Note: More Bastions lists Wright as being there from 1870.
Southeastern
Gazette 8-3-1875
Local News
On Monday
last a valuable mare, the property of Messrs. Leney and Co., brewers, left in
charge of a boy, at the West Cliff Tap, became restive, broke away and started
down the Sandgate Road, when, coming in
contact with a coal cart, a general smash of the vehioces occurred, fortunately
without resulting in injury to either of the horses.
Folkestone Express 4-12-1875
Saturday, November 27th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, T. Caister and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.
William Croucher, a cabman in the employ of Mr. Thomas Inman, innkeeper and fly proprietor, West Cliff, was charged with embezzling 2s., the monies of his master, on the 15th November.
Mr. Minter prosecuted.
Mr. Minter, having briefly opened the case, called Thomas Inman, innkeeper and fly proprietor, West Cliff, who said: Defendant was in my employ as fly driver for 10s. per week. On the previous Tuesday I gave him notice to leave in a week; that would be on Saturday, November 20th. Defendant`s duty, when he received money, was to enter it in a book on the following day and pay it over to me. On Monday morning, the 15th, he went with his fly to Mrs. Williams, No. 10, Manor Road. I told him to go there. I never saw him again, as he did not come back. He had not booked any money taken on the Monday.
By defendant: I never saw you come to my yard. I distinctly deny it.
By the Bench: This is the first time I have seen him since.
Mrs. Emily Williams said: On the 15th November I had a fly from Mr. Inman`s to go to Shorncliffe Station. I cannot swear that the defendant was the driver on that morning. I paid the driver, whoever he was, 2s. 6d., which would be 2s. for the fare and 6d. for himself.
Mr. Inman, re-called, said he saw the defendant leave the yard with the horse and fly.
Defendant: Didn`t I come to your yard on the 17th to settle with you?
Prosecutor: No, I never saw you.
Mr. Minter applied for an adjournment in order to produce more evidence, and the case was therefore adjourned until Wednesday.
Wednesday, December 1st: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, T. Caister and J. Clark esqs.
William Croucher, a fly driver in the employ of Mr. Inman, cab proprietor, was charged on remand of embezzling 2s., the monies of his master.
The particulars of the case will be found in our police report of Saturday.
The evidence taken on Saturday having been read over by the Clerk to the Magistrates, Thomas Inman, re-called by Mr. Minter said the fare from Mrs. Williams` house to Shorncliffe was 2s.
Elizabeth Simmons said: I am in the service of Mrs. Williams. On the 15th ult. my mistress went to Shorncliffe in a cab. I saw her go away. The defendant is the man who took the box downstairs. I saw the fly, and the defendant was acting as the driver.
By the Bench: I saw defendant drive the fly away.
Thomas Taylor said: I am in the service of Mr. Inman and know the defendant.
Mr. Minter: Will you tell the Bench what you said to Mr. Inman relative to a conversation which took place between you and the defendant?
Witness: I know nothing. I have made no statement to Mr. Inman.
Mr. Minter: Did you not see defendant drive away on the day in question?
Witness: No I did not. I never said anything to Mr. Inman.
Mr. Minter: Did not defendant say anything to you?
Witness: No, sir. He only said he should keep what he had got. (Laughter)
George Winson said: I am in the employ of Mr. Inman and know defendant. When he went away on the Monday he said he should not come again. Defendant said nothing about any money.
Mr Minter: Did you hear Taylor make any statement to Mr. Inman?
Witness: No. I heard defendant say he should spend what he had got, and then he should be “straight” with Mr. Inman.
Mr. Minter applied for a remand until Saturday, which was granted by the Bench.
Folkestone Express 11-12-1875
Saturday, December 4th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, and T. Caister Esq.
William Croucher, a flyman, was again charged on remand with embezzling 2s., the monies of his master, Mr. Inman, cab proprietor.
Mr. Till, in the absence of Mr. Minter, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Fox, of Dover, for the defendant.
Mr. Inman was re-called, and in answer to Mr. Fox, said: Defendant has been in my employ for three months. It is a general rule for my men to come and settle with me every morning. Sometimes three or even four days elapse before they settle. I always settle with them for the week on Sunday morning. I do not supply any men with books to keep their accounts in. I gave defendant notice to leave on the 9th November and the time expired on the following Saturday. I told him on that day he could come again next week as he had nothing to do. He came on the following Monday. Sometimes the men buy candles for their lamps and charge me with the amount. He was my servant for another week. Mrs. Williams gave an order for a cab on the Monday, the 15th November, to go to Shorncliffe Station. I knew the fare would be 2s. and 6d. for the man. I saw defendant go out of the yard on that day. I cannot say that I did not see him again on that day. I did not see him on the Tuesday (next day) nor on the Wednesday. I am sworn. I did not see defendant in my yard on Wednesday evening between eight and nine o`clock. I did not say to defendant on the Wednesday evening “Is that you, Bill?” I will swear that. Defendant did not say he had come up to settle. I never saw him. I did not see a man named Boxer in my yard that evening. I never spoke to him about my son. I saw Thomas Taylor in my bar on Wednesday evening. Defendant has never made a claim against me for 3s. for money paid for repairs to a lamp of mine. It was my duty to find lamps for my carriages. The men generally buy candles and charge me with them. If defendant said he had received less than was due to him, I should pay him the difference. The man would stop the money if I owed him anything. I went to defendant`s home on Tuesday evening, the 16th November, and saw his wife. She was crying.
Re-examined by Mr. Till: Defendant never made any claims against me for lamps and candles. He never came near after the Monday. Defendant did not come to me on the Tuesday or on the Wednesday. I know Boxer; he used to work for me. He was not in my yard to my knowledge. I saw Boxer and Thomas Taylor in my bar. There is a partition in the bar which would prevent me from seeing anyone behind it. I will swear that he never spoke to me. The notice expired on the Saturday, but as he came on the Monday I considered him my servant.
Mr. Fox then addressed the Bench for the defence. He said they were aware it was a serious charge – one of embezzlement – and he was sure the Bench would give their utmost attention to the facts of the case. They had heard from the prosecutor that the men were supposed to account every morning for what they had received on the previous day, but in cross-examination Mr. Inman said that sometimes went three or even four days without accounting, and at times bought candles for their lamps and stopped the money out of what they had received. If masters allowed their servants to make such matters a question of accounts, then the law provided that the remedy for the recovery of any balances lay by civil action in the County Court, and not by criminal action. In the present case there was no opportunity afforded the defendant of settling on the following Sunday because they were told that he had left on the previous Monday. He did so because he had been told by Mr. Inman that if he could not get anything else to do he was at liberty to leave. Now, he was not going to deny that the cab was sent to Mrs. Williams` house on the day in question, or that the money was paid for the fare. On the contrary, he was prepared on the part of defendant to say that Mrs. Williams did pay him 2s., and also gave him 6d. for himself, but he wished to state that if the defendant had had an opportunity of settling, the case would never have been brought before the Court. Mr. Inman had said that he never saw the defendant from the Monday in question until he saw him in Court, but he (the speaker) was prepared to bring forward witnesses who would swear that defendant went into Mr. Inman`s yard on the Tuesday night, that Mr. Inman said “Is that you, Bill?”, and that defendant said it was and he had come to settle. Another witness would also say that he saw the defendant in Mr.Inman`s bar on Wednesday night. He (the speaker) thought the statement of the prosecutor was calculated to mislead the Court. He understood that the defendant had paid 1s. for candles and 3s. for repairs done to the lamps. If that was true, then Mr. Inman was really indebted to the defendant. Defendant had lived in Folkestone many years; he bore an excellent character, and it really appeared to him (the speaker) that the prosecutor had come into Court to commit perjury.
Mr. Till said that Mr. Fox had stated it was a question of accounts, and as such could only be settled in the County Court. He was prepared to state that such was not the case, neither had it been proved to be so.
Henry Boxer: I am a fly driver, living in Folkestone. I know the defendant, and have known him for many years. He is a Folkestone man. I know Mr. Inman. On the 17th November I went with defendant to Mr. Inman`s. It was between eight and nine o`clock in the evening. Mr. Inman came into the yard and said to defendant “Hello, Bill, is that you?” Defendant said it was and he had come up to settle, or something to that effect. I did not hear Mr. Inman make any reply. He went in the house. Defendant and I followed him in. Mr. Inman came in the bar soon after we got in. He could see us, and we could see him. I should think Mr. Inman was in the bar for an hour. Mr. Inman was betting that his son could clean tripe with any man in Folkestone. Defendant and he talked together about it. There were two men there, each of whose names was Thomas Taylor. I identify this one as one I saw there.
By Mr. Till: There were five or six other people in the bar. The other Thomas Taylor was in and out during the evening. I worked for Mr. Inman once, and I left because we had a quarrel. I charged a gentleman too much money. I charged the gentleman 7s. and gave Mr. Inman 5s. That is the only way of living. (Laughter)
Re-examined by Mr. Fox: The proper fare would be 5s. and that I gave to Mr. Inman.
Thomas Taylor: I am a dairyman and grocer, living in High Street. I know prosecutor and defendant. I have known the latter for a number of years. I know nothing against him. On Wednesday evening, November 17th, I saw defendant in Mr. Inman`s bar between eight and nine o`clock. Mr. Inman came into the bar. I saw a man named Boxer there. Prosecutor and defendant spoke to each other. There was a conversation about Inman`s son being a professional hand at cleaning tripe. (Laughter) Inman offered to bet anybody that his son could clean a certain quantity of tripe in a given time. (Renewed laughter)
By Mr. Till: I have not been in the bar since. I had a glass of ale.
Mr. Till: Only one?
Witness: Well, I might have had two or three. Perhaps half a dozen. (Laughter)
Mr. Till: How long does it take you to drink half a dozen glasses of ale?
Witness: Well, that all depends. I did not time myself.
Mr. Till: What time did you leave?
Witness: About ten o`clock.
Re-examined by Mr. Fox: Mr. Inman could see the defendant. I am sure he must have done so.
Joseph Whittingham, dealer, Folkestone, said he had known defendant about twelve years, during which time he had borne an excellent character.
After a short deliberation, the Mayor said that the evidence was not satisfactory, and the charge would therefore be dismissed.
This announcement was received with applause, which was at once suppressed.
The witness Boxer applied for costs, saying he had been subpoenaed to give evidence.
The Mayor, addressing the applicant, said he was glad he had returned into Court, as he wished to speak to him. The applicant in his evidence had acknowledged charging 7s. for a cab fare, the authorised amount for which was 5s. Such conduct could not be too highly deprecated, as it did a great amount of injury to business by preventing people from taking a carriage as often as they otherwise would do. He hoped that the applicant would discontinue the practice, as if another case came under the notice of the Bench he would lose his license.
The applicant, who appeared somewhat crestfallen at the result, then left the Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment