person might go up without being seen, but no one had a right to be there. Pri­soner had the clothes in his arms and cruet stand in his hand. He asked him how he could be such a rascal, and he replied that he did it in a joke. He then took the things from him and gave him in charge. His wife went for a policeman; he did not attempt to get away. He locked the front door, and gave the things which he identified as his property to the police constable, No. 5.

Police constable Swain stated the things produced were handed to him by the prosecutor.

Mr. Wightwick, at the request of one of the officers of prisoner’s regiment, here undertook to defend the prisoner 

The prose­cutor, in cross-examination, said he was not drunk himself. No one was present but himself and wife. Prisoner was per­fectly drunk. He could identify the stolen articles, and was satisfied they were the things from their general appearance. He did not think the prisoner meant to steal them, and he had seen none of the prisoner's friends since.

The Recorder here severely remarked upon the prosecutor giving the prisoner in charge if he did not mean to steal them.

The prosecutor re­marked that the prisoner said he was only in fun, but he thought it very extraordinary fun, so he gave him in charge.

 Mrs. Williamson corroborated the statement of the last wit­ness. In cross examination by Mr. Wightwick, she said she first found the prisoner at the bottom of the stairs with the clothes. He was drunk, and she took him into the tap room where he fell down.

Mr. Wightwick then addressed the jury at some length, urging upon them that this was a drunken frolic, and that the case was of the most trumpery description. He called upon the jury to dismiss the charge, and not subject the prisoner to the severe punishment which he would have to undergo should they find him guilty.

An officer spoke as to the respectability of the prisoner, and gave him a good character for honesty.

The learned Recorder having summed up, the Jury retired, and on their return into Court returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

Folkestone Chronicle 7-4-1860

Quarter Sessions: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Tuesday April 3^rd:- The Grand Jury then retired, and in a short time returned with a true bill against John McEwan, a lance corporal of the Stirlingshire Militia, or Highland Borderers, for larceny. The indictment charged the prisoner with having, on the fourth day of February, 1860, at the town of Folkestone, stolen two dresses, one skirt, one pair of trousers, two jackets, one mat, one cruet stand, two cameo brooches and two photographic likenesses, the property of Alexander Williamson, the landlord of the Royal Oak, North Street.

The prosecutor having been sworn, deposed that the property described in the indictment was his, and to the fact of having missed it on the day above named, and that the prisoner was in his house on that day.

Mary Williamson, the wife of the prosecutor, corroborated her husband with respect to losing the property.

P.C. Ingram Swain, deposed that from information given he apprehended the prisoner, and charged him with committing the offence. Prisoner however pleaded entire ignorance of committing the crime, stating that he was in such a state of drunkenness as not to know what he was about, which was admitted by both the prosecutor and the police. The petty jury therefore under the circumstances returned a verdict of Not Guilty. This completed the business of the sessions, which was concluded at an early hour.

Note: No record of Williamson ever having had the Royal Oak according to More Bastions.

Southeastern Gazette 10-4-1860

Quarter Sessions

These sessions were held on Wednesday last, before J. J. Lonsdale Esq.

John McEwan, a lance corporal in the Stirlingshire Militia, was indicted for stealing several articles of wearing apparel from a bedroom at the Royal Oak public house, North Street, the property of Alexander Williamson, the landlord.

Prisoner said he took the things for a lark. This statement the prosecutor in his evidence appeared to believe, and the jury acquitted the prisoner.

Note: Williamson does not appear in More Bastions.

Kentish Gazette 10-4-1860 

The Court of Quarter Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone was held on Tuesday before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

John McEwan, soldier, was indicted for stealing 2 dresses, 1 skirt, 1 pair of trousers, 2 jackets, 1 cruet stand, 2 cameo brooches, and 2 photograph likenesses, the property of Alexander Williamson, at Folkestone, on the 4^th February.

Alexander Williamson on being sworn, said he kept a public house called the Royal Oak. He knew the prisoner, and recollected on Saturday, the 4^th of February, between 10 and 11 o’clock in the evening he was in his house. He had been drinking and was drunk when he came in, but he could walk. He saw him come down the bedroom stairs into the passage. Any person might go up without being seen, but no one had a right to be there. Pri­soner had the clothes in his arms and cruet stand in his hand. He asked him how he could be such a rascal, and he replied that he did it in a joke. He then took the things from him and gave him in charge. His wife went for a policeman, but the prisoner did not attempt to get away. He locked the front door, and gave the things which he identified as his property to the police constable.

No. 5, Police constable Swain stated the things produced were handed to him bv the prosecutor.

Mr. Wightwick, at the request of one of the officers of prisoner’s regiment, here undertook to defend the prisoner.

The prose­cutor, in cross-examination, said he was not drunk himself. No one was present but himself and wife. Prisoner was per­fectly drunk. He could identify the stolen articles, and was satisfied they were the things from their general appearance. He did not think the prisoner meant to steal them, and he had seen none of the prisoner's friends since.

The Recorder severely remarked upon the prosecutor giving the prisoner in charge if he did not mean to steal them.

The prosecutor re­marked that the prisoner said he was only in fun, but he thought it very extraordinary fun, so he gave him in charge.

Mrs. Williamson corroborated the statement of the last wit­ness. In cross examination by Mr. Wightwick, she said she first found the prisoner at the bottom of the stairs with the clothes. He was drunk, and she took him into the tap room where he fell down.

Mr. Wightwick then addressed the jury at some length, urging upon them that this was a drunken frolic, and tnat the case was of the most trumpery description. He called upon the jury to dismiss the charge, and not subject the prisoner to the severe punishment which he would have to undergoshould they find him guilty.

An officer spoke as to the respectability of the prisoner, and gave him a good character for honesty.

The learned Recorder having summed up, the Jury retired, and on their return into Court returned a verdict of Not Guilty. 

Canterbury Weekly Journal 14-4-1860 

Quarter Sessions, yesterday week; before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

John McEwan, a lance-corporal in the Stirlingshire Militia, was indicted for stealing several articles of wearing apparel from a bedroom at the Royal Oak public house, North Street, the property of Alexander Williamson, the landlord. Prisoner said he took the things for a “lark”. This statement the prosecutor in his evidence seemed to believe, and the jury acquitted the prisoner.

Folkestone Observer 11-7-1868

Wednesday, July 8^th: Before Captain Kennicott and James Tolputt Esq.

This being a Special Sessions for granting Alehouse Licenses, &c., the following business was transacted.

Mr. Sinden applied for a transfer of the license of the Royal Oak to himself from Mr. Prebble.

It appeared that the notice given was not in proper form, and had not been served on the Overseers in accordance with the Act of Parliament.

The Clerk therefore advised applicant to apply to the Bench for temporary authority to sell under Mr. Prebble`s license.

This was accordingly done and the authority granted.

Note: Date differs from info given in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 11-7-1868

Wednesday, July 8^th: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt.

A special sessions for the transferring of licenses was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday.

The following business was conducted:

Mr. Sinden, of the Royal Oak for transfer of license from Mr. Prebble. In consequence of an informality in the notice, it not being dated, the Overseers refused to sign it. The transfer was refused, but the Magistrates granted the applicant temporary power to sell under the existing license until the next sessions.

Note: Date for this transfer differs from information given in More Bastions.

Folkestone Chronicle 15-2-1873

Extract from “Folkestone Past and Present” lecture at the Town Hall on Thursday, February 13^th.

In 1807 the Folkestone Conversational Society existed, which held its meetings at the Royal Oak; he had seen the carefully kept minute book, detailing the transactions of the Club. Mr. Sladden was the President.

Folkestone Express 21-2-1874

Inquest

A young man named Thomas Garland, who had been lodging some weeks at the Royal Oak Inn, North Street. Was taken suddenly ill on Monday evening and died before medical assistance could be procured. From what Mr. Mercer, assistant to Mr. Bateman, told the Coroner, that officer did not consider it necessary to hold an inquest, but having received an anonymous letter, which will be found below, he reconsidered the matter and determined to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the death, and instructed Mr. Mercer to make a post mortem examination, which was accordingly done on Wednesday, the result of which will be found in the evidence given at the inquest, which was held at the Town Hall on Thursday afternoon before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, and a jury.

The jury having been to the residence of the uncle of the deceased to view the body, on their return, Lydia, wife of Thomas Joseph Davis, Royal Oak Inn, North Street, deposed: I identify the body just shown to the jury as that of Thomas Garland, who has lodged at my house since a week or two before Christmas. On Monday last deceased was at home all day. Shortly after seven o`clock in the eveining he was in the bar parlour with my neice, who called me in, and I found deceased sitting on a chair, apparently very ill. He complained of great pain at his hear and head. I called in Mrs, Harris and Mrs. Winter, two neighbours, and then went to get a pair of blankets, as deceased complained of being cold, and on my return he was lying on the floor dead. He had complained before of his heart and used to say “Oh, my heart”, and placed his hands on his breast. I had tea with him at half past four o`clock the same afternoon, and he appeared to be well then. He would have been nineteen years of age next March. I do not know anything about the letter produced.

Mr. Richard Mercer, M.R.C.S., deposed: I am assistant to Mr. Bateman, surgeon. On Monday, 16^th inst., I was called in to see deceased at the Royal Oak Inn, North Street, and found him dead. I made a post mortem examination of the body yesterday afternoon, in which I was assisted by Mr. Bateman. I found the heart enlarged and flabby; the valves on the left side of the heart had an inflammatory appearance. The other organs, including the brain, lungs, &c., were healthy. The stomach contained a small quantity of fluid and food, but there was no unhealthy signs in it or in the intestines. I could not detect any foreign or injurious substance in the stomach. The valve of the heart giving way was the cause of death, which was from natural causes. If I had given a certificate I should have given the cause of death as disease of the heart. I was aware there had been a suggestion that deceased had taken poison, and was, therefore, careful in examining the stomach, and am able to say positively that there was no poison. The symptoms preceding death, as described by the last witness, are such as would be consistent with heart disease. Mr. Bateman agreed with me as to the cause of death.

Mr. Bateman was not sworn, but said there was not the least symptom of irritation in the stomach, and there could not have been irritant poison in the stomach without leaving traces. If there had been volatile poison, it would have gone away before they could have examined the stomach. He was satisfied death was from a diseased heart, which was enlarged and weakened, and there was an inflammatory appearance of the organ.

In answer to Mr. T.J. Vaughan, Mr. Mercer said there would have been some traces of the effect of volatile poison if such had been taken.

Mrs. Mary Ann Harris deposed: I went to the Rotal Oak on Monday evening about a quarter before seven, when I saw deceased lying on the floor of the bar parlour. Mrs. Davis told me he was ill. I asked him if he would have water, and he said “No”. Mrs. Winter asked him where the pain was and he said “In my head”. I placed my hand on his heart and could feel it beating violently. I said to him “Let me lift you up” and he said “No”. He put his hand on his head and said “I am dead”. He had a very severe struggle and became unconscious and died.

Mrs. Winter gave confirmatory evidence.

The Coroner said: The evidence of Mr. Mercer makes the matter very clear the deceased died of heart complaint, and the post mortem examination clearly explained the cause of death. From inquiries made at the time the doctor was satisfied that deceased had died of heart disease, but Mr. Mercer not being present at the time he could not give a certificate. Having heard Mr. Mercer`s report I confess I did not intend to hold an inquest, but in consequence of having received an anonymous letter which I, perhaps, might very well have afforded to take no notice of, but the letter intimating that I was neglecting my duty, and went on to suggest that the deceased had taken poison, and the doctor had not examined him, I certainly thought it right that an inquest should be held and the matter should be cleared up. I put the letter into the hands of the police, who made every inquiry, but could obtain no corroboration of the allegation contained in the letter. On asking deceased`s father, he thought it would be satisfactory to have the matter cleared up. I cannot say what motive prompted the writer of the letter, whether it was an honest conviction that deceased had taken poison, or whether it was from a vindictive feeling towards the family. Your duty, gentlemen of the jury, is to say what was the cause of death. Looking at the evidence of the two medical gentlemen, that all the organs except the heart were in a healthy state, and the symptoms showed that action of the heart had stopped, confirms Mr, Mercer`s opinion as to the cause of death.

A juror asked if the Coroner had any objection to read the letter.

The Coroner said he had not. The letter came by post, and was addressed “Mr. J. Minter, Lawyer, Guildhall Street, Folkestone”, and the contents were as follows: “Folkestone, 18^th. Sir, Excuse me writing, but I feel almost sure that Thomas Garland must have taken something to cause his death, and it is the talk all over the town. There ought to be an inquest on the body. I know the doctor never examined him. I hope you will interfere, or there will be much more talk about it. From a friend, G.H.”

The Jury immediately returned a verdict of “Died from natural causes”.

Folkestone News 16-1-1886

Local News

On Monday morning between seven and eight o`clock a fire was discovered at the Royal Oak public house, North Street, which might have proved very disastrous if it had broken out in the night. In the bar parlour, a very small room, situated in the middle of the house, there is, over the fireplace, a beam of wood, which reaches across the front of a cupboard on the right of the fireplace. The cupboard appears to have been in such close proximity to the open chimney that the soot could drop on to the top of it, and had in that way ignited the top of the cupboard and the beam above mentioned, through which it burned a large hole, six inches across. Immediately over this spot on the wall hung a picture, and the fire burnt a round hole out of the back of the picture, and cracked a large opening through the glass corresponding with the hole, and it was through this aperture that the fire was coming when discovered by the landlord`s son, Master Halke. An alarm was at once spread, and the Fire Brigade were soon on the spot. The cupboard was pulled to pieces, and a very large accumulation of red hot soot was taken out of the chimney. It would appear as if this soot must have smouldered for some considerable time before breaking out in a fire. The damage was fortunately confined to the bar parlour, and the fire quickly extinguished.

Folkestone Express 12-10-1889

Wednesday, October 9^th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

Henry Mercer was granted temporary authority to carry on the Royal Oak, North Street.

Southeastern Gazette 2-9-1873

Local News

The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday, when the magistrates present were J. Hoad, Esq. (Mayor), J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clark, Esqrs.

The Superintendent lodged a complaint against the landlord of the Royal Oak, for harbouring prostitutes. The licence was granted with a caution.

Southeastern Gazette 21-2-1874

Local News

With reference to the sudden death of Thomas Garland, at the Royal Oak, North Street, on Monday evening, J. Minter, Esq., coroner, received an anonymous letter signed “G.B.” alleging that deceased had taken poison and suggesting that an inquest should be held, which was done on Thursday afternoon, after a post-mortem examination by Messrs. Bateman and Mercer, surgeons. The examination proved incontestably that there was not the faintest trace or indication of poison in the stomach. The valve of the heart had given way.

Under these circumstances, the jury had no hesitation in returning a verdict that deceased died from natural causes, and thus the talk which has been rife in the town has been set at rest.

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 Royal Oak, North Street, was transferred from Henry Mercer to John Kirby

Folkestone Chronicle 23-4-1892

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Tuesday by the Borough Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) on the body of Mary Ann Philpott, who died from injuries received to her head. It will be remembered that the deceased summoned a painter named Henry Moore before the Bench on the 2^nd inst. for an assault, the deceased complaining that Moore had knocked her down with his fist on the previous Sunday, giving her a black eye, and causing her head to be cut against the pavement. A cross summons was also heard, and the Magistrates dismissed them both.

William Henry Marshall was called, and stated that he was a fisherman, living at 15, Radnor Street. He knew the deceased for some time. She was the wife of David Philpott, a fisherman, and lived at 15, North Street.

The jury then viewed the body, and upon returning, Moore was called into the Court, and the Coroner remarked that, as far as he could anticipate, there would be evidence to show them that the deceased had had a quarrel with a man named Henry Moore, who was now present, and whome he should give an opportunity of making a statement if he wished to do so. There appeared to have bben two quarrels – on on the Saturday night, the other on Sunday morning. On both occasions, it was stated, she was knocked down by Moore, and, on the latter occasion, received severe injuries to her head, the result of which was a rupture of a blood vessel on the brain and haemorrhage. Although Moore had been summoned there as a witness, he did not propose to call him until the last, so that he may first have an opportunity of hearing the whole of the evidence. He would then elect, after a warning from him, whether or not he would make a statement. It was, of course, their duty to ascertain what was the cause of death, and if they were satisfied that she died from a blow which Moore was alleged to have dealt, it was their duty to say whether it was a case of manslaughter. It was only right for him to say that the deceased woman was of drunken habits, and very quarrelsome. And she was always complaining to the police, when she was drunk, of having been assaulted. But, whether she was a drunken woman or not, no-one had any right to strike her in such a manner as to cause her death.

The witness Marshall was then re-called, and stated: I identify the body which the jury have just viewed as to that of Mary Ann Philpott. On Sunday morning, the 3^rd of April, I was standing at the bottom of North Street, between twelve and one o`clock. I saw the deceased standing on the pavement between her house and Mrs. Rose`s house – two doors below. I did not notice if she had anything in her hand. There was an old lady with her, named Spearpoint. I saw Moore and another young man – Edward Tappenden – come through the arches, and passed me to go up North Street. Moore was walking in the roadway, and when he arrived opposite Mrs. Philpott she walked towards him. I saw him strike her on the right eye with his fist, and she fell down on the pavement. She fell on her back and her head struck the pavement. Mrs. Spearpoint ran away from her when she fell, but afterwards went back and picked her up. I should judge she lay there two or three minutes before she picked deceased up. She did not seem to attempt to get up herself. She laid there quietly until Mrs. Spearpoint went. I don`t know what became of her after that, because I went into my own house.

The Coroner: You say you were twenty yards off. Were you looking up the street at Moore? – Yes.

Was there any reason? – Yes.

Why? – The night before I heard a row at the Royal Oak, and I thought to myself “There will be another row”.

|You knew of the quarrel then? – Yes, sir; I heard about it. I wasn`t there myself.

You say that when Moore got opposite Mrs. Philpott she walked towards him. Did you see her strike him? – I saw her strike at him, but she did not hit him.

Did you see her throw any wood at him? – No. I did not see anything in her hand. When she struck at him he knocked her down. I had not seen her before that morning, so that I could not say if she was drunk or sober.

In answer to Moore, when the Coroner had given permission to ask any questions, the witness said he noticed another young man with Moore and Tappenden, but did not know his name.

Moore said it was Tappenden`s son.

Mrs. Spearpoint was then called and said: I am a widow, and live at 11, North Street. I knew Mary Ann Philpott; she lived three doors above me. A fortnight ago last Sunday, between twelve and one o`clock, I came out of my sister`s house, which is opposite mine, and saw deceased on her doorstep. She called out to me “Aunt Mary”. I went up to her. She had her left arm in a sling, and in her right hand she had a short white stick. It was a little bobbin stick. Whilst I was talking to her three men came up the street, and Henry Moore, now present, was one of them. Mrs. Moore said “Here comes the three ----“. She got up and threw the stick at Moore. I don`t think it struck him. She then went “squaring up” to him, and he tried to get away, but she kept in front of him to prevent him passing. I don`t think she struck him. I ddi not see Moore strike her, but he gave her a push with his open hand. I think it was in her face. She fell on the back of her head. I saw that she had a black eye.

The Coroner remarked that he did not think the witness was telling the truth.

Witness: Yes I am, sir; that`s the truth. She had got a black eye at the time. I turned to go into my own house, when my next door neighbour (Mrs. Rose) said “Pick her up, Aunt Mary”. I said “Why don`t you pick her up? You`re younger than I am”. “I can`t” she said, and so I picked her up. She was very heavy, and I had a great job to get her up. When I got her up I said “Go indoors”, and she did so. When I saw her on Monday morning I was astonished to see her eye so black.

George Kirby said: I am landlord of the Royal Oak, which is two doors above the residence of deceased. She was in my house on Saturday night, the 2^nd of April. I should say she was the worse for drink. It was between five and ten minutes to eleven at night. Harry Moore was standing against the door, inside, and she passed him in coming in. I was called into another room by one of my customers, and whilst there I hard a noise. When I went back I asked what was the matter, and Moore said “She has hit me in the mouth”. From my experience of her I know she is a very quarrelsome woman. Deceased said “What did he want to shove me for?”, and Moore said “I was in a good mind to hit her, but I pushed her out”. The glass of the door was broken. I got her outside, and she stood there using bad language, calling Moore bad names. I said to her “I`m sure Mr. Moore would not hit you if you did not interfere with him”. I told her to go out of the house, and that I had never had any disturbance in the house since I had had it; only with her. I told her never to come into my house again. I did not see anything of what took place on Sunday morning. She had not been in my house. Moore came in about twenty minutes to one on Sunday afternoon, and said “I have been insulted again by Mrs. Philpott”. He said she tried to hit him with a piece of wood, which he avoided. She then struck him in the mouth and broke his pipe. As he was picking his pipe up she came at him again. He put up his arm, and she fell down. While he was in the bar Mrs. Philpott`s husband came in with the deceased, her sister and another woman. Philpott pulled off his coat and wanted to fight Moore, but I told them to go outside or I should send for a policeman. They did not go, so I sent for a constable, and P.C. Bowles came.

P,C, Bowles stated that he was sent for by the landlord of the Royal Oak between twelve and one o`clock on Sunday, the 3^rd of April. On his arrival he found the deceased in the house, with her husband, her sister, Henry Moore, and others. There was an altercation going on between her and Moore. They went out and witness asked Moore what it was all about. He said “She struck me in the mouth, broke my pipe, and I hit her. What should you have done?” Witness saw deceased a minute or so afterwards standing just in front of her front door with her husband and sister. He noticed that her right eye was blackened, and that she had a bruise on the right side of her forehead. She said “Look at my face, what he has done!”, and witness advised her to summon the man who struck her.

P.C. Lemar deposed that on Saturday night, the 2^nd of April, he was on duty in North Street, and as he passed by he saw the window of the door of the Royal Oak was broken, and he asked the landlord how it was done. He said he did not know. Witness saw that deceased and Moore were having an altercation, but when they saw him coming they stopped. The deceased was “squaring up” at Moore. After Moore had got by, the deceased said “There`s a pretty ----. He hit me in the mouth and knocked me through the window”. Her mouth was bleeding.

Dr. Percy Vernon Dodd stated that he was called to see the deceased on Tuesday, the 5^th of April. He observed that she had a large contusion over the right eye. The whole of the right side of the face was black – it had been bruised. She complained of pains at the back of the head, and, upon examining it, he found that there was a soft spot in the centre of the back of the head. In his opinion the spot was caused by a blow or a fall. The contusion on the forehead would have been due to the same cause. Having heard the evidence he should say that the contusion was caused by a blow, and the soft spot at the back of the head was the consequence of the fall on the pavement. He attended her regularly from the 5^th until the following Saturday, when she attended the police court to summons Moore for an assault, against his advice. She complained of headache more than anything else, and had been in bed the whole time.

The Coroner: Why did you advise her not to go?

Witness said because he thought she was not in a fit state. He ought, perhaps, to state that when he called on the Tuesday morning he was told by the old lady who had been nursing her that she picked her up from the floor unconscious at six o`clock in the morning. She was conscious when he saw her. He ordered her to be put to bed. He could tell that the soft spot and the black eye were injuries which had been inflicted about two days. The spot at the back of the head could have been produced by a fall on the floor that same morning, but he should say it was probably of a couple of days` duration. He saw her on the Wednesday after the summons was heard, and on the Thursday she was unconscious, and remained so until the time of her death, which took place on Sunday afternoon at three o`clock. He had made a post mortem examination of the head of the deceased, and from the examination he was of opinion that death was due to compression of the brain, caused by haemorrhage on the surface. The haemorrhage arose from the rupture of a blood vessel on the brain, which would be caused by a blow or a fall.

The Coroner: She has been a woman of very intemperate habits for years. Would her blood vessels be more brittle than another person`s?

Witness said certainly, and gave it as his opinion that the fit on Tuesday morning was due to the rupture, which had been caused on the Sunday. She was much better on the Saturday before she attended the Court. No doubt the rupture had partially healed. A rupture was bleeding on the brain, and any excitement like that would have caused the haemorrhage to set in again.

The Coroner then addressed Moore, and stated that he was not bound to make a statement unless he desired to. It was his duty to tell him that anything he said would be taken down and might be used in evidence against him, should the jury find him guilty of manslaughter. At the present moment, he was bound to tell him things look rather unfavourable, and he was afraid he would have to advise the jury to return a verdict of manslaughter. The evidence was that the deceased died from the effects of a blow or a fall, and that fall was caused by a blow which was given by him. Addressing the jury, Mr. Minter went on to say that of course it was not their duty to enquire whether Moore was justified or not, but he told the constable that he had hit her, and that certainly went against him. He did not think the enquiry could be concluded that day, because of the evidence of the doctor with regard to the deceased being picked up from the floor. That was quite a new part of the enquiry, and he thought, in justice to Moore, evidence should be given on that point. He should therefore adjourn it until Thursday at six o`clock, and in the meantime Moore had better consult his friends, or his solicitor, and decide whether or not he would make a statement.

The enquiry was continued on Thursday, when a great deal of public interest was taken.

Mr. Ward watched the enquiry on behalf of the man Moore.

Mary Ann Sellers said she was the wife of William Sellers, and lived at 55, North Street. She was in the habit of going into Mrs. Phil[pott`s house every day to light her fire. On Tuesday, the 5<sup>th</sup> of April, at half past seven in the morning, she took the key out of the window, let herself in, and went into the deceased`s bedroom. She found her lying flat on her back, with her head near the cuoboard. Her hands were clenched, and she was quite unconscious. Witness felt afraid and opened the window and shouted “Murder!”. At half past eight she saw a little girl, and sent her for her sister (Mrs. Weatherhead) and, between them, they got the deceased into bed. Witness then sent for Dr. F. Eastes and he came at nine o`clock and saw her. She was unconscious then. The doctor sent some medicine, and said he would send Dr. Dodd to attend her, as he was going away for five weeks. Witness followed instructions, and came up to the police court with the deceased on the Saturday morning. When she found deceased on the floor on the Tuesday morning she was foaming at the mouth.

Dr. Dodd, re-called, said he found her conscious when he called on Tuesday morning. He did not notice any paralysis at the time. The foaming at the mouth indicated that she had had a fit, and, from his post mortem examination. He was of opinion that the fit arose from the slight haemorrhage on the brain. In his opinion the contusion at the back of the head had not been caused that morning. That was merely blood between the skull and the scalp, and had nothing to do with the internal rupture.

David Philpott said the deceased was his wife, who was 51 years of age last March. On Sunday morning at quarter to one he was called home, and found his wife lying on the bed. He saw that she had had a blow on her eye, and that her face was bruised. He said “Who has done this?” and she said “Moore”. He went into the Royal Oak and said to Moore “What did you hit her for this morning?” He said “It served her right”. Witness said “Why didn`t you hit me?”, and witness offered to fight him. He then went indoors and afterwards called P.C. Knowles to look at his wife`s face. Witness left Folkestone Harbour on Sunday evening and did not return until the next day.

Elizabeth Rose said she was the wife of Fredk. Rose, and lived at 13, North Street. She saw the deceased sitting on her doorstep about half past twelve on Sunday morning. She saw her raise her hand to strike Moore, and he raised his hand and she fell down, but witness could not say if he struck her.

DR. Dodd, re-examined, said the foaming of the mouth and the clenched fingers on the Tuesday would raise some doubt in his mind whether she might not have had an epileptic fit. That might have caused a rupture of the blood vessel on the brain. It was very probable that if the rupture on the brain had taken place on the Sunday it would have caused a fit on the Tuesday – very probable.

Henry Moore was then called, and having again been cautioned by the Coroner, elected to make a statement. In answer to Mr. Ward, he said he was a painter, living in St. John`s Road. On Sunday morning, the 3^rd of April, he was going up North Street with a couple of friends. Deceased was sitting on her doorstep, and when she saw them coming up she said “Here comes the ----“. She came up to him and threw a stick at him. It was a common stick, which would weigh about three pounds. It did not strike him, and she then went deliberately up to him, knocked his pipe out of his mouth, and broke it. He had not spoken to her previously. Witness stooped down to pick up his pipe. She came at him again. He put up his arm to defend himself, and she, being very drunk, fell down. He then walked away. On several occasions she had used very abusive language against his wife. He had heard the evidence of Knowles, but it was not true. He did not speak to Knowles at all, and certainly did not say “I hit her; what would you have done?”

The Coroner: Didn`t you see Knowles in the Royal Oak? – Yes.

And did he come back after he got Mrs. Philpott out? – Yes.

Did you hear him say “What is it all about?” – No, sir.

Did you hit the woman on the Sunday morning? – Not that I am aware of.

Did you hear anyone, in answer to Knowles`s question, say “I hit her. What would you have done?” – No; and I didn`t say it.

Did Philpott say to you “What have you hit her for this morning?” – Yes.

And did you say “It serves her right”? – I said I didn`t hit her.

What? – I said it wasn`t my fault.

You say you put your arm up and she fell down. Which part of your arm touched her? – My elbow, I think.

You think? You must know! – It was my elbow. I think it was her arm that struck mine. She appeared to fall on her right side and then roll over on her back.

Then she must have rolled uphill. Very extraordinary.

Edwin Tappenden senr,. Edwin Tappenden junr., and Charles Tappenden all gave evidence on Moore`s behalf.

The Coroner having summed up the evidence at great length, the jury retired, and eventually returned a verdict to the effect that death was caused on Sunday the 3^rd of April, in consequence of a fall, that Moore put up his arm in self defence, and the deceased fell.

The Coroner: Very well; it`s your verdict, not mine!

The enquiry terminated at nine o`clock.

Folkestone Express 23-4-1892

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Tuesday afternoon, before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, on the body of Mary Ann Philpott, wife of David Philpott, of 15, North Street. The deceased had been a noted character in the fishing quarter.

The Coroner, in opening the enquiry, said: So far as I can anticipate, there will be evidence to show you that the deceased had had a quarrel with a man named Henry Moore. He is summoned here as a witness, and I shall give him the opportunity of making a statement. The enquiry is as to the cause of the death of Mary Ann Philpott. I am told that it is alleged that there was a quarrel on Sunday morning, the 3^rd. Instant, and that she was knocked down in North Street on a Sunday morning, and received very serious injuries to her head, the result of which was the rupture of certain blood vessels in the brain, from which the woman had died. I was told, but of course you will hear it presently in evidence, that there had been a previous quarrel between her and Henry Moore. He has been summoned here to give evidence. I don`t propose to call him until the last to give evidence, so that he will have an opportunity of hearing the evidence that will be given. He will then elect whether or not to make a statement. Your duty is to enquire as to how she came by her death. If you are satisfied she reveived the injuries from a blow or from a fall caused by a blow, and that blow was improperly given by anyone, it will be your duty to say whether or not it was the prisoner, and whether he is guilty of manslaughter. I think it is only right for me to say that the deceased woman was a drunken and very quarrelsome woman, and it was well known to the police that she was always, when she got drunk, making complaints to the police that she had been assaulted. Therefore I think it is right that I should call the police to give evidence. But whether a person is drunken or not, another person has no right to knock her down and inflict such injuries as to result in death. If you, Moore, desire any questions to be put to the witnesses, who will be called before the jury, and will tell me what they are, I will put them.

William Henry Marshall, a fisherman, living at No. 5, Radnor Street, said: I identify the body as that of Mary Ann Philpott, wife of David Philpott, of 15, North Street, Folkestone, a fisherman. On Sunday, the 3^rd inst., between twelve and one, I was standing at the bottom of North Street. I saw the deceased woman between her house and Mrs. Rose`s, her next door neighbour. She was standing on the pavement. I could not say whether she had anything in her hand. There was an old lady – Mrs. Spearpoint – with her. I saw Moore and another man come along through the arch. The other man`s name I do not know. (A man named Edwin Tappenden came into Court and was identified by the witness) The two men went up North Street, so as to go opposite Mrs. Philpott`s. Mrs. Philpott walked towards Moore, who was walking in the street. I saw Moore strike Mrs. Philpott on the right eye with his fist. She went down on her back, and her head struck on the pavement. I was about twenty yards off when the blow was struck. Mrs. Spearpoint ran away from the deceased and then went back and helped her up. The deceased  laid on the pavement two or three minutes before she was picked up. The deceased did not attempt to get up till Mrs. Spearpoint picked her up. I saw her take hold of her arms and help her up. I then went into my own house and did not see what became of her. I heard there was a row the night before and I was looking at Moore and Mrs. Philpott in consequence. Mrs. Philpott, when she got up at Tappenden, tried to strike him. She did not hit him. She struck at him with her fist. I did not see her throw any wood at him. Then he knocked her down. I could not say whether she was drunk or sober.

Moore asked: Did you see anyone else go up the street with us? – Yes, another young man. I don`t know his name. I saw no-one else.

Mary Spearpoint, widow of the late Richard Spearpoint, living at No. 11, North Street, said: I knew Mary Ann Philpott. She lived two doors above me in North Street. On Sundat the 3^rd, between 12 and 1, I came out of my sister`s and saw Mrs. Philpott sitting on her doorstep. She called out to me “Aunt Mary”, and I went up to her. She had one arm (the left) in a sling, and a short white stick in the other hand. Whilst I was talking to her, three men came up the street. Henry Moore was one of them. They were walking in the street. As they came up, she said “Here comes the three b----s”. She got up and threw the stick at Moore. It did not hit him, I think. Then she went and squared up at him. I think he had a pipe in his mouth. He tried to get away from her, but she kept in front of him and would not let him pass her. I did not see Moore strike her, but he pushed her with his hand and she went down. His hand was open. I could not say whether his hand touched on the face or on the body. She fell on the back of her head. I do not know how she got the black eye. I did not notice that she had a black eye when I picked her up. Mrs. Rose, my next door neighbour, said “Pick her up, Aunt Mary”. I said “Why don`t you – you are younger than I am”. She said “I can`t”. I had a great job to get her up because she was so heavy, but I did get her up, and she walked indoors. I saw her on Monday morning with her black eye, and I was astonished to see it. I saw Chadwick, the Town sergeant, this morning, but I did not tell him that I saw Moore knock the woman down.

George Kirby, landlord of the Royal Oak, a house a door or two above the residence of the deceased, said: The deceased was in my house on the night of Saturday the 2^nd of April. I should say she was the worse for drink. She came in between five and ten minutes to eleven. Henry Moore was standing against the door by which she came in. She passed him on coming in. I ws called to another room and I heard a noise. On going back I asked what was the matter, and Moore said Mrs. Philpott had hit him in the mouth. I know she was a very drunken and quarrelsome woman. She said “What did you want to shove me for?” Moore said “I`d a good mind to hit her, but I pushed her out”. He had pushed her out and the glass of the door was broken. She stood outside using bad language for a time, calling Moore bad names. I told her to go away and that Moore would not interfere with her if she did not with him, and hoped she wouldn`t come into my house again. There was never any disturbance except when she came in. I saw nothing of the disturbance on Sunday morning. She had not been in my house. She went in after the disturbance. Moore had told me he had been insulted again that morning by the deceased. He said she struck at him with a piece of wood, and afterwards struck him in the mouth and broke his pipe. He put his arm up to avoid being hit again and she fell down. The deceased`s husband afterwards came in and wanted to fight Moore. I saw the woman`s eye was black. As they would not leave the bar I sent for a policemen.

P.C. Knowles said: On Sunday the 3^rd April, between 12 and 1 o`clock, I was sent for to go to the Royal Oak. On arrival there I found the deceased, Mrs. Philpott, her husband, her sister, Mrs. Weatherhead, Henry Moore, and others. There was an altercation going on between the deceased and Moore. The landlord said he wanted the people out of his house. He ordered them out, and Mrs. Philpott declined to go. I asked Moore what all the bother was about. He said “She struck me in the mouth and broke my pipe and I hit her – what would you have done?” I saw the deceased afterwards inside her front door with her husband and sister. I noticed that her right eye was blackened and there was a bruise on her forehead. She said “Look what a face I`ve got”. I told her that she must summons the man that struck her.

P.C. Harry Lemar said: On Saturday the 2^nd April I was on duty in North Street, and spoke to the landlord of the Royal Oak, and asked him how the window was broken. I heard a disturbance and saw the deceased and Henry Moore in the street having an altercation. Mrs. Philpott was squaring up to Moore, who was trying to get away from her. When I got to Mrs. Philpott, she said to me “There`s a pretty b---. He hit me in the face and knocked me through that window”. Her mouth was bleeding.

Dr. Percy Vernon Dodd said: I was called in to see the deceased on Tuesday, the 5^th April. She had a large contusion over the right eye. The whole side of the face was black and bruised. She complained of pains at the back of the head, and on examining it I found there was a soft spot on the back of the centre of the head. In my opinion it was caused by a blow or a fall. The contusion on the right side of the forehead was also due to a blow or fall. If she had been struck by a man`s fist on the eye and she had fallen back on the pavement the marks would have been caused by that. I should say the injuries were due to those causes. I attended her from the 5<sup>th</sup> until the following Monday when she attended the Court at the hearing of a summons against Moore. She complained of headache all the time. I advised her not to go to the Court, thinking she was not in a state to attend. On the Tuesday morning that I was called to attend her, I was told by an old woman who was nursing her that she had picked her up from the floor that morning about six o`clock, in an unconscious state. She was conscious when I saw her. I ordered her to be put to bed. The injuries to the eye and the back of the head appeared to be of some days` duration. The sore place on the back of the head could have been produced by the fall on the floor, but I should say it was of two or three days` duration. No-one was present when she fell. On Thursday she became unconscious, and remained so up to the time of her death on Sunday. I have made a post mortem examination of the head of the deceased, and found that death was due to compression of the brain caused by haemorrhage on the surface. The haemorrhage arose from the rupture of a blood vessel on the brain, which a blow or a fall might cause, and having heard the evidence as to the blow and fall I should say it was so caused, but cannot say whether by the blow or fall. I have heard that the deceased was of intemperate habits, and had been for years, and that would make the blood vessels more brittle and more likely to be ruptured. It is possible the deceased might have ruptured the blood vessel by the fall in her bedroom, but I should think the fit was probably more due to the rupture.

Henry Moore was then called. The Coroner told him he was not bound to give evidence, but anything he might say would be taken down, and should the verdict be one of manslaughter, the evidence might be given against him. “At the present moment” he added “in my judgement things look rather in your disfavour, because you see this woman died from the effects of a blow or a fall, and that blow was caused by you”. Whether there was provocation or not was another matter. He did not think, in justice to Moore, that the enquiry should be concluded that day, so that enquiries might be made as to the fit the deceased appeared to have had on the Tuesday morning. If, in that fit she had a fall, it was obvious that the rupture of the blood vessels of the brain might have taken place on that occasion, and not on the Sunday morning when she fell on the pavement – a matter that would weigh very seriously in the minds of the jury.

The enquiry was then adjourned until Thursday evening at six.

The inquest was resumed on Thursday evening. Mr. J. Ward represented Henry Moore.

The witnesses having signed their depositions, Mary Ann Sellars, wife of William Sellars, said: I live at 51, North Street. On Tuesday, the 5^th April, I went in to Mrs, Philpott`s to light her fire. I have done it for a long time when she was not well. I went in at half past seven in the morning and went straight into the bedroom which deceased usually slept in, and I found her lying flat on her back, with her head in a cupboard, the door of which was open. Her hands were clenched, and she was quite unconscious. I remained with her till half past eight. There was no-one else in the house but an old lady upstairs, who was very deaf, and I did not call her. At half past eight I sent a little girl to call the deceased`s sister. I called “Murder!” several times before I got anyone to hear me. I had then been with the deceased for an hour. The little girl went to Mrs, Weatherhead, who came, and we got the deceased into bed. She was in her night dress. Then we sent for Dr. Eastes. He attended about nine o`clock and asked how long she had been unconscious. He examined her, and said he would send some medicine and Dr. Dodd. He said he was going away for five weeks. Dr. Dodd came some time after. I followed the doctor`s directions in applying the remedies. I came to the Court and met the deceased on Saturday morning. When she was lying on the floor I saw she was foaming at the mouth.

Dr. Dodd was re-called, and said when he was called to see the deceased she was semi-conscious. He did not notice any paralysis. The foaming at the mouth indicated that she had had a fit, which, in his opinion, arose from the slight haemorrhage on the brain. There was no indication of an epileptic fit found in the post mortem examination. In his opinion the contusion at the back of the head had not been received that morning.

David Philpott, husband of the deceased, said: She was 51 years of age last March. Her name was Mary Jane, not Mary Ann. I went to bed on Saturday evening about half nine and got up between twelve and one in the night. I was fetched home about a quarter to one on Sunday, and found my wife lying on the bed in the back bedroom. I saw she had a blow on the eye, and her face was all swollen. In consequence of what she said, I went into the Royal Oak, and I found Moore. My wife followed me. I said to Moore “What did you hit her for this morning?” He said “It served her right”. I said “Why didn`t you come and hit me, not her?” I asked him to come out if he wanted to fight. I then called Policeman Knowles and showed him my wife`s eye. I can`t say whether she was sober or drunk – she had nothing to drink in my presence. I left the harbour on Sunday evening at ten o`clock, and did not return till Tuesday afternoon. My wife was then having a cup of tea. I then went upstairs.

Elizabeth Rose, wife of Frederick Rose, of 18, North Street, said:  I saw deceased sitting on her doorstep about half past 12 on Sunday morning. I saw her raise her hand to strike Moore; he put up his hand to defend himself and she fell down on her back. I can`t say whether he struck her. I was in my kitchen and went up to my front door. She was then kneeling, and Mrs Spearpoint was helping her up and I then went indoors.

Dr. Dodd was again called and said the evidence of the woman Sellars raised a doubt in his mind whether the deceased might not have had an epileptic fit on the Tuesday. The foaming at the mouth and the clenched fingers might have been caused by an epileptic fit, and then, supposing that she had fallen suddenly, the vessel on the brain might have been ruptured. Frothing at the mouth was not an indication of compression – it indicated nothing but an epileptic fit.

Henry Moore was then called, and the Coroner cautioned him. He said: I am a painter, residing at 18, St. John`s Road. On Sunday, the 3^rd April, I was in North Street about twenty minutes to one. I saw the deceased sitting on her steps. She helloed out “Here comes the b----s”. She got up off the pavement, ran up to me, and threw a stick at me. Then she came up and hit me in the mouth, knocked my pipe out of my mouth and broke it, and injured one of my teeth. I had not spoken to her at all. I stooped to pick up my pipe, and while doing so she came at me again. I put up my arm to defend myself, and she, being very drunk, fell down. She had often abused me, but I had never spoken to her. I swear I did not strike her. She has frequently used abusive language to my wife.

By the Coroner: I saw Knowles in the Royal Oak after he had got Mrs. Philpott out. He did not come into the room, but into the passage. I did not hear what he said. I did not say “I hit her – what should you have done?” I saw the husband. He asked me “What did you hit her for this morning?” I told him it was not my fault. I think when I put my arm up, my elbow touched her. She appeared to fall on her side and roll over on her back.

Edwin Tappenden said he was with Moore in the Royal Oak on Saturday night and saw deceased strike Moore. Moore pushed her out. He was with Moore on Sunday morning going up North Street. Deceased threw a bit of wood at him, and then struck him in the mouth and broke his pipe. He stooped to pick up the pipe, and the woman came at him again and struck at him. He put up his arm in self defence, and the woman fell down backwards. They walked away.

Edward Tappenden and Charles Tappenden gave similar evidence.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and on their return the foreman said they found that death was accidental, caused by Moore, in self defence, raising his arm to protect himself, and they found that Moore did not strike the deceased, but that she fell down accidentally.

Folkestone Herald 23-4-1892

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon, before Mr. J. Minter, touching the death of Mary Jane Philpott, wife of David Philpott, a mariner, of North Street.

It will be remembered that on Saturday, April 16^th, deceased was prosecutrix in a case of assault against a man named Moore, whom she alleged had struck her and knocked her down, afterwards kicking her hip. The defendant, at the same hearing, preferred a cross-summons against Mrs. Philpott, who, he said, had assaulted him. The Magistrates in the end dismissed the case, each party having to pay their own costs. When the deceased appeared before the Magistrates she had a black eye, and walked very lame. Moore was present at the inquest.

The jury having viewed the body, the following evidence was taken:

William Henry Marshall identified the body as that of Mary Ann Philpott, of North Street. He swore he saw Moore strike deceased on the right eye. He could not say if she were drunk or sober.

Mary Spearpoint, a widow, said a fortnight ago last Sunday she saw deceased insult and square up to Moore, as if to fight. He tried to get her out of the way, but could not pass her. Moore pushed deceased with his open hand, and she fell on to the back of her head. Witness afterwards picked deceased up and led her indoors, and was astonished on Monday morning to see her with a black eye.

George Kirby said he was landlord of the Royal Oak, North Street. Deceased was in his house on the night of Saturday, 2^nd April, and appeared to be the worse for drink. Moore was standing at the bar when deceased came in. Witness`s attention was diverted for a moment to the wants of other customers, when he heard a crash. On enquiring the cause of this Moore said Mrs. Philpott had hit him in the mouth, and that he (Moore) had thrown her out, but did not strike her. Deceased stood outside witness`s house for some time after this, and used bad language. He then sent for a constable, who cleared the house.

P.C. James Knowles deposed to being called to the Royal Oak on the day in question, and on arrival found an altercation going on between Moore and deceased. The landlord asked witness to clear the house, which he did. Moore remarked that deceased had struck him in the mouth, and that he had hit her in return. Witness saw deceased standing at her door soon after, and she called out “See what a face I have”. Witness noticed her eye was blackened and forehead bruised, and advised her to issue a summons against her assailant.

P.C. Henry Le Mar gave corroborative evidence, and Dr. Todd, M.R.C.S., said he was called to see deceased on the 5^th of April. She had a large contusion over the right eye, and one side of her face was black with bruises. She complained of pains in the back of the head. On examination witness found a soft spot at the back of her head, and in his opinion it was due to a blow or fall. Witness attended her up to the time she went to the Police Court. He warned her that it would be dangerous for her to go there, but she persisted. On the following Tuesday, he called at her house, and an old woman told witness she had picked up deceased in an unconscious state from the floor of the bedroom. She was conscious when witness saw her. He ordered her to bed, and she became unconscious on Thursday, and died on the following Sunday. Witness had made a post mortem examination, and found that death was due to compression of the brain, caused by haemorrhage on the surface. A blow or a fall such as had been described by the previous witnesses would account for the injuries he had described. Drunken habits would accelerate death in such a case.

The Coroner said Moore could, if he desired, give evidence, but whatever he said would be taken in evidence against him. The evidence of the doctor as to deceased being picked up in the room unconscious had thrown a different complexion on the case, and he should adjourn the enquiry till Thursday, for the purpose of taking further evidence.

The adjourned inquest was held on Thursday night, and additional evidence was taken. Mr. Ward appeared for Moore.

Mary Ann Sellars deposed to finding deceased in a fit in an unconscious state.

Dr. Todd, re-called, said deceased was foaming at the mouth, and her hands were clenched, which probably indicated an epileptic fit, and this had created a doubt in his (the doctor`s) mind, since his last evidence, whether the death was due to the fit or the fall.

David Philpott, husband of the deceased, said he was away from home when the altercation between his wife and Moore had taken place. He taxed Moore shortly afterwards with what he had done, and he said “It served her right”.

Moore then elected to give evidence, and was further cautioned by the Coroner. Examined by Mr. Ward, witness said he was going up North Street on the Sunday morning, and when opposite deceased`s house she threw a piece of wood at him, at the same time using a foul expression, squaring up as if wanting to fight. She knocked the pipe out of his mouth; he stooped to pick it up. Deceased again “made for” him, and putting his arm up, for his own defence, to ward off a blow, deceased came against him, and fell over on her side. He did not push her, nor did he speak to P.C. Knowles about it after.

Edward Tappenden and his two sons gave corroborative evidence, and the Coroner reviewed the evidence in a most lucid manner.

The jury retired, and on coming into Court gave their verdict that death was accidental, caused by Moore, in self defence, raising his arm to protect himself, and they found that Moore did not strike the deceased, but that she fell down accidentally.

The Coroner (surprised): Well, gentlemen, that is your verdict, not mine.

Folkestone Express 4-8-1894

Wednesday, August 1^st: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness and J. Pledge Esqs.

Transfer of Licence

The licence of the Royal Oak was transferred to Mr. Thomas Hughes

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28-3-1896

Saturday, March 21^st : Before J. Sherwood, J. Holden, J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Benjamin Spicer was granted temporary permission to sell at the Royal Oak, North Street.

Folkestone Express 28-3-1896

Saturday, March 21^st: Before J. Sherwood, C.J. Pursey, J. Fitness, J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Spicer applied for a transfer of the licence of the Royal Oak, North Street. Granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23-5-1896

Saturday, May 16^th: Before Messrs. J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Fitness.

Mr. Benjamin Spicer, of the Royal Oak Inn, was granted an occasional licence to sell at a fete at the Football Ground on Whit Monday from noon until 9 p.m.

Folkestone Express 23-5-1896

Saturday, May 16^th: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. Spicer applied for a licence to sell at the Football Ground on Whit Monday from twelve noon until ten at night. The Bench granted the licence till nine.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13-6-1896

Wednesday, June 10^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, and Mr. W. Wightwick.

Benjamin James Jacob Spicer was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor without a licence at the football ground, at a fete on Bank Holiday. Mr. Frederick Hall appeared for the defendant.

Superintendent Taylor said that the defendant was the landlord of the Royal Oak public house. On Bank Holiday he had a booth at a fete. About ten minutes to three witness visited it and found some forty of fifty persons being served with liquor. He asked to see Spicer`s licence, and he was shown a document attached to the pole of the tent. As he could not read it at a distance he requested it to be handed to him, and this was done. It was a justices` consent to the issuing of an excise licence, a printed copy of which the defendant produced. He informed Spicer that this was not a licence, and asked him if he had done as he had told him to and sent the document to the excise authorities with a fee. Defendant said he had no recollection of being told, and had not sent to the excise. Witness pointed out the clause on the notice calling on him to do so. He replied that he had not noticed it. He was directed to stop selling, which he did. Witness then fetched Mr. Welch, the secretary of the Football Club, and explained matters to him. Spicer spoke of going to Canterbury to get the licence, but witness pointed out that, being Bank Holiday, all public offices would be closed. He then said he would see Mr. Powell, the local officer of Inland Revenue. At 4 p.m. witness again saw Spicer in Cheriton Road, when he said he had been to the Customs House, but could not find anyone. Before leaving the field, witness had placed P.S. Lilley at the booth, and gave him certain instructions. From what he was informed, he applied for a summons the next day.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: Spicer had been in business two or three months, and it was the first time he had held a licence. When he applied for the licence, witness did not object, for he saw no reason why it should not be issued. On Whit Monday he reminded defendant of what he told him in Court. He said he did not remember, as he was talking and paying money to Mr. Andrews. He believed other business was transacted at the Court that morning. Witness was quite certain he told defendant. At the fete there was a large attendance, perhaps 4,000 or 5,000. It was a very hot and “thirsty” day. He took the summons out as he had equal powers to do so with the Excise. The officer had informed him that the Excise were not going to take proceedings. Witness did not see how they could, as he had already done so. The officer did not say it was a “trumpery case”. He had never heard of a case where the Excise refused to issue a licence when the justices had given the permit. He imputed no corrupt motive to Spicer. He had no reason to apprehend a disturbance in the field if the booth was closed. If there was, it would be through the defendant`s fault.

P.S. Lilley said on the day of the fete he went to the booth at two o`clock and asked if defendant had his licence. He said he had, and pointed to a document, which witness took to be the Magistrates` permit by the colour of it. As he had that, he assumed he had the Excise licence also. About three o`clock he was called to the booth by Supt. Taylor, and given certain instructions. At 4.15 he saw defendant, and he said he was going to serve, acting under the advice of Mr. Powell. He then commenced to serve.

Mr. Hall proposed to call Spicer to speak as to what took place when the licence was applied for, and also on the day, but the Magistrates` Clerk said that had nothing to do with the case. It was not incumbent on the Superintendent to instruct the defendant. It was quite voluntary.

The Bench said his evidence would make no difference whatever.

Mr. Hall, however, had the defendant sworn. He stated that the Committee of the fete advertised for tenders for refreshments, but had received no replies. They came to him and asked him to cater. Witness therefore applied for his licence. He did not send the paper, but thought it was sufficient. He carried it in his pocket, and nailed it up to the pole of the tent, thinking it was his consent. He did not remember the Superintendent telling him about going to Canterbury. He consulted the committee, with the result that before he recommenced selling the 2s. 6d. was sent to Canterbury by post. He acted under advice. Afterwards he went to Canterbury and saw several officers, and explained matters. He had received no threat from the Inland Revenue authorities. He thought if he refused to sell there would be a serious row. After he commenced to sell he said he would take the risk.

By the Superintendent: The money was posted after 4 o`clock. He believed it would reach Canterbury that night.

For the defence, Mr. Hall said the man was admitted to be new to the licensing laws. The obtaining of the Excise licence was really only formal, and defendant had acted entirely in ignorance. The committee were really responsible, and when their error was pointed out they did their best to perfect the licence. He thought the aggrieved party was the Excise, and not the police. He asked that the summons should be dismissed.

The Bench said they considered the offence a serious one, and the defendant should have made himself properly acquainted with his duties as a licence holder. However, under the circumstances, he would be fined 20s., costs 11s., or 14 days`.

The money was at once paid.

Folkestone Express 13-6-1896

Wednesday, June 10^th: Before W.G. Herbert, and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Benjamin James Jacob Spicer was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor elsewhere than his own premises without a licence.

Superintendent Taylor said defendant was the landlord of the Royal Oak, North Street. On the afternoon of the 25^th May a fete was held in the Folkestone Football Ground, Cheriton Road. Defendant had a booth there for the sale of liquor. He visited the booth about ten minutes to three in the afternoon, and there were from 40 to 50 people being served with drink. He saw defendant and asked him to show him his licence. He pointed to a paper fastened to one of the poles of the tent, and he told him he could not read it at that distance, and asked him to show it to him. He did so, and gave him the justices` consent to issue an excise licence, a duplicate of which he produced. He told defendant that was not the licence, and asked him if he had not done as he had told him – sent to the Excise.

The Magistrates` Clerk: When had you told him that?

Witness: I`ll come to that. I reminded him of that when he obtained the justices` consent. I told him to send it to the Excise with the fee. I pointed out the paragraph on the form where the instructions are to send to the Excise with the fee. He said he had not noticed it. I then said “You must stop selling, as you have no licence”. He stopped selling then, and went and fetched Mr. Welch, the Secretary of the Football Club. I explained to him how matters stood, and that he had no licence to sell. Defendant spoke about going to Canterbury to get a licence, but I pointed out to him that as it was Bank Holiday all the Government offices were closed. Defendant said he would go and see the local officer, Mr. Powell, and went away, and the sale of drink was stopped in the meantime. About four o`clock I saw Mr. Spicer in Cheriton Road and spoke to him. He told me he had been to the Custom House, and could not find anyone. I again told him he must not go on with the sale of liquor. Previous to leaving, I placed Sergeant Lilley close to the tent, and gave him certain instructions. From what I subsequently heard, I applied for a summons on the following morning (Tuesday).

Mr. Wightwick: Do you mean to say 40 or 50 people were served while you were there? – There were 40 or 50 people in the booth, and they were being served by defendant and his assistants.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: How long has defendant been in business as a licence holder? – About two or three months.

You know, of your own knowledge, that he has lived in the town and that it is the first time he has held a licence? – That is so.

When he applied, on the 16^th of May, for a justices` consent for an occasional licence you offered no objection? – Certainly not.

You saw no reason why a licence should not be granted to sell on an occasion of that sort? – No.

When you saw defendant on the football ground, you say you reminded him that you had told him to get the justices` permit sent on to Canterbury? – Yes.

That he denied? – He did not deny it.

He said he did not remember anything about it? – I have already said that in my evidence.

He did not deny it, but he said he did not remember it? – He replied “I don`t remember you saying it. I was paying the fee to Mr. Andrews”.

On the 16^th of May you were present in Court, and there was another case going on. Mr. Haines was applying for an early opening licence for a house in the lower part of the town? – I cannot say if it was the date.

You are quite positive you told Spicer to take it to Canterbury? – Quite positive.

It was a very hot day on the Whit Monday – a thirsty day, wasn`t it? I am not asking your opinion as an expert. – You may assume that.

He had exhibited his permit, hadn`t he – nailed his colours to the mast? – Yes.

It was impossible for him to get a licence on that day, it being a Bank Holiday? – It was. But consent was given on the 16^th. I also drew his attention to the paragraph on that day.

Don`t you this it was the Excise who should have taken this up? – It came under my cognisance first, and I took it up, having equal powers with the Excise.

Did you bring it before the Watch Committee? – No.

You applied for the summons on the Tuesday, and the summons was not issued till the 5^th of June. Do you know the reason? – No.

Do you know it was on account of the Excise having refused to prosecute in the case? – I don`t see how they could, as I had commenced.

You have made no communication to them? – No, except verbally through Mr. Powell.

What took place with Mr. Powell?  Didn`t they say they regarded it as a trumpery case, and were not going to proceed in it? – He did not say it was trumpery.

This permit only necessitates the payment of a small fee, does it? – That is all.

Did you ever know a case where the Commissioners had refused to endorse an occasional licence? – No.

It being merely a question of payment of 2s. 6d. – No. It is a question of the issue of a licence or authority to sell.

Do you allege that the defendant acted from any other motive than positive ignorance? – Certainly not. It was a breach of the law.

You had some of your men on the field, I believe? – Yes.

I suppose the consequences might have been serious if the booth had been closed up all afternoon? – It would have been serious for the committee. I can`t say that it would have been for anybody else.

Mr. Wightwick: When you told him it was necessary to get the licence, did you call his attention to the memorandum? – Not when I handed it to him.

Mr. Bradley (to witness): It was no part of your duty to do what you did. It was the defendant`s duty to read it? – Exactly.

Sergeant Lilley said: On Whit Monday, May 25^th, I was on duty in the football ground, and saw defendant in charge of a booth there. I went to the booth about three o`clock and saw defendant. I asked him if he had got a licence. He said “Yes”, and pointed to the paper, which I took to be the Magistrates` Permit by the colour of it. Seeing he had got that, I took it he had got the other, and turned away. He was then serving beer. I afterwards saw Superintendent Taylor, and received certain instructions from him. About 4.15 I saw defendant in the booth again. He said he was going to commence serving beer again. He said he was acting on the advice of Mr. Powell, the Excise Officer. I pointed out to him that he was doing it at his own risk, and I should have to report it. He said he perfectly understood that, and he should take the risk, and then commenced selling. There were then quite 100 persons in the booth, and I left after three or four minutes.

Mr. Wightwick: I understood the Superintendent to say he ceased supplying?

Supt. Taylor: That is so. I have another witness to prove he continued to serve up till nine o`clock. He desisted for a time.

Mr. Hall was about to call the defendant to say what took place in the Court, and at the field, but Mr. Bradley said it was nothing to do with it.

Mr. Hall said he did not question the selling. He went on to argue that the man might have been in the wrong in not reading his permit. They had heard the Superintendent say he told Spicer to take the permit to Canterbury, but he said he did not understand that. He ought to have done so. He applied to the justices for permission, and paid 1s. 6d., and he thought nothing more was necessary.

Mr. Bradley: If it was the duty of the Superintendent to inform him, it would be important. But as it it, it is not.

Mr. Hall said he should tender the evidence to contradict what had been said by the Superintendent. If he did not tender it, he would be taking it as correct. There was a mutual misunderstanding.

Mr. Herbert: It makes not the slightest difference.

Mr. Wightwick: Ignorance is no excuse.

Mr. Hall: Well, I`ll call him to say what took place on the Monday.

Defendant was then sworn, and said he was a licence holder at the Royal Oak, and had only been there three or four months. It was the firt time he had held a licence. The Sports Committee advertised for tenders to supply refreshments, but as they got no replies, they applied to him to sell. He got a magistrates` consent, and put it in his pocket, but he did not read it. He was never told it was only a permit, and he thought it was sufficient. He carried it in his pocket from that time till Whit Monday. On Whit Monday he nailed it up against the post in the booth, thinking it was the consent. He did not remember the Superintendent telling him to send it to Canterbury. There were 5,000 or 6,000 people on the football ground. When the Superintendent pointed out to him that it was wrong, he came to Folkestone and saw Mr. Powell, and then went back to the field and consulted the committee, with the result that he recommenced selling. They sent 2s. 6d. by post to Canterbury, and it would reach there the same day. He had previously been told by the Superintendent that it was no use sending to Canterbury as the office was closed on Bank Holiday. On Wednesday he went to Canterbury and saw the Inland Revenue Officers and explained the matter to them.

Mr. Bradley: We can`t have that, you know. It is not evidence.

Mr. Hall: There was a statement made by the Inland Revenue Officer.

Mr. Bradley: Well, you must call him. It is not of the slightest use.

Mr. Hall: Have you had any communication from the authorities? – No.

Do you think there would have been a serious disturbance if the booth had been closed all the time? – I do, sir.

Mr. Bradley: The last witness warned you not to sell? – No. The Superintendent warned me.

You said you would take the risk? – Yes.

That was after being warned? – Yes. After we sent the half a crown away.

Superintendent Taylor: How was the money sent to Canterbury? – By post.

At what time? – I could not say. I never looked at my watch.

Superintendent Taylor said it could not arrive there until it was too late to give consent.

Mr. Hall said he had some other evidence, but after the intimation from the Bench that it would be to no avail, he would not call the witnesses. He addressed the Bench, pleading that his client was new to the business, and it was the first time he had made such an application, and he was therefore ignorant of the requirements. Next time, perhaps, he would employ a solicitor to be on the safe side. He urged that the Magistrates should, under all the circumstances, dismiss the summons. He never knew a case where there was less need for a prosecution than in that particular one. He defendant had erred in ignorance, and had not complied with the law in paying the half crown fee. He hoped the Bench had made up their minds that there was no necessity for a conviction, and that they were not going to fine the man or endorse his licence, for it was a serious thing for a licence holder to be fined. The owners of the house did not go into the pros and cons of the case. They simply said “This man has been fined”, and he would be requested to quit, so that his living was jeopardised by a trifling little matter of that description. There was no ill intention whatever. If the Bench held that he could not be excused, then he hoped they would take a merciful view of the case, and allow the summons to be withdrawn. Were they, he asked, going to convict the man, and put him into purgatory as to the ultimate effect for such a trivial offence?  He did not think it was a case where the police ought to ask for a conviction, and therefore he pleaded with the Bench to allow the summons to be withdrawn.

Mr. Herbert, addressing the defendant, said there was no question that he had committed a breach of the licensing laws, and it was a breach that was considered very heinous, and he was liable to a fine of £50. His excuse that he did not read the licence was absolutely absurd. It was his duty as a licence holder, and the manager of a public house. He was warned by the police not to go on selling, but he did not take the Superintendent`s warning, and said he would take the risk. The Bench would, however, only inflict the modified penalty of 20s.. and 11s. costs, or 14 days`

Folkestone Chronicle 1-8-1896

Saturday, July 25^th: Before Messrs. Banks, Wightwick, Herbert, Pursey, Vaughan, Stock, and Gen. Gwyn.

Mr. Benjamin Spicer, of the Royal Oak Inn, North Street, applied for an occasional licence to sell at the Football Club`s fete on Bank Holiday.

Supt. Taylor said he had no objection, although he hoped Mr. Spicer would be more careful than on the last occasion.

Mr. Spicer said there would be no fear of that.

The licence was granted.

Folkestone Express 1-8-1896

Saturday, July 25^th: Before Alderman Banks, General Gwyn, W. Wightwick, H.D. Stock, C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Spicer applied for an occasional licence for a fete on August Bank Holiday. Granted.

Folkestone Express 24-10-1896

Local News

Benjamin J. Spicer, of the Royal Oak Inn, North Street, was summoned for selling after hours. The defence was that a girl had bought some ale in a jug earlier in the evening, and fetched it after eleven. The case was dismissed.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1898

Wednesday, August 24^th: Before Captain Carter and others.

Walter Howard was charged with stealing a pair of field glasses, the property of Mr. B.J. Spicer, landlord of the Royal Oak, North Street, where he had lodged. He had pawned them with a Hastings pawnbroker, and when arrested by P.C. Lawrence, said “Quite right. I had the glasses, but nothing else. I had been drinking several days, and this is the result”.

Mr. Spicer said he missed a watch and white shirt, and the money from his children`s money box.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Up To Date 27-8-1898

Wednesday, August 24^th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, J. Herbert, J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Walter Hayward was charged with stealing a pair of field glasses and a leather case, the property of Benjamin Spicer, landlord of the Royal Oak, Folkestone.

The complainant said: I am the landlord of the Royal Oak, in North Street. The prisoner is a lodger in my house. He came to lodge with me about two months ago, and left on the 27^th ult. On the day he left I missed a pair of field glasses. I had previously seen them on the Saturday before. I value the glasses and case at about 25s.

George Smith said: I am assistant at Ada Gush and Walter Benbold`s, 48 and 49, George Street, Hastings, and recognise the prisoner. He came to our shop on the afternoon of the 8^th inst., with a pair of field glasses, for which he asked 5s. I asked where he had got them from, and he said he bought them in London. I advanced 5s. on them. He gave his address as 6, Swan Avenue. I afterwards went with the constable to that address, and found that he was not lodging there. A woman came to renew the ticket, but I refused her application.

P.C. F. Lawrence deposed to receiving the glasses and case (now produced) from the pawnbroker`s shop, George Street, Hastings, and receiving the prisoner in custody at Hastings police station. The prisoner in reply said “I had been drinking several days and this is the result”.

The prisoner pleaded guilty and expressed his regret for the offence.

The complainant said he had also missed a cash box and a shirt.

The prisoner denied all knowledge of the other things. He was sentenced to a month`s hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 27-8-1898

Police Court Report

On Monday – Alderman Banks presiding – Walter Hayward was charged with stealing a pair of field glasses in a leather case, the property of Benjamin Spicer.

Prosecutor, landlord of the Royal Oak, deposed that the defendant lodged in his house. He came two months before. He left on the 27^th July. The day after he left, witness missed a pair of field glasses in a case, and other articles. Witness next saw them that morning, and he now identified them. The glasses were hung behind the bar. He put the value at about 25s.

George Smith, assistant to a firm of pawnbrokers at Hastings, named Gush, said he recognised the defendant, who came to the shop on the 8^th inst. He asked 5s. on a pair of field glasses. Witness asked where he got them, and he said he bought them in London. Witness advanced him 5s. On the 23^rd inst., a woman came to the shop, bringing with her a ticket, which witness refused to renew. The defendant afterwards came to the shop, and said he wanted the new ticket. Witness detained defendant, and sent for a constable.

P.C. Frank Lawrence deposed that the previous evening he received the field glasses and case, which he produced, from the shop in Hastings. He went to the Hastings police station and there received defendant into his custody. Witness said “I shall take you into custody on a charge of stealing a pair of field glasses and other articles, the property of Benjamin Spicer, of the Royal Oak”. Defendant said he had been drinking several days. At the police station he said, when charged, “Yes, I had the glasses, but nothing else”.

The defendant pleaded Guilty, and said he was very sorry. He had the intention of borrowing. He felt it keenly.

The Bench sentenced him to one month`s hard. The glasses were to be given up on payment of 5s.

Folkestone Chronicle 21-1-1899

Wednesday, January 18^th: Before Messrs. Willoughby Carter, Pledge, Vaughan and Holden.

Licence Transfer

Royal Oak, North Street, to Mr. Anson.

Folkestone Express 21-1-1899

Wednesday, January 18^th: Before Capt. Carter, James Pledge, John Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Joseph Anson applied for transfer of the licence of the Royal Oak, North Street. Granted.

Folkestone Herald 21-1-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday last transfer was granted to the following: Mr. Hansom, Royal Oak

Folkestone Up To Date 21-1-1899

Wednesday, January 18^th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Pledge, J. Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Transfer was granted for the Royal Oak, North Street, to Mr. Joseph Handsom (sic)

Folkestone Herald 9-9-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday last, Frank Care, seaman, was summoned for assaulting Edward Delaney on the previous Sunday. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Complainant deposed: I live at 28, Walton Road, and am a boatman on the beach. This occurred on Sunday last between one and two. I was in the Oak public house, Fenchurch Street (sic). Defendant was there also, but we were not in company. I went in to have a glass of ale with two friends of mine. The defendant accused me of keeping money. I had been in partnership in a boat with him. All of a sudden he jumped up and struck me once in the face with his fist. I told him that I did not want any row on Sunday. Suddenly he said “I will give you two black eyes, and I will go outside and wait for you”. He went out. I thought the coast was clear, and I left the house about a quarter of an hour after Care had gone. I met him coming up Fenchurch Street. I tried to get by him. He ran after me. He caught me and knocked me down. I don`t remember anything else until I found a woman bathing my face with water. Defendant said “I am very sorry for what I done”. I said “You are sorry, but you have done it”. I went home and laid down till the morning. I went to the hospital on Monday. They put me under gas to set my collarbone. The doctor said that it was fractured. They dressed my face. I have been to the hospital twice, and am under treatment as an outdoor patient. The bother was about my keeping 8s. 6d., but I deny that I kept any money from them. I did not give Care a single word of provocation.

George William Curtis, bricklayer, Dover Road, deposed: I was in the Oak last Sunday. I was not in company with these men. Delaney came in and had his glass of ale. Care spoke something about robbing of money. The man said that he didn`t. Then Care struck him a heavy blow. Care went out, and that is all I saw. Care said that he would wait for him and black both his eyes.

Defendant said that complainant called him a liar, and he caught the latter a slap. He asked him if he would come to Mr. Hart`s house. They went up together. Delaney ran, so he went after him. Delaney pitched down head first, and he picked him up. He said “What made you run away?” Delaney said “Because I was afraid of you”.

Curtis said that Care left the house first. Delaney was in the house when witness left.

William Spearpoint, who expressed a wish to give evidence, deposed: I live at 31, Great Fenchurch Street, and am a boatman. I saw Mr. Care and Mr. Delaney having this bit of a squall. When I got to the bottom of the street there was a woman holding a hand basin. Mr. Care was bathing the man`s face.

Fined 10s. and 11s. costs, or seven days`.

There was a crowded Court during this case.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 9-9-1899

Saturday, September 2^nd: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Frank Care, a boatman, was summoned for assaulting Edward Delaney by breaking his collar bone on Sunday last. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Edward Delaney, a boatman, deposed as follows: I had received money for the hire of a boat, and the defendant wanted a settlement. On Sunday last he accused me of keeping the money, and suddenly jumped up and struck me in the face with his fist. I told him I did not want any row with him on Sunday. He then sat down and remarked “I will give you two b---- eyes, and I will go outside and wait for you”. He went outside. My two friends had gone then. I waited until I thought the coast was clear to go for dinner, but he met me in Fenchurch Street. I tried to get by, but he came after me and knocked me down. I do not remember anything until I found a woman bathing my face with water. The defendant was there also, and said “I am very sorry for what I have done”. I replied “You are sorry, but you have done it”. I went home and laid down until the Monday, when I found I had to go to the hospital. At the hospital I was put under gas, in order that a broken collar bone might be set. There were four boats. Two of them belonged to Mrs. May. I and the defendant and William Hart worked the boats. The arrangement had been in existence for three or four weeks.

George William Kirby said: I am a bricklayer. I was in the Oak last Sunday. I was not in the company of the complainant and defendant. I went into the Oak with another man for a glass of ale. I saw the defendant strike the complainant a heavy blow in the face and use threatening language. The defendant threatened to wait for the complainant and black both his eyes. I did not see the assault in the street.

The defendant told the Magistrates that the complainant fell down while running away. He saw him fall down and picked him up. He said “Why did you run away?” The reply was “Because I was afraid”, and the response in return “You need not have been so”.

William Spearpoint, the next witness, was called on behalf of the defendant. He said: I live in Fenchurch Street. I saw the defendant bathing the complainant`s face about 2 p.m. That is all I know about the matter.

The defendant was fined 10s. and 11s. costs, in default seven days`.