Pavilion Hotel 1870s

Folkestone Express 23-12-1871

Thursday, December 21^st:  Before T. Caister and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

James Smith, a tall fellow, evidently an old soldier, was charged with begging on Wednesday.

Richard Pilcher, a porter at the Pavilion Hotel, said: About half past eight o`clock last evening prisoner came to the front door of the Pavilion Hotel and said a gentleman had told him to come there, but he did not know his name, but that it was no business of mine, and used very abusive language. He afterwards said the gentleman`s name was Capt. Fisher. I told him there was no gentleman of that name staying at the hotel, but if he would come down again in the morning I would make enquiries. He then asked for some coppers to help him for the night, which I refused to give him as he was very tipsy. He was going towards the coffee room and said he would see the mistress. I told him he would get me and also himself into trouble. He then made at me as if he was going to strike me. I then got him out of the house and he walked up and down the front, obstructing the visitors, and was very abusive. I then fetched a policeman and gave him into custody.

Prisoner: A gentleman told me to go to the hotel. I did not beg.

P.C. 8: Prisoner was drunk when received into custody.

Prisoner: A gentleman told me he would give me money to pay my lodgings and my fare to Canterbury.

Supt. Martin: Prisoner has been here all the summer.

P.C. Hogben was called, and said prisoner was about Folkestone in the summer, and he had instructions to watch him.

Prisoner: I have only been here two days these last twenty years.

Mr. Caister: It is of no use you denying being in the town. I have seen you myself several times.

The Clerk: How do you live?

Prisoner: By selling a few things. I have no wish to live by begging.

The Bench: You are committed to Dover gaol for 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-9-1872

Wednesday, September 4^th: Before The Mayor, Col. Crespigny, T. Caister, J. Kingsnorth and W. Bateman Esqs.

The Pavilion Riots

Richard Mercer was charged with assaulting P.C. Smith on the 2^nd inst., while in the execution of his duty.

Mr. Minter appeared to defend the prisoner, who pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

P.C. Smith said that he was on duty outside the Pavilion on the 2^nd inst., when his attention was called to a crowd in front of that place. He saw the prisoner there along with twenty or thirty more. He heard someone shout out “Let him have it”. He turned round immediately, and saw the prisoner, who kicked him in the leg and struck him on the shoulder. Prisoner tried to throw him on the ground, and he (witnessw) said “All right, I know you”.

Mr. Minter said he must ask the magistrates to adjourn this case, as he had not had time to procure witnesses for the defence. The prisoner had no opportunity to consult him, and persons would not care to come forward to give evidence, unless summoned to do so.

After a consultation among the magistrates the Mayor said the Bench considered the application ought to have been made before P.C. Smith had given his evidence, and the Bench must decline to grant it.

P.C. Smith, cross-examined, said: It was about twenty minutes to twelve when the assault occurred, and I saw the prisoner when I first went there. He stood outside the Pailion about ten minutes. The prisoner was close by me in the middle of the crowd. He pushed on to me.

P.C. Sharp said he was on duty at the Pavilion on the night in question. He did not see the prisoner there. There was a great number of people, and much noise and shouting, and a great disturbance for a time.

Mr. Minter said, in defence, that he regretted that his application for an adjournment had not succeeded. On other occasions, when making a similar application, he had not been met with the observation “Wait and see what the prosecution has to say”. The evidence, however, that had been produced had quite failed in substantiating the charge that had been made. He would ask the Bench to look at the circumstances: Smith said he had been kicked on the calf of the leg by Mercer. How little reliance could be placed on such evidence was manifest, when Smith said that Mercer rushed on to him, and that he (Smith) turned round and faced the prisoner. How, then, could he kick him on the calf of the leg if Smith was facing Mercer? The fact was that Mercer was pushed in by others in the crowd, and accidentally pushed against the shoulder of the police constable. Mercer had been brought before that Court before, and that had operated on the minds of the police on the principle of “Give a dog a bad name and hang him”. Other persons were concerned in this riot, and it was astonishing that they were not there that day, but the fact was the police intended to make the prisoner the scapegoat. Evidently there was a riot, and in the affray the police constable was struck, but there was no evidence whatever in proof that this had been done by the prisoner.

The Court was then cleared, and at the expiration of about twenty minutes was re-opened.

The Mayor, addressing the prisoner, said the magistrates were determined to put down these disturbances, which seriously interfered with the quietude and peace of the town, and tended to drive away visitors. The assault upon the police had been proved, and the Bench intended to visit on prisoner the severest sentence of the law, and he would be committed to six months` imprisonment in Dover gaol, with hard labour.

The prisoner was then charged with assaulting William Pett, waiter at the Pavilion.

William Pett said that between eleven and twelve o`clock he was standing outside the Pavilion, when he received a severe blow by one man, and was partly knocked down by another. The head cook and porter came to his assistance.

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion, said he was on the scene of the disturbance when he heard someone exclaim “Here, Sir Roger Tichborne, let the b------ have it”. He saw two men rush at the last witness. One struck him and ran away, and the other also gave him a blow. It was too dark to distinguish the men, whom he did not recognise.

P.C. Hogben said he was on duty near the Pavilion on Monday evening, when he heard a number of people shouting and making a great noise. He saw Spurgeon leaving the hotel and going towards the harbour. He heard some scuffling, and a threat used against Petts by Mercer, who struck him on the head and ran away. He did not hear Petts say anything to Mercer to provoke him. Immediately after Mercer had said “Drop the ------ one”, he struck him a blow. He went towards him a second time in a fighting attitude, and then ran away.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to two months` imprisonment with hard labour, to commence at the expiration of the first sentence.

Folkestone Express 7-9-1872

Editorial

The proceeding of our local Justices in the case against the man Mercer, reported in our columns, will not, we fear, give the public a notion that the man had the fair play which his advocate asked for, being unintentional no doubt on the part of the Magistrates, but displaying an utter want of knowledge of the first principles of justice. The man was apprehended on Tuesday upon a warrant, charged with assaulting the police in the execution of their duty, and brought up before the Magistrates the next morning at 11 o`clock. An adjournment was asked for by the prisoner to enable him to produce his witnesses, but the Magistrates refused this most reasonable request because the application was not made until after the police constable had given his evidence. A more absurd reason was never given. The prisoner being in custody, the Magistrates were bound to take evidence to justify an adjournment. The public do not look for or expect that the Great Unpaid should be possessed of any knowledge of the law, but it is supposed that common sense should prevail. In this instance it was wanting to a lamentable extent, not only in refusing the application for adjournment, but in pronouncing a sentence of merciless severity upon the prisoner of six months imprisonment with hard labour, which the facts of the casem as proved, did not warrant, and which we believe to be illegal.

Wednesday, September 4^th: Before The Mayor, Col. Crespigny, F. Kingsnorth, T. Caister and W. Bateman Esqs.

Richard Mercer, carpenter, of Folkestone, was charged with having assaulted P.C. Smith in the execution of his duty on the 2^nd of September, at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Complainant deposed that he was on duty at the time named in front of the Pavilion Hotel, and his attention was called to a large crowd. The prisoner was along with twenty or thirty others. He heard some shout out “Let him have it”. He turned round and the prisoner kicked him on the calf of the leg and he was hit on the shoulders, and the prisoner tried to throw him on the ground and then ran again into the crowd.

Mr. Minter asked the Bench to adjourn the case as his client had not had sufficient time to be prepared with witnesses.

After a brief consideration the Mayor refused the application.

Complainant, in being cross-examined, stated that he saw defendant`s hand upon his shoulder. The crowd pushed a great deal. Defendant was pushed on to him.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated the evidence with regard to the disturbance.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench at some length, calling their attention to the fact that his client was unfortunately pushed upon the policeman by the crowd, and therefore the charge entirely failed, more especially because they were in such a position that his client could not have kicked the policeman as stated. If the case had been adjourned he meant to show that Mercer did not interfere with the police. The police had acted on the principle of “Give a dog a bad name and hang him”. They had not charged him with being riotous, nothing of the kind, because it was more convenient for the policeman to swear that he was kicked and received a blow on the shoulder. The defendant was unable to tell them his story and the Bench, by the course they had taken, had prevented him producing testimony in his favour.

After a deliberation of some twenty minutes, during which time the public were turned out of Court, the Mayor said the prisoner had been found Guilty of a serious charge and the Magistrates were determined to put a stop to such conduct, and therefore punished him in the full penalty of six calendar months imprisonment with hard labour.

The same prisoner was then further charged with assaulting William Pett, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, between 11 and 12 o`clock on Monday evening.It appeared from the evidence that complainant was knocked down the steps, but the cook came to his assistance and rescued him.

George Spurgeon, clerk at the hotel, and P.C. Hogben gave evidence that the assault was committed by the prisoner.

The Mayor sentenced the prisoner for this offence to two calendar months` hard labour in Dover gaol, to take effect at the expiration of his first sentence.

Southeastern Gazette 10-9-1872

Local News

At the Police Court, on Wednesday last, before the Mayor, Col Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Kingsnorth, Esq., and W. Bateman, Esq., Richard Mercer, a notoriously bad character, was charged on a warrant with creating a disturbance in front of the Pavilion Hotel, and assaulting P.C. Smith in the execution of his duty. Mr. Minter appeared to defend, and asked for an adjournment of the case, a request the bench declined to comply with.

 P.C. Smith stated on oath that he was in front of the Pavilion on the night of the 2^nd inst., when a large crowd had assembled. He heard some one shout “Let him have it” He turned round and immediately the prisoner kicked him in the calf of his leg, and struck him on the shoulder.

Mr. Minter, in defence, said that Mercer was present, but was notin any way concerned in the riot, andin this case was made the scapegoat.

The defendant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

The prisoner was further charged with assaulting William Pett, waiter at the Pavilion, and was sentenced to two months’ hard labour, to commence after the expiration of the first sentence.

 

Southeastern Gazette 17-9-1872

Local News

The New Licensing Act

A renewal of the late disturbances was anticipated on Saturday evening last, and a strong cordon of policemen was thrown across the road opposite the Pavilion Hotel. The police dispersed all persons congregating in the neighbourhood, and there was no disturbance, the example of Mercer having apparently had a salutary effect. On Sunday and Monday evenings the policemen were again stationed in the neighbourhood, but had no occasion to exercise their authority, the town having resumed its wonted quietude.

It is stated that the hours of closing will shortly be extended to half past eleven throughout the week, twelve on Saturday, and eleven on Sunday.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21-9-1872

Tuesday, September 17^th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Mary O`Driscoll was brought up in custody, charged with stealing one sheet from her master, Mr. J. B. Edwards, of the Pavilion Hotel, on the 16^th instant, value 7s.

Mary Littlewood said she was housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel, where the prisoner was a servant. She searched her bedroom on Monday afternoon with Mr. Edwards, and in her bed she found a linen sheet cut up, which belonged to the men-servants` beds in the hotel. The sheet produced by P.C. Hills was the property of Mr. Edwards. She asked the prisoner, who was present, how she came to cut up the sheet, and she replied that it was her property. The prisoner had been in the hotel about 8 months.

Cross-examined by prisoner: The sheet was in pieces on the bed when I first went into the room.  When I went into the room the second time, prisoner had put part of the sheet into her box and I took it out.

Harriett Cornish, linen keeper of the hotel, said the sheet produced belonged to Mr. Edwards. It was marked “Pavilion Hotel” in red letters. The prisoner had nothing to do with the linen, except coming to her for it to put on the beds.

P.C. Hills deposed to apprehending prisoner, who said at the time that it was her sheet.

The prisoner, electing to be tried under the Criminal Justices Act, and pleading Guilty, was sentenced to two calendar months` imprisonment with hard labour.

The same prisoner was also charged with stealing four pocket handkerchiefs of the value of 2s.

Charles Preston, waiter at the Pavilion, being sworn, said he had missed several pocket handkerchiefs from his bedroom, and saw them on Monday afternoon in the prisoner`s bedroom. They are the same as now produced, and the name is marked on them.

P.C. Hills, who apprehended the prisoner in this charge, said at the time she said they were her property.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month`s imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 21-9-1872

Tuesday, September 17^th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Mary Ann Briscoe, one of the servants at the Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing four pocket handkerchiefs, the property of Charles Preston, waiter, on the 16^th September. The prisoner was also charged with stealing a bed-sheet, the property of her master.

Charles Preston deposed that the prisoner was servant and housemaid at the Pavilion Hotel, where he was employed as waiter. He missed four pocket handkerchiefs about a month ago, but he could not say exactly. He missed them out of his bedroom. He saw tham yesterday in prisoner`s bedroom. He was going into the room, and on the drawers was a box, which he knocked over, and in which he saw the four pocket handkerchiefs. He took the box and showed it to the head waiter and asked him what he had better do, and he told him to put them back again. He valued them at 2s.

P.C. Hills stated that he was called to the Pavilion Hotel, and the prisoner given into custody on another charge. He took charge of the pocket handkerchiefs produced. He charged her with stealing them at the Pavilion Hotel and also at the Police Station, and she said they were hers.

Prisoner said she was Guilty of having the property in her possession, but it was not with intent to steal.

The Magistrates` Clerk put the usual questions to the prisoner, who thereupon pleaded Guilty, and wished the Bench to dispose of the case.

The second charge was then gone into.

Mary Littlewood, housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed that the prisoner was employed at the hotel as “Basement Woman”. She (witness) searched her bedroom with Mrs. Edwards and found the sheet and things produced. The parts of the linen sheet were outside the prisoner`s bed, but not concealed. It belonged to one of the men servants` beds in the hotel. She could identify it. When she made the search she asked the prisoner how she came by it, and she said it was her property. She had been in the hotel eight months. The value of the sheet was 7s. She took the remainder out of the prisoner`s box, but when she first went up into the bedroom the sheet was all on the bed.

Harriett Cornish, linen-keeper at the Pavilion Hotel, stated that she could identify the sheet by it`s quality and make. It had been marked with a stamp – “Pavilion Hotel” – but it was not to be found. She valued it at 7s. She found one missing, but she could not say how many more there were, as some were at the wash and some in use. Prisoner had no right with the sheet in her room and had no occasion to take it there.

P.C. Hills deposed to taking the prisoner into custody.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and desired the Bench to settle the case. She then stated that the sheet was upon one of the mens` beds, but it was set on fire and the blankets and sheets were burnt. The servants went to take the sheet to burn it in the copper, and Mrs. Tombs went round to see if they were burnt, and she was asked to destroy the things. She (prisoner) told her that she was afraid to destroy them as she could not get any more, and told Mrs. Tombs that she had better go to the housekeeper. The housekeeper came down afterwards and saw the things in her room. If she had herself reported the things she would have been looked upon as being very bad, but at the same time she had a right to have done so. She had been in the Pavilion nine months.

The Magistrates` Clerk asked if they had a fire there.

Harriett Cornish, linen-keeper, said that there were some things burnt, but they were brought to her.

Prisoner said the only witness she could bring was the man who had set fire to the bed. She knew nothing about how the sheet got cut up.

After a brief consideration the Mayor said the prisoner had been in a place of trust, and ought to have set an example to those about her. It was too serious a case for the magistrates to let go unpunished. She would be sent to Dover gaol for two calendar months` hard labour on the first charge of stealing a sheet, and on the second for stealing the pocket handkerchiefs she would have one month`s hard labour at the expiration of the first term. There were other charges of theft against her, but which would not be proceeded with.

Prisoner was taken out of Court protesting that the articles she was convicted of stealing were her own.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-12-1872

Notice

Who will help?

A man, advanced in years, has a wife and 6 children, the eldest of whom (a girl) is alone able to support herself, having just got a place as a pupil teacher, the rest are in childhood. He is well known to the public as Manager of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, from 1845 to 1856, since when he has experienced nothing but losses, and now through the bankruptcy of a trustee his property is entirely gone, leaving him quite destitute. Particulars, if desired, and subscriptions received by the Honble. Mrs. B.J. Bingham, Shirley Lodge, Southsea, and Henry Lewis M.D., West Terrace, Folkestone.

Folkestone Chronicle 5-4-1873

Thursday, April 3^rd: Before J. Kelcey, J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer and J. Clarke Esqs.

Thomas Syers was charged by Mr. Edwards with stealing a quantity of bread from the Pavilion Hotel, where he worked as a porter.

William Mortimer, waiter at the Pavilion, sworn, said tha prisoner was a porter connected with the Pavilion Hotel. After the boat came in on Sunday he saw the prisoner with half or whole of a loaf in his pocket. He was in the kitchen near the Refreshment room of the station. He told prisoner not to go out because he had some bread sticking out of his pocket. He did not see him leave the station.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Did not see you take the bread from the station.

Eliza Watkins said she was attached to the Pavilion Hotel in the capacity of a still-room maid. About half past five on the day in question she saw prisoner take some meat and bread from a shelf at the Harbour Station. His business there was to clear the things away. She saw the prisoner take the sandwiches off the plate on the counter. She asked him what he was going to do with them, and he replied he was going to give them to someone who would be glad of them. She had seen him cut sandwiches before. She saw him put the sandwiches in paper, and then place them in his pocket.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Did not hear you say that you took it away to bait a rat trap. The sandwiches were not left by visitors, as there was no business on that day.

This being the only evidence the Bench dismissed the case, as there was no evidence of felonious intention.

Mr. Edwards said that he was sorry to bring this case before the Bench, and he hoped the Magistrates would not think him severe, but the fact was that he had so many servants in his employ that he thought it his imperative duty to bring any cases of dishonesty before their worships as a protection to those servants who were honest.

Folkestone Express 5-4-1873

Thursday, April 3^rd: Before J. Kelcey, J. Gambrill, J. Clarke and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Thomas Sayers, porter, was charged with stealing a loaf of bread, the property of Mr. Edwards, Pavilion Hotel.

William Mortimer, waiter, said he was in the kitchen at the Harbour Station on the arrival of the boat on Sunday afternoon, when he saw prisoner there with a loaf of bread in his pocket, and told him not to take it away. He did not see him leave the station, nor did he see him take the bread away, and did not know whether he left it or not.

Eliza Watkins, still room maid, said she missed some meat from a shelf in the still room on Sunday afternoon about half past five. Prisoner had no business in the still room except to clear away and to take the meat back to the hotel. She saw him put some pieces of meat in his pocket, and he said he was going to give them to someone who would be glad of it.

By prisoner: I don`t know whether you took the meat away or left it. I have seen you get slices on other days, but not last Sunday. There were no pieces of meat left on the plates by the visitors on Sunday.

The Chairman said prisoner knew best what were his intentions, but the Bench did not think the evidence sufficiently strong to convict him and therefore he would be discharged, but he perhaps might consider himself fortunate.

Prisoner said there were pieces of meat left on the visitors` plates.

Mr. Edwards said he was sorry to have had to trouble the Bench, but having so many servants he was liable to be robbed, and it was only justice to the honest servants to bring the matters before their Worships. Although the value of the articles was trifling, the principle involved was serious.

Folkestone Express 22-5-1875

Tuesday, May 18^th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Peter Seboo, of Jersey, who appeared to be deaf and dumb, was charged with being drunk and with begging by means of cards on the previous evening.

In answer to the charge of drunkenness, prisoner wrote on a slate “I got some drink given me by some sailors. If the Court will allow me, I will leave the town”. As to the second charge, he wrote “I was looking for people who understood French, as I was in France twelve years. I don`t think anyone gave me anything”.

John Thatcher, porter at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed that the prisoner came to the hotel begging by a card on Monday night about eight o`clock. As witness saw the prisoner was drunk, he turned him out. Prisoner then showed his card to some visitors on the lawn, when witness pointed, and ordered him off the premises.

P.C. Joseph Willis proved apprehending the prisoner, who was drunk.

The prisoner did not deny being drunk, but said he did not remember anything about it.

He was sentenced to seven days` imprisonment for drunkenness, and fourteen days for begging, in both cases the imprisonment to be accompanied with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 18-9-1875

Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

James Hunt Angell, late a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing a pencil case, value 2s., the property of William Pike, another waiter at the same hotel, on the 9^th ult.

Mr. J. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Prosecutor deposed that the prisoner left the Pavilion Hotel on the previous Wednesday. Some time in August prosecutor lost a pencil case from the pantry. H could remember working in the pantry on one occasion, when he left his pencil case on the bench. He returned in about ten minutes and found it gone. He enquired of the prisoner and others afterwards, but they said they had not seen it. On Wednesday the 8^th inst. Mr. Spurgeon, the assistant manager at the Pavilion, shwoed prosecutor a pencil case, which he identified as his property. He knew it (the one produced) to be his property by the marks upon it made by his teeth, by the absence of the lead, and by a piece of dirt in the groove at the top. It was a present given to witness. On Wednesday, while the prisoner was having his dinner, prosecutor said “I`ve heard you have got a gold pencil case. Do you mind showing it to me?” He said “Certainly, I`ll not show it to you”, and after putting his hand in his waistcoat pocket said “I`ve not got one. I did have a plated one once, but it`s in my box”. Prosecutor afterwards went downstairs with prisoner and Mr. Spurgeon. Prisoner then opened his box, and after taking out a collar box, gave them leave to search the clothes. They did look, but did not find the pencil case, and prisoner then said he had not got it, and had not seen it since the Superintendent of Police searched his box the previous night.

George Spurgeon, assistant manager at the Pavilion, corroborated the prosecutor`s statement as to the searching of the prisoner`s box, and as to them not being able to find it. Witness was afterwards shown a pencil case by a servant named Challis, and prosecutor at once identified it as his property.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: We had a good character when we engaged prisoner.

Superintendent Wilshere deposed that on Tuesday week he saw the prisoner at the Pavilion Hotel in the presence of Mr. Edwards, the proprietor. Witness went to inquire about a cash box that had been stolen, and asked prisoner if he had any objection to witness`s looking in the box. He said “No” and witness looked at it in the presence of Mr. Williams. Witness saw a pencil case in the box amongst the clothes, which prisoner said belonged to him, and witness handed it back. The following day, witness received a similar case (the one produced) from Mr. Spurgeon, and on Friday apprehended the prisoner on a charge of stealing the case. Witness showed him the case received from Mr. Spurgeon, when he said it was the one which was in his box.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I cautioned the prisoner before he made the statement that anything he might say might be given in evidence against him. After cautioning him I consider I had a right to question prisoner on the charge.

The prisoner was remanded till Wednesday for the production of further evidence. As Mr. Minter, his solicitor, did not appear on that day, the case was further adjourned till Thursday.

Thursday, September 16^TH: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

James Angell was further charged on remand with stealing a pencil case, value 2s., the property of William Pike, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Jane Challis deposed that she was a servant living at Guestling, near Hastings. She had recently been living at the Pavilion Hotel, as servant, but left on Thursday. On that day she found a pencil case in a dust box in the hotel. Witness took it at once to Mr. Spurgeon. The dust box was near the room where prisoner slept.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: There are seven bedrooms on the basement near the dust box. The reason I looked in the box was because Mr. Spurgeon asked me if I had seen a pencil case. I replied that I might have swept it up in sweeping the bedrooms. All the waiters in the coffee room and table d`hote who do not sleep in the hotel wash and dress in the pantry, where prosecutor said he lost the pencil case. Eight or nine men used the pantry.

Alfred Back, head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said he was present on Tuesday week when prisoner`s box was searched by Superintendent Wilshere, and the pencil case was found. He looked at it for five or six minutes, but witness did not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I was asked to come up to the court by the manager, not by the Superintendent of Police. The reason I say that Mr. Wilshere looked five or six minutes at the case is to clear the other waiters by seeing justice was done, as there had been a great number of robberies at the hotel. I did not want to fasten them on the prisoner to clear the other waiters. I was asked by the assistant manager to come here and corroborate the Superintendent. The cash box was missing, and the Superintendent came on Tuesday week and searched prisoner`s box. The Superintendent turned over the clothes and found a pencil case and asked the prisoner where he got it from. Prisoner said it was his own, and to the best of my belief, said he had it some time. The Superintendent had it in his hand about six minutes, and that is what the manager asked me to come here and say. I think the Superintendent placed the pencil case in the box or put it in the prisoner`s hands.

Mr. Minter submitted that there was not sufficient evidence to send the case for trial. He drew attention to the fact that the charge was probably brought against the prisoner because the cash box had disappeared and could not be found, and showed that the last witness had admitted that he was brought to Court to corroborate the Superintendent. After referring to the evidence in detail, Mr. Minter said there was not a scintilla of evidence against the prisoner.

The Chairman said Mr. Minter`s remarks might have some effect with a jury, but the Magistrates were of opinion that there was a prima facie case against the prisoner and should therefore feel it their duty to commit him for trial.

Mr. Minter applied that the bail, if granted, be fixed in a moderate amount.

The evidence having been read over, prisoner, who reserved his defence, was formally committed to take his trial at the next Borough Quarter Sessions, bail being allowed, himself in £20, and two sureties in £10 each.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-10-1875

Quarter Sessions

Tuesday, February 26^th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

James Hunt Angell, 28, waiter, on bail, was charged with stealing a pencil case, of the value of 2s., the property of William Pike, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Forbes Mosse prosecuted, and Mr. Minter defended.

From the evidence of William Pike, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, it appears that in September prosecutor lost a pencil case, which he left in bench in the pantry. He enquired of prisoner if he had seen it, who declared that he had not. He afterwards saw Mr. Spurgeon, the assistant manager, who showed him a pencil case, which he identified as his own by a mark near the point, caused by using it as a tooth pick, and by a black spot on the groove. On the day the pencil case was found he saw prisoner and asked prisoner to show him the pencil case he had, and he replied he had not got one, but that he did have a plated one, which was in his box. On going to his box with him, prisoner took a collar-box out and said “You can see for yourself”. No pencil case was found, and prisoner said he had not seen the pencil case since he had seen it in the Superintendent`s hands.

Mr. Spurgeon, assistant manager of the Pavilion, deposed that on telling the prisoner that a pencil case was seen in his box, he said “Well, if it was there then, it is there now”. The pencil case produced was brought to him by Jane Challis, and when showed to the prisoner, he exclaimed “This is my pencil case”.

Supt. Wishere said that on Tuesday, the 7^th September he went to the Pavilion Hotel and saw Mr. Edwards, and prisoner was sent for and he told him a cash box had been stolen. He was asked if he had any objection to have his box searched, and he said he had not. He (the Supt.), Mr. Edwards, and the head waiter went to prisoner`s room, and prisoner produced a small tin which he took out of his large box. He (the Supt.) was searching for the cash box, not knowing anything about the pencil case. Among prisoner`s clothes was found the pencil case produced, and he held it in his hands five or six minutes. He endeavoured to remove a black mark in the groove, which he could not. He (the Supt.) asked prisoner if it belonged to him, and he said he had had it four or five years, and he gave it back to him. On the following day the pencil case was brought to him by the assistant manager. He (the Supt.) apprehended the prisoner at the Randolph Mews, Bayswater. He gave him the usual caution, read the warrant, and asked him where the opera glasses were, which were in the box with the pencil case, showing him the case, and he said he had given up the opera glasses to the owner.

Jane Challis said she was in employ at the Pavilion in September. She remembered finding a pencil case in a dust box in the basement, which was similar to the one produced. Prisoner slept in the end room in the basement, about ten or twelve yards from where she found the case, which she gave to Mr. Spurgeon.

Alfred Back, head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said he was present when prisoner`s box was searched and Supt. Wilshere found a pencil case. Prisoner said it was his.

Each of the above witnesses were severely cross-examined by Mr. Minter, and although the facts were not wrong, the drift of their meaning were shown to be considerably altered.

Mr. Minter, in a most able address, rebutted the facts produced against the prisoner, and showed the impossibility of his guilt, and in defence of character he called Mr. Charles Bateman, 14, Cambridge Street, Hyde Park, who said he was 13 years in service in Connaught Square, and that he had known prisoner eight years, he lodged with him four years, and he had always known him as an honest man.

After the Recorder summed up, the jury immediately acquitted the prisoner, a verdict that was received with considerable applause.

Folkestone Express 30-10-1875

Quarter Sessions

Tuesday, October 26^th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

James Hunt Angell, 28, waiter, of imperfect education, pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of stealing a pencil case, value 2s., from a waiter named Pike at the Pavilion Hotel last September.

Mr. James Forbes Moss, for the prosecution, briefly stated the case to the Petty jury, and then called Edward Pike, who said: I am a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel. Some time about the middle of September last I lost a pencil case. I left it on the bench in the pantry at the hotel. There was no-one in the room with me at the time, nor was there on my return five or six minutes after. When I came back the pencil case was gone. I am certain I left it there.

The learned Recorder: When I left the pantry there was no-one there, nor was there anyone when I came back.

By Mr. Moss: I made enquiries among my fellow servants, and among them the prisoner, if they had seen a pencil case, as I had lost one. When I asked the prisoner he said “No, my boy, I have not”. On the 8^th of September I saw Mr. Spurgeon, the assistant manager at the hotel, and he showed me a pencil case – the one now produced. I identify it by the marks of my teeth round the bottom, the absence of lead, and a black spot in one of the grooves as the one I lost. On the 8^th of September I went to the prisoner in the pantry and said “I hear you have a gold pencil case. Do you mind showing it to me?” Prisoner said “Certainly not”. He then felt in his pockets, and said he had not got it, but also said “I did have a plated one once, but it is somewhere in my box now”. Asked him if he would come and look in his box after he had finished dinner, which he was having at the time. Mr. Spurgeon, prisoner, and myself went down, and the prisoner unlocked his box, took out a small tin collar box, which I searched, as well as his other box, but could not find the pencil case. Prisoner said he had not seen it since the Superintendent had it the night before, and supposed he took it away with him. Then went into the room where the box was searched the night before and looked about the room, but could not find the pencil case. I lost it after the prisoner came to the hotel.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Prisoner came the early part of September. I lost the pencil case about a fortnight after the prisoner came.

Mr. Minter: You say the prisoner came in September, and you lost the pencil case in August?

Witness: I made a mistake. Am not certain what month prisoner came into Mr. Edwards` service. Did not give him a description of the pencil case, but told him it was a gold one. I mean by the description the pattern of the pencil case. The pantry was used by the waiters for washing themselves. There was no-one there when I went in. I took the pencil case out to pick my teeth with, as I suffered with toothache. There is no-one but the waiters supposed to go into the pantry.

By Mr. Moss: I was not aware of the material of which the pencil case was made.

By the learned Recorder: I asked the prisoner on the day I lost the pencil case if he had found one.

Mr. G. Spurgeon, the assistant manager at the Pavilion Hotel was then called, and said: I know the prisoner. He was employed at the Pavilion Hotel, and came into our service on the first Monday in August, and left on Wednesday, September 8^th. Before he left I spoke to him about a pencil case having been seen in his possession. At first he said he had not one, but on my saying it had been seen in his box the previous night, he said “If it was there then, it is now”. I went with Pike to search his box. He showed Pike a tin collar box, but the pencil case was not in that, nor in his clothes box. The pencil case was brought to me by Jane Challis. I swear this is the one. When it was brought to me I showed it to Pike, who said “This is mine”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I identify the pencil case by the teeth marks. I showed it to Pike and he identified it, and I then gave it to Superintendent Wilshere.

J.M. Wilshere, Superintendent of Police for the Borough, said: I remember on the seventh of last month going to the Pavilion Hotel. I saw Mr. Edwards. From information received I asked to see the prisoner, and then told him he had been seen leaving the Hotel with something under his arm. Asked if he had any objection to his box being searched. Mr. Edwards and the head waiter went with me down to prisoner`s room. Prisoner unlocked his box and produced a small tin collar box containing a quantity of sundry articles, saying “This is the only one box I have”. I was searching for the cash box at the time, not the pencil case. I saw among his clothes the pencil case, which I had in my hands five or six minutes. I know it by what I thought was a piece of dirt. Asked prisoner if it belonged to him, and he replied he had had it five or six years, and I gave it him back. The next day a pencil case was brought to me by Mr. Spurgeon, and I got a warrant out and apprehended the prisoner at Randolf Mews, London.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I went to the hotel to search for a box of money, and told prisoner he had been seen leaving the hotel with something under his arm. There was no gas in the room where I searched the box; we had a single candle held over the box by the head waiter. I mean to say that I saw the flaw in the pencil case by the light of the candle. When I went to apprehend prisoner I took the pencil case out of my pocket and said “Where are the opera glasses that were in your box at the time I found this?”, and he replied he had given them back to the owner. I found prisoner at his residence, 9, Randolf Mews, London.

Jane Challis: I was in the employ of Mr. Edwards, but am now living at Guestling, near Hastings. I remember the prisoner very well. I found a great many things while at the hotel, but particularly remember finding a pencil case in a dust box in the basement. Prisoner slept on the left hand side and the end room of the passage. The room was about ten or twelve yards from the dust box where I found the pencil case, which I took to Mr. Spurgeon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The rooms are occupied by the kitchen people and waiters. I might have swept it up, but I do not think I did.

Alfred Back, head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said: I was present when the box was searched.

By Mr. Minter: I did not say before the Magistrates that the Superintendent was examining the pencil case five or six minutes. I don`t know what became of it after he looked at it. It is tru the Superintendent was talking and twiddling the pencil case in his hand at the same time.

Charles Pateman was called by Mr. Minter as a witness to the prisoner`s character. He said: I have known him eight years. He has always borne the best of characters. He lodged with me four years.

This being the end of the evidence, Mr. Minter addressed the jury in the following terms: Mr. Minter, on addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, said that although he felt some anxiety in addressing the jury, it was not from any fear that he should be able to demonstrate the prisoner`s innocence, but from a fear that his interests might suffer from his having to undertake the defence at a short notice, in consequence of the absence of counsel. The whole case rested upon Superintendent Wilshere`s evidence as to the identity of the pencil case found by the housemaid with the pencil case seen by him in the prisoner`s box. If the jury were not satisfied that the Superintendent`s evidence was to be relied on on that point, then there was an end of the case, and he confidently asked the jury to disbelieve him, looking at the manner in which he had given his evidence relative to the alleged admission made by the prisoner in London, which, under cross-examination, turned out to be no admission at all, but were the Superintendent`s own words put into the prisoner`s mouth for the purpose of bolstering up a weak case. Mr. Minter proceeded to make further comments upon the conduct of the Superintendent, and said the case might do very well according to the understanding of the Superintendent, examined by the light of a solitary candle in the basement of the Pavilion Hotel, but would not bear examination by daylight in the Town Hall. He ridiculed the idea of the Superintendent having seen the speck of dirt upon the pencil case, and attributed his statement to the vivid imagination of a police officer anxious for a conviction, and concluded by calling upon the jury to give a verdict of acquittal.

The Recorder summed up the case, pointing out to the jury that unless they were satisfied the pencil case found by the housemaid was the same pencil case as seen by the Superintendent in the prisoner`s box, they would be bound to give a verdict of Not Guilty. The Recorder censured the Superintendent for having questioned the prisoner, having no right to do so, and left it for the jury to say whether they believed the Superintendent had really seen the small speck of dirt on the pencil case, as alleged by him.

The jury acquitted the prisoner, at which there was applause in Court, which was immediately suppressed.

Southeastern Gazette 6-3-1876

 

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Pavilion Hotel, on Thursday evening last, before J. Minter, Esq., touching the death of Stephen Bowbrick, a painter aged 31 years.

William Solly said deceased was a painter, and lived at Sandgate. He was in the employ of Holden and Son, of Folkestone. He was 31 years of age. Witness saw him at work painting the cornice at the top of the Pavilion Hotel on Thursday afternoon. He was standing on a pair of steps, which stood on two planks, resting on the window sills. The window sills were about twelve inches wide and four feet in length. The height from the ground was quite 25 feet. Witness was working below deceased, and saw him fall. He slipped from the steps and was in the act of getting from the steps to the plank. He fell first on the corridor roof, and thence through the glass roof of the entrance hall. Witness with the assistance of the hall porter picked him up and brought him into the steward’s room. Witness believed that the plank and steps were perfectly safe to work upon.

Some further evidence having been given, the jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death.”

 

Folkestone Express 27-4-1878

Saturday, April 20^th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Colonel De Crespigny, W.J. Jeffreason, James Kelcey and J. Clark Esqs., and Aldermen Caister and Sherwood.

John Adams, a tramping bricklayer, was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Pavilion Hotel when requested. He pleaded Guilty and was fined 5s. and 8s. 6d. costs, or seven days`, and was committed in default.