Bouverie Hotel 1890s

Holbein`s Visitors` List 1-1-1890

Quarter Sessions

Of course the invitations were not couched in precisely the words “To meet The Recorder”; legal folk love prolixity and mystification too well for that, but that was what it came to, anyhow, and so at eleven on Monday morning we assembled, from divers and diverse motives, at that grand old abomination, the Town Hall. The cry of “Silence” made whatever is indoors for “the welkin” ring, and then entered the mace-bearer, followed by the learned Recorder.

Henry Herbert Mealing was charged with stealing two shillings, the property of W.H. Molckenbuhr.

Mr. Hume Williams, instructed by Mr. John Minter, appeared for the defence, and asked that the case might be adjourned until the next Quarter Sessions. The defendant had only been committed on Saturday, and as the whole case would depend on the cross-examination of the prosecutor and his witnesses, it had been impossible to prepare the defence properly. Not only so, but there were material witnesses who were unable to be present that day, and he therefore asked that the case might be adjourned and the defendant again admitted to bail.

Mr. Watts, instructed by Mr. A.W. Watts, said that he could not agree to the adjournment.

The Recorder said that as all the parties resided in the borough he thought there had been sufficient time for the case to be prepared, and no sufficient reason had been shown why the trial should not proceed.

Mr. Hume Williams then asked that any other cases might be taken, so that he might have an opportunity to confer with his client, Mr. Minter.

The Recorder assented, but as the Grand Jury had not returned a bill in the third case, the Court sat in idleness for a considerable time.

The trial of Henry Mealing was then proceeded with, and occupied a long time, the witnesses for the prosecution being severely cross-examined by Mr. Hume Williams.

Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr, proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, was the first witness. He said that on the 10^th December he gave defendant a florin to get 1 lb. of steak and some vegetables. About a week after he found that the goods had not been paid for. When he came back he said the steak was a shilling. On the 12^th he left prosecutor`s employment without permission. He had since paid for thje steak and vegetables. In the course of a long and searching examination by Mr. Hume Williams, the prosecutor admitted that he had charged the defendant with stealing a sovereign, had searched him, and had afterwards given him a thrashing. The thrashing was not in consequence of his stealing, but because of the language used by the defendant. He would rather not say what the defendant said to him, but the Recorder remarked that they were not squeamish in that Court, and the exact words must be repeated. In the course of further cross-examination the witness contradicted himself in important parts of his evidence, admitting that the lad was not sent for the vegetables at the same time as the steak, in fact they were sent for earlier in the morning, but he “expected” him to pay for them out of the florin, although he did not tell him to do so. He did not ask the lad for the change when he said the steak was 1/-, or at any subsequent period, in fact he forgot all about it. At great length Mr. Hume Williams took the witness through the whole matter from beginning to end, and several times read from the evidence given before the Magistrates to show that the prosecutor told one story on Saturday and another on Monday. In the course of this examination it was elicited tht County Court summonses had been served on the prosecutor for money due to defendant`s  mother for washing done, and for damages for wrongful dismissal and assault. These summonses were served before the prosecutor applied to the Magistrates` Clerk for a summons against the defendant for stealing, but he maintained that one was not in consequence of the other. He entirely denied that he had received written characters with the defendant. He had taken him without a character because he knew his parents to be respectable.

Miss Charley, a barmaid in the employ of prosecutor, also gave evidence, and was closely cross-examined by Mr. Hume Williams.

Ernest Vincett, in the employ of Mr. Hann, butcher, and Mrs. Stapley gave evidence to the effect that the goods purchased at their respective shops were not paid for, but both admitted in cross-examination that articles were often purchased for the Bouverie Hotel without payment at the time.

The defence was a total denial of the charge, and the mother of the defendant gave evidence on his behalf. She swore that her son came home on the evening of the 11^th Dec. with his mouth and nose bleeding, and he complained of his head. In the morning she went with her son to see prosecutor, and he again struck her son, causing his nose to bleed. On the 17^th inst. she asked the prosecutor for her washing bill, but he refused to pay unless she deducted 2/- which he said her son had stolen. She said “Oh, dear, no. I fear nothing, I only ask will you pay me my money”. The prosecutor said “No”, and she then said “Very good. Good morning” and came away. She then took out a County Court summons against the prosecutor..

Mr. Hume Williams made a lengthy and eloquent appeal to the jury on behalf of the defendant, and Mr. Watts having replied, the Recorder summed up, directing the attention of the jury to the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutor. The speech of Mr. Hume Williams and the verdict of Not Guilty given by the jury were received with applause in Court.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-1-1890

Saturday, December 28^th: Before The Moyor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, J. Fitmess and J. Clarke Esqs.

Albert Henry Mealing, a respectably dressed boy, aged 17, was charged with stealing a sovereign from the Bouverie Hotel, on the 12^th of December, the money of his master, Wilhelm Heinrick Molckenbuhr; also with stealing 2s. on the 10^th December.

Mr. Watts prosecuted and Mr. Minter defended.

Mr. Minter asked the Bench to adjourn the case. The defendant had taken out a summons against the prosecutor for wages and assault, and it was not until after those summonses had been served that he entered the present charge. He asked that the boy`s case in the County Court might be heard first. He would be able to make a statement there, whereas his mouth in that court was closed.

The Bench declined to adjourn the case.

The prosecutor, a German, was then called and examined by Mr. Watts. On the 10^th December he sent the defendant, between twelve and one o`clock, to buy a beefsteak at Hann`s. He gave him a two shilling piece to pay for it, and to get some vegetables from Stapley`s as well, which he naturally expected him to pay for as well. When he returned he said the steak was one shilling, but witness did not say anything about the change. On the following Friday he left his service without permission. He ran away. Hann sent in the bill for the steak, and Mrs. Stapley also charged 5d. for the vegetables.

By Mr. Minter: The steak was required for a gentleman. Witness was playing billiards when the defendant told him. Did not know whether he was playing billiards with Mr. Catterall. Did not know who it was. He sent the boy out. When he returned he did not say “I have got the steak and the greens, but they are not paid for”. He did not ask for the change. It was neglect on witness`s part, he supposed. On the 12<sup>th</sup> he lost a sovereign from the bar. The boy was in the billiard room. Witness asked him where it was. He said he did not know anything about it. Told him he would send for the police, and that he would get imprisonment. He did not search the boy, nor did he punch his head and make his nose bleed. He made him turn his pockets out and made him pull off his boots. Witness had the barmaid in and tried to frighten the defendant. The boy`s mother came to his house the next morning and they had an altercation about the sovereign. Did not shake the boy in his mother`s presence. He would swear it. The boy`s mother came again and he told her he had stolen a two shilling piece. He refused to pay her bill for washing, and she had taken out a County Court summons. He did not refuse on account of the theft. It was for overcharges. The boy had also brought a County Court summons for assault and wages. He had received the County Court summons when he laid the information respecting the present charges. Did not recollect saying anything to anyone that he would not have issued the summons if he had not received the County Court summons. He would not swear it.

The prosecutor gave his evidence in a very guarded manner, and was very reluctant to answer several questions.

Mary Charley said she was barmaid in the employ of the last witness. She saw the prosecutor give the defendant 2s. to buy a steak. The boy left on Thursday evening. He went out without his cap and left the back door open. He ran away because the police were coming. Heard the charge made against him of stealing the sovereign. It was after that that the boy left.

By Mr. Minter: The gentleman asked her for the steak and she sent the boy up for the money. He got the steak and gave it to the servant. She heard him tell the prosecutor that it cost one shilling. She remembered the conversation about the sovereign. Witness placed the coin on the shelf in the bar about seven o`clock in the evening. They always kept the gold there. She missed it between half past seven and eight o`clock. Mr. Molckenbuhr first drew her attention to it. Witness was in the smoking room. There were several gentlemen there. It was close to the bar. She saw the boy turn his pockets out. Did not see the prosecutor strike him, nor did she notice his nose bleeding.

The witness here made a slip, and, in answer to a question by Mr. Minter, said she gave the boy the money herself. The prosecutor was standing near, and spoke one or two words to her by way of correction. Mr. Minter drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that the prosecutor was prompting the witness, and the Magistrates ordered him to stand back in the public gallery. The witness said she wished to correct the statement. She gave the boy one shilling to pay for her boots to be mended. They were tenpence, and she gave him one penny for fetching them.

Earnest Vinsett, a butcher, in the employ of Mr. Hann, butcher, Cheriton Road, said the defendant ordered the steak but did not pay for it.

Mrs. Stapley said the defendant fetched the vegetables at her shop, but did not pay for them. They came to 5d.

The Bench committed the defendant for trial on the charge of stealing the 2s. piece, and then went into the theft of a sovereign.

The evidence was very similar to that given in the last case. In answer to Mr. Minter, the prosecutor added that he was in the smoking room and the defendant was washing up glasses. He saw the defendant “looking at the sovereign”, and when he saw witness looking at him he went on with his work. He did not see the defendant take, nor could he find it when he searched him.

This charge was dismissed.

Quarter Sessions

Monday, December 30^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

A true bill was returned against Herbert Mealing, aged 17, for stealing 2s., the money of his master, W.H. Molckenbuhr, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, a German, on the 12^th December.

Mr. Watts (barrister), instructed by Mr. A.R. Watts, prosecuted, and Mr. Hume Williams, instructed by Mr. J. Minter, defended.

Mr. Williams asked the learned Recorder to allow the case to stand adjourned. The defendant was nit convicted until Saturday, and therefore he had had no opportunity of getting up his case. The whole of the defence would have to depend upon the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution.

Mr. Watts said he could not agree with that. He did not consider the adjournment was necessary.

The Recorder said he saw no grounds for the adjournment.

Mr. Williams remarked that he should have called a couple of witnesses, but he had not had time to do so. Only Sunday intervened, and it was impossible to get the case together.

The Recorder considered there were no substantial grounds why the trial should be postponed, and the case proceeded.

Mr. Watts addressed the Court on behalf of the prosecution, and called the prosecutor, Wilhelm Heinrick Molckenbuhr, who stated that the prisoner was formerly in his employ. On Tuesday, the 10^th of Dec. Witness sent him out to fetch a beefsteak from Mr. Hann, butcher, of Cheriton Road, and some vegetables from Mrs. Stapley. He gave him a 2s. piece. He said the steak was 1s. On Thursday, the 12^th of Dec. He left without his permission. He had subsequently paid the butcher 1s. for the steak, and Mrs. Stapley 5d. for the greengrocery.

By Mr. Williams: I am a German. I have had the Bouverie about twelve months. The boy left without my permission. I had charged him with stealing a sovereign, and on that occasion I thrashed him.

The Recorder: What did you thrash him for? – For a great insult towards me.

Mr. Williams: Did you make him turn out everything he had to see if he had the sovereign? – Yes.

And made him take off his shoes? – I did.

And thereupon I believe you thrashed him for stealing a sovereign? – No, not for stealing the sovereign.

Did you tell the defendant to go to Hell? – I did not, and I deny that he said to me “You had better make that long journey first”.

Well, what words did the boy use to make you thrash him? – I don`t wish to repeat them.

The Recorder: Answer the question.

Witness: I wish Mr. Watts to repeat them; he has them in writing.

The Recorder: You must answer the question.

The witness then repeated the language alleged to have been used by the defendant.

Cross-examination proceeding: I did not thrash him until ten minutes after I had charged him with stealing the sovereign.

You threatened him with criminal proceedings and told him you would ruin his character, did you not? – I told him his character would be ruined.

You did not find the sovereign on him? – No, I did not find it at all.

Last Saturday I believe you charged him with stealing the sovereign before the Magistrates – I did.

And did the Magistrates dismiss the charge? – Yes.

Was anything said about the two shilling piece at that time? – No.

Then after you had searched him and threatened him and thrashed him, I suppose you were not exactly surprised that he left your service – ran away, as you term it – without your permission? – The witness did not answer.

You did everything you could to frighten him, didn`t you? – Yes, I did.

And then he “ran away without your permission”? – Yes (Laughter).

The next morning the boy called on you with his mother? – Yes

She complained to you of striking her boy, and did you not say “And if he uses the same words again I will strike him again”? – No, I did not say so.

Now you be careful. The boy`s mother is in Court.

Did you not strike him in the presence of his mother, and make his nose bleed? – No, I did not. He was there about ten minutes altogether, and during that time I sent for his clothes and he went away.

On the 17^th – five days after – did the boy`s mother go back to you and ask you to pay the washing bill? – Yes. I did not see the boy. He was outside.

Did you then propose to pay the bill after deducting the 2s., which you allege that the boy had stolen? – No, I refused to pay unless she deducted the overcharge. I did not know he had stolen the 2s. then. I did not know until Hann sent in his bill for the steak.

Mr. Williams read the depositions given by the prosecutor on Saturday, which distinctly stated that he told the mother that he had discovered that the boy had stolen 2s.

The prosecutor denied having said so in his evidence.

Mr. Williams said there could be no doubt that he said it, for his evidence was taken word for word by the Clerk, read over to him, and signed by him as correct.

Mr. Williams: Did you pay the bill? – No; two days afterwards the woman issued a County Court summons for the amount. The defendant also issued a summons against me for wrongful dismissal, wages, and damages for assault. It was not until after I had received those summonses that I charged the boy with stealing the sovereign and the 2s.

At the time you allege that the defendant asked you for the money to pay for the steak you were playing billiards, were you not? – Yes; it was between twelve and one o`clock.

What did you say? – I do not know the words I used.

Are you in the habit of leaving the boy with 5s. in his pocket for change? – Yes.

At the time you say you gave him the 2s., had he 5s.? – No.

But he did have when you searched him for the sovereign, because you have told us that he gave it back to you? – Yes, he did.

Did you ask him for the 5s.? – No, he gave it to me without.

Was it not before you sent the boy for the steak that you sent him for the vegetables? – I do not recollect.

Had not the vegetables actually been delivered at the time? – I do not know.

Now, do you not know that they were actually being cooked at the time? – No, I do not know.

If the boy was to pay for the vegetables, why did you not tell him? – I meant him to pay when he fetched the steak.

Did you tell him when he fetched the steak to pay for the vegetables? – I expected him to.

You are fencing my question, sir. Do you understand, or won`t you? – I quite understand.

Well then, did you say so? – I do not recollect.

What were the words you used? – I said “Go to Hann, the butcher, and fetch a steak”.

You did not say anything about the vegetables? – No.

I suppose you are pretty accurate as to what occurred on this occasion? – I am.

Is this anything like what you said before the Magistrates on Saturday (reading the depositions): I told him to go and fetch a steak, and gave him 2s. to pay for it. I sent him for some vegetables as well, which naturally he had to pay for as well. I told him to go to Stapley`s for the vegetables. – The prosecutor was very reluctant to answer the question. After a great deal of pressing he said he had no wish to speak an untruth.

Mr. Williams pointed out the direct contradiction.

Were you present when the boy came back? – No; I went into the kitchen after it was in the frying pan.

What did the boy say? – He said the steak cost one shilling.

Did you ask him for the change? – No.

Why not? – No particular reason. I forgot, I suppose.

Did you ask him the same day? – No.

Did you forget about it when you made him turn his pockets out for the sovereign? – Yes.

The Recorder: You did not charge him with stealing the two shillings when you accused him of the sovereign? – No.

Mr. Williams: Did you have any written character with the boy when you employed him? – No; I never required them.

Have you ever seen the written character produced? – No; I swear it.

The Recorder declined to have them read as the witness denied ever having seen them.

Re-examined by Mr. Watts: I have no doubt I gave the 2s. to the defendant. I did not strike him a second time. I missed the sovereign in the early part of Tuesday evening.

May Charley, barmaid at the Bouverie, was then examined by Mr. Watts.

By Mr. Williams: There are three different entrances to the bar. I put the sovereign on the shelf in the bar, and it disappeared. I was present when the master gave the two shilling piece to the defendant. I am still in the prosecutor`s employment. I have been with him six weeks. I have never heard the prosecutor ask for the change, but I heard the boy tell him the steak cost one shilling.

Did you not order the vegetables between nine and ten? – I told him to go to the master.

And he said he did not like to because he would swear at him? – No; he did not say so. He said he did not like to disturb him when he was playing billiards. I told him he must as they had to be cooked.

Did you see the boy outside when his mother came on the 17^th? – Yes; I had a conversation with him. I told him I gave him a shilling for my boots. He paid for them and gave me 2d. change. I gave him a penny.

Before the Magistrates on Saturday you said first that you gave the boy 2s. to get the steak yourself, didn`t you? – Yes, but I was muddled.

Muddled! But you are supposed to be accurate. Your master was standing beside you, wasn`t he, and he prompted you, and then you corrected yourself? – Yes.

The Magistrates ordered him to stand away, didn`t they? – Yes.

Earnest Vinsitt, an assistant to Mr. Hann, butcher, stated that the defendant did not pay for the steak, and in answer to Mr. Williams stated that they had a running account against the prosecutor. The defendant fetched it about one o`clock.

Phoebe Stapley said she sold the vegetables to the defendant. He did not pay for them.

By Mr. Williams: The order was so small that she did not book it. She used to supply the prosecutor with small things. The prosecutor came in for some things and she told him there was five pence owing. She served the defendant with a quart of apples and two cabbages. It was between ten and eleven in the morning.

This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Williams called the lad`s mother, Emma Flack. Her son had been in the employ of Captain Vesey; also in the employ of Mr. Franklin, but she had been unable to get them there that day as witnesses, as they were away. She had tried to secure their presence. She could produce written characters. She remembered her son coming home on the 11<sup>th</sup> instant. His mouth was bleeding, his face was swollen, and his pockets were turned inside out. He complained of his head. The next day she went with him to see the prosecutor, and asked him why he had struck her boy. He replied “I will do it again”. Witness said “Hit me; don`t hit him”. The prosecutor then stretched his hand over her left shoulder and struck the boy. He hit him on the nose and made it bleed. He said nothing about the 2s. piece then. On the 17^th instant witness went to him again with her washing bill. She asked him to count the things while she waited, as he had made so many mistakes before. He counted them. Witness gave him the bill and asked him to pay it. He then pulled out a piece of paper and said “I have discovered that your beautiful boy has robbed me of 2s., and I shal stop it out of your bill”. Witness remarked “I fear nothing”. He wanted to pay the bill and deduct the 2s., but witness would not take it, and left the house. It was then that she took out a County Court summons.

By Mr. Watts: It was not on account of the alteration in the price that the prosecutor refused to pay. He struck the boy in her presence.

Mr. Williams then made a lengthy and eloquent speech for the defence. He contended that the 2s. piece was never given, and put considerable stress upon the several contradictory statements made by the prosecutor and Miss Charley. It was highly improbable, he said, that the defendant, if he intended to have stolen the money, should have gone up to the prosecutor and said “The steak cost one shilling”. He would naturally have avoided any conversation about it all. By the manner in which the prosecutor had given his evidence, and the statements which he had made, the jury could see what kind of a man they had to deal with. The lad had borne an unblemished character, and it would be scandalous to convict him on such a trumped-up charge brought by a German hotel keeper.

Mr. Williams was loudly applauded upon concluding his speech, but it was instantly suppressed.

Mr. Watts then addressed the jury on behalf of the prosecution.

In summing up, the Recorder dealt very closely with the contradictions in the prosecutor`s statements. He said it might have been that, as he was a foreigner, he did not quite understand the questions, but of course that would be for the jury to consider.

The jury at once returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the defendant was discharged amidst much applause in Court.

Folkestone Express 4-1-1890

Saturday, December 28^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, J. Fitness and J. Clarke Esqs.

Wm. Henry Mealing was charged with stealing 2s., the property of his master, Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr, of the Bouverie Hotel. Mr. Watts appeared for the prosecutor, and the boy was defended by Mr. Minter.

After the charge had been read, Mr. Minter said: I don`t know whether this would be a convenient time to make an application for the case to be adjourned on the ground that the boy has already commenced an action against his master, which will be heard in the County Court next month, and this summons would not have been issued if the action had not been commenced to recover wages and damages for an assault committed by his master upon the defendant in a dispute which arose on the charge. I suggest, of course, that these proceedings are taken with a view to quash the action which is pending. Of course the boy`s mouth is closed in a criminal action, but in the County Court he can give his evidence, and it is very unfair that criminal proceedings should be taken after the institution of civil proceedings by the boy, which will be heard on the 14^th of January. It would be monstrously unfair that these proceedings should go on, and it is only right that I should ask that they should be adjourned until after the hearing.

The Mayor asked what relation the matter of the sovereign bore to that case.

Mr. Minter: The charge of stealing a sovereign is another charge. I have not the slightest objection to the evidence being taken now on the part of the prosecution. But if I stood by and did not make the application, you might say “You ought to have made it before”. If the Bench say they would rather hear the case, and then consider my application, I have not the slightest objection.

Mr. Watts: I would submit to the Bench –

Mr. Minter: You will see that the summons was not taken out until eleven days after the offence is said to have been committed, and not until after the County Court summons was issued.

Mr. Watts: It was issued as soon as it was discovered that the money had not been paid. The prosecutor did not discover it until the bill came in for the meat. Then he knew the money had not been paid.

The Mayor said the Bench decided to hear the case.

Prosecutor said: I am the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel. The defendant was in my employ. On Tuesday, the twelfth of the present month, between twelve and one, I sent the boy out to make some purchases. He was to buy a beefsteak, and I gave him a 2s. piece to pay for it. I sent him for some vegetables as well. I told him to go for the steak to Mr. Hann`s, and to Mrs. Stapley`s for the vegetables. I saw him after he came back, and he told me the steak was a shilling. I did not ask him anything about the change.

Mr. Minter (to Mr. Watts): Don`t you think it would be as well to ask him what he did say instead of telling him what he did not say?

Prosecutor continued: On Thursday the boy left my house without my permission. I had sent for the police, and I suppose he took the opportunity of running away. Afterwards I received a bill for the shilling for the steak.

Mr. Bradley told the prosecutor he must produce the bill.

Prosecutor: I have the bill at home. But I have a witness to prove that he did not pay. I have since paid it. I have been charged 5d. by Mrs. Stapley for the greengrocery, and I have paid that. The greengrocery was supplied on the same day as the steak.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: What day did you pay for the steak? – Just a week after, I think.

Don`t think, please. Tell us. – I did not take any note of it when I went to pay for the steak.

Who was the steak required for? – For a gentleman.

How did you know the steak was required for a gentleman? – A getleman ordered it, and I naturally sent for it.

Did he order it of you? – He did not.

Who came and told you? Wasn`t it the boy himself? – Yes.

Where were you? – In the billiard room.

Who were you playing with? – I can`t recollect.

Whoever it was, when you took the 2s. piece out of your pocket and gave it to the boy he would have seen it? – No, he would not have seen it. I did not give the 2s. piece in the billiard room. I gave it to him in the bar.

Now, be careful, sir – I am careful. I have a clear conscience.

Never mind your conscience. We shall see about that presently. Didn`t the boy come in to the billiard room and say “A gentleman wants a steak, sir. What am I to do?”? – Yes.

Didn`t you say “Then get it”? – Fetch it, I said.

Didn`t the boy immediately leave the room, and didn`t you continue the game of billiards? – No, I left the room immediately after.

Following the boy? – Yes.

Did you see the boy bring the steak back? – No, the steak was bought and the boy told me it was a shilling.

Didn`t the boy say “I have got the steak and greens, but they are not paid for”? – No. I gave the boy 2s. I must say –

Don`t make any observations, please, but simply answer the question. You say the boy came and told you the steak cost 1s. Why didn`t you ask him for the change? – It was neglect on my side, I dare say.

You never did ask him for it, did you? – No.

On the 12^th, on Thursday, you say you think you lost a sovereign from the bar? – I am sure.

After enquiry, did you send for the boy, who was in the kitchen having his dinner or something, and ask him where the sovereign was? – The boy was in the billiard room at the time.

Did you send for him and ask him where the sovereign was? – I called him myself.

Did you ask him where the sovereign was? – Yes.

Did he say he knew nothing about the sovereign? – Yes.

Did you tell him if he did not give the sovereign up you would send for the police and a lawyer and give him three months imprisonment and ruin his character? – I did not say three months.

What did you say? Did you say you would send for the police, and didn`t you say something about three months imprisonment? – I don`t know. I might have said he`d get imprisonment.

Did you take hold of the boy and turn his pockets out, and did you punch his head and make his nose bleed? – No, that came later on.

Did you search him? – No.

Did you make him turn his pockets out? – Yes.

Don`t you call that searching him? Didn`t you have a barmaid in, and did she search him? – No.

Not in your presence? – No.

Did you strike the boy? – Yes, but not for stealing the sovereign.

When you thought the boy had stolen the sovereign, why didn`t you ask him for the change out of the 2s.? – I didn`t know it had not been paid.

Did the boy`s mother come to you next morning? – Yes.

Did you then have an altercation with her about the sovereign? – I told her of it.

Did the boy deny it in his mother`s presence, and in yours, that he had anything to do with the sovereign? – I don`t know.

That is you answer, is it? – I don`t remember. He denied it over and over again when I accused him.

Did you, in his mother`s presence, take hold of the boy and again strike him? – No.

You swear that? – I swear it.

This was on the 12^th. You did nothing between then and the next time the mother came to you? – I don`t think I ever saw her afterwards.

Didn`t she come on the 17^th with the boy and bring some clothes? – Yes.

Didn`t she on the 17^th December bring the washing and ask you to examine it and see that you had got your clothes back properly? – She came by herself.

Was the boy outside? – I don`t know.

Hadn`t she told you so? – Not to my knowledge.

That is all you will say. Didn`t you say “Your beautiful son has robbed me of 2s. as well as the sovereign”, and didn`t the barmaid say “It wasn`t a 2s. piece, it was a shilling I gave him”? – No, that is a lie, whoever said it.

Did you not hear the barmaid say she gave him a shilling, or that she said it was a shilling? – No.

Did you owe the woman something, and refused to pay her? – Yes, and I was entitled to refuse to pay on account of an overcharge.

I believe she has issued a County Court summons for the money? – Yes.

And the boy has brought an action against you in the County Court for assault and for wages? – I don`t know that that has anything to do with it.

Mary Charley, barmaid in the service of the prosecutor, said she remembered her employer giving the defendant a 2s. piece to go and fetch some steak.

During the examination by Mr. Watts, Mr. Minter objected several times to statements being put into her mouth. She knew very little about the charge with regard to the 2s.

Ernest Vincent said on Tuesday, the 10^th of December, the defendant went to his master`s shop for a piece of fillet steak. The ,eat was 1s. He said it was for Mr. Molckenbuhr, at the Bouverie Hotel. He did not pay for it. Witness could not say who paid for it.

Phoebe Stapley, a greengrocer in Cheriton Road, said the defendant went to her shop to buy some greens some time last month. She could not say the date. He bought a quart of apples and two savoys, and the price was 5d. He said they were for his governor at the “Albion”. He did not pay for them. Mr. Molckenbuhr had paid her. Mr. Molckenbuhr was in the habit of sending for little things.

Mr. Minter again asked the Bench to allow the case to stand over until after the hearing of the County Court action. There was a clear admission the summons was not applied for until after the action was brought, and the prosecutor would not say that that he did not say – that the action would not have been taken if the County Court action had not been brought. It would be monstrously unfair to decide a case of a criminal character when a County Court action was pending. It would be an injustice to him in his action which was to be tried to decide the case when his mouth was closed.

Mr. Bradley said it was generally the other way about – for civil actions to be adjourned when criminal actions were pending. The Magistrates considered there was a prima facie case to answer.

Mr. Minter: Then we shall plead Not Guilty, and certainly not allow it to be tried here.

The defendant was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

The second charge of stealing a sovereign was then proceeded with.

Prosecutor said: On Thursday, the 12^th, about eight o`clock in the evening, he was in the smoking room leading out of the bar, He saw a sovereign on the shelf in the bar. He sent the defendant into the bar to wash glasses. He was there ten minutes. Nobody else was in the bar during that time. He saw the boy watching the sovereign, staring at the place where the sovereign was. He could not see into the bar without turning round, and he did turn round. When the boy saw him watching the sovereign he turned away. When the boy had finished the glasses he saw him go. About ten minutes to eight he missed the sovereign. He did not think the barmaid had been in the bar. He called the boy from the billiard room into the office, and said “What have you done with the sovereign? You had better give me the sovereign back, or I shall have you imprisoned”. He told the boy to take everything out of his pockets and undo his boots, and he did so. Witness made a search at once after the sovereign was missed. Only 5s. was found in the boy`s pockets. Witness had previously given the boy 5s. to give change. He sent for the police, thinking that the boy would confess that he had taken the sovereign. The boy sat in the office for the policeman to come. Witness waited with him for some time, but he was called away for a moment, and the boy ran away out of the back door.

By Mr. Minter: There was nobody in the bar when I called the boy down. There are four entrances to the bar – two lead to the mews, and the others into the street. The barmaid went into the bar as soon as I called her attention to the missing sovereign. I had not sat in the bar on purpose to watch him. He was staring at the sovereign. I thought it was rather peculiar for him to be watching a sovereign. When he saw me he went on with his work. I should have heard the bar door if anyone had come in. I asked the barmaid what had become of the sovereign. The barmaid would sit in the smoking room if there was no-one in the bar. There was nobody in the bar for ten minutes after the boy had left. The bot went from the bar to the kitchen, and from there to the billiard room. When I called the boy I did everything I could to frighten him. I told him he would lose his character and have some time of imprisonment. He said he did not steal it. I did strike him. That has nothing to do with this case. It was for a different offence – handing the 5s. to me with some words so dirty that I don`t like to repeat them. Mr. Watts has them in writing.

By Mr. Bradley: The shelf is above the bar – about four feet from the bar. The boy could see the sovereign quite plain. The shelf is 5 ft. or 6 ft, from the doorway. I always put money there for change.

Mary Charley, barmaid at the Bouverie, said on Thursday fortnight she was sitting in the smoking room about eight o`clock. She had previously placed a sovereign on a little shelf where they kept spirits. Defendant was in the bar washing glasses. She could not see him from where she sat. Mr. Molckenbuhr asked her where the sovereign was gone. She looked for it, but could not find it. She was present when Mr. Molckenbuhr accused defendant with stealing the sovereign after he was called from the bar. While the servant was gone for the police, defendant made off, leaving his hat on the kitchen table.

By Mr. Minter: I had left the bar about ten minutes before the boy was sent for to wash glasses. I could not see if anyone came into the bar, but I could hear. There were two or three in the smoking room with Mr. Molckenbuhr. I was sitting there talking. Mr. Molckenbuhr is not married. The people from the Mews use the bar a great deal, and also all the “hangers on”. I heard Mr. Molckenbuhr try to frighten the boy, and saw him turn his pockets out. Afterwards I talked to the boy and told him he had better give the sovereign up. He declared to me he hadn`t got it, and hadn`t touched it.

By Mr. Bradley: About 20 minutes or half an hour elapsed from the time I put the sovereign up till I missed it.

In reply to Mr. Minter, prosecutor said the defendant had on some occasions found money on the floor and taken it to him.

The Bench considered the case was not proved, and therefore dismissed it.

Mr. Fitness thought it was very wrong to leave money about in that way.

Quarter Sessions

Monday. December 30^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Thr Grand Jury returned a true bill against Herbert Henry Mealing, who was committed for trial on Saturday, and the particulars of which are reported under the police court news today.

Mr. Hume Williams said he appeared for the defence, and applied to the Recorder to allow the case to stand over until the next sessions. He was instructed that the charge was a most unfounded one, the boy had hitherto borne an irreproachable character, and as his whole future depended upon the issue, he thought the application was a most reasonable one. The solicitor who instructed him was only consulted on Friday, and there were two witnesses for the defence who could not attend.

The Recorder said he could see no ground upon which he ought to allow the case to be postponed.

Mr. Williams urged that there was another charge of stealing a sovereign and that was dismissed, and he should contend that this case was similar in character. The prosecutor would be cross-examined at very great length.

The Recorder said he saw by the depositions that the cross-examination before the Magistrates extended to two pages. He hoped it would not be extended beyond that. He declined to accede to the application.

Mr. Williams then applied for the case to be taken last, in order that he might peruse the depositions, of which he had not obtained a copy, and this was assented to by the Recorder.

Wilhelm Heinrich Molckenbuhr, the prosecutor, repeated the evidence given by him on Saturday.

In answer to Mr. Williams, the prosecutor said he had had the Bouverie Hotel nearly a year. He admitted that he thrashed the boy ten minutes after he accused him of stealing the sovereign, but not for stealing it.

By the Recorder: I thrashed him for a great insult towards me.

By Mr. Williams: I made him turn out his pockets and take off his shoes. I did not tell the boy to “go to h---“. He did not say “You had better take that long journey first”. I don`t like to repeat what he said to me.

The Recorder: We are not squeamish here, Mr. Molckenbuhr.

Prosecutor said the prisoner returned him 5s. he had given him to give change, and repeated an indecent expression  used by the boy. He continued: I told the boy I would give him in charge of the police, and that his character would be ruined. I made him take off his boots, but did not find the sovereign. I charged the boy before the Magistrates with stealing the sovereign, and the Magistrates dismissed the summons. After I had searched him, accused him, and thrashed him, he ran away. He was afraid of the police. I had done everything I could to frighten him. Next morning he came back with his mother. The mother complained that I struck him, and I told her if he used the same words again I would strike him again. He was ten minutes before he went away with his mother. He was waiting for his clothes. On the 17^th the boy`s mother came to me and wanted to be paid for washing for the hotel. I did not see the boy then. I did not propose to deduct the 2s. from the bill. I did not then know that he had had it. I refused to pay the bill unless she deducted the overcharge, about 11d. I said that on Saturday. I said I had another proof of the boy`s dishonesty, because I found out that the butcher`s bill had not been paid.

Mr. Williams read the prisoner`s depositions, in which it appeared the prosecutor said he had another proof of the boy`s dishonesty in the 2s. piece.

Prosecutor: I did not tell his mother he had stolen the 2s. piece, because I gave it to him. I told his mother I had another proof of his dishonesty. I knew it at that time, but I did not want to deduct the 2s. from the bill. I have not paid the bill on account of an overcharge of, I think, 11d. Two days after that the lady issued a County Court summons against me for the amount of her bill,, and the boy issued a summons against me for wrongful dismissal, the amount of his wages, and for damages for assault. A day or two after, I issued the summons against the boy, charging him with stealing the 2s. piece and the sovereign. I did not think it would be a good thing, as the County Court case would be heard on the 14^th January. I did not know it until I took out the summons. I do not know that he had 5s. in his pocket when he was sent for the steak. Bery likely it was earlier in the morning that he fetched the vegetables. I will not swear that the vegetable had not come in, or that some of the apples were at the time being cooked in the kitchen. I gave him the order for the vegetables before I sent him for the steak, no doubt. It had nothing to do with the steak. I expected him to pay for the vegetables out of the 2s. I can`t say whether I told him to pay for the vegetables. When I gave him the 2s. I said “Go to Hann and get a steak for one” I charge him with stealing the 2s., and not paying for the steak and the vegetables.

Mr. William read from the depositions “I told him to go and fetch a steak from Hann`s the butcher, and gave him a 2s. piece to pay for it. I sent him for some vegetables as well, which, naturally, he had to pay for as well”.

Prosecutor: I had no intention of inducing the Magistrates to believe I sent him for the meat and the vegetables at the same time, and that he was to pay for them out of the 2s. piece. I was not in the kitchen when the boy came back with the meat. I was there soon after. The boy was there, and said the steak had cost 1s. I did not ask him for the change. I had forgotten it, I suppose. I forgot all about it when I charged the boy with stealing a sovereign and turned out his pockets. The boy gave me the 5s. change willingly. I expected him to pay for the vegetables out of the 2s. I never asked him for any change. I had no written character with the boy when I took him.

Written characters were handed to the prosecutor, who said he never saw them.

In re-examination by Mr. Watts, prosecutor said: I have no doubt that I gave the boy the 2s. piece.

Mary Charley, barmaid in the service of the prosecutor, said the prisoner was given a 2s. piece by Mr. Molckenbuhr, to buy some meat for a gentleman. She was not present when he came back. She remembered on Thursday, the 12^th, there was some trouble about a sovereign, and the boy ran away.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hume Williams, she said: The boy was searched before he ran away. I did not search him. I had put a sovereign on the shelf, and it disappeared. I was there when the 2s. piece was given to the boy. I have been in the employ of Mr. Molckenbuhr five weeks. I never heard my master ask for the change out of the 2s. The boy gave the steak to the servant in the kitchen, and said it cost a shilling. Between nine and ten in the morning I sent the boy to his master about some apples and vegetables. He did not say he did not like to go because the master would swear at him. He said he didn`t like to go when the master was playing billiards. Nothing was said to me about swearing. The boy usually had 5s. given him for change in the billiard room. I saw the boy outside on the 17^th, when he came with his mother. I had a conversation with him. I had given him a shilling to pay for some boots being mended. The boots were 10d., and I gave the boy a penny for fetching them.

Ernest Vincent, a butcher in the service of Mr. Hann, who served the steak, in answer to Mr. Williams, said sometimes things for the Bouverie Hotel were paid for and sometimes not.

Mary Stapley repeated the evidence given by her on Saturday. In reply to Mr. Williams, she said it was such a small matter that she did not put it down in the books. She was in the habit of supplying small things to the Bouverie Hotel. She did not send in a bill at once. Mr. Molckenbuhr went into the shop and she told him 5d. was owing.

Emma Flack, the boy`s mother, living at Primrose Laundry, said he was her son by her first husband. The boy had been in the employ of Capt, Vesey for six months, and in Mr. Franklin`s employ six months. She had endeavoured to get his employers to attend and tell the court what was the boy`s character. When the boy went home on the 12<sup>th</sup> his mouth was bleeding, his face swollen, and his pockets turned inside out. Next morning she went to see Mr. Molckenbuhr, and asked why he had struck her boy. He said he would do it again. She said “Don`t hit him – hit me”. He threw his hand over her shoulder and struck the boy and made his nose bleed. On the 17^th she went to see the prosecutor with her bill for washing. She asked him to count the things, as he had made so many mistakes before. He took a bill out of his pocket and he said “Your beautiful son has robbed me of 2s”. She said “Oh, indeed. I fear nothing”. He said “I shall stop it out of your washing bill”. She said “Oh, dear, no” and walked away, and had since issued a County Court summons for the washing bill.

Mary Charley was re-called and said when the boy ran away she did not see that his face was bleeding.

Mr. Hume Williams then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, Mr. Watts replied briefly, and the Recorder, having lucidly laid the case in all it`s bearings before the jury, the jury consulted for a few minutes and returned a verdict of Not Guilty, which was received with applause, immediately suppressed.

Folkestone News 4-1-1890

Quarter Sessions

Monday, December 30^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Herbert Henry Mealing, aged 17, was indicted for stealing 2s., the property of his master, Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr.

Mr. Hume Williams, who appeared for the defence, said he had an application to make to the Court. Prisoner, as the learned Recorder could see, was a boy, and the case was only remitted to that Court on Saturday last. He thought he should have to cross-examine the prosecutor at length, and he believed – and he hoped the learned Recorder would agree with him – that a very great deal would depend on the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution. He was instructed that this was a most unfounded charge. The boy had hitherto borne a most unimpeachable character, and he was led to believe that he would still do so at the termination of the hearing of the case. But the application he would make was that the case might be allowed to stand over until the next Sessions. His client had done his utmost, in the short time they had had at their disposal, to lay before him the whole of the facts of the case, but he felt it to be impossible to do justice to the boy in so short a time. He did not think he was saying too much when he said that he believed nearly the boy`s whole future depended upon the result of the case, and he thought that under the circumstances the learned Recorder would decide fit to accede to the application.

Mr. Watts, who represented the prosecution, said he agreed with the application, but he could not agree that the case depended upon the cross-examination of the prosecutor. He would leave the application entirely in the hands of the learned Recorder.

Mr. Hume Williams further said that if the case were adjourned he should be able to call two witnesses, whose attendance at present he was unable to obtain.

The Recorder said he saw no ground for acceding to the application. The prosecution were prepared with their case, and he should have thought the solicitor for the defence could have perfectly well prepared counsel for the examination of witnesses in the time at his disposal. He could find in looking through the depositions no ground for asking that the trial should be adjourned. The trial must proceed.

Mr. Hume Williams said he must frankly own up that the witnesses for the defence were not present.

Prisoner was then charged, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Watts having made a statement as to the facts of the case to the jury, called Wilhelm Heinrich Molckenbuhr, who stated that he was the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel. The prisoner had been in his service for about three weeks on the 10^th December. On that day he sent him out with a 2s. piece to fetch some beef steak from Hann, the butcher, in Cheriton Road. He was also told to get some vegetables from Mrs. Stapley. On the lad`s return he said the steak was 1s. On Thursday, the 12^th, the prisoner left his employ without permission. Witness subsequently paid the butcher 1s. for the same piece of steak, and Mrs. Stapley 5d. for the greengrocery.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hume Williams: He had had the Bouverie Hotel for nearly a year. He had charged the lad with stealing a sovereign before he left, and on charging him with doing that he took him into the room and threashed him, but not for stealing the sovereign.

By the Recorder: He thrashed the boy for insulting him.

Cross-examination continued: He searched the prisoner to find out if he had the sovereign upon him.He denied the theft. He did not tell the boy to “go to ----“, nor did the boy say he (witness) had better take that long journey first; that was not why he thrashed him. The boy gave him 5s. that he had in his pocket for change, and made use of an indecent expression at the same time. That was about ten minutes after witness had searched him. Witness told prisoner that his character would be ruined, but he did not say he would ruin him. He did not find the sovereign. He charged the lad with stealing the sovereign, and on Saturday the Magistrates dismissed the charge. The boy left his employ because he was afraid of the police. He came back next morning with his mother; witness told the mother in his presence of the theft. She complained of his having struck the boy, and je said he would do it again if he used the same language again. He did not, however, strike the lad so as to make his nose bleed – he did not strike him at all. On the 17^th the boy`s mother came and asked for payment of a bill for washing. Witness did not see prisoner that time. He did not propose to deduct the 2s. that he alleged the boy had stolen. He refused to pay the bill unless the woman deducted an overcharge of 11d. He said that before the Magistrates on Saturday; he would swear it. Two days after the interview with the boy`s mother she issued a County Court summons against him for the amount of the bill, and the boy also summoned him for wrongful dismissal, wages, and assault. A day or two later witness charged the boy with the theft of the 2s. piece and the sovereign. On those summonses it appeared that the case would be heard on the 14^th Jan. He had then no idea that his case would come up on Saturday, before the County Court summonses were heard. It did not matter to him when it was heard. When he gave the boy the 2s. piece he did not know that the prisoner had 5s. in his pocket. He used to give the boy some change in the evening. Prisoner did not fetch the vegetables at the same time; he did not quite recollect whether the boy fetched the vegetables earlier in the morning. He did not know that some of the apples he had fetched were at the time he gave him the 2s. piece cooking in the kitchen. The vegetables were for a different purpose altogether. He expected the boy to pay for the vegetables out of the 2s. piece; he could not swear as to whether he told him to do so. Witness went into the kitchen when the steak was on the fire. The boy said it had cost 1s; he did not ask him for the change, he forgot it. He had forgotten it when he charged the boy with stealing a sovereign. He took the boy into his employ without any character; he knew his parents. The written characters (produced) were not shown to him. He never saw them and never enquired after them.

Re-examined by Mr. Watts: He had no doubt that he gave the boy the 2s. piece. When he charged the prisoner he did not know when the case was coming on, nor did he care.

Mary Charley, barmaid at the Bouverie Hotel, deposed that after being charged with stealing a sovereign the boy ran away.

Cross-examined: The boy had been thrashed and searched before he left. Witness had put the sovereign on the shelf in the bar. She was the only other one present when the 2s. piece was given to the boy. She had been in Mr. Molckenbuhr`s employ about five weeks. She never heard him ask for the change out of the 2s. piece. She heard the boy say that the steak had cost 1s. Before then she had told the boy to go and ask the master for some apples and vegetables; he said he did not like to disturb the master while he was playing billiards. She knew as a fact that the master was in the habit of an evening of giving the boy 5s. change. She never thought of asking him what had become of the change out of the 2s. piece.

Ernest Vincett, in the employ of Mr. Hann, butcher, Cheriton Road, deposed that on the 10^th December the prisoner came into the shop and bought a piece of steak for the Bouverie Hotel. It cost 1s. but he did not pay for it.

Cross-examined: Things were constantly being ordered for the Bouverie Hotel, and sometimes they were paid for at the time, and sometimes not.

Phoebe Stapley, greengrocer, Cheriton Road, stated that the prisoner came to her shop and bought some apples and cabbages. He said they were for the Bouverie Hotel, and did not pay for them. It was the only time he had been to the shop. She could not tell what day it was.

Cross-examined: She thought it was last month, but she was not sure. She was in the habit of supplying the Bouverie Hotel with small things. This particular item was not entered in a book. Mr. Molckenbuhr subsequently came into the shop, and she then told him there was 5d. owing, and he paid it forthwith.

Mrs. Flack, the mother of the prisoner, 2, Primrose Laundry, stated that her son had been with Capt. Vezey for six months. He was subsequently in the several employs of Mr. Franklin, Mr. Payer, and Mr. Bartholomew. She had done the best she could to get the gentlemen there in whose employment her son had been, but they could not come. On the night of the 10^th December her son came home with his face swollen and bleeding, and his pockets turned out. She took him next day to the Bouverie Hotel, and the prosecutor said he would strike him again, and did so on the nose, making it bleed. On the 17^th she took prosecutor`s washing home, and asked him to count it, as he had made so many mistakes before. He took the bill out of his pocket and said “Your beautiful son has robbed me of 2s.”, and added that he should stop it out of the amount owing for the washing. As she would not agree to that he refused to pay it, and she therefore issued a County Court summons for that amount.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watts: It was not on account of an alteration of his washing bill that prosecutor refused to pay it. She would swear that the prosecutor struck the boy in her presence.

Miss Charley, re-called, in answer to Mr. Watts, said when the boy left the Bouverie his face was not bleeding. If it had been she should have been able to see it.

Counsel for the defence and prosecution having addressed the jury, the learned Recorder summed up, and after a short interval the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

This finding was received with some applause in Court, which was instantly suppressed.

Folkestone Chronicle 18-1-1890

County Court

Tuesday, January 14^th: Before W.L. Selfe Esq.

Herbert Henry Mealing v William Henri Molckenbuhr: This was a claim for 14s. for a month`s wages, the plaintiff having been dismissed from the defendant`s services as boy at the Bouverie Hotel, without proper notice. There was also a claim for damages for an assault committed upon the plaintiff by the defendant.

Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A.E. Watts for the defendant.

Mr. Minter having stated the case, the plaintiff was sworn and stated that he was 17 years of age and lived at Cheriton. He was errand boy to the defendant and got 3s. 6d. a week. On December 11^th defendant called witness into his office, and, after making a charge against him of stealing a sovereign, searched him and made him take off his boots. He turned witness`s pockets out and said he would fetch a policemen and a lawyer and ruin his character for life. Witness denied all knowledge of the sovereign. He gave him back 5s., which he had for change. Witness said “Take this; perhaps you will say I have stolen that”. He struck witness on the nose and knocked his head against the table and a cupboard. Witness`s nose bled, and he ran out of the house. He went home to his mother. Mrs. Wilson saw the state he was in. On the 12^th he went to the Bouverie Hotel with his mother. The defendant struck him again. He had never used any bad language to the defendant. He went there again on the 17^th with his mother to take the washing home.

By Mr. Watts: The defendant had never given him notice to leave. The defendant did not try to push his hat off on the 12^th. He deliberately struck him and made his nose bleed.

Emma Flack, plaintiff`s mother, said on the 11<sup>th</sup> of December the boy came home at 20 to 10 in the evening. His mouth and nose were bleeding, his face was swollen, his pockets were inside out, shoes unlaced and his clothes were disarranged. Mrs. Wilson saw him also. Witness went to the defendant to ask for an explanation, and he said “What about my sovereign? Never mind about the boy. I`ll do it again”. He then struck over witness`s shoulder and hit the boy again, making his nose bleed. When witness took the washing home on the 17^th the defendant made some statement about a 2s. piece, and said he would deduct it from her bill, but witness would not allow it.

Mrs. Wilson, wife of a labourer, living at Cheriton, said she saw the boy after the assault. His lips were swollen and there was dry blood at the corner of the mouth.

Mr. Watts having addressed the Court, defendant was called, and said the boy had never asked for his wages. Witness hit him on the night he ran away. It was untrue that he knocked his head against the table. He was sitting on the armchair and he might have boxed his ears once or twice. He saw a few drops of blood come from his nose. Witness did not strike him when he came the next morning.

Mr. Minter cross-examined at some length, but the witness declined to answer most of the questions. He admitted that he gave the boy a thrashing, but refused to say what the thrashing consisted of. He further said that he only knocked off his hat on the 12^th, and that was because the boy used indecent language to him.

Mary Charley, in the defendant`s employ as barmaid, and Florence Rindell, the cook, also gave evidence.

Mr. Minter having delivered a very able speech, His honour proceeded to sum up. He said the law did not justify the defendant taking the law into his own hands. The assault did not appear to be disputed. The defendant had no right to compel the boy to submit to a search. If the boy did use offensive language to the defendant there could be very little wonder in it, for the provocation appeared to be all on the side of defendant. He was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to 14s. for wages, and £5 damages for the assault. Costs were also allowed.

Folkestone Express 18-1-1890

County Court

Tuesday, January 14^th: Before Judge Selfe.

Herbert Henry Mealing v W.H. Molckenbuhr: This was a claim for five weeks` wages at 3s. 6d. and £10 for damages for an assault.

Mr. Minter represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Watts the defendant. The facts in the case were brought out in evidence when the plaintiff was charged by defendant with stealing a 2s. piece and a sovereign. The Magistrates dismissed the latter charge, and in the former the jury at the Quarter Sessions dismissed the boy.

Mr. Minter said the defendant, having thrashed the boy, and done all he could to make him confess he had stolen the sovereign, sent for a policeman, and the boy ran home to his mother. The defendant had admitted on oath that he did thrash the boy, but said he did it because he used a disgusting expression. This the boy would deny. Defendant had paid 12s. 6d. into court, being three weeks and four days` wages, leaving a balance of 5s.

Plaintiff said he was 17. His mother`s name was Flack. He was in the employ of defendant at 3s. 6d. a week. On the 11<sup>th</sup> December defendant called him into the office, after charging him with stealing a sovereign in the bar. He searched him, made him take off his boots, turned his pockets inside out, and said he should fetch a policeman and a lawyer and give him three months, and ruin his character for life. He denied all knowledge of the sovereign. He had 5s. in his pocket belonging to his master, and he said “Here, take this. Perhaps you`ll say I stole that”. His master struck him on his nose and mouth with his fist, and banged his head against the linen cupboard. His mouth and nose bled. His master was called out, and being frightened, he ran home to his mother, who saw the state he was in. Next morning he saw Mrs. Wilson, who saw the condition he was in. He went with his mother on the 12^th to defendant`s house, the Bouverie Hotel, and went into the kitchen with her. Defendant said “If he uses such language again, I will strike him again”, and he did so, striking over his mother`s shoulder. Defendant told him to go to ---- and he replied that he had better go that long journey first. From there they went to Mr. Minter`s office. On the 17^th December he went with his mother when she went to the Bouverie Hotel to take his clothes home. Afterwards summonses were taken out in the County Court.

In cross-examination by Mr. Watts, plaintiff said: Defendant did not give me notice to leave before the assault. I left of my own accord after he had thrashed me. I took off my boots and turned my pockets inside out by defendant`s orders. I did not make use of a filthy or rude expression when I turned out the 5s. Defendant had not complained of my being impertinent or lazy. I saw Miss Charley, the barmaid, and the cook before I left that night. I ran all the way home to Cheriton. My nose was bleeding when I got home. Next day I saw the cook. I had my hat on. Mr. Molckenbuhr did not push it off. He struck me on the nose over my mother`s shoulder. I did not ask for my wages. I went to know about the sovereign, and I fetched my clothes away. I was in the service of Mr. Franklin, and was dismissed because he was slack. I then went to Mr. Payer`s. He discharged me, and I then lived at home till I went to the Bouverie Hotel.

Have you been collecting money for a charity? – That has nothing to do with this case.

His Honour said the question must be answered, and plaintiff said he did collect about 3s., which he gave up to another boy who was also collecting money with a card for a charity.

Emma Flack, mother of the plaintiff, said the boy went home on the 11^th at 20 minutes to 10. His appearance was most horrifying. His mouth and face and nose were swollen and bleeding. His hair was all rough, his boots undone, and his clothing disarranged. She washed his face and put him to bed. Mrs. Wilson saw the boy in the morning about a quarter past eight. She took him to Mr. Molckenbuhr and complained to him. He said “What about my sovereign – never mind the boy? I`ll do it again”. She said “Don`t hit him, hit me”. Defendant struck over her shoulder and made the boy`s nose bleed. On the 17<sup>th</sup> she went again to defendant`s house with clothes, and asked for payment of her bill, 18s. 6d. He declined to pay it, and wanted to deduct 2s., which she refused to allow.

In reply to Mr. Watts, witness said she took away the boy`s clothes. The cook was not in the kitchen when defendant struck the boy. The cook said she heard the boy`s cries. She did not take the boy to the doctor, but gave him some medicine herself. There was no overcharge in her washing bill.

Eliza Wilson, wife of a labourer at Cheriton, said she saw the boy on the 12^th. His nose and lips were much swollen, and there was some blood on the corner of his mouth.

Mr. Watts said a most exaggerated account of the matter had been given; mountains had been made out of molehills. They had paid into court a portion of the wages. Defendant did not deny striking the boy, and 99 out of 100 under similar circumstances would have done the same, and he quoted an opinion from Blackstone to justify the assault. In almost all public schools in England boys were constantly flogged for less offences than that. The defendant had received a letter from plaintiff`s solicitor, threatening him with an action for malicious prosecution unless he paid the costs of the boy`s defence. The Magistrates considered there was a prima facie case, and so did the Grand Jury.

His Honour remarked that the Magistrates dismissed the charge. The second charge of stealing 2s. was not mentioned until five days after the assault.

Mr. Watts said no permanent injury had been sustained by the boy.

Defendant then deposed that the boy was three weeks and two days in his service. He was under notice to leave. He frequently used bad language and was lazy. He left of his own accord, and never offered to return. He did hit the boy for using very bad language, which he repeated. The barmaid was either in the bar or the smoking room, and heard what was said. He did not think he struck the boy more than twice. He did not knock his head against the wall or the table. A few drops of blood came from his nose. He did not black his eyes. He stayed in the room about 20 minutes. Next day he saw him in the kitchen. He spoke indecently and he put his hand against his hat and knocked it off. His face was not swollen. The cook was present at the time.

Cross-examined: After I got the County Court summonses I charged the boy with theft. I never said before I had given the boy notice to quit. I had no reason to.

What do you call a good thrashing? You admitted you have given him a good thrashing. What are you? – A German.

You used your fists and your feet too, didn`t you? – No. I never denied that I gave the boy a good thrashing, and I don`t deny it now. I never told the boy, to my recollection, to go to ----. I said something to him quite different which he may have misunderstood. I did not strike over the mother`s shoulder when I knocked his hat off for using indecent language. I don`t recollect the observation he made. I must have had some reason for knocking his hat off. I don`t remember what.

By His honour: It was after he had turned his pockets out and taken off his boots that he made use of the indecent expression.

Mary Charley, barmaid at the Bouverie, said she saw the boy a few minutes after the alleged assault and there was no blood on his face, nor was his face swollen. She saw him a week after and there were no marks on his face then.

Cross-examined: I am not the manageress. I am only in the bar. I am over the servants. I had had the sovereign, and it was a question between me and the boy where it had gone. I was very angry about losing the sovereign. The boy went into Mr. Molckenbuhr`s office. I could have heard what took place between them, but took no notice. I did not search the boy. His pockets were out when I saw him, and his boots unlaced, but not off his feet. I never heard my master swear at the boy. The boy never said to me “It`s no use my going in, he`ll only swear at me”.

Mr. Watts: As to the sovereign, Miss Charley. Did you place it on the bar? – Yes

His Honour: Oh! I can`t try the sovereign case over again. The Magistrates disposed of that.

Witness: Mr. Molckenbuhr hit the boy after the expression.

Florence Rendall, cook at the Bouverie Hotel, said there was no blood on the boy`s face when he went away, nor was his face swollen. His face had the expression of his having been crying. She saw Mr. Molckenbuhr knock the boy`s hat off. He did not hit the boy, nor did his nose bleed.

Mr. Minter submitted there was no answer to the case. Mr. Watts said there was justification, but there was no evidence of it. The defendant admitted that he gave the boy a thrashing to extort a confession from him. He commented strongly on the conduct of the defendant in the matter, and contended that instead of instituting criminal proceedings he should have appeared here that day and defended the action on the ground of his dishonesty.

His Honour said it was not disputed that the defendant gave the boy a thrashing, but it was defended on the ground of justification. He reviewed the facts and said a man had no right to cause another to submit to a search, which was in itself an assault. He had little doubt the boy had had an example of bad language set him by the defendant, and one could not very much wonder if he did use an offensive expression. The provocation was all on the side of the master. He referred also to the evidence as to the boy`s condition, and came to the conclusion that he was entitled to damages and to recover his wages, he having been prevented from fulfilling his contract by reasonable apprehension of violence. He gave a verdict for a month`s wages and £5 for damages for the assault, with costs of £10.

Folkestone News 18-1-1890

County Court

Tuesday, January 14^th: Before Judge Selfe

Henry Herbert Mealing v W.H. Molckenbuhr: Claim for wages and for £10 damages for assault. Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Watts represented defendant.

The plaintiff was in the service of defendant, who is proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, and the facts relating to the boy leaving the service of his master, and the assault complained of are well known, as they formed the principal parts of a case for the learned Recorder and a jury to enquire into at the recent Quarter Sessions, when plaintiff was tried for stealing 2s. of defendant and acquitted.

The amount of wages due to plaintiff, less the month claimed in lieu of notice, had been paid into court.

The plaintiff, who said he was 17 years of age, described the assault and said that his master struck him on the nose and mouth with his fist, and banged his head down on the table, and knocked him against the cupboard door. This was on the 11^th of December. On the next day he went to the hotel with his mother, when defendant again assaulted him by striking him over the shoulder of his mother, and scratching his nose.

In cross-examination he said he did not use a filthy expression to his master when accused of stealing a sovereign. He had collected 3s. for a charity and handed over the sum to another boy.

His Honour did not see what that had to do with the case.

Mr. Watts said it was important as to the credibility of plaintiff.

Mr. Minter retorted that they had thrashed the boy grossly, and now wished to take away his character, he supposed.

Mrs. Flack, plaintiff`s mother, and a neighbour deposed to the condition the boy was in after the assault.

Mr. Watts complained that a most exaggerated account of the assault had been given, and that the defendant did not deny striking the boy when under great provocation caused by plaintiff using a foul expression to him. A threat of an action for malicious prosecution had been made by plaintiff`s solicitor, but the boy had been committed by the Bench, who considered there was a prima facie case, and so had the Grand Jury. He hoped His Honour would see it was a case for only small damages under all the circumstances.

Defendant admitted the assault, but said it was for using a filthy expression (repeated by defendant) to him, and he felt justified at the time in acting as he had done.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said he believed the assault complained of by plaintiff was committed, and in addition to that which defendant said he was guilty of, and that the provocation was all on the side of the defendant.

Judgement for a month`s wages at 3s. 6d. per week, and £5 damages for the assault, with costs on the scale of £10.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-8-1890

Annual Licensing Session

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Major H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.

Superintendent Taylor complained of the indifferent manner in which Mr. Molckenbuhr conducted the Bouverie Hotel, and stated that on the 22^nd of July several people were seen to leave the house as twenty minutes to two in the morning. The evidence, however, was not strong enough to justify him in bringing a summons against him.

The Bench decided to adjourn the licence until the adjourned sessions.

Folkestone Express 30-8-1890

Wednesday, August 27^th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

In the case of the Bouverie Hotel, the Superintendent of Police said before the licence was granted he wished to call the attention of the Bench to the unsatisfactory manner in which the house was conducted. People were found in the house at two o`clock on the morning of the 22^nd of July. One was a resident in the town, and the other claimed to be a lodger in the house. There was not sufficient evidence to warrant the issue of a summons, but he thought it was his duty to bring the matter before the Bench. The general conduct of the house was not satisfactory.

The Bench decided to let the application stand over until the adjourned licensing day.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-9-1890

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, September 24^th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Major Poole, Alderman Pledge, and J. Clark Esq.

Wilhelm Molckenbuhr, of the Bouverie Hotel, again came up for the renewal of his licence.

Sergeant Harman said on July the 22^nd, at 1.40 a.m., he visited the applicant`s house. Witness heard noises inside, and upon going into the smoking room he found three men, two of whom were said to be lodgers. He also saw another man, named White, in the passage. There were several glasses about. He told Molckenbuhr that he should report him, and he said he hoped not. He also said two were lodgers, and they had invited the other two.

Mr. Minter defended, and stated that the Sergeant had given his answer to the case. He always tried to conduct his house in a proper manner, and if there were an offence committed on the 22^nd of July, why was Molckenbuhr not summoned? No doubt the Superintendent followed up the report of the Sergeant and found that he was unable to make out a case. As Sergeant Harman had told them, two men were lodgers, and the other two were their friends.

The Mayor said they were determined to uphold the police, and the applicant had had a very narrow escape. The general cry was that the police did not do their duty, and when they did they were found fault with. The licence would be granted

Folkestone Express 27-9-1890

Wednesday, September 24^th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Adjourned Licenses

This was the adjourned licensing session, and several certificates which had been postponed were applied for.

The Bouverie Hotel

Mr. Minter appeared in support of the application of Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr for the renewal of his licence.

The Superintendent had served notice that he should oppose on the ground that when the house was visited by the police, four persons were found on the premises.

Sergt. Harman said he visited the house on the 22^nd of July at 1.40 and heard a noise inside. He went inside and found four men there – two were lodgers, and two residents. A number of glasses were on the table empty. He told defendant he should report him. Two of the men, Birch and White, were residents, and the landlord said they were invited by the other two, who were lodgers, and entertained as friends.

Mr. Minter did not contest the statement of the police, but said the Sergeant had really given the landlord`s answer. He said it was a pity a summons had not been taken out so that the defendant could have called the parties to show that there was no offence under the Licensing Act. He thought he had a right to pray in aid of his client that on the report being made to the Superintendent – he would not do the Superintendent the injustice to suppose he treated a complaint of that sort with no consideration – but he instituted an inquiry, and he (Mr. Minter) had a right to say that that inquiry satisfied him that the statement fo the landlord was true, and that it was not a case for prosecution. There was no other ground of complaint about the house.

The Magistrates granted the renewal, but repeated that the police had only done their duty. The defendant had had a narrow escape, and he must be cautious in future. The general idea was that the police did not do their duty.

Mr. W.H. Harrison watched the case in the interest of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, the owners.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-10-1890

Saturday, October 4^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, Major Penfold, J. Fitness, E.T. Ward and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Charles Nash was summoned for assaulting Charles Chandler at the Bouverie Hotel on the 27^th of September, and pleaded Guilty.

Prosecutor, who is an attendant at the Bathing Establishment, stated that he was at the bar of the Bouverie Hotel about ten o`clock on the night of the 27<sup>th</sup> of September when the defendant came in. Witness called for a drink and laid down sixpence. Shortly afterwards the barmaid said “Why don`t you take up your change, Mr. Chandler? Your twopence has been lying there long enough”. Witness told her he thought she had made a mistake, but she said she was positive he had given her a shilling and witness picked it up. The change turned out to belong to Nash, and witness was readily giving it up when Nash struck him in the eye with his fist, having a ring on his finger at the time.

Clara Cole said she was barmaid at the Bouverie. She remembered the night in question. There was a mistake about the change, and Nash struck Chandler in the eye with his fist, the blow knocking him down. The assault was quite unprovoked. Chandler did not strike Nash at all. Chandler went out for a policeman directly after the assault. That was about ten, but Nash did not leave until a little before eleven.

The Bench fined Nash 5s. and 10s. costs. There was a cross-summons for an assault which Nash alleged to have been committed outside of the hotel, but the case was dismissed, Nash having to pay 2s. costs.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 11-2-1891

Saturday, February 7^th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Henri Molckenbuhr, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, was summoned for allowing billiards to be played on his premises during prohibited hours, and Mr. Birch, confectioner, for playing same.

Sergeant Harman said that on Saturday morning, January 31^st, about a quarter past two he saw a light in the billiard room of the Bouverie. He went away and returned with two constables. They knocked some time without being able to gain admission, but subsequently defendant appeared, and in reply to questions said there was no-one in the house but himself and servant. On searching the house, however, witness found in one of the rooms a man in bed whom he recognised as the defendant Birch. His feet were sticking out of the bed and he was fully dressed. In reply to witness`s question as to what he was doing there, he replied “I don`t feel very well”. Defendant Molckenbuhr affected surprise and said “Oh, George, how came you here?”

Mr. Minter appeared for defendants and addressed the Bench at some length. Mr. Molckenbuhr, he pointed out, was not summoned for opening his premises for the sale of liquor, but because in the eye of the law he had permitted his billiard room to be open during prohibited hours, and to that he pleaded Guilty. Mr. Birch was a friend of Mr. Molckenbuhr`s and was there as such. Mr. Molckenbuhr was under the impression that he was doing no wrong by having his friend there, and he asked the Bench on that ground to inflict a nominal fine.

Nominal fines inflicted as follows:- Molckenbuhr, 10s. and 9s. costs; Birch 1s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 14-2-1891

Saturday, February 7^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Major H.W. Poole, W.G. Herbert and F. Boykett Esqs.

William Molckenbuhr, proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, was summoned for allowing persons to remain on his premises during prohibited hours on the 31^st ultimo, and George Burch, confectioner, Cheriton Place, was summoned for being found on the premises at three o`clock in the morning.

Mr. Minter appeared for defendants, and, on behalf of Molckenbuhr, pleaded Not Guilty.

Police Sergeant Harman was called and stated that on Saturday morning, January 31^st, about quarter past two, his attention was called to the Bouverie Hotel, where he observed lights in the billiard room. He could hear people playing billiards. He went away, and shortly afterwards returned to the hotel with police constables Le Mar and Knowles. He placed them at the back and front of the house, and then rapped at the door for about half an hour before he could obtain an answer. At quarter to three he went round to the other side of the house, where he saw Molckenbuhr. He said “I suspect you have someone in your house”. He replied that there was no-one but himself and servant. Witness said he must search the house, and asked to be shown into the top bedroom at the rear of the house, where he had seen a light. Defendant did not seem to care about him going into that room, but he insisted upon going. On entering the room he noticed a pair of boots sticking out of the bed, and afterwards discovered that defendant Burch was concealed beneath the clothes. Witness pulled the bedclothes off his head. He pretended to be asleep, and witness said “Now then, Burch, get up. You must not think you are going to make me believe you are asleep”, and pulled him off the side of the bed. Burch got up. He was fully dressed, with the exception of his hat, and said “What do you mean by this?” Witness told him he should report him for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. He replied “I didn`t feel very well, so I thought I would come up and have a lay down”. Witness told him he did not believe it and advised him to put his hat on and go, but afterwards he engaged the bed for the night. He made no complaint of illness.

P.C. Harry Le Mar stated that he saw the defendant leave the house about quarter to four in the morning.

Mr. Minter, in defence, remarked that Molckenbuhr was ignorant of the fact that he had committed an offence. He was not charged with selling liquor, and, as a matter of fact, no liquor was sold because Burch was a teetotaller. Burch was a friend of Mr. Molckenbuhr, and went there to play a game of billiards. Molckenbuhr was ingnorant that he was obliged to close his billiard room when he closed his house. He was perfectly entitled to have his friends there, but they must not play billiards. Mr. Minter then alluded to the appeal case which was heard before Baron Bramwell with reference to a similar matter at the Swan Hotel, Hythe. The Baron held that the decision of the Magistrates was right, but he agreed that it was an anomaly which ought to be altered. Molckenbuhr desired him to say that he was not aware of the law and that he was very sorry if he had committed an offence. Burch, under the circumstances, would plead Guilty to being on the premises.

Colonel De Crespigny said there was no excuse for them not knowing the law. Molckenbuhr would be fined 10s. and 9s. costs, and Burch 1s. and 10s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 14-2-1891

Saturday, February 7^th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Major H.W. Poole, W.G. Herbert and F. Boykett Esqs.

George William Molckenbuhr (sic), landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, was summoned for allowing billiards to be played in his house during prohibited hours on the 31^st January.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and said he would plead Guilty, with the explanation he would presently give.

Sergeant Harman said on Saturday morning, the 31^st January, about a quarter past two, his attention was drawn to the Bouverie Hotel. He saw lights in the billiard room and heard the balls. He went away and fetched two constables, Lemar and Knowles, placing one at each door. He then rapped at the side door for about half an hour, and at the end of that time the defendant came with his servant. He said to defendant “I suspect you have someone in the hotel. I have heard them playing billiards for a long time, and there are lights in the room”. Defendant said “I have no-one in the house; only myself and my servant”. He replied “That won`t satisfy me. You show me the front room at the top of the house”. Defendant took him to the other side of the house and to a bedroom, which was all clear. The bed had been turned down, and it was warm. Defendant said that was his servant`s room. They went out of the room, and he asked defendant to show him another room. He went in and saw a man lying there, covered up in bed. He had his boots on and they were sticking out. (Laughter) He pulled the clothes off and saw it was George Burch, of Cheriton Road. He pretended to be asleep. Witness said “Wake up, Burch; you must not try to make out that you are asleep, because I don`t believe it”. Burch was dressed with the exception of his hat and coat. He asked him how he accounted for being there, and he replied “I don`t feel very well”. Witness said “That won`t satisfy me”. He said he had engaged a bed for the night, and went back into the room. There was no-one else on the house.

George Burch was then charged with being found in the house on the same day.

Mr. Minter said he pleaded Guilty to being there, but that he was justified in being there and not in contravention of the Act.

Sergeant Harman repeated his evidence, and said the defendant was a married man living in Cheriton Road, Folkestone.

P.C. Lemar said he watched the house by direction of Sergt. Harman, and saw Mr. Burch leave at a quarter to four in the morning.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendants. As far as the first summons was concerned, against Molckenbuhr, the charge, as the Bench would observe, was that, holding a victualler`s licence, he unlawfully allowed billiards to be played at a time when the premises by law were not allowed to be open for the sale of wines and liquors. The defendant had pleaded Guilty to that, and he would tell them why – because in ignorance of the law he permitted the room to be open. The Superintendent knew the law better, and Mr. Molckenbuhr was summoned for the offence he undoubtedly had committed. But he desired to call the attention of the Bench to this, that he was not charged for having the premises open for the sale of liquor – there was no pretence for saying there was any sale of liquor going on, or that he had his house open for the sale of liquor. As a fact, his friend Burch was a teetotaller. He was a friend of the landlord`s, and in the habit of going to the house. If he had simply been in the bar of the house there would have been no offence, if the Magistrates were satisfied he was there as a friend. It was a very peculiar state of the law in regard to billiard rooms. That was the reason he had advised him to plead Guilty, because technically there was no answer to the case. The law had been defined in two cases with regard to billiard rooms, but it was an anomaly. There was the case of Ovenden and Raymond, where the Lord Chief Justice himself said the law was an anomaly, and certainly he did not believe it was the intention of the legislature that it should be so. But there it was, and the law must be obeyed. There was the case of Mr. Ovenden, at Hythe. It was a case before the magistrates. The defendant was the proprietor of the Swan Hotel at Hythe, and the parties playing at billiards were commercial travellers who were staying bona fide in the hotel, and they had played billiards after eleven o`clock. There was a conviction, and it was carried to the Court of Appeal, and the Court held that it was a righteous conviction, and that a licensed house must under all circumstances close it`s billiard room at eleven o`clock, not only to lodgers staying in the house, but to friends being entertained by the landlord. So that the law as it at present was that a landlord might have his friends in any room he liked in the house and entertain them with liquor, notwithstanding that the closing hour was passed, except in the billiard room. If it was a beerhouse with a billiard licence, they might continue to play billiards up to one o`clock in the morning. He believed that was the law. Mr. Molckenbuhr was under the impression that he might have his friends playing at billiards up to any hour he liked. But he was afraid, on looking at the law on the subject, that the landlord was bound to have his billiard room closed, and a friend had no right to go into a billiard room to play billiards after eleven o`clock. As to keeping the door closed, Mr. Molckenbuhr was very particular not to allow anyone in his house after hours. People did go sometimes to the side door, but he would not admit them. That accounted for the police being kept standing outside. Had the police gone to the front door they would have been admitted at once.

The Bench considered there had been a breach of the law, and Colonel De Crespigny told Mr. Molckenbuhr  that it was no excuse that he did not know the law – he ought to have known it. He would be fined 10s. and 9s. costs, and Burch 1s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 14-2-1891

Local News

Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, was on Saturday last fined 10s. and costs for allowing billiards to be played in his house after eleven o`clock at night.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-8-1891

Wednesday, August 26^th: Before J. Clarke, J. Pledge, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

Annual Licensing Sessions

The renewal of the licence of the Bouverie Hotel (Mr. Molckenbuhr) was objected to by Supt. Taylor.

Mr. Hall said he appeared for the defendant. The offence was not a very serious one, and he hoped the Bench would deal with it now. The defendant was only fined 5s.

Supt. Taylor: Put another five on to it.

The Chairman: It is the opinion of the Bench that the case should be adjourned.

The adjourned Sessions will be held on the 23^rd of September.

Southeastern Gazette 1-9-1891

Licensing Sessions

The annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday, when objections were raised against the renewal of the licences for the Globe Hotel, the Bellevue Hotel. The Bouverie Hotel, and the Tramway Tavern. Mr. Rooke appeared on behalf of the council of the Folkestone Temperance Society, and the whole of the cases were eventually adjourned until Sept. 23.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26-9-1891

Wednesday, September 23^rd: Before J. Clarke Esq., Major Poole, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Bouverie Hotel

Mr. Molckenbuhr, the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, applied for the renewal of his licence, and was supported by Mr. Minter.

Supt. Taylor said the applicant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs for having his house open after hours.

Mr. Minter said the Bench would recollect that this was a very peculiar case. It was proved that Mr. Birch was a guest, playing a friendly game of billiards. As he pointed out at the time, a landlord might have a friend in the house and supply him with liquor, but he must not play billiards. Birch was fined 1s., but no liquor was supplied as Mr. Birch was a teetotaller.

The licence was granted.

Folkestone Express 26-9-1891

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day

The Bouverie Hotel

Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr applied for a renewal of this licence. Mr. Minter appeared for the applicant.

Superintendent Taylor said the defendant was convicted on the 6^th February for having the house open after hours and allowing billiards to be played. He was fined 10s. and costs.

Mr. Minter said it was proved to the satisfaction of the Bench that the applicant was playing billiards with a friend. It was a peculiar case, and although he was obliged to admit there had been an infringement of the Act, only small fines were imposed.

The licence was granted.

Folkestone Express 5-3-1892

Local News

On Saturday at the Folkestone Petty Sessions, before J. Holden, J. Pledge, J. Fitness, and E.T. Ward Esqs., William H. Molckenbuhr was summoned for having his house, the Bouverie Hotel, open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, the owners. The case was extremely simple and the facts were admitted, but the hearing occupied nearly an hour. Sergeant Swift said he visited the house at 25 minutes past twelve. He had noticed that there were lights in the bar and the room adjoining, and a sound like the shaking of dice. He heard the defendant say “I`ll have a look out”, and he unbolted the door leading into the road under the archway. Witness pushed in and saw two men sitting there, one of them having a glass of port wine before him, and the other a tankard of ale.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on the defendant`s behalf; his explanation was that one of the persons was there on business, and the other had left at 11 o`clock, but had returned, as he said, to get his hat, when, as he was the worse for liquor, the defendant allowed him to remain for a time. Mr. Mowll said Messrs. Nalder and Colyer were most anxious that their house should be conducted in a manner which would meet the approval of the Bench, and the effect of a conviction would be that the defendant would have immediate notice to quit.

The Bench fined the defendant £2 10s. and costs, and did not endorse the licence. A second summons for permitting drunkenness was not proceeded with.

Folkestone Express 9-4-1892

Wednesday, April 6^th: Before H.W. Poole, J. Brooke and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Transfers

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was transferred to Mr. Collard.

Folkestone Express 23-4-1892

Wednesday, April 20^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge, Sherwood and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Holden, Geo. Spurgen and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Transfer

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was transferred to Mr. Pollard.

Folkestone Herald 18-6-1892

Local News

On Thursday, in the Queen`s Bench Division of the High Court, a case was heard in which Mrs. Harriet Mockenbuhr sued her husband, W.H. Molckenbuhr, the late proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, for £207, which she had advanced to enable him to take the hotel.

Mr. G.H. Candy, instructed by Messrs. Watts and Watts, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by counsel instructed by Mr. C.A. Rawlings.

The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, judgement was given in her favour for the full amount claimed, with costs.

Folkestone Visitors` List 22-6-1892

Kaleidoscope

A local law case of some notoriety was heard on Friday last before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams and a common jury. Mrs. Molckenbuhr made a claim against her husband, late of the Bouverie Hotel, for £207 money lent to him. Mr. G.H. Condy (instructed by Messrs. Watts and Watts, solicitors, Folkestone), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wedderburn (instructed by Mr. C.A. Rawlings, solicitor) appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff, it appears, provided her husband with the money to take the Bouverie previous to their marriage. After marriage, it appears, differences arose between them, and they separated. Plaintiff at once served her husband with a writ, claiming the sum in question as money lent. The defendant, however, claimed the money was a gift. Hence his refusal to pay and the action-at-law. Evidence having been heard and arguments in support of both contentions having been adduced,  Mr. Vaughan Williams summed up, leaving it for the jury to decide whether the money was lent or given, and if lent whether the wife before or after marriage forgave the debt. The jury found for the plaintiff, and judgement was given accordingly.

Folkestone Chronicle 25-6-1892

Local News

The following action was heard before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams and a Common Jury on Friday. It was a claim by Mrs. Molckenbuhr against her husband for £207, money lent to him. Mr. G.H. Condy, instructed by Messrs. Watts and Watt, solicitors, Folkestone, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wedderburn, instructed by Mr. C.A. Railings, solicitor, appeared for the defendant.

The plaintiff, formerly a ladies` maid in the service of the Bishop of Truro, became acquainted with the defendant in 1877, and from that time till 1889 they corresponded. In 1889 the defendant was out of employment, and plaintiff provided him with the sums of £105 and £102, with which he took the Bouverie Hotel at Folkestone. A year later they were married, but differences quickly arose between them, and on March 21^st, 1892, she left her husband, and at once served him with a writ. By this writ she claimed the above sums of money as money lent. The defendant contended that the money was a gift, and even if it were originally a loan, there was a presumption that she made a gift of it by marriage, and that there was nothing to rebut the presumption. The plaintiff, called, said she became engaged to the defendant in 1889, and as he wished to take a business she said she would lend him the money she had in the bank, and she lent him £207. A year later they were married. She had several conversations about the money, and he agreed to return it, and they separated, and the money was never paid. In cross-examination she said she lent the defendant the money because she trusted him, and believed the business he was going to take was a good one, but she never got a receipt for her money, nor did she ever ask for interest on it.

William Henry Molckenbuhr, the defendant, was then called by Mr. Wedderburn, and said that the plaintiff simply asked him to accept the money, and in consequence of that he took the hotel. Nothing was said as to whether it was a gift or a loan; his wife had made no suggestion that it was a loan.

Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams summed up, and left to the jury the questions whether the money was lent or given, and if lent, whether the wife before or after marriage forgave the debt.

The jury found for the plaintiff, and judgement was given accordingly.

Folkestone Express 25-6-1892

Local News

On Thursday and Friday, before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams and a common jury, the case of Molckenbuhr v Molckenbuhr was tried. It was a claim by Mrs. Molckenbuhr against her husband for £207, money lent by her to him. Mr. G.H. Condy, instructed by Messrs. Watts and Watts, solicitors, Folkestone appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wedderburn, instructed by Mr. C.A. Rawlings, solicitor, for the defendant.

The plaintiff, formerly a ladies` maid in the service of the Bishop of Truro, became acquainted with the defendant in 1877, and from that time till 1889 they corresponded. In 1889 the defendant was out of employment, and plaintiff provided him with the sums of £105 and £102, with which he took the Bouverie Hotel at Folkestone. A year later they were married, but differences quickly arose between them, and on March 21^st, 1892, she left her husband, and at once served him with a writ. By this writ she claimed the above sums of money as money lent. The defendant contended that the money was a gift, and even if it were originally a loan, there was a presumption that she made a gift of it by marriage, and that there was nothing to rebut the presumption.

Mr. Condy having read some correspondence between the parties to support the plaintiff`s contention that the money was a loan, Mr. Wedderburn submitted that the marriage raised a presumption in law as well as in fact that the money was a gift, and referred to a case recently decided before Mr. Justice A.L. Smith. His Lordship, however, said he was not prepared to hold so.

The plaintiff, called, said she became engaged to the defendant in 1889, and as he wished to take a business she said she would lend him the money she had in the bank, and she lent him £207. A year later they were married. She had several conversations about the money, and he agreed to return it, and they separated, and the money was never paid. In cross-examination she said she lent the defendant the money because she trusted him, and believed the business he was going to take was a good one, but she never got a receipt for her money, nor did she ever ask for interest on it.

William Henry Molckenbuhr, the defendant, was then called by Mr. Wedderburn, and said that the plaintiff simply asked him to accept the money, and in consequence of that he took the hotel. Nothing was said as to whether it was a gift or a loan; his wife had made no suggestion that it was a loan.

Mr. Wedderburn having addressed the jury for the defendant, and Mr. Condy for the plaintiff, Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams summed up, and left to the jury the questions whether the money was lent or given, and if lent, whether the wife before or after marriage forgave the debt.

The jury found for the plaintiff, and judgement was given accordingly.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-11-1893

Saturday, October 28^th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. Fitness, Holden and Dunk.

James Pinches, an old cab driver, who is familiarly known as Ally Sloper, appeared as the prosecutor in a charge of theft from the person preferred against a young woman named Polly Lillian.

Pinches stated that he lived at 3, East Cliff. On Friday night he was in the Bouverie Hotel from 8.30 to 10.15. While he was there the prisoner and another young woman came in, and at their request he treated them. He changed a half sovereign and he received 9s. 8d. in change. He put the 9s. 6d. which he had received in silver into his left hand trousers pocket, and the two coppers into his right pocket. The women left the house half an hour before he did. While he was on his way home they came up to him and walked along one on each side of him. When they got into Alexandra Gardens, one stood in front of him, and the prisoner took the silver (9s. 6d.) out of his pocket. Witness caught hold of her wrist, and managed to hold her until a policeman came up.

In answer to the prisoner, witness said he did not ask her to go for a walk with him.

When asked whether he did not give her the money, he caused some amusement by replying emphatically “Lor` bless you, no!”

P.C. F. Nash said on Friday night about 10 minutes to 11 he was in Bouverie Road East, and he saw the prisoner there with another woman not in custody. The prosecutor said he wished to give the prisoner in charge for stealing 9s. 6d. from him. The prisoner replied “Don`t believe him”. Witness took her to the police station.

Superintendent Taylor put in a statement which was made by the prisoner to the effect that the prosecutor treated her and Pattie Pain at the Bouverie. A question arose about some money which he had given prisoner and Pinches gave her into custody on a charge of robbing him.

The prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily and said she was not guilty of taking the money. The prosecutor had asked her on many occasions to elope with her.

She was sentenced to 14 days` hard labour, and the money found on the prisoner was ordered to be returned to the prosecutor.

Folkestone Express 4-11-1893

Saturday, October 28^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Polly Lillian was charged with stealing from the person of James Pinches the sum of 9s. 6d.

Prosecutor, a cabman, who is very deaf, said he was at the Bouverie Hotel on Friday night from half past eight to a quarter to ten. Prisoner and another woman went into the house while he was there, but went into another compartment of the bar. They asked him to treat them, and he treated them to twopennyworth each, changing a half sovereign and receiving 9s. 8d. – a five shilling piece, four shillings, sixpence, and twopence. He put the silver in his left trousers pocket and the twopence in the right. Prisoner left the house half an hour before he did. As he was going home, the prisoner and another rushed at him. He thought they were friends going to see him home, but when they got into Alexandra Gardens the prisoner went in front of him and put her hand in his pocket. He held her hand, but she was too strong and struggled and took it out of his pocket. He held her till a policeman came. She took all the 9s. 6d.

Prisoner: Didn`t you ask me to go for a walk with you? – God bless you, no. (Laughter) It didn`t take four minutes altogether.

Didn`t you give me a 5s. piece? – No.

Prisoner: Didn`t you ask me to go round the corner, and say you would give me half a crown? – Good gracious, no. (Laughter) The two women were together. We only just got round the corner before the money was gone.

The prisoner protested that the prosecutor gave her a five shilling piece and she was to give him 2s. 6d. change.

P.C. Nash said on Friday night, about ten minutes to eleven, he was in Bouverie Road Esat. He heard loud talking and went to Alexandra Gardens He saw prisoner there with another woman and the prosecutor. Prosecutor said he wished to give the prisoner in charge for stealing 9s. 6d. from him. Prisoner replied “Don`t believe him”. He took her to the station and she was charged by Superintendent Taylor. She said “Ain`t I allowed to make a statement?”

Rachael Sharp, female searcher, said she searched the prisoner at the police station. She gave her a 5s. piece, and she found a purse with 4s., two sixpences, and twopence in her pocket.

Superintendent Taylor produced the prisoner`s statement. It was “I know prosecutor. I saw him in the Bouverie and asked him to treat me. He treated me and Patty Pain. We came out and I asked him to go for a walk. We went round the corner and he gave me a five shilling piece, and I was supposed to give him the change. When I did not give him the change he called a policeman and gave me in charge, and accused me of robbing him”.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty and elicited to be tried summarily. She added that “Mr. Pinches had on many occasions asked her to elope with him. (Laughter) He said he would sell his house and go to London or somewhere else”.

She was sentenced to 14 days` hard labour, and the Bench told the complainant that he was a silly old man.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-7-1895

County Court

Tuesday, July 23^rd: Before Judge Selfe

Thomas George Atfield v E.W. Dabbs, Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road E.: Amount claimed 8s. 4d. – 5s. for wages and 3s. 4d. for money deducted from wages because of non-payment of billiard table charges to plaintiff when employed as a marker at the hotel.

Atfield is a young man who is employed as a billiard marker at the Bouverie Hotel. He gave notice to leave his situation, and went at the end of the week, instead of on Monday, when his work terminated, in consequence of which the 5s. due to him for five days` work at 7s. per week was not paid to him. A gentleman had played five games at billiards and gone off without paying for them, and Dabbs had deducted this sum from the weekly wages paid to the young marker.

Dabbs said he had told the marker not to play billiards, and not to allow the man who had not paid for his games to play – as he was only a drunken waiter. Atfield`s notice did not expire until Monday night, and he left on the Saturday before. He behaved badly during the week. He went out on a two hours` leave to get married, and stayed out eleven hours.

His Honour: Two hours to get married in is not much.

Dabbs: It is enough for a man in his position in life.

His Honour: Two hours is certainly not a long time for a honeymoon. There must be a verdict for the defendant in this case, but I advise you to pay the young fellow the five shillings.

Dabbs: I will give him something.

His Honour: I cannot order you to pay the money, but I advise you to do so.

Folkestone Chronicle 23-10-1897

Wednesday, October 20^th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. W. Wightwick and H.W. Stock.

Mrs. Farmfield was granted temporary authority to sell at the Bouverie Hotel.

Folkestone Express 23-10-1897

Wednesday, October 20^th: Before The Mayor, H.D. Stock, and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Mrs. Farmfield was granted a temporary authority to sell at the Bouverie Hotel.