York Hotel, Dover Road 1845 - 1852

York Hotel, c1910. Credit Alan Taylor

 

 Licensee 

Thomas Smith 1845 1852 Became a Prep School, then re-opened as a Temperance Hotel

Maidstone Gazette 16-9-1845

The new hotel near the railway station is now completed and opened for business, under the management of Mr. Paceman. It is called The York Hotel. 

Dover Chronicle, Dover Telegraph 29-11-1845, Maidstone Gazette 2-12-1845

Advertisement: Under the patronage of the principal inhabitants of Folkestone, Dover and Sandgate. Folkestone winter subscription balls.

The public are respectfully informed that a series of Winter subscription balls will be held at the York Hotel, Folkestone, on the second Thursdays in the months of December, January, and February.

Season tickets (to admit two) 21s., Single tickets – Gentlemen 7s., Ladies 5s., which may be had of Mr. Stock, Library, High Street, or at the York Hotel, Folkestone.

Maidstone Gazette 11-1-1848

Petty Sessions, Wednesday; Before Charles Golder, Mayor, Wm. Major and John Bateman Esqs.

Charles Stuart was brought up in custody of Matthew Pearson, charged by Mr. Thomas Susans, of the firm of Gosling and Susans, drapers and clothiers, with robbing them of a quantity of goods.

Thomas Susans deposed that from information he received from Mr. Smith, of the York Hotel, he was induced to call there and inspect the contents of two parcels, said to be left by the prisoner. He found the contents to be their property (having his own private mark thereon.) The parcels contained three waistcoats, four pairs of trousers, silk handkerchiefs, cap and oil-cloth cover, and two gross of butons; and were of the value of three guineas. The prisoner had been in their employ about three months.

Thomas Smith, landlord of the York Hotel, deposed that on the evening of the 12^th December the prisoner came to the bar of his house, called for a glass of ale, and requested to be allowed permission to leave two parcels for a short time; he did not call again till the 25^th December, when he stated that he had just arrived from Maidstone, for the express purpose of taking the parcels away. During the time they were in witness`s possession the seals were broken by his children, which enabled him to observe the contents and the shop mark upon them. This aroused his suspicion, and he made up his mind to detain them, and having made an excuse to the prisoner that they had been sent away by mistake, he went to the shop of Messrs. Gosling and Susans, having heard that the prisoner was a shopman. He there saw the prisoner. On the 3<sup>rd</sup> the prisoner came again; he questioned him as to the contents of the parcels, when he said they were smuggled goods. This not satisfying him, he refused to deliver them up, but allowed the prisoner to depart. Upon his calling a third time he called him into a room and told him his suspicions, when he acknowledged that he had stolen them from his employers, and begged permission to take them back and replace them in the shop, which witness did not consent to, but gave information to Mr. Susans, which led to the prisoner`s apprehension.

Matthew Pearson, police constable, deposed that he took the prisoner into custody, and received twp parcels from Mr. Smith, at the York Hotel, which he now produced.

The prisoner (who is a very young man and stated to be respectably connected) made no defence, and was committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the Borough. 

Canterbury Journal, 18-11-1849

Charles Golder Esq. was re-elected Mayor on the 9^th inst. The dinner took place at the York Hotel, Dover Road, and was attended by sixty seven persons, being the largest number who have attended on a similar occasion in this town. The usual loyal and complimentary toasts were given and responded to, and the evening was spent with much good feeling and pleasure.

Canterbury Journal 13-1-1849 

The Borough Quarter Sessions were held on Monday before J.J. Lonsdale Esq., Recorder.

James Griggs was indicted for stealing a basket of game from the railway station.

From the evidence of William Nairns, the prosecutor, it appeared that a basket of game was brought down to Folkestone by him, and was placed in the care of the omnibus driver, Laker. On arriving at the York Hotel the parcel was missed. The prisoner was close by with a fly when the basket was lost, and, with the contents, was subsequently found in his bedroom.

The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he found the basket in his omnibus, and that it did not contain anything; it was lying in his stable for three weeks, when he took it home.

Six months` hard labour. 

Kentish Gazette 29-5-1849, Dover Chronicle, Dover Telegraph 2-6-1849

York Hotel, Folkestone; To be sold by auction, by Mr. H. Bird, on Wednesday, June 6^th, 1849; All the household furniture, bar and house fittings, at the York Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone.

The Bar and House Fittings comprise a six-motion spirit fountain, with oval spirit casks, pipes, and taps; an excellent four-motion beer engine with pipes and taps; bar counter and shelves, handsome slate chimney pieces, register stoves, two ranges, with ovens and boilers; valuable gas fittings, hall and door lamps, fine wire blinds, bells, &c.

The furniture comprises mahogany four-post, tent, and French bedsteads and hangings, bordered mattresses, feather beds, bolsters, and pillows, blankets, sheets, and counterpanes, mahogany double and single chests of drawers, Japanned wash and dressing tables, mahogany tray dressing glasses, bedroom carpets and chairs, handsome mahogany pedestal sideboard, mahogany telescope dining table (nearly new), mahogany dining and Pembroke tables, double and single-scroll couches, cane-seat end other chairs, handsome large Brussels carpet, 38ft. by 13ft-6in; Turkey ditto, 17ft. by 15ft.; Kidderminster ditto. druggets, hearth rugs, gloom fenders, sets of fire irons, cut decanters, spirit bottles, rum­mers, tumblers. ale and wine glasses, china and earthenware, the usual kitchen requisites, &c., &c.

As will be specified in catalogues, which may he had of the auctioneer, at his offices, Canterbury, and on the premises on the morning of sale, which will commence at eleven o’clock precisely.

Maidstone Gazette 17-7-1849, Dover Telegraph 21-7-1849

Advertisement: Folkestone, Kent, to be sold by auction, at the Pavilion Hotel, in Folkestone, on Saturday, July 28^th, 1849, at three o`clock in the afternoon (by order of the mortgagee, under powers of sale), subject to such conditions as will be then and there produced;

All that messuage or tenement, known by the name of the York Hotel, situate in the Dover Road, in the town of Folkestone.

The property is held under a lease from the Earl of Radnor and Viscount Folkestone for a term of 99 years, from the 24^th day of June, 1844, subject to the annual rent of £11 5s., and to the covenants and agreements contained in such lease.

The premises are well situated, are very capacious, and are constructed with a view to being easily converted into two large and commodious family residences. Immediate possession of the property can be given.

To view the premises apply to the Auctioneer, and for further particulars to Mr. Chalk, or Messrs. Gravener and Sons, Solicitors, Dover, or to Messrs. Brockman and Watts, Solicitors, Folkestone.

July 12^th, 1849

Kentish Gazette 14-8-1849 

July 28, at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, by Mr. M. M. Major: the York Hotel, Folkestone, put up at £800 (no bidders).

Dover Telegraph 1-2-1851, Maidstone Gazette 4-2-1851

Auction Extract: To be sold by auction, by Mr. David Godden, at the York Hotel, in Folkestone, on Monday, the 24^th day of February, 1851, at one o`clock in the afternoon.

Lot 9: A leasehold messuage or tenement, known by the name of the York Hotel, and land, situate near the upper railway station, in the Dover Road, in the town of Folkestone, having a frontage of 75ft., and a depth of 79ft. The licence to this house is still kept on foot.

This lot is held under a lease from the Earl of Radnor and Viscount Folkestone for a term of 99 years from the 24^th day of June, 1844, subject to the annual rent of £11 5s., and to the covenants and agreements contained in such lease.

This house is very capacious, and is built so, that by only putting up a partition through the middle, it would be converted into two large and commodious private family residences, or good lodging houses, having each 12 rooms.

The vendor will lend the whole of the purchase money on this lot to a responsible purchaser.

For further particulars and conditions of sale apply to the auctioneer, of at the office of Mr. Ralph Thos. Brockman, Solicitor, Folkestone.

Dover Chronicle 19-5-1955

Canterbury County Court, Wednesday, May 16^th, before Charles Harwood Esq., judge.

Bird v Smith

An action to recover £27 10s. for which a jury was empanelled. Mr. T.T. Delasaux appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne for the defendant.

The facts, as explained by the plaintiff, were as follows: In June, 1849, the defendant kept the York Hotel, at Folkestone, and plaintiff was employed as auctioneer to sell the household furniture and effects of that establishment under a bill of sale given to Mr. G. Ash, brewer, of Canterbury, by Mrs. Hosking, mother-in-law of defendant, who had previously kept the hotel, and placed Smith therein as her representative. When the sale took place Mr. Terson, of Dover, (now deceased) applied to Mr. Bird, in company with Smith, to be accepted as the bidder for the fixtures, not for himself, but for Smith, which plaintiff agreed to, and various lots to the amount of £26 13s., were so purchased by Mr. Terson, and a table, at the price of 17s., was knocked down to Smith, making together the total of £27 10s. now sought to be recovered. No part of this purchase money was paid at the time of sale, nor since, but the defendant had many times promised to settle it, and he, plaintiff, had avoided proceedings until now, the debt being close on the time that limitation of statute might be pleaded. Plaintiff paid to Mr. Ash the amount for which the goods were sold, expecting to be repaid by Smith, who was left in possession of them.

Mr. Towne (in his cross-examination of Mr. Bird), endeavoured to shake the above statement by eliciting that plaintiff had in the year 1853 demanded the amount of the fixtures from the executors of Mr. Terson, which Mr. Bird admitted he had instructed his solicitor to do, in consequence of being unable to obtain payment of Mr. Smith, but always had held the latter liable, and who had always admitted his liability up to February last, at which period the defendant asserted that the goods were bought in for Mrs. Hoskins and not for himself, and he then offered to have the subject arbitrated upon. This latter proposition Smith had made to Mr. Leach, whom plaintiff had instructed to apply to him for settlement.

Mr. Leach was examined, but did not throw much light on the subject. He had known Mr. Bird apply several times to defendant for settlement, but at no time was it, to his recollection, stated what that settlement was to be.

Mr. Robinson (appraiser) stated that he was engaged by Mr. Smith, in July, 1849, to value the fixtures, and jointly with Mr. Major he did so; they were purchased by Mr. Watts for £32, to whom the transfer was made, but not until Mrs. Hoskins had signed the agreement, which was deemed necessary from an understanding that she had a claim on them.

This closed the case for the plaintiff, when Mr. Towne at considerable length addressed the jury. He called the defendant, who stated that he carried on the business of the hotel for his mother-in-law, as her agent, at the time of the sale of the effects. Mr. Ash jun. said his father would give up the claim on the fixtures, rather than chance a law suit about them. They were then divided from the furniture, and sold separately, under arrangements made by Mr. Terson, on behalf of Mrs. Hopkins. The Pembroke tabe was also bought by Mr. Terson, which he (Mr. Terson) removed from the premises directly after the sale. No arrangement was ever made by him with Mr. Bird for payment for the fixtures, and until February last he had no idea that Mr. Bird had considered he had any claim on him for them. He always considered that the pecuniary matters spoken of by Mr. Bird alluded to the balance due to Mr. Ash from his mother (Mrs. Hoskins), which he had said he (defendant) would endeavour to get settled, and believed the sum due to Mr. Ash exceeded £100, including the £27 10s. now claimed. Defendant received the money for the fixtures sold in July, and passed the amount to Mrs. Hoskins.

Mr. Delasaux then replied, and the Judge went through the chief points of the evidence, observing that Mr. Bird had certainly done his business in a very loose manner in parting with his money to Mr. Ash before he had obtained payment for the things thus sold, and more especially so when it was shown that the ownership of them was of doubtful issue, and if, as it had been shown in the evidence, that Mrs. Hosking had power to convert those fixtures into money within a month of Mr. Ash`s execution on them, it appeared as though Mr. Ash had been frightened out of them. Mr. Bird ought not to be a loser of the money, and should their verdict be against him, ne must get the amount back of Mr. Ash. With respect to the item of 17s. for the table, it did appear as if it was purchased at the auction by Smith, the clerk`s book at the auction having his name inserted thereto, while the other articles were shown to be sold to Mr. Terson.

The jury retired for a short time, and returned a verdict in favour of the defendant, both as regarded the fixtures and the purchase of the table.

Kentish Gazette 22-5-1855

Canterbury County Court, Wednesday, May 16^th, before Charles Harwood Esq., judge.

Henry Bird v Thomas Smith (Jury Case)

This action was to recover £27 10s. for a quantity of fixtures sold at the York Hotel, Folkestone, on the 6th June, 1849.

Mr. Delasaux for the plaintiff, explained that the plaintiff had, in June, 1849, been employed by Mr. George Ash, to sell the furniture and goods at the York Hotel, under a Bill of Sale granted to him by a Mrs. Martha Hoskins. At this sale the defendant, who was the real occupier of the house, was present, and employed a Mr. Terson to buy the fixtures in question for him; and after the sale, they were left in his possession, he continuing in the house. In fact, sometime shortly subsequent, the defendant had actually resold these fixtures for a larger sum than they cost him; and had pocketed the money. The defendant had made 100 promises to pay his client, who added, he was a very kind man, and very averse to litigation andl so he had abstained from taking any earlier proceedings for enforcing his claim.

Henry Bird, the plaintiff, deposed: I am an Auctioneer in Burgate Street, Canterbury. In 1849 I was employed by Mr. Ash, under a bill of sale, to sell by auction, the furniture and fixtures at the York Hotel, Folkestone. The defendant was present at the sale, and told me he had engaged a Mr. Terson to buy for him. The fixtures were bought by Mr. Terson, for the defendant, for £27 10s., and they were afterwards handed over to the defendant. I have frequently applied for the money; and should say I had done so 100 times; he always promised to pay me but has not. 1 have paid over the money to Mr. Ash.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: I never had the least doubt about defendant's liability; I knew he owed me the money; he never on any occasion expressed any surprise at my asking him for it. In February last, he certainly promised an arbitration, but I did not consent to it. Previous to tlie sale I did receive a notice from some prior mortgagees not to sell the fixtures; and Mr Ash, and Mr. Delasaux went down with me to the sale, but I do not know that Mr. Ash withdrew his claim to the fixtures. I remember that the fixtures were, however, taken out of the catalogue and put by themselves. Mr. Delasaux is my attorney and knew all about this from the beginning. I employed him to write to the executors of Mr. Terson who was then dead, to demand the money I now sue for. I knew, however, that Mr. Terson never owed me the money.

Mr. Leach deposed: I was clerk to the plaintiff at the auction in question; the fixtures were knocked down to Terson, for Smith; the defendant himself bought a Pembroke table for 17s., which was  left in the house for him. I dare say I have been 50 times with the plaintiff to Smith’s, in Westgate Street. I remember Smith made appointments to meet again, but I never heard any allusion to the fixtures.

The Judge: That is nonsense;you mean he made appointments to settle.

Mr. Towne: The witness distinctly nega­tives that any allusion was made to the fixtures.

The Judge: Yes: but he must mean something about the appointments. You mean, I suppose, he made appointments to settle.

Cross-examined by Mr, Towne: I understand you to say, that the defendant made no allusion to the fixtures at any­ time, when you accompanied Mr. Bird?

Witness: No. the fixtures were not spoken about.

John Robinson said: I am an auctioneer. In July, 1849, Smith employed me value the fixtures to Mr. Watts, on whose part Mr. Major met me; and we valued them at £33. I received that amount, and paid it to Mr. Smith, for which I produce his receipt.

Cross-examined: Before I completed the valuation or paid over the money to the defendant, I required to see Mrs Hoskins; and I got her signature, because I always thought the fixtures were hers.

Mr. Delasaux:That is the plaintiff`s case.

Mr. Towne observed: It was a pity it had ever been brought into Court. One story was generally good before an­other was told; and he, at least, gave the jury credit, as men of good sense and understanding, for keeping their minds in abeyance until they had heard both sides of this lamentable case. Mr. Delasaux had, he said, represented his client as a most kind-hearted hater of litigation, and that was his motive for not coming here until the eleventh hour - but he could not but be amused at the innocent suggestion of his learned oppo­nent; for he ventured to believe, that there was not an indi­vidual in Court, from the judge to the door-keeper, who was not most familiar with the plaintiff's frequent appearance there. He would tell them the other side of this curious case. The real fact was, that Smith had acted throughout merely as agent for his mother-in-law. Mrs. Martha Hoskins, and the plaintiff was perfectly aware of it. Mrs. Hoskins was the true tenant of that hotel; she had granted a bill of sale of the furni­ture, &c., to Mr. Ash, and the plaintiff acted under it. When he went to sell the fixtures, he had notice of the claims of other parties, and he took his attorney, Mr. Delasaux, to inspect the documents on which those claims rested. Mr. Delasaux had, prior to the sale, satisfied himself and Mr. Ash that the claims were valid, and he had very properly advised his client to withdraw. But Mr. Ash and the plaintiff had no sooner de­cided to abandon the fixtures, than the defendant interfered for his relative, and ordered the plaintiff to sell them, at the same time appointing Mr. Terson to protect them against sa­crifice; and so they were not sold at all, but bought in. About a month afterwards, the defendant, still acting as agent for Mrs. Hoskins, obtained a proper purchaser, and realised the value, which he handed to her. The plaintiff had avowed ig­norance of these facts, and said he always knew Mr. Smith to be the purchaser and his debtor, and that Smith never denied his liability; but what would the jury think of his having, several years after the sale, instructed Mr. Delasaux to state that Mr.Terson was his debtor for the amount? When they had heard the testimony he should adduce, he knew they would return a just verdict.

Thomas Smith, the defendant, deposed: That the York Hotel was rented by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Hoskins, who made a bill of safe of the furniture. &c., to Mr. Ash. The plaintiff was employed to sell it. Before the sale, he had notice not to sell the fixtures. On the morning of the sale, Mr. Ash, Mr. Delasaux, and himself, were present at the York, and then Mr. Ash abandoned his claim to the fixtures. On behalf of his mother he then thought if best to pass the fixtures through the sale, and he-appointed Mr. Terson to buy them in, and they were not sold; about a month afterwards he did sell them, and received the money, which he gave to his mother. He had all through merely acted as agent to his mother-in-law. He denied that the plaintiff had ever made any personal claim on him, until February last, and then, he said, he expressed his surprise, and offered to leave the matter in arbitration; but he said the plaintiff had frequently wished him to get the matter cleared up between his mother and Mr. Ash, and he had intended and tried to do so.

Matilda Smith, the wife of the last witness, stated, that she happened to be staying with her mother when Mr. Robinson came for her sanction to the last sale, and that her mother distinctly told him that Smith only acted on her behalf, but that she fully authorized him to receive the value for her. Witness said that her husband gave her the £33, the amount of their last valuation, to hand to her mother, and she did actually pay the money to her mother.

The Judge minutely summed up the evidence, and told the jury that the question for them to decide was merely whether the defendant was acting as agent or not? If they believed the plaintiff, it would appear that Smith bought for himself. It certainly did seem that one article, a Pembroke table, had been purchased by him, for 17s.; however, that he denied. If the jury thought he had purchased the whole, or the table, they would find a verdict accordingly; but if they were satisfied he was only an agent, then they would give him their verdict

The jury retired for a few minutes and then returned with a verdict for the defendant.

Southeastern Gazette 22-5-1855

Canterbury County Court, Wednesday, May 16^th, before Charles Harwood Esq., judge.

Bird v Smith, a Jury case.

The plaintiff is an auctioneer residing in the city, and the defendant is the keeper of an eating house just outside the city gates, in the parish of Westgate. The present action was brought to recover the sum of £27 10s., the price of certain fixtures and furniture alleged to have been sold to the defendant on the 5^th June, 1849. Mr. Delasaux appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne for the defendant.

From the opening statement of Mr. Delasaux, it appeared that in the month of May, 1849, a Mrs. Hawkins, mother-in-law of the plaintiff (sic) kept the York Hotel at Folkestone, and being desirous of helping the defendant, she borrowed £200 of Mr. George Ash, giving him a bill of sale on the goods at the hotel as security. Smith went into the hotel, but it did not answer, and subsequently Ash put his bill of sale in force, but they found that a great portion of the goods had been removed, to the amount of £180. Previously to the sale the plaintiff saw Mr. Terson, an auctioneer, and the present defendant, when it was arranged that Terson should purchase certain fixtures for Smith, which he did to the amount of £27 10s., less 17s., the price of a table sold to the defendant himself. That was the sum now sought to be recovered, and for which repeated applications had been made for payment, but without effect. The sale took place in the month of June, 1849, and in the following month (July) the very same articles were valued to Mr. Watts by a Mr. Robinson and another, for £33 12s., and that sum was paid to the defendant, who gave a receipt in his own name for the amount. Various letter were put in and read, and Mr. Delasaux remarked that after waiting four years, in June, 1853, he (on behalf of the plaintiff) wrote to the executors of the late Mr. Terson about the account and, as he anticipated, received a reply to the effect that they had no knowledge whatever of the transaction.

Plaintiff deposed that in the month of June, 1849, he was employed by Mr. Ash to sell the furniture at the York Hotel, at Folkestone. Previous to the sale he saw the defendant and Mr. Terson, when the latter told him that he was going to purchase for Smith; the defendant also told him what Terson was going to do. Terson did purchase the fixtures and Smith bought a table. (The auction book was subsequently produced, which confirmed the plaintiff`s statement). He had not been paid one farthing, but he had paid Ash the money for the fixtures as well as the other furniture sold. Had applied to the defendant for payment more than 100 times, and he had promised to do so more than 50, but had never kept his word. Defendant had also promised to obtain an acceptance for him from a Mrs. Avery, which plaintiff had agreed to take. Defendant had never denied his liability to pay the money. After waiting four years, plaintiff authorised Mr. Delasaux to apply to the executors of Mr. Terson for payment, but they denied their liability. The defendant distinctly told plaintiff that he would pay him, and so did Terson, and Ash`s account also.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne – Believed the fixtures belonged to Mrs. Hawkins, but the defendant lived at the York Hotel at the time. Did not know whose name was on the hotel door, or that Mrs. Hawkins was the landlady. Received a notice before the sale that the fixtures belonged to Mr. Brockman, and the defendant gave his man notice that he would have all the things removed. Mr. Delasaux and Mr. Geo. Ash were at the sale. Was never told, either by Mr. Ash or Mr Delasaux, not to continue the sale of the fixtures. Did not remember telling Mr. Delasaux to send the bill produced. Never heard from the defendant that he was acting as agent to Mrs. Hawkins. Defendant never expressed surprise at plaintiff`s making the claim for payment on him, nor did he ever write to him to that effect. Never heard him deny his liability until very lately. A short time since defendant proposed to refer the matter to arbitration. At the time plaintiff authorised Mr. Delasaux to apply to the executors of Mr. Terson for payment, he considered that the money was due from the defendant.

Robert Leach deposed that he was clerk to Mr. Bird, at the sale in question. He called upon the defendant with the plaintiff, but never heard the latter make application for payment of the account.

John Robinson said he was employed by the defendant to appraise the fixtures at the York Hotel after the sale of Mr. Bird. Did so with Mr. Major. After the appraisement was made they had to go to the Half Way House to obtain the signature of Mrs. Hawkins. He paid the amount of the appraisement, £33 12s., to the defendant.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne – Lived directly opposite the York Hotel, but could not say who was the landlady.

Mr. Towne then addressed the jury at some length on behalf of the defendant, remarked that it was one of the oddest cases ever brought before the jury Having animadverted on the conduct of the plaintiff, Mr. Towne proceeded to state his case, which was that the defendant merely acted as the agent of his mother-in-law, Mrs. Hawkins, throughout the whole transaction, and was therefore not liable for the present claim.

The defendant deposed that he was the agent of his mother-in-law, who was the tenant of the York Hotel, and the house was in her name. Before the sale there was a consultation between Mr. Delasaux, Mr. Ash, and witness, respecting the fixtures, which were claimed by a prior mortgage. Mr. Ash, at its conclusion, told witness that his father would give up his claim to the fixtures rather than have any trouble about them. Subsequently witness told the plaintiff to sell the fixtures for Mrs. Hawkins, which he did, Terson buying them in. He denied ever buying the table. Never had any demand for payment of the fixtures until February last, when witness wrote to plaintiff and expressed his surprise at the demand. Witness engaged Robinson to value the fixtures as agent to his mother-in-law. Never acted in any other way than as agent to his mother-in-law.

Cross-examined by Mr. Delasaux – Plaintiff had called upon him for settlement of Mr. Ash`s account, but never for payment of the fixtures.

Mrs Smith corroborated the defendant`s statement, and in addition said the money received by him for the fixtures was given to her, and she handed it to her mother.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on both points.