Alexandra Hotel 1880s

Folkestone Express 20-1-1883

Saturday, January 13^th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, and J. Holden Esq.

The license of the Alexandra Hotel was transferred from Mr. Satchell to Mrs. Spurrier.

Note: No mention of Satchell in More Bastions.

Southeastern Gazette 11-6-1883

Local News

At the Police Court on Saturday, Caroline Spurrier of the Alexandra Hotel, was charged with opening her house during prohibited hours on the 3rd inst., and John Baker, John Ross, A. Tolputt, H. Beer, W. Gosling, A. Latham and William Bird, were charged with being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. Mr. Minter appeared for Mrs. Spurrier, she being unable to attend through illness.

Police Sergeants Ovenden and Pay stated that they visited the Alexandra Hotel just after twelve o’clock on Sunday night, entering by the back door. They there found Baker and Beer along with two females. The men stated that they had just come ashore. Inside the house were found the other defendants. Bird said he had stayed to supper, but the others made no reply when the police asked why they were there.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on behalf of his client, and called Henry Spurrier, son of Mrs. Spurrier, who said he heard a knock at the back door, and on opening it Baker and Beer walked in, bringing a stone bottle and a can whioh they had had during the day. He did not draw them any beer. Mr. Ross was lodging at the hotel.

William Hearnshaw Bailey, merchant, 13, King Street, Snow Hill, and Blackfriars, London, son-in-law of Mrs. Spurrier, stated that since Mrs. Spurrier’s accident his wife had attended her mother, and he came down certain days to superintend the business. He brought down some salmon and asked Ross, Tolputt, Gosling, Bird and Latham to supper on Sunday night. Ross was a permanent lodger.

The Bench fined Mrs. Spurrier £2 10s., costs 12s., or one month’s imprisonment, but said her licence would not be endorsed. The summons against Ross waa dismissed, but the other defendants were each fined 5s., casts 8s., or seven days’ imprisonment. The fines were paid. 

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16-6-1883

Saturday, June 9^th: Before W. Carter Esq., Ald, Caister, and Messrs. Holden and Fitness.

Corline Spurrier, of the Alexandra Hotel, was charged with opening her house during prohibited hours on the 3^rd instant, and J. Baker, J. Ross, A. Tolputt, H. Beer, W. Gosling, A. Latham, and W. Bird were charged with being on licensed premises during prohibited hours.

Mr. Minter appeared for Mrs. Spurrier, she being unable to attend through illness.

Police sergeants Ovenden and Pay stated that they visited the Alexandra Hotel just after twelve o`clock on Sunday night, entering by the back door. They there found Baker and Beer, along with two females. The men stated that they had just come ashore. Inside the house were found the other defendants. Bird said he had stayed to supper, but the others made no reply when the police asked why they were there.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on behalf of his client, arguing that the defendants, with the exception of Baker and Beer, were the guests of Mr. Bailey, the landlady`s son-in-law, who had invited them to supper. Beer and Baker came into the house, but were not served, and he reminded the Bench of the youth of the son left in charge, who no doubt committed an indiscretion by admitting them, and he contended there was no case whatever against Ross, who used the hotel as his home when not at sea. He called Henry Spurrier, son of Mrs. Spurrier, who said he heard a knock at the back door, and on opening it Baker and Beer walked in, bringing a stone bottle and a can which they had during the day. He did not draw them any beer. Mr. Ross was lodging at the hotel.

William Earnshaw Bailey, merchant, 13, King Street, Snow Hill and Blackfriars, London, son-in-law of Mrs. Spurrier, stated that since Mrs. Spurrier`s accident his wife had attended to her mother, and he came down certain days to superintend the business. He brought down some salmon, and asked Ross, Tolputt, Gosling, Bird, and Latham to supper on Sunday night. Ross was a permanent lodger.

The Bench fined Mrs. Spurrier £2 10s., costs 12s., or one month`s imprisonment, but said her license would not be endorsed. The summons against Ross was dismissed, but the other defendants were each fined 5s., costs 8s., or seven days` imprisonment. The fines were paid.

Folkestone Express 16-6-1883

Saturday, June 9^th: Before Captain Carter, Alderman Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Caroline Spurrier, landlady of the Alexandra Hotel, was summoned for keeping her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours, and John Baker, Wm. Ross, Arthur Tolputt, Henry Beer, Wm. Gosling, Albert Latham and William Bird for being on the premises during prohibited hours on Sunday morning, the 3^rd inst. Mr. Minter appeared for all the defendants.

A medical certificate was put in that Mrs. Spurrier was suffering from a broken ankle, had been in bed for five weeks, and was unable to appear. Mr. Minter wished the case to be heard in her absence.

Sergeant Ovenden said: On Sunday morning, the 3^rd inst., at 20 minutes past 12, I visited the Alexandra Hotel in company with Sergeant Pay. We entered the hotel by the back door, which was opened by Master Spurrier. On going into the passage, close by the back door, John Baker and Henry Beer and two females were standing. I asked them what they were doing there on licensed premises. They replied “We have just come ashore”. I took their names and addresses, and while I was doing so the females left by the front door. I then went into the back room, where I found the defendant Arthur Tolputt. I asked him why he was there during prohibited hours. He replied “I am going to stop here tonight”. On the table there was a jug and two glasses of malt liquor. I told him I should report it. I then went into the front parlour where Sergeant Pay had previously gone. I spoke to Pay in the presence of Latham, Gosling, Ross and Bird. I asked him whether he had taken the names of the defendants. He said he had. There was a jug on the table, and a small quantity of malt liquor in some glasses. I did not look into the jug. In reply to something that was said, I said we had our duty to perform, and must do it. I know all the defendants, except Mr. Ross, as residents of the town.

Cross-examined: I did not ask the four I have mentioned why they were there. Baker and Beer did not look as if they had just come ashore. Mr. Tolputt had not his shoes off. I do not know that Mr. Ross lives at the Alexandra. I found him there when I served the summons, and I have been told that he is living there now.

By the Bench: Ross gave his address as on board the steamship Eborall.

By Mr. Minter: He said he belonged to the steamship Eborall.

Sergeant Pay said at 10 minutes past 12 he saw the defendants Baker and Beer and two females go into the passage towards the back door of the Alexandra Hotel. He corroborated Sergeant Ovenden`s statement as to subsequently visiting the house. He asked Latham, Ross, Gosling and Bird to account for being on licensed premises. Mr. Bird replied that he had stayed to supper; the others made no reply.

Mr. Minter said on behalf of Mrs. Spurrier he would deal first with the two men, Baker and Beer, because if the Bench held that their presence there was an opening of the house for the sale of intoxicating liquors which would justify the Bench in convicting Mrs. Spurrier, then he should contend that it was an offence which would be met by a very small fine indeed. They had heard that Mrs. Spurrier had been in bed five weeks, but still, of course, she was responsible for her servants, but he asked the Bench to take into consideration the position in which she was placed. Baker and Beer were customers, and had been to the house during the day, or the day before, and taken away with them some beer in cans, and taken it to sea with them, and on their return on Saturday night they merely called at the house and left the cans. They had nothing to drink, and therefore he did not think that could be considered an opening of the house for the sale of liquor. Then, with regard to Ross, he was a permanent lodger, and although he was a seaman, he was perfectly entitled to take up his abode at an hotel if he chose. He was actually served with the summons whilst having his breakfast in the hotel. As to the other four defendants, they were there by invitation by Mrs. Spurrier, through her son-in-law, who had brought down a salmon from London, which they had been asked to partake of for supper. That, of course, there was nothing in the law to prevent. He thought, looking at all the circumstances, the Bench would dismiss the whole of the summonses.

He called Harry Spurrier, who said Baker and Beer had brought back a stone bottle and a can. They had no liquor of any kind. Mr. Ross was a lodger, and had been staying at the hotel for three months.

Captain Carter: You say Baker and Beer came to return cans belonging to the house. What induced you to let them come into the house?

Witness: The back door was not locked, and they walked in. I took the cans and they were just going out again when Sergt. Ovenden and Sergt. Pay walked in. I had shut the back door but not locked it.

William E. Bailey, who affirmed instead of taking the usual oath, said he was a merchant, carrying on business at 13, King Street, Snowhill, and 54 and 55, Blackfriars Road, London, and was son-in-law of the defendant Mrs. Spurrier. His wife came down to Folkestone to wait upon her mother when she met with an accident four or five weeks since, and he had been almost constantly with her the last fortnight. On aturday afternoon he brought a salmon down from London and invited the five defendants as Mrs. Spurrier`s guests to partake of it. Mr. Ross was a permanent lodger, and slept there that night.

Captain Carter: You say you came down from London on Saturday afternoon. Where did you find the five defendants to invite them to supper?

Witness: They all came “straggling” in at different times. There was no formal invitation sent. I invited them as they dropped in.

Captain Carter: Mr. Minter gave us to understand there was a formal invitation.

Mr. Minter: No “cards”, sir. (Laughter) It is not usual in the position of life in which the defendants are. It is different in some circles, Captain Carter.

Witness replied indignantly that he considered his position in life quite equal to that of any of the magistrates.

Captain carter, in announcing the decision of the Bench, said, with regard to Mrs. Spurrier, they found the case was proved against her. They could not do otherwise, although unfortunately she was not able to look after the house. Still, she was the responsible person, and the Bench would fine her £2 10s. and 12s. costs, levyable by distress, and in default, one month`s imprisonment. With regard to the ther defendants, excepting Ross (his case being dismissed, it having been proved that he was a lodger), the Bench considered they were Guilty of the offence with which they were charged, and they would be fined 5s., and 8s. costs, or seven days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 8-12-1883

Wednesday, December 5^th: Before General Armstrong, Captain Fletcher, Captain Crowe, and F. Boykett Esq.

Caroline Spurrier, landlady of the Alexanrda Hotel, Harbour Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 25^th November, and Walter Richard Green, Henry Moody, John Henry Trevenan, and Captain Ross were summoned for being on licensed premises at the same time and place.

Mr. Minter appeared for Mrs. Spurrier and Messrs. Green, Moody and Trevenan, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Captain Ross, who was undefended, pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Harman said that about 12.30 a.m. on Sunday morning, November 25^th, he was on duty in Harbour Street with Sergeant Pay. They went to the back of the Alexandra Hotel and heard some people inside talking. Whilst they were there a man went and rapped on the door. Mrs. Spurrier opened the door about half way, and he went forward to get into the house. He had some difficulty to get in, in consequence of Mrs. Spurrier pushing the door, but when inside he went into a small room, and there saw Messrs. Moody, Green, Ross and Trevenan sitting round a table. There were four glasses on the table, some containing intoxicating liquor. Sergeant Pay asked if the could account for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. None of them replied except Trevenan, who said he had engaged No. 12 Bedroom for that night, in consequence of his having lost the latch key of his lodgings. He told Mrs. Spurrier that she would be reported for keeping her house open, and she said they were all her friends.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I have seen passengers come from the station from the late trains and the night boats and go into the house. The man named Kennedy, who knocked at the door, keeps a fried fish shop in the same street. He said “It`s me, Mrs. Spurrier. I want you to lend me some coals in the morning”. When I got inside there were no lights except in the little room. Mr. Trevenan did not tell me that he slept there the previous night, at least I did not understand him to say so. I did not watch to see if he did stay there that night.

P.S. Pay corroborated the last witness.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I know the room where defendants were to be Mrs. Spurrier`s private sitting room. She did not open the door for the purpose of admitting Kennedy.

By the Bench: I have seen people drinking in this room before this occasion.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench, and called for the defence William Spree, boots at the Alexandra Hotel, who said he knew Mr. Trevenan, who had slept at the hotel on the 24^th, 25^th and 26^th.

John Henry Trevenan said he slept at the Alexandra Hotel on the 24^th, 25^th and 26^th November. He paid for his bed.

Henry Monro Moody said he had been doing work for Mrs. Spurrier at her house and cottage, and on the evening in question he went to see her on business, and invited Green to go with him. On their arrival they were invited into Mrs. Spurrier`s room. They were there as private guests. Trevenan came in whilst they were sitting in the room.

By the Bench: We went there about half past ten and had some drink, which we paid for. The drink we had after that we did not pay for.

The Bench consulted for some time, and then the Chairman announced that they considered the case proved. Mrs. Spurrier would be fined £3 and 12s. costs, or one month`s imprisonment. There could be no doubt that Mr. Moody and Mr. Green were present, but the Bench had endeavoured to attach as little importance to their guilt as possible. They would be fined 5s. and 8s. costs. Mr. Trevenan they acquitted, and Captain Ross was fined 10s. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-8-1884

Annual Licensing Meeting

The annual granting of public house and other refreshment licenses took place on Wednesday morning in the Session House, before The Mayor and other Magistrates. The whole of the licenses were granted without comment, except in the cases of the Alexandra Inn (sic) and an off beer license to a man named Smith.

Supt. Taylor informed the Bench that in the former case two serious convictions had been recorded, and in the latter, one. As the Alexandra bore an indifferent character, the Bench held the license over till the adjourned transfer day, on the 24^th Sept. Smith`s license was granted with a caution.

Folkestone Express 30-8-1884

The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday. The magistrates present were The Mayor, Captain Carter, J. Clark Esq., and Alderman Caister.

All the old licences were renewed, with the exception of that of the Alexandra Hotel, with regard to which Superintendent Taylor called attention to the fact that there were several convictions against the house. On the 9^th January, 1883, the landlady was fined 50s. and costs, and on the 5^th December, 1883, £3 and costs.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk as to the mode in which the house was conducted now, the Superintendent said it was very indifferent. He had not given Mrs. Spurrier any notice because he thought she would attend, and that a caution from the Bench would have the effect of making her more careful. The granting of the licence was adjourned.

Folkestone News 30-8-1884

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Fletcher, J. Clark Esq., and Aldermen Sherwood and Caister.

Licensing Day

This being the annual licensing day, the holders of licenses in the district applied for renewals, which were granted without opposition except in the cases mentioned below.

Upon Mrs. Spurrier of the Alexandra making application, Supt. Taylor called the attention of the Bench to the circumstance that there were several convictions against the landlady, and that on the 9^th of June, 1883, she was fined for opening during prohibited hours, and on the following 6^th of December was fined £3 for a similar offence.

Mr. Bradley: What is the character of the house now? That is the question.

Supt. Taylor said it was very indifferent, but he had not given notice of opposition to the application.

The application was adjourned till Sept. 4^th, adjourned licensing day.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-9-1884

Wednesday, September 24^th

Wednesday was an adjourned licensing day. Mrs. Spurrier, of the Alexandra Hotel, whose license was adjourned at the last licensing day, attended, and her license being granted, was cautioned by the Mayor as to the manner in which the house should be conducted in future, as two convictions had taken place there.

Folkestone Express 27-9-1884

Wednesday, September 24^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, Dr. Bateman, Captain Carter, J. Holden, J. Clark and J. Fitness Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting

Mrs. Spurrier appeared in support of the renewal of her licence for the Alexandra Hotel.

The Mayor said that the Bench, after consideration, had decided to renew the licence, but at the same time advised the applicant to look well after her house in the future.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-5-1885

Saturday, May 23^rd: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, F.W. Boykett Esq., and Alderman Hoad.

Thomas Seaby, 20, sailor, was charged with stealing a gold watch and Albert chain, the property of Mr. White, on the 2^nd of March last. It appears that the prisoner was a seaman on board the Impetuous, and met the prosecutor outside the Alexandra Hotel. He pleaded Guilty, and in defence made the following statement, which was not disputed by the prosecutor:

On the 1^st of March I saw Mr. White in Tontine Street. He asked me if I was a mason. I said “No”. He said “I think you are”, and he incited me home with him and asked me if I would have a liquor. I said I did not mind, and went home with him, and drank together a bottle of rum. I had too much to drink, and saw the watch and chain. It was a great temptation to me, and I took it. It was nearly 3 o`clock in the morning of the 2^nd of March before I got back on board my ship.

Prisoner also said he had been two and a half years on board the ship.

The Mayor, in passing sentence, said they would take into account the temptation to which the prisoner had been exposed, and sentenced him to one month`s imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 30-5-1885

Saturday, April 23^rd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Hoad and General Armstrong C.B.

Thomas Seaby was charged with having stolen a watch and guard, value £20, the property of Nicholas White.

Prosecutor, living in Pavilion Road, Folkestone, said: On the 2^nd March last I was at the Alexandra Hotel in the evening. I don`t remember what time I left. When I went in the house I had my watch and chain with me. Next morning I missed it.

Daniel Purcell, police constable in the Southampton Borough Police Force, said: In consequence of information received from Supt. Taylor of Folkestone I went on board the brigantine Impetuous, of Guernsey, lying at the Phoenix Wharf. That was on Thursday, the 21^st. I found the prisoner on board the ship, working as a seaman. I asked him if his name was “Cockney Tom”. He said “Yes”. I said “I have got a warrant for your apprehension, and I want you to go to your berth”. I followed him to his berth, and told him I had a warrant for his apprehension for stealing a watch at Folkestone. I said nothing about the chain. He made no reply. As I was in the act of searching the berth the captain came down into the forecastle. The captain said “I am very sorry to lose him. I would as soon lose myself”. He said “I have got a gold watch belonging to him. He gave it to me to keep for him. I don`t believe that`s the one for he`s had it some time”. In answer to that prisoner said You are vey kind, captain. No doubt I got the blame, but I didn`t have all to do with it”. The captain said “It appears you know something about it”. The captain then left the forecastle, and the prisoner tied up his clothes and went on deck. The captain brought up the watch from his cabin, and was going to hand it to me, but I told him to hand it to the prisoner. He handed it to prisoner, who said he hadn`t got a pocket to put it in, and handed it to me. I asked him if it was his, and he said it was. I then took him to the police station, and he was charged by the sergeant on duty in my presence. He made no reply. The watch produced is the one prisoner gave to me. Prisoner was afterwards given into the custody of Sergt. Harman, of Folkestone.

Mr. White identified the watch as his property. He had had it for six months. He did not know the number, but the first figure was a “2”. It was an “improved chronograph”. There was a gold Albert attached to the watch – long links connected by three short ones, 18 carat gold.

Sergt. Harman said he received the prisoner in custody at Southampton on Friday. Prisoner was charged by Supt. Tailor, and he replied “Correct”.

Nicholas Hodge, a seaman employed at Folkestone Harbour, produced a log book of the vessels entering and leaving. The Impetuous, of Guernsey, entered the harbour on the 19^th February, and sailed on the 16^th March.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said the watch was not lost at the Alexandra Hotel. He appeared reluctant to make any further statement, but on being asked i he wished to say anything which might induce the Bench to mitigate the punishment he said: On the night of the 1^st March, about half past twelve o`clock, I was coming down Tontine Street, and met Mr. White. He said to me “Are you a mason?” I said “No”. He said “I believe you are a mason”. He had been drinking, and had a stick with him. He asked me if I would accompany him home. I went with him, and carried his stick and assisted him home. When we got there he drew me inside and asked if I would have a liquor with him. I said I didn`t mind. He produced a bottle of rum and we drank it. By that time he had fallen asleep, drunk, and I was not very far from being drunk. I saw the watch; it was a great temptation, and I took it. Half an hour after I would have been glad to return it.

The Mayor: Do you wish to say anything about the chain?

Prisoner: The chain is at Middlesboro.

Supt. Taylor said they knew all about the chain.

The Mayor said the Bench, taking into consideration the good character the captain of the vessel gave him, and also the behaviour of the prosecutor in inducing him to go home with him and making him intoxicated, and the temptation that was placed in his way, for which the prosecutor was very much to blame, would only sentence the prisoner to one month`s hard labour, and the Bench hoped he would be careful not to get into similar trouble again.

Folkestone Express 18-9-1886

Local News

The landlady of the Alexandra Hotel had her cashbox stolen on Saturday evening. It contained upwards of £50 in gold, silver and notes, and a number of articles of jewellery, and was kept in a cupboard. Suspicion attaches to two men who had been staying at the hotel for two or three days, and who disappeared simultaneously with the cashbox, which has since been found in a hedge on the Dover Road, thus intimating that the thieves went to Dover with their booty, and probably got across to Calais by the night boat. Information was at once given to the police, and telegrams were despatched to various places giving descriptions of the two men, but they appear to have got safely away.

Kentish Gazette 18-9-1886 

A daring robbery was perpetrated at the Alexandra Hotel. A few days ago two men who had been staying at the hotel, and had somewhat excited the suspicions of Mrs. Spurrier, the proprietress, managed, during a temporary absence from the bar parlour, to extract the cash box from the safe and decamped with it and the contents. The box was afterwards found near the Valiant Sailor, on the Dover road, rifled of its contents, which amounted to about £50.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-9-1886

Saturday, September 16^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood and Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Henry Vye and George Toomes were charged with committing a breach of the peace.

P.S. Harman said that he was on duty in Harbour Street the previous Saturday night, when he saw a crowd of people in front of the Alexandra Hotel. He saw Vye strike Toomes and they fell on the ground together.

P.C. Lilley corroborated.

They were ordered to pay the costs and be bound over in their own recognisances to keep the peace for three months.

Folkestone Express 25-9-1886

Saturday, September 18^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Henry Vye and Henry Toms were charged with causing a breach of the peace in Harbour Street on the previous Saturday evening.

Sergeant Harman said he saw a crowd of people at about 11.30 in front of the Alexandra Hotel. Vye took of his coat, and Toms and he commenced fighting. Vye was knocked down. The street was in an uproar for a quarter of an hour.

The Bench ordered both defendants to enter into recognisances to keep the peace for three months, and to pay the costs, 7s. 6d. each. Toms declined to be bound over.

Folkestone News 25-9-1886

Saturday, September 18^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Harry Vye and Harry Toms were charged with a breach of the peace and summoned to show cause why they should not severally be bound over.

Sergeant Harman said that on Saturday night at half past eleven he saw defendants in Harbour Street in front of the Alexandra Hotel, where there was a crowd round them. Vye pulled off his coat, and he and Toms commenced to fight. Toms knocked Vye down, and they were afterwards both on the ground together. Toms afterwards made a disturbance in front of his own house, No. 5, Harbour Street, and it being a common occurrence he wanted the defendants bound over to prevent it in future.

P.C. Lilley corroborated.

Defendant Toms said it was altogether a mistake of the police. He went to part Vye and his brother in a friendly way, and there was no fight at all.

The Mayor said they must be bound over, each in £10, their own surety, and pay 7s. 6d. costs each.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 23-11-1887

Saturday, 19^th November.

There was a larger attendance than usual of the (otherwise) unemployed on Saturday morning at the Police Court in anticipation of a case which was, however, postponed. The Magistrates present were Captain Carter (in the chair), John Hoad Esq., Alderman Sherwood, John Holden Esq., John Fitness Esq., and Major Penfold.

A clerk from the office of Mr. Minter, solicitor, said that he was instructed to apply for an adjournment until next Saturday of the cases against Mrs. Spurrier, Mr. Arthur Tolputt, and Mr. C. Wilson. It was impossible for Mr. Minter to be present that day, and as he was instructed to defend in all three cases, it was most important that they should be adjourned.

In reply to the Chairman, Superintendent Taylor said that it was a police prosecution, but he had no objection to the adjournment.

To be heard on Saturday next.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-11-1887

Saturday, November 19^th: Before Captain Carter, Alderman Sherwood, Major Penfold, J. Holden, J. Hoad, and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mrs. Spurrier was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors at the Alexandra Hotel on the previous day.

A clerk from Mr. Minter`s office attended and asked that the case might be adjourned for a week.

The Magistrates granted an adjournment until today (Saturday).

Folkestone Express 26-11-1887

Saturday, November 19^th: Before Capt. Carter, Alderman Sherwood, J. Holden, S. Penfold and J. Hoad Esqs.

Caroline Spurrier was summoned for having her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours.

An application was made for adjournment for a week, and it was granted.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 30-11-1887

Saturday, November 26^th:

Crowded Court on Saturday morning. Always is crowded when there is a prospect of someone getting an extra dose of “corrective discipline”. Human nature is a queer thing, anyway.

But it is no part of my business to moralize. Let us jot.

The Magistrates present were H.W. Poole Esq. (in the chair), W. Wightwick Esq., and Surgeon-General Gilborne. Alderman Sherwood was on the Bench during a portion of the hearing of the first case, but took no part in the adjudication.

Mrs. Spurrier was charged with keeping her licensed premises, to wit, the Alexandra Hotel, open during prohibited hours, and on a second summons, with permitting drunkenness on the said premises on the said date. Mr. Minter appeared for the defence.

P.C. Dawson said that he was on duty with P.C. Lilley at thebottom of High Street about two o`clock on the morning of the 12<sup>th</sup>. He heard voices coming from the direction of the Alexandra, and accompanied by Lilley went to the hotel. Outside the door he found a youth about 16 who was very drunk and was vomiting very much. He was not able to stand. Witness tried the front door and found that it was not locked. He went into the room on the right of the entrance and found two strange gentlemen there, and Mr. Arthur Tolputt, Mr. Sidney Wilson, and Mrs. Spurrier. There were five or six glasses there, two of which contained liquor, and Mr. Tolputt was in the act of drinking when witness went in. Witness spoke to the two strangers and asked who was in charge of the boy outside. One of them said “I am”, and witness then said he had better look after him or he should have to do so. He asked if they had travellers` tickets and they produced three from London to Paris. I then turned to Mr. Tolputt, when Mrs. Spurrier said “They are stopping here”. Witness replied “I see they are at present”. He then came out of the house and reported the matter to the Superintendent and to Sergeant Butcher. Saw Mrs. Spurrier`s daughter outside the front door. Remained outside the house until 2.35, when Tolputt and Wilson left. Was speaking to Sergeant Butcher at the time they left. They went through South Street and up High Street. Witness returned to the hotel and saw that the lights were all put out and the front door locked. That was at 2.55.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I know that Mrs. Spurrier keeps the house open at night for the accommodation of travellers coming by the boat train. I don`t know much about the house as I have not had that beat for over three years. As a matter of fact the boat train should have arrived at 12.30, bit I cannot say whether it was late. I have no doubt that the two strangers and the boy were going away by the boat that leaves at 5 a.m. I was not told that the boy was vomiting because he had smoked a cigar, and, not being used to it, it had made him ill. I did not make any charge against Mrs. Spurrier`s daughter for being there after hours because I had no idea she was the married daughter. Knew that Mrs. Spurrier had a married daughter or daughters, but did not know that the lady I saw was one of them. Mr. Tolputt had not his boots off. That I swear most positively. I stood close to him and took particular notice. Could not see Wilson`s feet as he was standing at the other side of the table. I am quite certain that the boy was drunk, but of course I do not know whether he had anything to drink at the Alexandra.

P.C. Lilley gave corroborative evidence. In cross-examination he said that he did not know what became of the boy except that one of the strangers came and took him away. Nothing was said to him about a cigar. He was not aware that Tolputt has a room in the hotel. He had often seen him there at two or three in the morning, but that was two years ago when he used to lodge there. He only knew by report that Mr. Tolputt did not live there now.

P.S. Butcher proved the service of the summons and in cross-examination by Mr. Minter said that he knew as a matter of fact that Mr. Tolputt used to live there. When he saw him with Wilson on the date in question it was about 2.40. He should say that they were both sober.

This concluded the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr. Minter said that before calling witnesses he should put it to the Bench that there was not a tittle of evidence to support the charge of permitting drunkenness. He should like the instructions of the Bench on that point before going any further.

The Chairman: Don`t proceed with that matter.

Mr. Minter: Very well, your Worships. The charge is withdrawn, and if I may say so, very properly withdrawn. Then my duty becomes light, because I only have to answer the charge of keeping open during prohibited hours. I don`t conceal from myself that there is one difficulty I have to meet, and that is the fact that Mrs. Spurrier has twice before been convicted of a similar offence, but with all respect I should urge that the Bench should dismiss that entirely from their minds and act only on the evidence which has been and will be laid before you. What is the evidence? I need hardly say that it is a very difficult thing to conduct a public house or hotel without falling into some of the traps which are set. There are many persons who try to get in at all hours, on all sorts of pretences, and there are bona fide travellers who are entitled to go in. Fortunately the evidence of the police officers themselves disposes of the charge, for they admit that the three strangers were bona fide travellers, and produced tickets from London to Paris. Mrs. Spurrier has for the last twenty years kept her house open for the accommodation of travellers coming by the boat train, and there is no doubt that she has a perfect right to do so. The charge of permitting drunkenness has been dismissed, but I would just refer to it to say that this whole prosecution is the result of overzealousness on the part of the Superintendent of Police, who evidently said to himself “This charge of permitting drunkenness will help to bolster up and colour up the other part of the case, and even if I don`t get a conviction on that charge it will influence the minds of the Bench and a penalty will be imposed”. What I have got to meet is the charge of supplying Tolputt and Wilson during prohibited hours. But as a matter of fact they would prove  that Mr. Tolputt was a lodger in the house, and that Mr. Wilson was there as his invited guest to spend the night with him. Even the police sergeant admitted that he knew Mr. Tolputt was a lodger in the house.

The Superintendent of Police: Excuse me; he said that he knew he had lived there some time ago.

Mr. Minter: No, Sir, I shall not excuse you. I don`t want you to address any remarks to me, or to interfere in any way.

The Superintendent: This is a police prosecution and I am the prosecutor.

Mr. Minter: Then if you have anything to say, address yourself to the Bench, and not to me. I put it to the Bench that Sergeant Butcher distinctly said, in answer to my question, that he knew Mr. Tolputt was a lodger at the hotel. It is all very well for the police to come here and make charges against people, but we have had a fair sample of police evidence all over the country lately. The fact is that the Superintendent has been spurred  into activity by things which have been said and have been reported in the papers, suggesting that he does not do his duty. I don`t agree with that statement, for I think we have an excellent officer. But just because of a little outside clamour, he must not pounce on my client or any other person and move heaven and earth to get a conviction. It comes to this: Do we live in a free country or do we not? Is it a crime for Mr. Tolputt to have two or three residences or to invite a friend to spend the night with him? Because Mr. Tolputt chooses to be erratic in his movements, is that a reason why Mrs. Spurrier should be dragged here on a charge of breaking the law? There is no police law in the Kingdom to prevent a man coming out from his lodgings at three o`clock in the morning, or from bringing his friend with him. Mr. Tolputt hires a room at the hotel, and, as I shall prove to you presently, he has slept there over three hundred times in the last two years. Whether the proceedings of Mr. Tolputt and his friend are exactly wise is not a matter for the Bench. You have nothing to do with their morals, and no right to interfere with their freedom of action. I shal now call witnesses who shall prove to you that Mrs. Spurrier is not guilty of the offence which is charged against her.

Arthur Tolputt, examined by Mr. Minter, said: I am of no occupation. I rent a room at the Alexandra and have done so for the last three years. About two years ago I lived there altogether. Have since changed about a good deal, but have always kept the room and paid for it, and I can sleep there whenever I like. Sidney Wilson is a companion of mine, and I often invite him to sleep with me at the Alexandra. I did so on the 12^th instant. During the last three months we have slept together about two or three times a week. Wilson has not been there since the 12^th. We went in about five minutes to eleven, took off our boots and went up to bed. We partly undressed, but hearing some fellows come into the hotel we altered our minds and went downstairs again. Wilson was partly undressed as well as myself. The strangers were jockeys who were going to Paris and we sat a long time and talked with them about horses and racing. The boy certainly had no drink in the house. I gave him a cigar – rather a strong one, perhaps – it was an Intimidad. When the strangers left Mrs. Spurrier locked up the house and went up to bed. Wilson and I got halfway upstairs and then we thought we wouldn`t go to bed at all, but would go for a stroll and then go and see the fellows off by the boat. I asked Mrs. Spurrier for the key,, but she said she wouldn`t trust us with the key, and if we went out she wouldn`t come down and let us in again. She advised us to go on to bed. I told the Boots before he left for the night to go up to my other lodgings the first thing in the morning and bring me a clean shirt.

By the Chairman: I pay rent for the room all the year round, and have the sole right to use it whenever I like.

By the Clerk: The men were going by the boat at 5.30, and they had to sit round at the station and wait. That was why they stayed so long at the Alexandra, because they didn`t want to be out in the cold.

Sidney Wilson corroborated the evidence given by Mr. Tolputt, and swore positively that they had both taken their boots off.

Frank Rogers (Boots at the Alexandra) said that when he left the hotel at 11.15 Mr. Tolputt and Mr. Wilson were there, and they had both taken their boots off. Mr. Tolputt told witness to fetch him a shirt and tie from 10, Gloucester Place, as he should want them in the morning. He had been at the Alexandra about eight weeks, and during that time Mr. Tolputt had always had a room there. When he went for the boots next morning he found they were not there. He spoke to Mrs. Spurrier about it, and she said that as the gentlemen had gone there was no need for him to go to Gloucester Place.

Ada Helmore said that she was the wife of George Helmore, and daughter of Mrs. Spurrier. She did not live at the hotel, but was there on a visit on the 12^th. She knew that Mr. Tolputt had a room at the hotel, and he came in with Mr. Wilson about eleven o`clock that night for the purpose of sleeping there. The servants had gone to bed and she lit a candle for them herself. They went to bed, but she came downstairs again and stayed there until the other gentlemen came. After they went we locked the bar and the front door and went to bed. She afterwards heard Mr. Tolputt asking her mother for the key, but she refused it and said she would not go down again. As they were determined to go out witness went down and undid the door for them.

Mrs. Spurrier was then called and gave evidence to the same effect. In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said that Tolputt and Wilson were quite sober – in fact they had never been more sober. (Laughter)

Mr. Minter: I only asked you about the 12^th. Don`t go into any other days, please. (Laughter)

The witness said that for 21 years she had sat up for the purpose of accommodating passengers by the last train, and her husband had done so before her. The boy had some supper at the hotel, but certainly nothing to drink. She saw Mr. Tolputt hand the cigars round and the boy took one, although his friend advised him not to smoke. He became very sick and she said “Take him to the front door – that will do him good”. Her daughter took him into the air and asked if she should fetch him a glass of water.

Is it a fact you were asked by Mr. Tolputt for a key?

Yes. He said “Madame, we`re going out and I want the key”.

Did you let him have it? – Certainly not. Give him the key indeed! When they were determined to go out I called my daughter and she let them out. Mr. Tolputt has slept at the house three or four times since the 12^th.

By Mr. Wightwick: He pays me 6s. a week for the room whether he uses it or not. He pays me every Saturday. The room is his to come and go as he likes, and there are a good many of his things there. The ordinary price of a room for a single night would be 2s. 6d., or rather more if it was a large room.

The Chairman said that the Bench were unanimously of opinion that defendant was Guilty of the charge, and she would be fined £5 and 16s. costs. They had very seriously considered whether it was not their duty to endorse the licence, but had decided that on that occasion they would not do so. But if the defendant appeared before them again the licence would certainly be endorsed, and she knew what that meant.

Mr. Minter: With great respect to the Bench, we shall appeal, and I should be glad if the Bench would give me the grounds on which they have arrived at their decision. Did the punish Mrs. Spurrier on account of the three bona fide travellers in the house, or –

The Chairman: We have given our decision, and have no more to say.

Mr. Minter: But we are criminals, and surely we are entitled to know whether you mean by your decision to brand the five respectable witnesses I have called before you as conspirators and perjurers.

No answer was returned and the next case was called.

Arthur Tolputt and Sidney Wilson were charged with being on licensed premises during prohibited hours on the 12^th of November.

The evidence was exactly the same as in the last case, and Mr. Minter (on behalf of the defendants) said that he was quite willing to facilitate matters by having the depositions read over. This having been done, Mr. Minter said he would only detain the Bench a very few minutes. The matter was a most serious one, for the Bench had disregarded the evidence of five respectable witnesses – witnesses as much entitled to credence as any person in that court. If they did not mean to brand them as perjurers, what was the meaning of their decision? He should show them how that decision would operate in the case of Mr. Tolputt. He and his friend would sleep in the same room that night, and he gave the Superintendent notice of that publicly. If what had been done so far was right it was the duty of the Superintendent to bring them before the Bench again and again, and it would be the duty of the Bench to punish them again and again, and so they might go on ad infinitum. One of the Magistrates had asked what sum was paid by Mr. Tolputt and what sum was charged for rooms by the night. But surely the Bench were not going to adopt a theory like that. Mr. Tolputt engaged the room for a permanency, whether he used it or not, and Mrs. Spurrier charged what she thought proper, as she had an undoubted right to do. If the Bench convicted the defendants they would be stamping five respectable people as deliberate perjurers, for it meant that and nothing else. Surely they were not going to say that simply because it was a public house case. He said, with all respect, that the matter amounted to a farce, but the responsibility rested with the Bench, and he must leave the matter in their hands.

The Chairman, after consultation with his colleagues and the Clerk, said: Mr. Arthur Tolputt, with regard to the charge against you, the Bench has rather a doubt whether you are a bona fide lodger or whether you are not seeking to evade the law. However, there is the doubt, and as is usual in all cases of doubt, we give you the benefit of it. The case against you will be dismissed.

As regards the case against Wilson, there is not the slightest doubt that he was on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and we shall therefore fine him 20s. and 12s. costs, or in default fourteen days` imprisonment.

The money was immediately paid.

Folkestone Chronicle 3-12-1887

Saturday, November 26^th: Before Major Poole, Surgeon Major Gilbourne, Alderman Banks and W. Wightwick Esq.

Mrs. Spurrier was summoned for having, on the 12^th November, kept her house, the Alexandra Hotel, open at a prohibited hour, and that she did also, on the same occasion, encourage drunkenness upon her licensed premises.

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

P.C. Dawson was the first witness called. He stated that on the night in question he was on duty with P.C. Lilley in the neighbourhood of the Alexandra Hotel about two o`clock. He heard the sound of voices proceeding from the Alexandra Hotel, in consequence of which he and Lilley went across to the hotel and listened. When they got up to the house they observed a lad, of about 16 years of age, standing outside, vomiting, and, to all appearances, drunk. Witness tried the front door of the hotel; it was not locked. Leaving Lilley outside with the boy, witness went in and entered a room on the right hand side of the passage. He there found two gentlemen who were strangers to him; also Mr. Arthur Tolputt, Mr. Sidney Wilson and Mrs. Spurrier. There were five or six glasses on the table. They had contained liquor, and when witness entered, Tolputt was in the act of drinking. Spoke to the strange gentlemen and asked them who was in charge of the boy outside. One of them answered “I am”, and witness told him he had better go outside and take care of him, or else he would have to take him into custody. Having heard that they were travellers, witness asked him whether he had any tickets about him. He answered in the affirmative and produced two – one for the boy and the other for himself. He then asked the other strange gentleman if he had a ticket, and he produced one immediately. All the tickets were from London to Paris. When witness commenced to speak to Tolputt and Wilson with respect to them being on the premises, Mrs. Spurrier interrupted and said they were two gentlemen who were staying at her hotel. Witness then went outside and reported the circumstances to Sergeant Butcher.

In cross-examination by Mr. Bradley, the Magistrates` Clerk, the witness proceeded to state that no-one followed him out of the house. He only saw Mrs. Spurrier`s daughter standing outside the door. Witness remained outside the house until 2.35, when he saw Tolputt and Wilson leave. He was speaking to Sergeant Butcher at the time. Witness followed them through the passage in South Street and saw them go up High Street. The last person who left the hotel was at five minutes to three. No-one entered the house until six o`clock in the morning.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Had heard that Mrs. Spurrier kept her house open for the reception of passengers who arrived by the night train and waited to go over by the early morning boat. There was a late train at Folkestone between twelve and half past. Did not notice one about a quarter to one o`clock. The boat left for Boulogne about half past five in the morning. Had no doubt that the strange gentlemen that he saw were passengers by that boat. They did not tell witness that the boy who was vomiting outside the house was doing so in consequence of having smoked a cigar which was too strong for him, and not being accustomed to smoking, it had made him sick. Would swear that. Aw Mrs. Spurrier`s daughter outside the door. The reason why witness did not complain of her being there was because she lived there. Considered she had more right there than the defendants. When witness saw Tolputt he did not have his boots off. Would swear it. Could not see Wilson`s feet; he was sitting the other side of the table. It was five minutes past two o`clock at that time. On his oath he would swear that Tolputt had his boots on. Did not know Mr. Tolputt had a room at the Alexandra Hotel. Was not accustomed to that beat. Had only been on it once before for three years. Knew very little about the house. Would not take Tolputt and Wilson to be drunk.

By Mr. Bradley: They had the appearance of people who had been drinking. Knew where Tolputt lived.

P.C. Lilley deposed to being in company with the last witness on the night in question, and also to seeing the boy outside of the Alexandra Hotel vomiting. Witness would have taken him to be very drunk. Dawson tried the door and as it was unfastened he entered, leaving witness outside. Witness took charge of the boy until Dawson came out with a man, who took the boy in. Stayed there until five minutes to three, and saw Tolputt and Wilson leave. They went through South Street and up High Street.

By Mr. Minter: Did not know where the boy went to; the man took hold of him. They did not tell him that the boy had been smoking and had made himself sick. Did not go into the house. Had been on that beat several times. Did not know Mr. Tolputt had a room at the hotel. He had seen Mr. Tolputt in the house before, more especially three years ago.

Sergeant Butcher here proved having served the summons on Tolputt &c.. In answer to Mr. Minter, said he knew that Mr. Tolputt used to live at the Alexandra Hotel.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench, and, in a very able defence said, as regarded the charge of permitting drunkenness on the premises, he considered  it had absolutely failed, there being no evidence whatever in it`s support. He supposed the Bench would dispose of that case first.

After a short consultation, Major Poole said that the Bench had decided not to proceed with that case and it would be dismissed.

Mr. Minter then proceeded to state that he wished to be fair, and would tell them that the defendant had been convicted twice before. As regarded the boy outside the house, it was a fact that someone had given him a cigar, which he smoked, and it had made him ill. The hotel was open to travellers every night. As regarded Tolputt and Wilson, they had a perfect right there. Sergeant Butcher had told them that he knew Tolputt hired a room and lived there.

Supt. Taylor said the Sergeant did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. Minter said it was nothing to do with the Superintendent what he said. He would not be interrupted by him.

Supt. Taylor remarked that he was the prosecutor in this case.

Mr. Minter: Then address yourself to the Bench.

Supt. Taylor: Then I will do so. I say Sergeant Butcher did not say Mr. Tolputt lived at the hotel.

Mr. Minter, having further addressed the Bench at some considerable length, concluded by saying that if the Magistrates convicted Mrs. Spurrier they would mean that those witnesses who had given evidence that day had conspired together to commit perjury.

Arthur Tolputt was then called, and stated that he was of no occupation. He had a room at Mrs. Spurrier`s hotel, and had it for about three years. Some three years ago he lived there altogether. Since then he had changed about, but still retained his room at the Alexandra. Wilson was his companion. He invited him to spent the night at the hotel with him on the 12^th of November. For the last three months Wilson had slept at the hotel with him on an average of two or three times a week, and occasionally before – not very often. He still had a room at the hotel. Had occupied it several times since the 12^th of November. He went into the hotel on the night in question with Wilson about five minutes to eleven. Soon after they got in, witness took off his boots and went upstairs and partly undressed. Upon hearing some people come in, he and Wilson went downstairs and had a talk to them. He gave the boy a cigar; it was a strong one and made him sick. When the men went, Mrs. Spurrier locked up, and afterwards he asked her for the key of the front door. He told her he was going to see those fellows off by the boat. She said “If you go out you shall not come in again”. She would not come down with the key. One of the girls came down and let them out. Before the “Boots” left the hotel he told him to go to his other lodging and fetch him a clean shirt and neck tie. That was about ten minutes past eleven.

In answer to Major Poole, the witness said he paid rent for the room and could go there when he liked.

By Mr. Bradley: Paid his rent by the week. His lodgings were at 10, Gloucester Terrace.

Sidney Wilson, who stated that he was of no occupation, deposed that he was the friend of Mr. Arthur Tolputt, who had had a room at the Alexandra Hotel for upwards of three years. Witness had been in the habit of staying there with him. Went there on the 12^th of November by his friend`s invitation. They both went to their room soon after they got in, and if it had not been for the men coming in they would have gone to bed. After the men had gone, he and Tolputt thought they would go and see them off. Heard Tolputt ask for the key, which he was refused. He said he wanted to go down to the harbour. She advised them to go to bed, but they had determined to go out, and did so.

By the Clerk: They both took their boots off upstairs, and put them on again when they went out.

Frank Rogers stated that he was “boots” at the Alexandra Hotel. He saw Tolputt and Wilson there on the 12^th November. Witness left about quarter past eleven o`clock. Both their boots were off then, and Tolputt asked him to go up to Gloucester Terrace and fetch him a clean shirt for the morning. Witness had been at the hotel for eight weeks, and Tolputt had had the room ever since he had been there. Did not fetch the shirt the next morning because Mrs. Spurrier told him that Mr. Tolputt had gone.

By the Clerk: Tolputt slept at the hotel two or three times a week.

Mrs. Ada Helmore, a married daughter of Mrs. Spurrier, said she was staying at the hotel as a visitor on the 12^th of November. Knew Mr. Tolputt had a room at her mother`s hotel. On the night in question he came in for the purpose of staying there. The servants had gone to bed and she lighted the candles herself. Mr. Tolputt had his friend, Mr. Wilson, with him. It was soon after 11. They had taken their boots off, and went downstairs again when they heard some travellers come in, who had arrived by the midnight train.

Mrs. Spurrier stated that she kept the Alexandra Hotel. Mr. Tolputt had a room at her house. He had had it for three years. He was in the habit of having Wilson to stay there with him. On the night of the 12^th inst. he came to her house for the purpose of staying there with Wilson. They took their shoes off, and went up to bed soon after 11. They were quite sober.  Witness sat up for the last train to receive travellers going over by boat. She had done so for the past 21 years. On this occasion three travellers came. They were going to Paris. The boy did not get anything to drink in her house. When Tolputt came downstairs she saw him give the boy a cigar. It seemed too strong for him, and as he came over very pale, witness told them to take him out of the front door to the air, as it might do him some good, and witness`s daughter took him out. When the travellers went, witness locked up the house and went upstairs to bed. When she got upstairs she heard Tolputt say “Madame, I want the key of the front door”. Witness said if he went out she would not let him come in again. Tolputt had slept at her house two or three times since the occurrence.

By the Clerk: Tolputt came to the house about 11 o`clock with Wilson. They went to bed soon after, but came down again. Did not know whether they had anything to drink – they might have had a glass of ale. Tolputt paid her six shillings every week for the use of the room.

After about ten minutes` consultation with the Clerk and the other Magistrates, Major Poole said the Bench were unanimously of opinion that the defendant was Guilty of the offence, and she would be fined £5 and 16s. costs, or, in default, one month`s imprisonment. He would like to add that they had been considering whether it was not their duty to endorse the licence. If she ever came before them again the licence would be endorsed.

Mr. Minter thought the judgement was somewhat extraordinary. He would like to ask them the reason for their judgement.

Major Poole said the Bench were perfectly justified in giving their judgement. Mr. Minter could take any course he liked.

Mr. Minter said he should appeal, by the wish of his client.

Arthur Tolputt and Sidney Wilson were then summoned for being on the premises on teh 12^th November during prohibited hours.

At the suggestion of Mr. Bradley the evidence in the former case was read over, instead of repeating it.

Mr. Wightwick (to Mrs. Spurrier): What is the price generally charged for a single bed at your house?

Mrs. Spurrier: Half a crown, and sometimes a little more.

Mr. Wightwick: You say you sometimes let a bed for more than 2s. 6d.?

Mrs. Spurrier: Yes

In addressing the Bench for the defence, Mr. Minter said if the Bench convicted the defendants they would mean that those five witnesses were guilty of conspiring together for perjury. Did they say that? Mr. Tolputt and Mr. Wilson were going to sleep at the Alexandra Hotel that night. They would occupy the same room that night, and if the Bench convicted the defendants it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Police to go there and bring them up again. The fact of the matter was the Bench said “You, Mr. Tolputt, shall not go there at all, and you, Mr. Wilson, shall not accompany him”. There was the evidence before them. They were charged with being on licensed premises at a prohibited hour, not being bona fide travellers or lodgers, but the evidence showed clearly that Tolputt was a lodger, and who was to prevent him taking a friend with him to his room if he chose to do so? One of the Magistrates had asked what price was charged for the room. Surely they were not trying to make out that Mrs. Spurrier was telling a lie because she said she let the room to Mr. Tolputt for 6s. a week and charged another person 2s. 6d. a night more? Surely such a decision never would be given. Again he would remind them that Tolputt and Wilson would occupy the room that night, and, if they were guilty of the charge brought against them, it was the duty of the police to bring them up again next Monday.

Major Poole said as regarded the charge against Tolputt the Bench entertained some little doubt as to whether he really was the occupier of the room, and, as the Bench always did, they would give him the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the charge against him, but they had agreed that Wilson was Guilty, and he would be fined £1 and 12s. costs, or 14 days` imprisonment.

The money was paid, and the case then terminated.

Folkestone Express 3-12-1887

Saturday, November 26^th: Before H.W. Poole Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Caroline Spurrier of the Alexandra Hotel was summoned for having her house open during prohibited hours on the 12^th November, and also with permitting drunkenness in the house on the same day.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Dawson said: About two o`clock on the 12<sup>th</sup> November I was on duty with P.C. Lilley at the bottom of High Street, and heard voices in the direction of the Alexandra Hotel. We went to the hotel. We found a youth, 15 or 16 years of age, outside. He was very drunk, and vomiting. He could not stand.  We tried the front door of the hotel. It was not locked. I went inside, and in a room on the right I found two strange gentlemen, Mr. Arthur Tolputt and Mr. Wilson, and Mrs. Spurrier. There were five or six glasses on the table. Two of them contained liquor, and Mr. Tolputt was in the act of drinking when I went in. I spoke to the two strangers and asked who was in charge of the boy outside. One of them said “I am”. I told him he had better go outside and take charge of him, or I should be obliged to do so. I asked him if they had tickets, as I understood them to be travellers. He produced two from London to Paris. The other gentleman also produced a ticket. I was turning to Tolputt and Wilson, and Mrs. Spurrier said “They are stopping here”. I said “I see they are at present”. I saw Mrs. Spurrier`s daughter at the door. I remained outside until twenty five minutes to three, when Tolputt and Wilson left. I was talking to Sergt. Butcher when they left. They went up High Street. I afterwards returned to the front of the Alexandra, and remained there until all lights were out at five minutes to three.

Cross-examined: I have heard that Mrs. Spurrier keeps her house open for travellers coming down and going over by the night boat. The last train down that night came down between twelve and half past.The boat left at 5.30. I have no doubt that the two gentlemen and the boy were travellers. They did not tell me the boy was sick in consequence of having tried to smoke a cigar. Nothing of the sort was said. I left the boy in charge of Lilley. I did not know Mrs. Spurrier`s daughter was married. Mr. Tolputt had not got his shoes off. Wilson was on the other side of the table. I am sure Tolputt`s boots were on. I do not know that Tolputt has a room at the Alexandra. I had only been on that beat once before. Wilson and Tolputt had the appearance of having been drinking, but they were not drunk.

By the Clerk: They had the appearance of having been drinking. Mr. Wilson, I understand, lives at Clifton Gardens. Mr. Tolputt, I believe, resides at the East Kent Arms.

P.C. Lilley gave corroborative evidence.

Cross-examined: The boy was taken into the house. They did not tell me he had been smoking a cigar, and got sick. I have been several times on this beat. I did not know that Mr. Tolputt had a room at the Alexandra. About two years ago I saw him there at two o`clock in the morning. I knew he was living there then.

Sergeant Butcher said he served the summons upon Tolputt in the street.

Cross-examined. I know he used to lodge at the Alexandra. I saw him with Wilson on this particular night.

The Bench decided that there was no evidence to support the charge of permitting drunkenness.

Mr. Minter said he did not wish to conceal the fact that Mrs. Spurrier had been twice convicted of a similar offence, but he appealed to the Bench to dismiss that knowledge from their minds in dealing with that case. He referred to the pitfalls and difficulties which beset publicans, no matter how carefully they conducted the business, and went on to say that Mrs. Spurrier had been in the habit of keeping open for passengers for the night boats for 20 years. He contended that the case of the boy was only introduced by the police to give colour and bolster up the case. He supposed the Superintendent had been spurred into a little activity by what he had seen in the paper with regard to his not having done his duty. They had, he said, had pretty good examples all over the county of police evidence. He admitted that the Superintendent was an excellent officer, and believed that he did do his duty. With regard to Mr. Tolputt, he urged that he was living at the Alexandra and had a perfect right to do so, and to have a friend there to see him.

He called Arthur Tolputt, who said he had had a room at Mrs. Spurrier`s permanently for about three years. Two years ago he exclusively lived there. Since then he had moved from place to place, but still kept his room. Sidney Wilson was a companion of his, and frequently slept with him. He invited him there on the 12^th November. Within the last three months he and Wilson had slept there two or three times a week. He still kept the room, and had slept there twice since the 12^th inst. On the 12^th November they went in about ten minutes to eleven. He took off his boots upstairs, and partly undressed. Wilson went upstairs with him, and they were going to bed. Hearing the people come in, they went downstairs again, and had a long talk with them. They were jockeys. The boy had nothing to drink in the house that he saw. He gave him a cigar. He and Wilson did not go to bed again. The men left about a quarter to three. He and Wilson went out. Before going out he asked Mrs. Spurrier for the key of the front door. She refused to let him have it, and said if they went out they should not come in again. Before he went to bed, he told the boots to go to his lodgings and get a clean shirt and necktie for the morning. They did not go to the boat.

By the Bench: I pay rent for the room all year round. I pay by the week.

By Mr. Bradley: I have lodgings at 10, Gloucester Terrace. The men left at a quarter past three. The boat started about half past five. They were going to wait at the harbour.

Sidney Wilson said he knew that Tolputt had a room at the Alexandra. On the 12^th he went there with the purpose of staying the night with him. It was a fact that they took off their boots to go to bed, but altered their minds and came down again.

By the Clerk: We both put our boots on again before we came down.

Frank Rogers, boots at the Alexandra, said when he left at a quarter past eleven both Tolputt and Wilson had their boots off. Tolputt told him to go to 10, Gloucester Terrace and get him a clean shirt for the morning. Mr. Tolputt had slept there three or four times a week sometimes.

Ada Helmore, daughter of Mrs. Spurrier, said she was staying at the Alexandra Hotel on the 12^th November. She knew Mr. Tolputt had a room there and that he came there on the 12^th with Wilson to sleep. She lit the candle. They took off their boots before they went upstairs. When the travellers came in Wilson and Tolputt came down again.

The defendant then gave evidence. She said Mr. Tolputt had had a room at her house for more than three years. Wilson very often stayed with him. On the 12^th November he went there for the purpose of staying. They took off their boots and went up to bed. They were quite sober – never more so. (Laughter) She always sat up for travellers by the late train. The police knew it was her custom. The boy had not been drinking. Mr. Tolputt gave him a cigar and it made him sick. She sent him to the front door with her daughter.

By the Clerk: Tolputt pays me 6s. a week. He generally pays every Saturday.

The Chairman (Mr. Poole) said: The Bench are unanimously of opinion that you are Guilty of the offence with which you are charged – of keeping your house open during prohibited hours. We shall on this occasion fine you £5 and 14s. costs, levyable by distress, or a month`s imprisonment. I should also add that we have very seriously considered whether it was not our duty to endorse your licence, but we thought this time we would not. Of course, you will perfectly understand that if you appear again before the magistrates your licence will be endorsed, and I do not need to tell you what the consequence of that will be.

Mr. Minter, having consulted with his client, said, with great respect to the Bench, he should appeal against the decision, and asked the Bench whether they would state the exact ground on which they had based their decision.

The Magistrates declined to do this, telling Mr. Minter he must take whatever course of action he thought fit.

Arthur Tolputt and Sidney Wilson were charged with being on licensed premises, the Alexandra Hotel, not being either lodgers or bona fide travellers, during prohibited hours.

Mr. Minter, before the case was gone into, again addressed the Bench. He said it was something very serious to find the Bench, if he was correct in his opinion, determining to disregard the evidence of five witnesses against whose respectability he knew nothing. Were they going to convict Mrs. Spurrier, those two young men, and Mrs. Spurrier`s daughter of having deliberately conspired together to commit perjury? If they were not prepared to say that, they must dismiss the case. He pointed out that if the did convict the defendants, to be consistent they must do the same next week, and warned the Superintendent that Mr. Tolputt would be at the Alexandra that night with Mr. Wilson, and he must summon them, and the Bench must go on convicting them ad infinitum. Surely they had no right to say a man should not live where he liked.

The evidence having been read over, the Chairman said the Bench, with regard to Mr. Tolputt, had doubts whether or not he was evading the law or whether he was a bona fide lodger, and, as they always did in cases of that kind, they gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed him. With regard to Wilson, they had not the slightest doubt that he was Guilty, and he would be fined 20s., and 12s. costs.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 22-2-1888

Local News

On Monday evening, while the Salvation Army was passing, the large lamp outside the new Prince Albert Hotel fell with a crash on the pavement. This is the second large lamp that has fallen in Folkestone; the last one was that outside the Alexandra Hotel about two years ago. For my part I shall carefully avoid walking under these things in future. It`s not worth the risk.