Folkestone Chronicle
31-3-1900
Inquest
On Thursday evening a very serious and fatal occurrence was
partly investigated by the Folkestone Coroner, who opened an inquiry into the
death of George William Hanbury. The deceased, who was a native of Lewisham,
and had only been married on Monday, was spending his honeymoon at Folkestone.
On Wednesday night, it was stated, he had a dispute with Edgar Dalton, landlord
of the Foresters Arms Hotel, as to the payment for drinks. The landlord`s
father, who was formerly Chief constable at Maidstone, interposed, and, it is
alleged, threw Hanbury out of the hotel. The man fell down a flight of steps on
to the back of his head and fractured his skull, dying a few hours later in the
Victoria Hospital. The jury were puzzled as to whether the landlord`s father,
not being a licence holder, had the right to touch a customer, and whether
death had resulted from a throw or a fall. The deceased`s widow created a
distressing scene.
The jury begged the Coroner to adjourn the case for a week,
and to bring further witnesses before them, as they considered the case to be a
very serious one. The inquiry was accordingly adjourned, it being understood
that the parties immediately concerned, as well as the police, were desirous of
securing legal assistance.
The inquest was opened at the Town Hall by Mr. Coroner
Minter.
The first witness was the widow of deceased, who was greatly
overcome by the catastrophe. She said she last saw her husband on Wednesday
morning, between ten and eleven, when he went out. She did not know anything
about his death, only from what she had heard.
The Coroner said that for his own information he would like
to hear what that was.
Witness said she had been told that deceased was not drunk,
but excited.
By the Coroner: He was never in the habit of getting
intoxicated.
Clara Harrison said: I am the wife of Thomas Harrison, a
postman, and reside at 152, Dover Road. I knew the deceased, who had lodged at
my house with his wife since Monday last.
The jury retired to view the body, the Coroner suggesting
that Mrs. Harrison should accompany them for the purpose of identification, as
the ordeal would be very distressing for the widow. The jury viewed the body,
and also visited the public house and the spot where the accident occurred.
Mrs. Harrison, continuing her evidence, said: Deceased was
an engine driver, but was out of employment at the time of his death. He was
married on Monday morning at Lewisham.
Robert William Gillingham said: I live at 63, St. John`s
Street, Folkestone, and am a smith. I was in the bar of the Foresters` Arms
last evening about 6.15. I went in by the door with the steps, and deceased
came in a few minutes afterwards by the same way with another man, unknown to
me. Deceased had evidently had some beer.
Pressed by the Coroner as to whether deceased was drunk,
witness stated that he appeared to have had quite enough, but the other man,
who looked like a plasterer was “all right”.
Continuing, he said: When they came in, deceased called for
a glass of beer for himself and one for the plasterer. He also asked the
landlord to have one too. Mr. Dalton refused at first, saying he was just going
to have some tea, but the deceased pressed him, and the landlord had a drink
with him. Hanbury and the plasterer drank their beer, and at first deceased
refused to pay. I heard the landlord ask him for the money – sixpence. Deceased
then began to feel in his pockets. He did not pay then, but went outside and
came back in a few minutes by the same door that he went out by. The landlord
again asked for the money, when deceased said he had paid it before he went
out. The landlord replied that he had not received the money. There was a
barmaid in the bar at the time. The landlord then came round to where deceased was
standing. Up to this time deceased had not created any disturbance, but when
the landlord went up to the deceased and said “I want sixpence off you sir,
please, for the drinks”, Hanbury said “You`ll get no sixpence off me”. He had
an umbrella in his hand, and, holding it up, threatened the landlord. Making as
if to strike the landlord, he said “I`ll see you ---- before I give you the
sixpence”. The landlord did not threaten deceased. Mr. Dalton`s father then
came into the bar, where there were six or seven people at the time. Mr. Dalton
seior opened the door by the steps, and, without saying anything, took hold of
deceased by the waist. There was a struggle against the door, and the deceased
went down the steps. I did not see the landlord do anything. I should say Henry
Dalton (the father) was trying to get deceased outside, and that deceased was
trying to free himself. Directly afterwards he went rolling out of the door
into the street. When I went out he was lying on his back, and someone was
trying to sit him up. I could not swear whether he went out of the door
backwards or not. I saw a lot of blood coming from the back of his head.
The Coroner pressed the witness very hard to give some of
the details leading up to the episode near the door.
The witness, whose evidence had become very contradictory,
sheltered himself behind the plea that he was not paying much attention, that
he had nothing to do with the occurrence, and was at the other end of the bar.
Mr. Minter said the witness was not bearing out the
statement made that morning to his (the Coroner`s) officer. He asked Gillingham
whether he had been discussing the case with anyone since the previous morning.
The witness admitted that he had been talking to the two Daltons outside the
Court, but said he had not discussed the case.
Chief Constable Reeve put the following question through the
Coroner: Did the deceased go out by himself on the first occasion? The witness
replied that he did.
A juror: Was the deceased asked to leave the premises? – No.
I never heard him requested to leave. Immediately the deceased was going to
strike the landlord, the latter`s father came in and took hold of him at once.
Thomas Archer said: I live at 30, Pavilion Road, and am a
coachman to Dr. Chambers. I was walking by the Foresters` Arms yesterday
afternoon about a quarter past six. As I cam round the corner I saw the
deceased fall backwards on to his head on the pavement, with his legs on the
steps. He fell from the top step. Soon afterwards the landlord and his father came
out of the front door. Deceased never moved after he fell. I did not see what
caused the fall.
By a juror: It was the landlord who picked the deceased up,
not Henry Dalton.
At this stage the Coroner suggested that, in view of the
seriousness of the inquiry, and there being other witnesses of the occurrence,
an adjournment should be made.
The jury concurred, the foreman remarking that the jury were
of opinion that full investigation was necessary.
The witnesses were bound over to appear at the adjourned
inquest, which will take place at the Town Hall on Wednesday next at 3 p.m.
Folkestone Express
31-3-1900
Inquest
On Wednesday evening a sad fatality happened at the
Foresters` Arms in Shellons Street. It appears that George William Hanbury, who
was married at Lewisham on Monday, and came to Folkestone with his wife to
spend the honeymoon, was in the bar of the Foresters` Arms and was thrust out
by someone. He fell backwards down two or three steps, and his head striking
the pavement his skull was fractured. As he was insensible he was removed to
the Victoria Hospital, where he died during the night.
An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Thursday afternoon
on the body of George William Hanbury, whose death occurred on the same day.
Martha Hanbury, the widow of the deceased, was the first
witness called to identify the body, but she being much distressed, the Coroner
asked if she was the only person who could identify, and was answered that Mrs.
Harrison could.
The Coroner said, for his own satisfaction, he would like to
ask one question: What time did your husband go away yesterday afternoon?
Mrs. Hanbury: He went out yesterday morning.
When did you last see him? – Between ten and eleven
yesterday morning.
What time did this happen?
Supt. Reeve: About half past six last evening.
The Coroner (to the widow): You had not seen him then, and
you can`t say what condition he was in? – Only from what I have heard.
What was that, for my satisfaction? – He was not the worse
for drink, but very excited.
Had he been in the habit of getting tipsy? – No, sir.
Clara Harrison, the wife of James Henry Harrison, of 152,
Dover Road, a postman, said she knew the deceased, George William Hanbury, who
had lodged at her house with his wife since Monday.
After having identified the body, the witness resumed: The
deceased lived at 45, Pascoe Road, Lewisham. He had been an engine driver, but
was out of employment. He was married on Monday morning at Lewisham.
Robert William Gillingham said: I live at 53, St. John`s
Street, and am a smith. Yesterday I was in the bar at the Foresters` Arms about
a quarter to six in the afternoon. I entered the door with the steps. The
deceased came in afterwards. I was standing up against the bar, and had called
for a glass of beer. I had been there a few minutes when Hanbury came in by the
same door. A plasterer or bricklayer came in with him, and they appeared to be
together. I don`t know the plasterer`s name – he was about 30 or 33 and in
working clothes. Deceased was very respectably dressed. Deceased had had some
beer and appeared to me to have had quite enough. The plasterer was all right.
Deceased called for a glass of beer for himself and one for the plasterer. He
asked the landlord, Mr. Edgar Dalton, to have a glass also. At first he
refused, saying he was going to have his tea. He drew the two glasses, and
deceased then asked him again to have a glass and he had one. The deceased and
the plasterer then drank their beer and the landlord drank his. The plasterer
and deceased stood talking together – the landlord was waiting on other
customers. Then I heard the landlord ask the deceased for the money. Deceased
asked how much he owed and the landlord said “6d.”. Deceased began to feel in
his pocket for the money. He did not pay, but went outside for a few minutes. I
believe the plasterer went out before. Deceased came back a few minutes
afterwards and went to the bar. The landlord said “I want 6d, off you, sir”.
Deceased said he had paid before he went out. The landlord said he had not
taken any money at all. The landlord was behind the bar and also the barmaid, I
believe. I did not hear any more said. The landlord came round to the front of
the bar to where deceased was standing. The deceased had made no disturbance –
he was enjoying himself and talking about a soldier. The landlord went up to
the deceased and said “I want 6d. off you, sir, please, for those drinks”.
Deceased said “You will get no 6d. off me”. He had an umbrella in his hand, and
holding it up, he threatened the landlord with it, and said “I`ll see you ----
before I give you that 6d.”. The landlord did not threaten deceased at all. Mr.
Dalton, the landlord`s father, then came into the bar. There were six or seven
people in the bar. I only knew them by sight. I have not been here long. I have
seen two or three of them since. One is in Court now. I think they call him
“Scotty”. When Mr. Dalton Sen. came into the bar deceased had still his
umbrella up as if to strike. Mr. Dalton opened the door and took hold of
deceased, who was close to the door. I could not say exactly how Dalton took
hold of him, but I think round the waist, whether with one hand or both I
cannot say. I did not see the landlord do anything. He was standing by. When
Mr. Henry Dalton opened the door he did not say anything to the deceased. They
were all together.
The Coroner: Now you told my officer what occurred. If you
told the truth then, tell the truth now.
Witness: The deceased and Henry Dalton were struggling
together. I did not hear anything said. I dd not see the landlord do anything.
It was only Henry Dalton and deceased who were struggling together. Dalton was
trying to get him outside and deceased was trying to free himself. Directly
afterwards deceased went rolling out into the street. I could not say whether
he went out backwards or forwards. Dalton was in the inner side, but I cannot
say whether they were face to face. I ran out of the other door and found the
deceased lying on his back, and someone (I believe it was the landlord) was
trying to get him up. I cannot say whether he went out backwards or forwards. I
was not close enough to the door to see.
The Coroner: I put a question to you. Where was the deceased
– on his back or sitting up? – He was sitting on the steps.
Didn`t you say he was lying on his back? – No.
Well, the jury will be able to judge.
Now, you recognise my officer, don`t you? – Yes.
Did you tell him this morning that the deceased was in a
fighting attitude and that the landlord took hold of him and threw him out of
the door? – Not the landlord; the father.
Didn`t you say it was the landlord? – I have heard since it
was the father.
Have you seen them since? – Only outside just now.
Is it true that the landlord`s father did push this man out?
– They were struggling together against the door and the deceased went out of
the door in an instant.
What caused the deceased to go out? – The struggling, I
suppose.
I understand you to say the landlord`s father was trying to
get the deceased out? – Yes.
Are you aware the man`s head was hurt? – I did not notice. I
saw a great deal of blood about.
If he had gone out face first, he would not have hit the
back of his head, would he? – No.
The Coroner: You can judge from the question I have put to
the witness that he is not telling the same tale as he told my officer.
However, I have asked him all these questions – is there anything you gentlemen
would like me to put to him?
The Foreman: Are there two exits to the bar?
The Coroner: There is only that one. There is another door
through which the father came in. You can very well judge from his answers that
the man is not telling the truth.
The Foreman: I did not like to say that.
The Coroner: I say it.
Witness: As I was standing in the bar the man went rolling
into the street.
Supt. Reeve: Did the deceased walk out by himself on the
first occasion without assistance?
The Coroner (to witness): You say he went out by himself? –
Yes, he went out by himself and came back by himself without any assistance
from anyone.
The Coroner: Then there could not have been anything much
the matter with him? – He was talkative.
Could he walk straight? – He did not walk much in the bar.
But he walked out of the bar and into the bar? – Yes.
And down the steps? – No, he went out of the other door.
Did he come in the other door? – The same was as he went
out.
If this man was a stranger in the town, how did he know
which way to go? – I don`t know.
The urinal, as I understand, was at the other end. How did
he know where to get to it? – I cannot say.
Did you hear him ask the way to the urinal? – No. I heard
him say he was going out.
The Foreman: Before he was put out was he requested to leave
by the landlord or the father? – No. I never heard him asked to leave.
Now, just tell me. Why did the landlord`s father come into
the bar if there was nothing going on? – I think he was in the bar, or close by
the bar at the back.
Then he would hear what was taking place? – Yes.
Mrs. Harrison said: The landlord told me this morning that
the deceased was not the worse for drink. He was only excited about soldiers,
and he told him if he did not keep his temper he should put him out.
The Coroner (to witness): Now you heard him talking about
soldiers? – Yes.
Why did the father come in and take hold of the man to put
him out of the front door? – I don`t know. It was nothing to do with me.
But you have your own judgement? – Immediately the father
saw him going to strike the landlord he came in and took hold of him.
You said he did not strike? – He aimed at him as if to
strike him.
Thomas Archer, of 30, Pavilion Road, coachman to Dr.
Chambers, said: I was walking past the Foresters` Arms yesterday afternoon
between a quarter and half past six on the same side as the inn. As I passed
the corner I saw the deceased fall backwards on to the pavement. His arm hit my
leg as he fell, and the back of his head went on to the pavement. His legs were
on the doorstep. He fell from the top step. The landlord and his father came
out of the half-door soon after. The landlord was close to the deceased on the
top step when the man fell. I could not see who pushed him – I only saw him
fall. The landlord`s father was behind. Deceased fell just like a man falling
down dead and never moved afterwards. I did not see Gillingham. I helped to get
deceased on to the step. I did not hear the landlord say how it had happened. I
did not hear a word spoken.
By Mr. Venner (a juror):
The landlord was the first one to come down the steps, and the landlord
picked him up.
The Coroner: That really confirms the statement Gillingham
made to my officer this morning. Now he says it was the landlord`s father – for
what reason I don`t know.
The Coroner at this point said: I don`t know what you
gentlemen may think at this stage of the case. There were six or seven persons
said to have been in the bar at the time, and the inquest happens so shortly
after our information was given to us that so far we haven`t been able to find
any of them. It appears to me that it is a case in which they ought to be
found. You know, without prejudging it in any way at all, that there is the fact
that this man is dead. The evidence of the last witness, who is a respectable
man, and who has no motive for telling an untruth, tells you that in passing he
saw this man come from the top step backwards on to the back of his head. The
doctor will tell you presently there is a fracture at the back, and your own
common sense tells you that a man does not do that of his own motion. Looking
to what Gillingham said as to what took place, we shall have to consider the
conduct of the landlord`s father putting this man out, if he did put him out. I
think the evidence of some of those people who were there should if possible be
obtained. To my mind it is a serious case, and one that requires inquiry. If
you are of that opinion we had better adjourn the jury now.
The Foreman said the jury were of the same opinion, that it
was a most serious case and required the most strict inquiry, and it would be
advisable to get some of those other witnesses.
The Coroner said he would adjourn to any day next week they
might consider most convenient. He could give a certificate for burial.
The jury selected Wednesday afternoon next at three o`clock.
The inquiry was then adjourned.
Folkestone Herald
31-3-1900
Inquest
On Wednesday evening, about 6.30, a tragic event took place
at the Foresters` Arms Inn, Grace Hill. A man named George Wm. Hanbury, of 45,
Pastoe Road, Lewisham, formerly a railway engine driver but latterly out of
employment, met his death under circumstances of peculiar sadness. He had only
been married on the previous Monday morning at Lewisham, and he and his wife
came down to Folkestone on their wedding trip, putting up at No. 152, Dover
Road, the residence of James Hy. Harrison (postman) and his wife, Mrs. Clara
Harrison. Hanbury went out between 10 and 11 on Wednesday morning, and she
heard nothing of him until the same evening, when she discovered that he had
fallen down the steps leading to the entrance of the Foresters` Arms, and that
he was unconscious from the injuries he sustained. He was taken to the
hospital, but never rallied, and died on Thursday morning.
The inquest was opened on Thursday last, at 2 p.m., by Mr.
Coroner Minter, in the Magistrates` Room at the Town Hall, and after the body
had been identified by Mrs. Clara Harrison, the evidence then available was
taken. The body of the room, open to the public, was filled by a number of
spectators. Mr. Chief Constable Reeve watched the case on behalf of the police
authorities.
Mrs. Hanbury, the widowed bride, was in attendance, and was
led into Court by the Coroner`s Officer (Mr. Edwin Chadwick), supported by Mrs.
Harrison, who kindly assisted the poor woman throughout the terrible ordeal
which she had to undergo, though the learned Coroner did his very utmost to
spare her any further anguish by accepting the evidence of the identification
which Mrs. Harrison was able to give. By this means the Coroner was able to
dispense with the attendance of the widow at the hospital to view the body.
After the widow had been sworn, the Coroner said: Mrs.
Hanbury, I should like to ask you on this occasion when it was this affair took
place?
Witness, sobbing: Last night, sir.
Mrs. Hanbury, I should like to ask you what time did your
husband go out yesterday evening? – He went out in the morning. I last saw him
between 10 and 11 yesterday morning.
And at what time did this happen? – About half past six, I
hear.
You had not seen him? – No.
You cannot speak as to what condition he was in? – No, sir,
only from what I have heard. I hear that he was a little excited, but not the
worse for drink.
Had he been in the habit of getting tipsy? – No, sir.
The Coroner: We will dispense with this witness, if Mrs.
Harrison can identify the body.
Mrs. Harrison: I can, sir.
Mrs. Harrison was then sworn, and deposed that she knew the
deceased, who lodged at her house, 152, Dover Road. (At this stage the Coroner,
jurors, and Mrs. Harrison drove over to the hospital and viewed the body. On
their return Mrs. Harrison gave formal evidence of identification).
Robert William Gillingham, smith, living at 53, St. John`s
Street, was the next witness called, and he was examined as follows by the
learned Coroner:-
Yesterday you were passing the Foresters` Arms? – Yes, sir.
You were in the bar, were you? – Yes, sir.
At what time? – I should think about a quarter past six in
the afternoon.
Which door did you go in? – The one at the steps.
Was the deceased in there when you went in, or did he come
in afterwards? – He came in afterwards.
Were you sitting down? – No, I was standing up against the
bar.
You were having some beer? – Yes, sir, I called for a half
of beer.
How long had you been in before the deceased came in? – A
few minutes.
How did he come in? By the same door? – Yes, sir.
Was there anyone with him? – Yes, there was a plasterer or
bricklayer, or something of that sort.
Did they come in together? – Yes.
As if they worked together? – Yes.
Do you know the plasterer`s name? – No, sir.
Was he a young man or old? – I should say he was 30 or 33,
but could not say.
Was he in his working dress? – No, sir, he was dressed
respectably.
How do you make out, then, that he was a plasterer or
bricklayer? – That was the companion, and he was in working clothes.
And from his clothes you judged what he was? – Yes, sir.
Was the deceased sober or not? – He had had some beer.
Was the man tipsy? – He appeared to have had quite enough.
He did? – Yes.
What about the plasterer? – He was all right.
When the came in, what took place? – Deceased called for a
glass for each of them, and the landlord had one as well.
He asked the landlord, Edgar Dalton, to have a glass as well?
– Yes, but Edgar Dalton refused it at first.
Yes? – The landlord refused because he said he was going to
have his tea, but he was enticed, and after being asked again he had one. He
drew himself a glass of stout, or something to that effect.
Yes. What took place then? – The man refused to pay at
first.
Yes. Did the plasterer and he drink their beer? – Yes.
What were they doing? – The plasterer and he were talking
together.
Did the landlord join in? – No. He was waiting on the other
customers.
What did you hear next? – I heard the landlord ask him for
the money.
Had the deceased and the plasterer gone out at all? – No,
not just then. The plasterer went out and left the deceased in the bar.
Was that before or after the landlord asked deceased for his
money? – I don`t remember that.
Was the plasterer there when this man went somehow or other
down the steps? – No, he had gone home.
What reply did the deceased make when he was asked for the
money by the landlord? – He asked how much he owed.
What did the landlord say? – Sixpence.
Yes. What did the deceased say? – He began to feel in his
pocket for the money. He never said he would not pay.
Yes? – He did not pay, not then, and went outside for a few
minutes.
Did he say anything? – No, he did not say anything.
Had the plasterer gone then? – I don`t remember, sir. I
believe he went before, but I could not say exactly.
Did he say what he was going outside for when he did go? –
For the convenience, I believe, sir.
Did he say so? When a man walks out of a house owing money,
the landlord would have thought he was going away altogether? – He came back a
few minutes afterwards.
Through the same door? – Yes.
Did he go to the bar? – Yes, sir, and the landlord asked him
again for the money.
What did the landlord say to him? What were his words? – I
want 6d. off you, sir.
Deceased said what? - I will pay you before I go out.
What did the landlord say? – He said he had not taken any
money at all, and the deceased said “I have paid you”.
Yes. Then the landlord came round into the bar to the
deceased. Deceased said “ I have paid you”, and the landlord said “I have never
had the money”? – Yes.
The landlord came round by the door and got into the bar? –
Yes.
Where was the deceased standing when you left the house?
Near the door? – About half way. I should think he was between the bar and the
door.
Up to this time, when you say the landlord said “I have had
no money”, and he left the bar and came to the front, had deceased created any
disturbance? – No, he simply enjoyed himself talking about the soldiers, but he
was not creating a disturbance, not a great deal, I think.
Now, when the landlord came round, you say he went up to the
deceased? – Yes.
What else did he say to him? – He said “I want 6d. off you, sir,
if you please, for those drinks”.
Yes? – To which the deceased replied “You will get no 6d.
off me”.
Yes? – Deceased had an umbrella in his hand and held it up
and threatened the landlord.
In what way? By words or actions? – By the umbrella. He held
it up as if to strike him.
Did he say anything? – I will see you b---- before I give
you that 6d.
Was the landlord threatening him at all? – No.
Yes? - On which Mr. Dalton`s father came up.
Where did he come from? – From the door by which the young man
came out.
He came into the bar, did he? – Yes.
How many people were in the bar at this time? – I should say
about six or seven.
Do you know any of them? – Only by sight.
Do you know where they live? – No, sir.
Have you been here long? – No, sir.
You would know them if you saw them again? – Two or three I
know by sight. One is in Court now, and they call him “Scotty”.
Any others that you saw? – I believe there were two soldiers
there.
Have you seen any of the others since? – I have only seen
“Scotty” since.
Well, then, you say that Mr. Henry Dalton came into the bar.
When he came into the bar had deceased then got his umbrella up? – Yes.
What took place? – Henry Dalton opened the front door, the
door to the steps.
I see the front door is in two parts. Did he open only one
part or the two? – Only one part where the steps are.
Yes? – He got hold of the deceased.
How did he get hold of him if deceased was at the bar and
Henry Dalton at the front door? – Deceased was near the door.
He had left the counter, then, and come near the front door?
– He was against the front door.
Did you see how he got hold of him? – He got hold of him
somehow.
Where did Henry Dalton take hold of him? You told my officer
this morning. Speak the truth now. – He took hold of him round the waist, I
should think.
He took hold of deceased round the waist. With one hand or
both? – I could not say (after hesitation) whether he held the door with one
hand or not. The door was open.
I know it was, according to what you say. And what did the
landlord do? – I don`t think the landlord did anything. He was standing there.
That we know. Did Mr. Henry Dalton say anything? – No.
When he went to open the door, did he say anything to the
deceased? – No.
Do you say that the landlord never pushed the deceased? –
They were all three together. I could not say whether he did or not. I was
standing back a little. There was a struggle against the door, and the deceased
fell outside down the steps.
You will have to answer the question that I am putting to
you. If you told my officer the truth this morning, tell it now. – There was a
struggle between Henry Dalton and the deceased, and the last I saw he was on
the pavement.
You say that Henry Dalton took hold of the deceased. Just
now you said they were all three struggling together? – No, not all three.
It was in answer to my question whether the landlord did
anything? – No, I don`t think so.
You said they were all three struggling together? – No, sir,
I didn`t say that. I said Henry Dalton and deceased.
Henry Dalton took hold of the man round the waist? – Yes.
And had the door open? – Yes.
I asked you whether he and deceased said anything? - I did not hear anything.
I asked you did the landlord do anything? – No, sir, I never
saw him.
Very well. Now, who were struggling together? – Henry Dalton
and deceased.
What was Henry Dalton trying to do? – I should say he was
trying to get him outside.
What was deceased trying to do? – To free himself.
He was trying to free himself from Henry Dalton? – Yes.
Well? – Well, directly afterwards the deceased went rolling
out at the door.
Backwards or forwards? – I could not say. I could not see
out of the door.
Did you see his body lying there? – I ran out the other
door.
Did you find him lying on the floor on his head with one leg
on the steps? – There were more people then, and someone was trying to sit him
up.
Who was that? – I believe it was the landlord.
Now, what do you say? Did he go out backwards or forwards? –
I would not answer that, sir.
Why would not you? – Because I was not close enough to the
door to see it.
You say when you first got out he was on the pavement? – He
was sitting on the steps and the landlord helping him up.
Do you mean to say you did not say he was on his back? I put
the question to you, sir. Now, be careful. I put the question to you. When you
got outside where was the man, on his face or his back, and you said he was on
his back? – I said he was sitting on the steps and the landlord holding him up.
Did you say or not that the man was on his back when you
first saw him? – No, sir, he was sitting on the steps.
Now, then, just attend. You recognise my officer, don`t you,
and he saw you this morning? – Yes, sir.
Did you see him take down what you said? – Yes.
Did you tell him the truth? – Yes, the same as I am telling
you now.
You are not telling the same story. I ask you, didn`t you
tell the officer that deceased was in a fighting attitude towards the landlord,
and that the landlord took hold of him and threw him out of the door? – No,
sir, not the landlord, but the landlord`s father. I did not say that.
What did you tell the officer, that the father threw
deceased out into the road? – I heard that it was the father.
Have you been speaking to them since? – No, sir.
Have you seen either the landlord or his father at all? –
Only outside, sir.
Have you been speaking to them? – Yes, sir.
About this case? – Yes.
Is it true now that the landlord`s father did push this man
out? – They were struggling together against the door, and deceased went out
into the street in an instant.
And the landlord`s father did not? – No.
What caused the deceased to go out? – By struggling
together, I should think.
I understand you to say that the landlord`s father was
trying to get the deceased out? – Yes.
Are you aware that the man`s head was hurt on the back? – I
did not notice, but I saw a great deal of blood on the pavement.
If he had gone on his face first he would not have hit the
back of his head? – No.
Did you see if the deceased, when he went out of the door,
fell? – No, sir, I didn`t notice.
You saw him go out? – Yes, sir.
And you won`t tell the jury whether he went out face first
or backwards? – I was too far away; I was standing in the far corner.
What for? – I was drinking my beer. I was not interfering
with the affair at all.
I don`t suppose you were. Very well. Now, gentlemen, you can
judge from the questions I have been putting this witness is not telling the
same tale as he told to my officer. Is tere any question either of you
gentlemen would like to be put?
A juror: Are there two exits to that particular bar? – The
Coroner: No.
A juror: The witness said he went out another way. – The
Coroner: That was the door at which the father came in.
Chief Constable: I should like to know if the deceased
walked out on the first occasion and returned without assistance. – The Coroner
(to witness): He went out by himself to relieve nature and came back again by
himself without any assistance, so that there would not be much the matter with
him? – Witness: He was very talkative.
Could he walk straight? – He did not walk about much in the
bar. He walked out at the other door and not down the steps.
Did he come in at the other door? – The same way as he went
out.
This man was a stranger in the town, and how did he know
where to go? Did he ask? – He went to the urinal outside.
How did he know where to go to it? – I could not say, sir.
Foreman: I have been asked to put a question, whether,
before the deceased was put out, he was requested by the landlord or his father
to leave? – No, sir, I never heard it.
Coroner: Now, just tell me how did the landlord`s father
know there was anything going on? – I should think he was close by the bar at
the back somewhere.
And could hear what was taking place? – I could not say
that, sir.
When he came in by that door did he come up immediately to
the deceased and take hold of him? – He was standing back just outside the bar,
not near the steps. Immediately the deceased aimed to strike at the landlord
the father came in at once and went up and took hold of him.
And you say he did not strike at him? – He aimed at him. He
held his umbrella up as if to strike him.
Mrs. Harrison: The landlord told me this morning that the
man was far from being the worse for drink, but he was excited abut soldiers,
and the landlord said “If you don`t keep your temper, I shall have to put you
out”.
Thos. Archer`s evidence.
What are you and where do you live? – At 30, Pavilion Road,
and am coachman to Dr. Chambers.
Were you passing the Foresters` Arms yesterday afternoon? –
Yes, sir, walking.
About what time? – Between a quarter and half past six.
In what direction were you going? – I was coming from Foord
on the same side as the Foresters` Arms.
What did you see? – When I came to the corner I saw a man
fall down the steps head first on to the path. He fell backwards, on the back
of his head, on to the pavement.
And his legs were where? – On the steps.
And where did he fall from? – From the top step, sir.
And who did you see, up there, on the tops step? – The
landlord and his father came out at the door soon afterwards. The half door was
open.
Who was close to him when you saw him falling? – The
landlord.
On the top step, was he? – Yes, sir, between the doors.
There would only be room for one man in that half door? –
The man was on the ground then.
You say the landlord was standing in the half door when the
man fell? – Yes, I only saw the man fall on the pavement, that is all. I saw no
pushing.
You say the landlord`s father was behind him? – Yes, sir.
Do you mean that the man, in falling from the top step, did
not touch the intermediate steps? – Yes.
In falling, where were his arms? Up or down? – I did not
take that particular notice. He fell like a man falling down dead and he never
moved afterwards.
But you would not say what caused him to come out of the
door in that way? – No, sir.
Did you see the last witness come? – No, sir, I never
noticed him at all.
When the man fell down so close to you what did you do? – I
helped to get him on the step. The landlord took him round the waist and helped
to put him on the step.
Did you hear the landlord say anything about how it
happened? – There was not a word spoken either by the man or the landlord.
No, the man was unconscious, poor fellow. Is there any
question that either of you, gentlemen, would like to ask?
A juror: I should like to know whether he is talking of the
landlord or the landlord`s father. – The landlord. It was the landlord who
picked him up. The landlord`s father went into the bar for something.
The Coroner: I understand he went for some brandy. That
really confirms the statement that Gillingham made to my officer this morning,
though he has altered it now, for what motive remains to be seen.
Chief Constable: Gillingham says he believed it was the
landlord who was trying to sit him up after he fell, and that is what this
witness means.
The Coroner: I don`t know what you gentlemen think at this
stage. Six or seven persons were said to be in the bar at the time this
happened, but information has come so recently that we have not been able to
find them. It appears to me that this is a case in which they ought to be
found. Without prejudging it in any way at all, there is the fact that this is
a case where they ought to be found. Without prejudging it in any way at all,
there is the fact that this man is dead, and there is the evidence of the last
witness, who is a respectable man, that in passing he said he saw this man
coming from the top step backwards and fall on the back of his head. The doctor
will tell you presently that the deceased sustained a fracture at the back of
the head, and our common sense tells us that a man does not do that of his own
motion, and looking to what Gillingham says, it is a very grave question of the
landlord`s father, in putting this man out, if he did put him out, and the
evidence of some of those who were there should, if possible, be obtained. To
my mind, it is a serious case, and one that requires inquiry, and if you are of
that opinion we had better adjourn the case now.
The Foreman: The jury are of the same opinion, sir, that the
case requires the strictest inquiry, and that it is desirable, if possible, to
get some of those other witnesses.
The Coroner: I can give the certificate for the burial
today, and we can adjourn to some day next week which will be convenient to you
all.
Adjourned to Wednesday next at 3 p.m. The witnesses,
including the landlord and his father, were bound over in £40 to appear at the
adjourned hearing.
Folkestone Chronicle
7-4-1900
Inquest
At the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Wednesday afternoon, the
Borough Coroner (Mr. J. Minter) resumed the enquiry into the death of Wm. Geo.
Hanbury, of Lewisham, which took place as the result of a fall outside the
Foresters` Arms, Folkestone, last week. The deceased, it may be remembered,
went to Folkestone on his honeymoon on March 26th. On the eveniong
of the following Wednesday he was in the Foresters` Arms, where a difference
arose between him and the landlord (Mr. Edgar Dalton) as to the payment for
some drinks he had ordered. According to a witness, the deceased assumed a
threatening attitude towards the landlord, when the latter`s father, Mr. Henry
Dalton, came into the bar and caught hold of him. The next thing that happened
was that the deceased fell backwards down some steps at the entrance of the
house, and sustained injuries from which he died at the Victoria Hospital the
next morning. At the opening of the inquest the principal witness was a man
named Gillingham, and his evidence not being considered conclusive, the Court
demanded an exhaustive enquiry.
The adjourned enquiry opened at three o`clock, and the
verdict was not given until 10 p.m. Great interest was taken in the matter, and
feeling had run rather high during the previous few days. The Court was packed,
and a crowd outside anxiously awaited the verdict, though the result, when it
did come, was received without any demonstration.
Mr. Hall, solicitor, appeared to represent Mrs. Hanbury, and
Mr. Haines was present in the interest of the Daltons, father and son.
The evidence previously given having been read over and
confirmed, the Coroner produced a plan of the bar, and Gillingham pointed out the
relative positions of the parties present, without, however, adding any
material information.
Thos. Salmon, 14, Radnor Street, out-porter, was a new
witness. Examined by the Coroner, he said: I was in the Foresters` Arms on
Wednesday 28th between 6 and 7. I went up the steps by the front
door to the public bar. There were two or three persons present, and the
landlord and the deceased were arguing about “three twopennyworths”. The
landlord said he wanted 6d., and the man said he had paid. Deceased, who was
standing close to the division door, asked for another glass, but the landlord
refused, and said “Pay for what you have had”. Deceased said “No, I`ve paid
somebody”. The landlord asked him who he paid, and called the barmaid in. She
denied that the deceased had paid her. The landlord then came round to the
front of the bar. I was standing close against the door, about two feet from
the counter. Deceased was close to me on the right. I had my back to the door,
so had he. When the landlord came up to deceased and asked him when he was
going to pay, the latter became very excited and raised his umbrella, as if to
smash all the glasses on the counter, not, in my opinion, to strike the
landlord then. I moved my glass in consequence. Then deceased held his umbrella
like a bayonet, as if to strike the landlord. The landlord went back into the
private bar and brought out the man whom I now identify as Henry Dalton. When
they came in deceased was standing close against me. Edgar Dalton again asked
him if he were going to pay, and he replied “No”. Henry Dalton thereupon opened
the door with his right hand, and pushed deceased out with the other. I saw the
man fall, and heard a thud. I went out by the side door and saw the landlord
with the deceased, who was about two feet from the door where he was pushed
out. He had no time to struggle; it was done in an instant. The landlord did
not do anything, nor did he say anything before his father pushed the deceased
out. Henry Dalton pushed deceased somewhere in the chest. I have not the
slightest doubt that Henry Dalton pushed the deceased out of the door. The
landlord went out first and picked deceased up. I went out of the other side
door, and saw deceased on the steps, being assisted by the two Daltons.
Deceased was standing quite quiet when Henry Dalton came in, and did nothing
except to say “No, I do not mean to pay”. He had no time to use threats; the
door was opened, and out he went. I can give no reason for his being put out,
except his not paying. In my opinion he was not really drunk, though he had had
quite enough.
By Mr. Hall: When I first went in the landlord and deceased
were arguing. The argument was a rational one, “a little bit high in the
voice”, but no bad language was used. The landlord told deceased he had had
quite enough, and he would not let him have another glass until he had paid for
what he had already. Henry Dalton did not ask the deceased to leave, but opened
the door and pushed him out. Though his umbrella was raised he had not struck
anybody.
By Mr. Haines: I do not suggest that the way deceased used
the umbrella is the usual form of argument. The deceased went out with one
push. He was standing within two feet of the door, and I saw him go straight
out of the door. No other part of his body touched anything until his head
struck the flags. I know the Foresters` Arms very well. I consider the steps
the most dangerous in Folkestone whether a man has had a drink or not.
John Jones, 24, Dover Roar, a draper`s assistant at Mr.
Shaw`s, said he was also at the Foresters` Arms about 6.30 last Wednesday
evening, and when he went in he saw the deceased talking to Mr. Dalton, the
landlord. He did not know what they were talking about, and picked up a paper
to read. Then he saw the deceased lift his umbrella, as if to strike Mr.
Dalton. Deceased then changed his umbrella into his left hand, and got up his
fist to strike the landlord, but did not strike. Mr. Dalton senior next came
round to the man, and took hold of him round the waist. They struggled, Henry Dalton
took Hanbury to the door, and then seemed to release his hold. He (witness) did
not see any more, being at the back of the door. After the man was put out
Henry Dalton came back.
By the Coroner: I told your officer on Monday that I saw
Dalton put deceased out.
The Coroner: Have you had any conversation with either of
the Daltons since this affair? – Yes.
With whom? – With Edgar Dalton. I told him I saw the
occurrence.
By Mr. Hall: I am in the habit of going into the Foresters`
Arms about once a day. The conversation did not seem excited. I could not swear
that deceased really offered to strike Henry Dalton either with the umbrella or
his fist. I should think the struggle lasted two minutes. No-one interfered. I
did not hear deceased make any observation.
Mr. Hall here severely questioned the witness, and told him
he was telling untruths, palpable to the whole Court.
Continuing, witness said: Deceased tried to release himself
from Mr. Dalton. It was simply a struggle from the point I mentioned to the
door. I could not say who opened the door. I was not interested in the
struggle. When Dalton got his arm round deceased`s waist he pushed him to the
door. I am sure I saw the occurrence. The deceased fell out face first. I did
not see the fall, but I think he fell out that way. After the occurrence I went
back to the house about nine o`clock. They were talking about the occurrence. I
did not mention it then, as I did not wish to appear. Mr. Edgar Dalton sent for
me on Saturday morning and said “Don`t favour me or the man, but speak the
truth”.
The Coroner: It`s a pity you did not take his advice.
By Mr. Haines: I did not notice whether the door was open
before the struggle commenced. Henry Dalton put both arms round the deceased.
There were seven or eight people in the bar. They made no comments regarding
the struggle. They all sat still, and no-one suggested that deceased was being
handled roughly.
Ethel Caroline Smith, barmaid at the Foresters` Arms, said:
I was behind the bar, serving, on the Wednesday in question. I was asked by Mr.
Dalton whether the deceased had paid for his beer, and I replied “No”. I heard
the matter being argued between the deceased and Mr. Dalton. I then went to
attend to the private bar, and did not see anything of the occurrence.
William Brisley deposed: I live at 5, Bradstone Road, and am
a bricklayer. On Wednesday last I went to the Foresters` Arms with the
deceased, who called for a pint of ale for me and a glass of ale for himself,
while the landlord had a glass of stout. The landlord refused at first, as he
was just going to have his tea. I stood a few minutes talking, and then bade
him good-day. I hear the landlord ask for 6d., and looking round to deceased I
said “That is quite right”, and the money was placed on the counter. In my
opinion deceased was just a little lively, but I do not say he was drunk.
By Mr. Hall: Deceased was well behaved while I remained
there.
By Mr. Haines: The money was passed to the landlord, but I
did not see him pick it up, my attention being called to a soldier who came
into the bar. The money put down was in copper, but I could not say the amount.
Wm. Stokes, 69, Black Bull Road, tailor, who was also at the
house at the time, was called, but as he said that, anticipating a row, he got
out of the way, and did not actually see the occurrence, his evidence was
relatively unimportant.
Henry Dalton was next called forward.
The Coroner cautioned him, and said he had a perfect right
to decline to give evidence in view of what had been stated.
Dalton decided, however, after consultation with his
solicitor, to be sworn. He said: I am a retired Superintendent of police. I was
in the force nearly 26 years. I live at Maidstone but at present am staying at
the Foresters` Arms. I was there on Wednesday, 28th March. Just
after 6 in the evening I was in the private bar with several of the Maidstone
football team. I heard some noise in the public bar, and my son came to me and
said “Dad, I wish you would come round. I think I have got some trouble”. I
went through to the public bar just afterwards, and heard my son say something
about sending for the police. At the same time deceased got his umbrella up in
his hand in a striking attitude. I went to the front door and opened the
left-hand half door for the purpose of going out to get a policeman. Just as I
did that, deceased changed the umbrella from his right to his left hand, and,
with fist clenched, was in the act of striking my son. As soon as I saw him
doing that I slipped in between them, and caught deceased round the arms just
below the elbow, turning him round away from my son. When I did so his back was
toward the open door. I let go of him, he took a step back, and fell out of the
door backwards. My son and I went out immediately and picked him up. I got a
pail of water and bathed his head, then got a conveyance and took him to the
hospital. I did not speak to him when I went into the public bar. I did not
know he had refused to pay the sixpence. I expected the trouble in the bar from
the noise the man was making. He was shouting about some soldiers, and got very
excited. All I heard was the loud talking. It is not true that there was a
struggle. I had no intention of putting the man out. When I let go of him he
would have been perfectly safe if he had stood still. It was in stepping back
from me that he missed the step and fell out the door. I should not think the
struggle lasted half a minute.
By Mr. Hall: When my son came to me he did not mention
anything about the dispute, not could I hear what the man was saying. The
witness who stated that I asked the man to pay is wrong. It is false. I do not
suggest that the man raised his fist or umbrella more than once to my son. I
seriously tell the jury that I did not open the door to put deceased out. The deceased
resisted and I swung him round to my right. It did not occur to me the extreme
danger of putting the man near the door. When I let go of him he was a good six
inches inside the door sill, when he stepped back and fell. He would be
stepping back to get away from me.
By Mr. Haines: If it had been my intention of putting the
man out, I should have certainly opened both doors.
By a juror: There was no possibility of my preventing him
falling – he was gone so quickly. There are two other doors by which he could
have been put out.
Edgar Dalton, who was also cautioned and elected to give
evidence, deposed: I am the landlord of the Foresters` Arms, and was behind the
public bar on Wednesday, 28th, between the hours of six and seven. I
supplied the deceased and a friend with some beer, and on the deceased`s
invitation I had a glass myself. The price together was sixpence, which
deceased did not pay. He left the bar to go outside, and when he came back I
asked him for the money. Before he went out he tendered me threepence
halfpenny. When he came back I again asked him for the money, when he used bad
language. He then got into conversation with two or three old soldiers, got
very excited and used more bad language. I called him on one side and asked him
to desist. He still continued, however, and talked very excitedly. I went to
the private bar, where my father was, and said to him “Will you come round. I`m
afraid I have got some trouble”. I then opened the little bar door, went into
the public bar, and, going up to deceased, said “What are you going to do about
that sixpence?” He said “You`ll get no ---- sixpence off me, you little ----“.
With that he up with his umbrella in a position which led me to think he was
going to thrust me with it. I again spoke about his language, and said I should
fetch a policeman. He replied “Where is the ---- policeman”. At the same time
he released his umbrella, and raised his right fist clenched. The next I saw
was father come round from the front door, catch hold of the man and swing him
round. The only thing I saw after that was the man`s left hand on the right
hand side of the door as he fell backwards. I went out immediately, and the
deceased was lying on the pavement on his back opposite the left hand door. I
could not say what caused him to fall out. I went out immediately.
By Mr. Hall: When the deceased came in he was quite orderly
and well behaved. He only had one glass at my place, and only drank a third of
that. I should not think he was drunk. He did not get excited about the
sixpence; it was the discussion with the soldiers. I heard the out-porter`s
evidence, and what he said about smashing the glasses, but as far as I remember
the deceased only raised his umbrella once. The witness who said there was a
struggle for two minutes is wrong. The other witness who said my father pushed
the deceased out is also incorrect. I say that deceased fell out.
Dr. Foxbury, house surgeon at the Victoria Hospital, said
the deceased was brought to the hospital at 20 minutes to seven. He was
unconscious, and continued so. He died at seven o`clock the next morning
(Thursday) from fracture of the skull. On examining him in the accident ward
just after admission, witness found a contused star-shaped wound on the left
side and back of the scalp, such as would be caused by the fall described. He
had made a post mortem examination, and the cause of death was haemorrhage on
the brain, caused by rupture of a vein following fracture.
Mr. Haines briefly addressed the jury on behalf of the two
Daltons, and asked them to find that the death was the result of an accident.
The accident, he said, was a lamentable one, and no-one was more sorry than the
Daltons.
The Coroner said the jury would have to be guided by the
evidence only, in spite of its discrepancies, which were only natural in an
inquiry like that, as it was not likely that all the witnesses would be of the
same opinion as to what they saw. The Coroner next went into the legal aspect
of the case at great length, after which he re-read the evidence, except that
of the youth John Jones, which the jury intimated they did not believe.
At 9.30 the jury retired to consider their verdict, the
Coroner leaving them the following points:-
1. Did deceased fall without being actually pushed by
anyone?
2. Did either of the Daltons push the deceased out of the
door; if so, which; and was that degree of caution used that would be necessary
to prevent accident arising from this mode of ejection?
3. Was the deceased drunk, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly?
At ten minutes to ten the jury returned into Court, when the
foreman said their verdict was unanimous that deceased died from an accidental
fall. They wished to express their deep sympathy with the widow, and
recommended that the steps at this public house be immediately altered. They
would also like to have the witness Jones cautioned, as they did not believe a
word of his evidence.
Jones was called forward and severely censured by the
Coroner, who said he did not know whether he was not neglecting his duty by not
committing him for trial on the charge of perjury. He could go now, and think
himself lucky.
Folkestone Express
7-4-1900
Inquest
The adjourned inquest on the body of George William Hanbury,
aged 37, of Lewisham, who died in the Victoria Hospital from the effects of a
fall outside the Foresters` Arms in Shellons Street, on Wednesday, March 28th,
was resumed before the Coroner (Mr. J. Minter) on Wednesday.
The enquiry was held in the Council Chamber, and lasted from
three o`clock in the afternoon till ten in the evening. The widow, who appeared
to fell her position keenly, occupied a side table.
Mr. F. Hall watched the proceedings on behalf of the widow,
while Mr. H. Dalton and Mr. E. Dalton were represented by Mr. G.W. Haines (the
solicitor to the local Licensed Victuallers` Association).
The evidence given at the former hearing was read over.
A plan of the bar was produced, and the witness Gillingham
pointed out to th Coroner where the deceased was when Henry Dalton caught hold
of him. He was standing on the left hand side going out of the door. Witness
indicated with a pen the exact spot, which was close inside the door. The door
was in two pieces, and he believed that piece of the door which went back to
where deceased was standing was that which Henry Dalton opened. Henry Dalton
was standing close to the door, and the deceased was standing with his face to
him. The landlord (Edgar Dalton) was standing between his father and deceased.
The Coroner: I can`t exactly understand the position in
which you have placed them. If Henry Dalton took hold of the door to pull it
open and at the same time put his arm round deceased`s waist, how could the
landlord have stood between the two? – Deceased was standing more towards the
window than the landlord. They were all three together, sir.
Which door did the landlord`s father come from? – The same
as the landlord. (Witness indicated the door on the plan).
Are you sure the father did not come through the other door?
– Yes, he came through this one. I was standing close to the door through which
he came. I cannot say whether the landlord had his face or back to me.
What were the three doing there? – Only having a little
conversation. I only heard the landlord asking for his money. He was asking for
sixpence.
What were they doing? – Nothing else, sir.
What did the landlord do? – I never saw him do anything at
all.
In answer to Mr. Wheatley (a juror), witness said he
perfectly understood the plan.
By Mr. Haines: The door could be opened without touching
deceased.
Do I understand that when he used his hands to take hold of
the door he also had hold of the door? – Yes.
A juror: If the landlord`s father opened the door, how did
he take hold of the deceased?
Mr. Haines: The witness states that he opened the door and got
hold of the deceased at the same time. Then I take it the door was opened
first? – Yes.
And at the time Henry Dalton came forward deceased was in a
striking attitude? – Yes.
When Henry Dalton came forward it was the act of a second? –
Yes.
Thomas Salmon, living at 14, Radnor Street, said: I am an
out-porter in Castle Hill Avenue. I was in the Foresters` Arms on Wednesday,
March 28th, between six and seven. I know the landlord. I did not
know the father then. When I went in I went into the public bar by the front
door up the steps. I saw two or three men that I see here. The landlord was
behind the bar and in the restaurant side. I heard the landlord and the
deceased arguing about three twopennyworths. I do not know of what. The
landlord said he wanted sixpence, and the man said “No, he wouldn`t pay – he
had paid”. The landlord came into the bar where I was standing and the deceased
came into the side where I was standing. Deceased had been standing close to
the division door. He asked for another glass, and the landlord said “No, you
have had quite enough – pay for what you`ve had”. He said he had paid somebody.
The landlord asked him who he paid, and called the barmaid in and asked her if
deceased had paid her. She said “No”. Then the landlord came to the front of
the bar where I was standing. I was standing nearly opposite the door, about
two feet from the counter. Deceased was standing close to me on my right hand
side. I had my back to the door when the landlord came there, and he went up to
the deceased. He asked him if he was going to pay. Deceased replied “No”, and
turned very excitable and raised his umbrella as if to smash all the glasses on
the counter. I went and took my pint up. He did not do anything then, but took
his umbrella as if to strike the landlord. The landlord went back to the
private bar and brought out a man (whom witness identified as the landlord`s
father, Mr. H. Dalton). When they came in deceased was standing close against
me. The elder of the two asked him again if he was going to pay, and deceased
replied “No”. The elder Dalton opened the door with one hand and pushed
deceased out with the other. I saw the man fall and I heard a thud. I went out
the side door.
How far was deceased from the door when Henry Dalton seized
him? – Not very far - about two feet; I don`t think it could be more.
Did Henry Dalton seize him at all? – No, sir.
Did the man struggle to prevent being turned out? – He had
no time; it was done in an instant.
Where was the landlord standing? – He merely came out and
stood close behind his father. He did nothing.
Did he say anything before his father pushed deceased out? –
No.
Where did Henry Dalton push the deceased? – Somehow like
this (putting his hand to his chest just below the neck).
Which hand did Henry Dalton open the door with? – I should
say the right hand, and pushed him out with the left.
Which part of the door did he open? – The part on the right
hand side as you go up the steps. (Witness here indicated by his actions how
the fatality occurred)
Have you any doubt that he did push him out? – Not the
slightest.
Whichever hand it was, you are certain that Henry Dalton
pushed deceased out of the door and he fell backwards? – Yes.
When he pushed him out and he fell backwards, what did the
landlord do? – Went out and picked him up. When I got outside they were both
washing the blood off. The landlord went out first.
Now attend to me. When Henry Dalton came up and asked him
whether he was going to pay, in what position was the umbrella? – He had it more
by his side.
Was deceased doing anything at all when Henry Dalton came in
and asked him whether he was going to pay? – He was doing nothing that I am
aware of. It was done in half a minute.
When he said he would not pay, did he use any threat towards
Henry Dalton? – He had no time.
Do I understand you that immediately he refused to pay Henry
Dalton opened the door and pushed him out? – Yes, out he went.
Can you tell me why they put him out? Was it because he
wouldn`t pay? – I expect it was. He became excitable and would not pay.
You can give no reason for his being pushed out, except that
he did not pay? – No.
In your opinion was deceased drunk or sober? – He was not
what you would call really drunk, but still he had had quite enough.
Mr. Hall: When you first went in there you saw the landlord
and the deceased arguing about three twopennyworths. The landlord said he
wanted sixpence, and the deceased said he had paid? – Yes.
They were arguing in a quiet, rational sort of way – there
was no bad language? – It was a rational argument, but a little bit high in the
voice.
Deceased knew perfectly what he was talking about? – He said
he had paid.
Deceased wanted another glass of beer, and the landlord said
to him “You have had quite enough, and I shall not give you any more until you
have paid for what you`ve had”? – Yes.
Now be careful. You said you thought he was going to smash
all the glasses? – He raised his umbrella to do it.
Did he touch a glass at all? – Not one.
Did he say he would smash the glasses? – He did not say so.
He raised his umbrella as if he was going to, and put it down. He did not
strike the landlord.
Upon that Mr. Henry Dalton was brought in? – Yes. I did not
see Mr. Henry Dalton before that particular evening.
Do you know where he had been? – I did not even know he was
there.
Henry Dalton came into the bar where you were standing and
asked the deceased to leave? – He asked him if he would pay the sixpence.
And he said “No”? – Yes.
Did he ask deceased to leave, or did he simply open the door
and push him out? – He opened the door and pushed him out.
Mr. Haines: You don`t suggest that the way deceased was
using his umbrella was the usual form of argument?
The Coroner: That all depends whether he was an Englishman
or a Frenchman.
Mr. Haines: With regard to the opening of the door. You say
that it was all done in a second, the opening of the door and the pushing? –
Yes.
Therefore, one push did it? – Yes.
Now, the deceased was no lightweight, was he? – He was a
big, fine, smart man.
You stated he was standing two feet inside the door? – As
far as I could see.
And you saw him go through the door? – Yes.
And it was done by a push? – Yes.
By Mr. Haines: His feet were lifted off the floor, and he
touched nothing. When he was pushed it took his legs clear right over the door,
and not a part of his body touched anything. There was nothing to obstruct my
view. I saw the whole thing. It would be untrue if a witness said that Henry
Dalton put his arms round his waist.
The Coroner: That witness qualified his statement today
about Henry Dalton putting his arms round his waist.
By Mr. Haines: I know the house very well. I regard those
steps as the most dangerous in Folkestone for any man that has had a drop of
drink. There are two other doors in Shellons Street. I could enter the front
door without turning sideways to get in. Henry Dalton`s hand was not on the
door when the man went out. When deceased was pushed he cleared the entrance to
the doorway and went right out.
John Jones, living at 24, Dover Road, said: I am a junior in
the drapery at Mr. Shaw`s. I was in the Foresters` Arms on Wednesday last. I
went in about half past six for a glass of ale. I went in through the front
door up the steps. When I went in I saw deceased talking to Mr. Dalton (the
landlord). I do not know what they were saying. I was standing on the Foord
Road side. Mr. Dalton and deceased were in the middle. I picked up a paper, and
after I had read a minute and had drunk a little of the ale, I saw the deceased
take up his umbrella as if to strike Mr. Dalton. He then changed the umbrella
to his left hand and put his fist up to strike. I did not see him do anything;
he did not strike him. I did not see Mr. Edgar Dalton do anything. I did not
notice him go out, as I was reading the paper. Then I saw Mr. Dalton senior
come round to the man, but I did not hear what he said to him. He took hold of
the deceased round the waist and they struggled. Mr. Henry Dalton took him to
the door.
The Coroner: Well? – Witness hesitated.
The Coroner: What are you hesitating about? Why don`t you
tell your tale?
Witness: When he got him to the door he seemed to release
his hold. I did not notic any more.
What became of the deceased? – I don`t know; I could not
see. I was at the back of the door when that happened.
When what happened? – When the man went out. (Laughter)
The Coroner: If I hear any such noise again in the Court I
will have it cleared. We have got quite enough trouble with this witness.
After he had put him out? – I saw Mr. Henry Dalton come
back.
Then you saw him put him out? – I saw him put him to the
door.
Did you see my officer yesterday? – On Monday, sir.
Did you not tell him that you saw Mr. Henry Dalton push
deceased out? – No. I told him I saw him take him to the door.
Did you tell my officer that you saw him put him out? – I
saw him put him to the door.
Have you had any conversation with Edgar or Henry Dalton
since this matter happened? – Yes, sir.
With which one? – Mr. Edgar Dalton.
Did he come to you or you go to him? – I went to the
Foresters` Arms on Friday evening.
You went there to him? – Yes, I went into the Foresters`
Arms on Friday evening for a glass of ale.
Did you tell Mr. Dalton you knew all about the case? – No,
sir.
What did you tell him? – That I was in the bar at the time.
Then you saw it all? – I told him that I saw the man was not
thrown down.
Do I understand that Henry Dalton put him to the door and
left him on the floor of the room? – That I could not say.
Because you were behind the door. Then how could you tell
Mr. Dalton that you knew? – I don`t think he was put to the floor.
That is all you saw? – Yes.
By Mr. Hall: I am in the habit of going into the Foresters`
Arms frequently. I am not exactly a friend of the landlord`s, but a customer. I
go there about once a day. When I went in the landlord and the deceased were
talking together. I did not hear what they were talking about. There was
nothing particular in their conversation to excite my attention. I did not
notice that it was an excited or heated conversation. There was nothing out of
the way. I was standing up against the bar reading a paper. I saw the deceased
lift his umbrella up. I did not see him strike Dalton. I saw deceased clench
his fist. I did not notice if he moved closer to Dalton when he did so. I did
not notice Henry Dalton come out of the private bar. I did not take sufficient
interest in the case to notice. I have been outside the Court during this
inquiry. I heard some of the previous witness`s evidence. I heard him say that
Henry Dalton come in and asked deceased if he was going to pay and pushed him
out in less than a minute.
Mr. Hall: Now you tell the Coroner and the jury that there
was a struggle? – Yes. The struggle lasted about two minutes. I was right back
at the end of the bar.
Mr. Hall: Do you swear that these people were struggling for
two minutes? – So far as I could see.
The Coroner: The door was wide open – there was nothing to
prevent you seeing.
Mr. Hall: You say the landlord did not interfere? – I did
not see him. I did not hear deceased make any observation. Nor did I hear Mr.
Henry Dalton make any observation during the struggle.
Will you swear that any struggle took place at all? – Yes,
sir. I saw it.
I put it to you that Henry Dalton opened the door with one
hand and pushed the deceased out. – I don`t know. I did not see him open the
door at all.
Don`t say that. This is a serious matter. You have told too
many stories. I put it to you that Henry Dalton opened the door with one hand
and put the other hand on deceased and pushed him out. – No, sir.
Witness indicated on the plan where the struggle commenced
about two feet from the counter and said it went on till the door was reached.
By Mr. Hall: Deceased was trying to release himself from Mr.
Dalton. They simply struggled to the door – they did not go round and round. I
do not know who opened the door.
Try and think. Now from your position you saw everything
which happened up to this point. Now, who opened the door? – I could not say.
You won`t say? – I don`t know who opened the door.
Did deceased open the door? – I don`t know who opened the
door at all. I wasn`t at all interested in the struggle. I had put my paper
down and was watching it during the whole time. I saw Henry Dalton push
deceased to the door. He had one of his arms round deceased`s waist and pushed
him to the door. Henry Dalton was behind him. Deceased had got his face to the
door as far as I could see.
You saw the whole thing? – Witness (after hesitation): Yes
You don`t seem very certain about that. Are you sure you
were not reading the paper? – I had put the paper down on the counter.
Now, you told the Coroner that when Henry Dalton got
deceased to the door he seemed to release his hold on him. Is that true? – Yes.
You hesitate, you know. Is it true? – Yes, it is.
Then the struggle ceased? – Yes.
How did deceased go out of the door? – I think he fell out.
On his face or back? – He fell out with his face towards the
Public Library.
Now you say you think he fell out? – Because I did not see
his face.
Who opened the door? – I do not know.
Perhaps you will think. Who opened the door? – I don`t know
who opened the door.
Did Mr. Dalton send for you? – Yes, sir. He did.
The Coroner: You told me that he didn`t.
Mr. Hall: Now, Mr. Dalton sent for you. When was that? – On
Saturday morning.
The Coroner: Which Mr. Dalton? – Mr. Edgar Dalton, the
landlord.
Mr. Hall: Of course you went? – Yes, sir.
That would be last Saturday? – Yes, sir.
Did Mr. Edgar Dalton say what he wanted to see you for? –
Yes, sir.
About this? – Yes.
Did he ask you to help him? – No, sir.
What did he say? – He said “Don`t favour me or the man.
Speak the truth”.
The Coroner (sarcastically): You have taken his advice and
spoken the truth.
Mr. Hall: When he told you to speak the truth, what did you
say? – I said I should tell what I saw.
Did you say what you did see? – I told him I saw that the
man was not thrown out of the door.
By Mr. Haines: There were seven or eight people in the bar.
I did not hear them make any comment nor did anyone come up to assist. Everyone
sat tight.
The Coroner: Let me caution you as to your answer. You have
pointed out on the plan where you were, and it is very evident the half-door
was open. We can see for ourselves that there was nothing to obstruct your view
at all. Do you say deceased fell out or not? – No, sir, I do not.
Ethel Caroline Smith said: I am a barmaid at the Foresters`
Arms, in the service of Mr. Edgar Dalton. I was behind the public bar serving
on Wednesday, March 28th. I was called in by Mr. Dalton, who asked
me if deceased had paid me for the beer. I replied “No”. I heard the matter
being argued between the deceased and Mr. Dalton. I did not hear how they
settled the affair because I went to attend to some customers in the private
bar.
The Coroner: I think you saw the whole of it. – Oh, no.
Did you see the deceased pushed out? – No.
Then you saw nothing of it? – No.
William Brisley: I live at 5, Bradstone Road, and am a
bricklayer. On Wednesday last, March 28th, I went to the Foresters`
Arms with deceased and he called for a pint of ale for me and a glass of beer
for himself, and he asked the landlord to have a drink. He refused at first,
but afterwards had a glass of stout, which made the amount come to sixpence. I
and the deceased stood talking for a few minutes by the bar. He claimed my
acquaintance as having been on a job together. The landlord asked for payment.
I looked round to deceased and said “That is quite right”, and the money was placed
on the counter by deceased. He placed money on the counter – not sixpence. I
did not observe what it was. When we got inside I found deceased had had
something to drink. He was just a little lively. I won`t say that he was drunk,
but he had had quite sufficient.
By Mr. Hall: We met at the entrance. When I went out
deceased was perfectly quiet. I saw nothing the matter with him. He seemed to
be a well-behaved man, and he was well-behaved there.
By Mr. Haines: There were seven or eight people in the bar.
I did not see whether deceased took the money up again. I did not see the
landlord take it.
William stokes: I live at 69, Black Bull Road, and am a
tailor. I was in the Foresters` Arms on March 28th, between six and
seven, in the public bar. I heard a part of the argument over the sixpence that
was owing. I hear the landlord ask the deceased for the “tanner” that he owed,
but I could not catch what he said in reply. When the landlord came round to
the other side of the bar where deceased was standing, deceased said he had
paid the money. A few more words passed and the deceased put up his umbrella as
if he was going to clear the place, but he did not strike anybody. The landlord
fetched his father. While he was away I took up my beer and went into the far
corner nearest Foord. I wanted to get out of his road because I thought there
was going to be a row. The landlord asked him to leave the premises before he
came round the counter if he would not pay him the sixpence, but I could not
catch what deceased said. While I was in the corner I was talking to a soldier,
and he said “That chap`s out of the door, and he`s fell”. I did not see the
landlord come out or the landlord`s father. I did not see the man go out, and I
cannot say whether he fell out or was pushed out. I did not hear any struggle.
I had my back towards the door.
In answer to Supt. reeves, witness said he could not tell
what regiment this soldier belonged to or whether he was stationed on the Camp.
He had on an infantry great coat.
Mr. Hall: Did the landlord ask deceased to leave? – I could
not tell.
The Coroner: That is not of the slightest consequence. It
does not matter whether the landlord asked him to leave or whether he did not.
Henry Dalton was then called, and the Coroner, addressing him,
said: You are summoned here as a witness, but it is my duty to tell you that
you are not bound to give evidence or be sworn because you have a perfect right
to decline, inasmuch as one of the witnesses who have been examined here before
us says that he saw you throw the man out of the door. You came into the room
and threw him out of the door in a second down those steps. Under the
circumstances I want to tell you that the jury might find an adverse verdict
against you. Although they may not, it is my duty to caution you that anything
you say may be given in evidence against you and that you are not bound to be
sworn unless you like. You had better consult your solicitor and take his
advice as to whether you shall give evidence or not.
The witness, after consulting a moment with Mr. Haines,
said: Thank you, Mr. Coroner, I would much rather give evidence.
Having been sworn, he proceeded: I am the father of Edgar
Dalton, the landlord of the Foresters` Arms. I am a retired Superintendent of
Police. I was nearly 26 years in the police force. I do not live at the
Foresters` Arms. I live in Maidstone, but at the present time I am staying at
the Foresters` Arms. I was there on Wednesday, 28th March. Just
after six in the evening I was in the private bar with several of the Maidstone
football team, and whilst I was there I heard some noise in the public bar. My
son came to me and he said “Dad, I wish you would come round. I think I have
got some trouble”. I went through into the public bar just behind him. I might
have been half a minute behind him. When I got into the bar I heard my son say
something to the deceased about sending for the police. At the same time
deceased got his umbrella up in his hand in a striking attitude. I then went to
the front door and opened the half-door for the purpose of going to get a
policeman. I opened the left hand half going to the door from the bar. Just as
I opened the door deceased changed his umbrella from his right hand to his
left, and raising his right fist, was in the act of striking my son. As soo as
I saw him doing that I stepped in between deceased and my son and caught hold
of deceased by the arms. He was about a foot and a half from the counter. I
caught deceased round the arms just above the elbows, turned him away from my
son, and when he was turned round his back came opposite the door, which was
open. I let go of him and he took a step back to get clear of me, I suppose,
missed his step, and he fell out of the door backwards. I and my son both went
out immediately, got a pail of water, bathed his head, got a conveyance, and
took him to the hospital. That is all.
The Coroner: When you went from the private bar into the
public bar, did you go to deceased and say “Are you going to pay this 6d.?” – I
said nothing to him. I never spoke to him.
Did you know he had refused to pay sixpence? – I did not.
Did your son tell you what trouble he expected? – I expected
trouble because of the noise he was making. My son did not tell me what it was.
What noise was he making? – He was shouting something about
soldiers, but I could not hear what it was as I was two bars off. He had been
talking about soldiers and got very excited.
When you saw him with the umbrella uplifted to strike, you
had opened the left-hand door. What was that for? – For the purpose of going
out to see if I could see a policeman.
You were prevented from going out by observing the striking
attitude with the fists? – Yes. I stepped in between him and my son.
Is it true that when you seized hold of him and tried to get
him out he tried to release himself? – No, sir. I had no intention of putting
the man out.
When you left go of deceased, if he had stood still he would
have been perfectly safe? – If he had stood still he would have been safe. In
stepping back to get away from me he missed his step and fell out of the door.
One witness said you had a struggle which lasted two
minutes. – I should not think it was half a minute.
The Coroner: I don`t suppose the jury will pay much
attention to what the young man said.
By Mr. Hall: When my son came to me he did not say what the
trouble was. He did not say anything about the dispute. Deceased was talking
something about soldiers.
One witness says that when you came out you asked deceased
if he was going to pay. He said “No”, and you put him out. – That is false,
sir.
Another man says you struggled with him two minutes. Is that
false? – It is, sir. I should not think the whole affair lasted half a minute.
Did you ask the man to leave? – I never spoke to him. I
stepped in between them to prevent him from striking my son.
You seriously tell the jury that it was your intention to go
round the corner and find a policeman? – I do.
That you did not open the door with the intention of putting
the man out – that you swear? – Yes, I do.
What was your object in turning the man round to the door? –
To get him away from my son.
Are you a hot-tempered man? – I am not.
Quiet? – Yes. I can get a hundred witnesses from Maidstone
to prove that.
Do you tell the jury that you left go of the man by the door
and that he fell of his own accord? – If he had stood still where I left go of
him he would not have fallen at all.
You were not pushing him? – I was not.
You had been pushing him? – I had not. I merely turned him
round.
By Mr. Haines: The other half-door was bolted. If it had
been my intention to turn the man out I certainly should have opened both
doors. As a matter of fact there are two other exits into Shellons Street with
wider doors.
By a juror: it was not possible to prevent the man from
falling by catching hold of him. He was gone so quick.
Edgar Dalton, on being called, was cautioned by the Coroner,
who told him that he was not bound to give evidence. One of the witnesses
having said that the three were struggling together it was his duty to caution
him that anything he said might be given in evidence against him. Witness said
he would much rather give evidence. He said:
I am the landlord of the Foresters` Arms. I was behind the public bar on
Wednesday, 28th, between six and seven. I supplied deceased with
some beer, and a friend of his, for which he did not pay. He left the bar to go
to the urinal, and before doing so he offered 3½d. When he came back I again
asked him for the sixpence. He used bad language and said he should not pay the
money. The man got into conversation with one or two old soldiers, and getting
very excited, used bad language. I told him he must not use such language, as I
did not permit it in my bars. He still continued to use bad language and talked
very excitedly, so I went into the private bar where my father was, and said to
him “Would you mind coming round? I am afraid I have got some trouble”. I then
opened the bar door and went into the public bar and went to deceased and said
to him “What are you going to do about that sixpence?” He said “You`ll get no
---- sixpence out of me, you little ----“. He put his umbrella in a position
which led me to think he was going to thrust me with it. I again spoke to him
about using bad language and told him I should send for a policeman, and he
said “Where is the ---- policeman?” He raised his right hand and clenched his
fist as if to strike me. The next I saw was father come from the front door,
catch hold of the man and swing him round. The only thing I saw after that was
the man`s left hand on the left hand side of the door, and I saw him fall
backwards out of the door. Holding on to the left-hand door twisted him round
to the left. He laid on the pavement on his back opposite the left-hand door.
The only thing I saw was father coming in between me and the deceased. I could
not say what caused him to fall out.
Dr. Francis Fosberry, House Surgeon at the Victoria Hospital
said: Deceased was brought to the Hospital by two men at ten minutes to seven
on March 28th. He was unconscious, and continued so until the time
of his death, which took place at seven a.m. on the following morning. Deceased
was suffering from a fracture of the skull. On examining him just after
admission I found a contused wound star-shaped on the left side and back of the
skull such as would be caused by a fall as has been described. I made a post
mortem examination, and the cause of deceased`s death was haemorrhage, caused
by the rupture of the vein immediately below the site of the fracture. This
occurred thirteen hours after the accident and was the result of the injury
caused by the fall.
It was now twenty minutes past eight, and the Coroner
adjourned the Court for fifteen minutes.
On resuming, Mr. G.W. Haines addressed the jury on behalf of
the Messrs. Dalton and submitted that the unfortunate occurrence was an
accident pure and simple.
The Coroner, in summing up, pointed out that there were
great contradictions and variations in the statements made by the different
witnesses, but it was the experience of them all that in matters of that kind
happening so suddenly and ending so fatally that there were generally very
great discrepancies between the persons witnessing the affair. Some didn`t see
the whole of it; some forgot. They would therefore have to reconcile the
differences so far as they could. The parties, if he might so term it, who were
implicated were Henry and Edgar Dalton. Their evidence agreed, and contradicted
in a very great measure the evidence of all the other witnesses, and they would
have to say whether they believed those two witnesses, Edgar and Henry Dalton.
The first thing they had to decide was the cause of death. There was not much
difficulty, or any difficulty at all, in deciding as to the cause of death. As
they had heard, death was due to haemorrhage on the brain, the result of
injuries which deceased received from the fall from the front steps of the
Foresters` Arms. Therefore there was no difficulty in their saying what was the
cause of death. Then came the question which was the most important one they
had to decide upon the evidence they had heard as to whether that fall from the
door of the Foresters` Arms was an accidental fall, or was it caused by Henry
Dalton pushing the deceased down the steps, as some of the witnesses had said.
Various questions might arise upon that. The question would arise – supposing
they came to the conclusion that Henry Dalton was really putting the man out
because he had not paid or because he was noisy – was he justified in doing that
or not? To begin with the landlord of a public house was justified in putting a
customer out of his house if he was drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or
disorderly using only such force as was necessary for the purpose. He might do
it himself, or his servants, or his agents, or he might call in a police
constable to assist in doing so. It was not necessary that he should order the
deceased out of the house before doing that. In order to get a man fined and
brought before the Magistrates it was necessary to order him to leave the
house. If the man disobeyed the order he was not only liable to be put out by
force but was also liable to be fined for refusing to quit the house when
ordered to do so. All the witnesses except Henry Dalton and Edgar Dalton would have
them believe that Henry Dalton was endeavouring to eject the deceased from the
house and that the man resisted. They would have to determine whether they
believed that statement or not, and if so they would have to say whether the
condition which the Act of Parliament required would justify the landlord in
ejecting the man, because if it was not, the landlord, or rather Henry Dalton,
would be committing an illegal act in attempting to put him out, and he was not
justified in putting him out, and the man fell in consequence of being pushed,
it would be his duty to instruct them that it would be a case odf manslaughter
against Henry Dalton. If a man was in a condition that they were justified in
putting him out the question would arise whether more force was used than was
necessary for the purpose of putting him out, and whether proper care and
precaution was taken by Henry Dalton in putting him out as to prevent there
being any probability of any injury being received by the man in consequence of
being so put out. They had viewed the premises and they would all agree that
the steps were a most dangerous place to be the entrance to a public house,
seeing that a sober person in the ordinary way had to take great care and great
caution to prevent himself from falling. Supposing they came to the conclusion
that they were justified in putting him out of the house and if Henry Dalton
was actually putting him out, then there would be the question if they were
justified in putting him out whether proper care and caution had been used in
pushing the man to such a dangerous place and giving him a violent push which
would cause him to fall backwards down such dangerous steps. If they came to
the conclusion that such care and such caution had not been shown on the part of
Henry Dalton it would render him liable to a charge of manslaughter. The
Coroner then reviewed the whole of the evidence at considerable length and
brought the salient points to the notice of the jury. The witness Salmon
interrupted his remarks, and as he paid no heed to the warning to desist he was
ejected from the Court.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and returned
after an absence of 15 minutes. They found that deceased met with an accidental
death and added a rider that the steps at the Foresters` Arms should be altered
immediately. They expressed their deepest sympathy with the widow and added
that they had not taken the slightest notice of the evidence of the witness
Jones.
Folkestone Herald
7-4-1900
Editorial
We report elsewhere in this issue the result of the inquest
held by our Borough Coroner as to the lamentable death of the man Hanbury,
caused by falling from the top of the steps leading into the Foresters` Arms
from the pathway in Grace Hill. The great local excitement to which this case
gave rise renders it highly expedient to remind licensed victuallers of the
grave responsibilities attaching to them with regard to the ejecting of unruly
customers. In the present case the jury have delivered a verdict the
righteousness of which cannot be challenged. They have weighed the evidence in
a judicial and impartial spirit, and their findings will have the complete
assent of all who study the evidence with a dispassionate mind. The summing-up
of the learned Coroner was a model of clearness, and we have never had a more
concise and yet comprehensive exposition of the law than he placed before the
jury. With a view, therefore, to giving the utmost publicity in our power to
that instructive utterance, we present the full text to our readers. In
addressing the jury at the close of the evidence the learned Coroner said “The
landlord of a public house is justified in putting a customer out of his house
if he is drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly, using only such force as
is necessary for that purpose. He may do that by himself or his servants or his
agents, and he may call in a police constable to help and assist him in doing
so. It is not necessary that he should order the person out of the house before
doing that, but if a man is to be brought before the Magistrates to be fined,
it is necessary to order him to leave the house, and if a man disobeys the
order he is not only liable to be put out by force, using such force as is
necessary for the purpose, but he is also liable to be fined for refusing to
leave the house after being ordered to do so. Now, upon the evidence of all the
witnesses except Henry and Edgar Dalton, they would have you believe that Henry
Dalton was endeavouring to eject this man from the house. That is their
statement, that he was endeavouring to eject and that this man was resisting.
Well, you will have to determine whether you believe that statement or not, and
if so, you will have also to say whether he was in a condition which the Act of
Parliament requires to justify the landlord in ejecting him, because if he was
not in that condition, Henry Dalton would be committing an illegal act in
attempting to put him out, and not justified, and thereby committing an illegal
act, and if the man fell in consequence of being pushed, undoubtedly it would
be a case of manslaughter against Henry Dalton. But if the man was in a
condition that they were justified in putting him out, then the question would
arise whether more force was used than was necessary for the purpose of putting
him out, and whether proper care and precaution was taken by Henry Dalton in
putting him out, so as to prevent there being any probability of any injury
arising to the man in consequence of so being put out. Now, you have viewed the
premises yourselves, and I think you are all agreed that the steps are most
dangerous steps to be an entrance to a public house, and that even sober
persons coming down them in the ordinary way would have to take great care and
caution to prevent themselves from falling. Therefore, suppose you come to the
conclusion that they were justified in putting him out of the house, and that
Henry Dalton was actually putting him out of the house in the way some of the
witnesses have described, you will have to say whether proper care and caution
had been used by Henry Dalton in pushing a man on such dangerous steps as those
steps and give him such a violent push as he was caused to fall. If you come to
the conclusion that proper care and caution was not used, it would be an act of
such carelessness that it would undoubtedly render him liable to a similar
charge of manslaughter.”
After reading the evidence, the Coroner went on to say “Now,
you have, as I have said, got to decide which of the witnesses` statements you
believe. If you believe the statements of Henry Dalton and Edgar Dalton there
cane be no question that it was a pure accident, although it lamentably ended
in the death of this man. If, on the other hand, you disbelieve them entirely
and believe the evidence of the other witnesses, one of whose depositions I
have not read, because you intimated that you don`t believe a word he said, but
if you believe that this deceased was deliberately pushed out of the door by
Henry Dalton, then of course arises the question was he justified in turning
him out, because he could not be justified in pushing him down the steps in the
manner in which the poor fellow fell. If you are of opinion that the man was
violent, drunken, noisy, or disorderly, then Henry Dalton had a right to put
him out, but using no more force than was necessary for the purpose, and taking
care also to use proper precautions that no injury arose to the man in so
putting him out, you will have to say was there any excessive violence in so
doing, and looking at the dangerous position of the steps, which Henry Dalton
must have known of, did he take proper precautions in so attempting to put this
man out as to prevent any injury arising to him? If, on the other hand, you say
that the man was not drunk, riotous, quarrelsome, or disorderly, then there
will be no justification in putting him out, and if under such circumstances in
putting him out death arose, Henry Dalton would undoubtedly be guilty of
manslaughter.”
On the conclusion of this summing-up the coroner submitted
for the finding of the jury the questions which appear in our ordinary report
of the case, and the verdict resulted in the complete exoneration of both the
landlord and his father, a decision which is just and righteous.
Inquest
The adjourned inquest touching the death of George William
Hanbury, reported in our last issue, was resumed at 3 o`clock in the Council
Chamber, Town Hall, before Mr. Minter, the Borough Coroner. Mr. Frederic Hall,
solicitor, attended on behalf of Mrs. Hanbury, the widow; and Mr. G.W. Haines,
solicitor, was in attendance to watch the case on behalf of the Messrs. Dalton
(landlord and his father).
Robert William Gillingham, re-called, further deposed: The
deceased was standing in the bar on the left hand side looking outwards, close
to the door. The left hand part of the door was open. Henry alton stood close
to the door where it opened. I did not notice with which hand he opened the
door. The deceased was standing face to Henry Dalton, when he took hold of him.
The landlord, Edgar Dalton, was standing between the deceased and Henry Dalton.
At the time Henry Dalton took hold of deceased round the waist they were all
three together. The deceased was standing nearer the window than Edgar Dalton
was. Both Edgar and Henry Dalton came into the bar through the same door. I was
standing in the corner near the door through which they came into the public
bar.
By Mr. G.W. Haines: The door could be opened without
touching the deceased.
Thomas Salmon deposed: I live at 14, Radnor Street, and am
an out porter in Castle Hill Avenue. I was in the Foresters` Arms on Wednesday,
28th ult., between six and seven. I went into the public bar by the
front door up the steps. Edgar Dalton was behind the bar. Edgar Dalton and the
deceased were arguing about three twopenn`oths. The deceased said “No” – he had
paid. The deceased was standing close to the division door in the public bar.
He asked for another glass and the landlord refused, and said “Pay for what you
have had”. The deceased said that he had paid somebody. He called the barmaid
in, and asked her if he had paid her. She said “No”. The landlord then came
into the public bar. I was standing about two feet from the counter nearly
opposite the front door. The deceased was close to my right hand side. I had my
back to the door. Edgar Dalton came up to the deceased and said “Are you going
to pay?” Deceased said “No” and raised his umbrella as if to smash the glasses.
I moved my glass in consequence. (Laughter) He then raised his umbrella as if
to strike the landlord. The landlord stepped back and went into the private bar
through a doorway. He returned with Henry Dalton. When they came in, the
deceased was standing close to me. Henry Dalton asked the deceased if he was
going to pay. The deceased replied “No”. Henry Dalton opened the door with one
hand and pushed the deceased out with the other. I saw the deceased fall and
heard the thud. The deceased had not time to do anything; it was done in an
instant. The deceased was about two feet from the door when Henry Dalton pushed
him out. Edgar Dalton did not do anything. Henry Dalton placed his hand on the
chest of deceased. He opened the left hand door as you go out. Henry Dalton
opened the door with his right hand and pushed the deceased out with his left.
Whichever hand was used, I am certain Henry Dalton pushed deceased out of the
front door, and he fell backwards on the pavement. I saw the deceased on the
steps being assisted by Edgar Dalton and Henry Dalton. At the time when asked
if he was going to pay, the umbrella was more by his side. The deceased was not
doing anything at the time Henry Dalton came in, and all he said was that he
did not mean to pay. He used no threats. He had no time; out he went. I can
give no reason for the deceased being pushed out, except that he would not pay.
The deceased was not really drunk, but still he had had quite enough.
Cross-examined by Mr. F. Hall: The landlord and deceased
were arguing. Dalton said he had not paid. Deceased said he had. It was a
rational argument, but rather high in the voice. Edgar Dalton said that he had
had quite enough, and he would not let the deceased have another glass until he
paid for what he had had.
By Mr. G.W. Haines: The opening of the door and pushing out
was done at once, one push. The deceased was a fine, smart man. The push sent
the deceased off his legs. He did not put his arms round the deceased`s waist.
He reckoned that the steps were the most dangerous in Folkestone for anyone
coming out of the house. Henry Dalton had not his hand on the door at all when
he pushed the deceased out. The deceased went right out.
John Jones deposed: I live at 24, Dover Road, Folkestone,
and am a draper`s assistant. On Wednesday last I went into the Foresters` Arms
about 6.30 for a glass of ale. I saw the deceased and heard him talking to
Edgar Dalton. They were opposite the front door. I saw the deceased lift his
umbrella as if to strike Mr. Dalton. He then changed his umbrella into his left
hand and lifted up his fist as if to strike him, but he did not strike him. I
saw Henry Dalton come round to the deceased. He took hold of him round the
waist and they struggled. Henry Dalton took him to the door, and when he got deceased
there he seemed to release his hold, to me. From where I was standing, behind
the door, I could not see what became of the deceased. I saw him put the
deceased to the door. I told the officer who summoned me that I saw Henry
Dalton put deceased out of the door. I have had a conversation with Mr. Edgar
Dalton since the 28th March. I went to the Foresters` Arms on Friday
evening last.
By Mr. F. Hall: I am in the habit of going in the Foresters`
Arms. I did not hear anything that was said between the landlord and the
deceased. There was nothing in the conversation to call my attention. The
struggle between Henry Dalton and the deceased lasted two minutes. The landlord
did not interfere. I did not hear anyone say anything. The struggle first began
opposite the front door, about two feet from the counter, and went on until
they got to the door. The deceased resisted and tried to release himself. It
was a struggle to the door. I cannot say who opened the door. I was watching
the struggle. I saw Henry Dalton push the deceased to the door. The deceased
had his face to the door when Henry Dalton pushed him. The deceased fell out of
the door face first. I did not see the deceased fall out; I only thought so. I
came back at nine o`clock to the Foresters` Arms, and I heard them talking
about the accident. I did not say that I saw the occurrence. Mr. Edgar Dalton
sent for me on Saturday morning and said he wanted me about this case. He said
“Don`t favour me or the man. Speak the truth”.
By Mr. G.W. Haines: I did not notice whether the front door
was open when the struggle commenced. Henry Dalton had both arms round the
deceased and pushed him. He was struggling to relieve himself. Henry Dalton was
nearest the counter when he took hold of the deceased with both arms round the
waist. The deceased was back to Dalton while being pushed to the door. Dalton
pushed the deceased close to the front door steps.
Ethel Caroline Smith deposed: I am barmaid at the Foresters`
Arms in the service of Mr. Edgar Dalton. I was behind the bar on Wednesday
serving. I was called in by Mr. Dalton and asked whether the deceased had paid
me for the beer. I replied “No”. I heard the matter being argued between
deceased and Mr. Dalton. They were arguing about 6d. for drinks. I did not hear
any more because I went to attend at the private bar. I did not hear how they
settled. I saw nothing of it.
William Brisley deposed: I live at 5, Bradstone Road,
Folkestone, and am a bricklayer. I went to the Foresters` Arms on Wednesday
night with the deceased. He called for beer and ale for himself and me. The
landlord had a glass, but he refused at first. He had it afterwards, and that
made the amount come to 6d. We stood talking for a few minutes, and I shook
hands with him. He claimed my acquaintance, but I said that he had the
advantage of me. The landlord asked for the 6d. I said “That is quite right”.
The deceased placed the money on the counter. I did not observe what money was
placed on the counter. I drank my beer and left. The deceased had had quite sufficient,
but he was just a little lively.
By Mr. F. Hall: The deceased was well behaved at the
Foresters` Arms.
By Mr. G.W. Haines: There were several in the bar. I did not
see the landlord take the money up.
William stokes deposed: I live at 69, Black Bull Road, and
am a tailor. I was at the Foresters` Arms on Wednesday 28th, between
six and seven in the public bar. I heard the part of the argument for 6d. He
said that he had paid it. I could not catch what he said. Deceased raised his
umbrella and went as if he was going to clear the whole place. The landlord
fetched his father. I went to the right-hand corner of the bar, taking my
glass. I thought that there was going to be a row about his not leaving the
premises when asked to by the landlord when he was at the side door. I could
not catch the words, but I heard the landlord ask him to leave – if he would
not pay the sixpence. I was talking to a soldier, who said that the chap was
out through the door. I heard no struggle, nor did I see the man go out of the
door.
By Chief Constable Reeve: The soldier was a stranger to me.
He had an infantry uniform, and was wearing a big coat.
Henry Dalton, after being cautioned, elected to give
evidence. He deposed: I am the father of the landlord of the Foresters` Arms in
Folkestone. I am a retired Superintendent of Police, and was in the police
force nearly 26 years. I live at Maidstone, but am at present staying at the
Foresters` Arms with my son. I was there just after six o`clock in the evening
on the 28th March last. I was in the private bar with several of the
Maidstone football team, and I heard some noise in the public bar. My son came
to me and said “Dad, I wish you would come round into the public bar. I think I
have got some trouble”. I went through into the public bar in about half a
minute. I heard my son say to the deceased something about sending for the
police. At the same time the deceased had got his umbrella up in his hand in a
striking attitude. I then went to the front door and opened the left hand half,
going to the door for the purpose of going for the police. Just as I opened the
door, the deceased changed his umbrella from his right hand to his left, and
raised his right hand with clenched fist. He was in the act of striking my son.
I stepped in between them. They were a foot or a foot and a half from the
counter. I caught the deceased round the arms and just above the elbow. When I
took hold of deceased we were face to face. I turned him round to prevent him
striking my son, and he came with his back to the open door. I let go of him,
and he took a step backwards away from me, falling out of the open door
backwards. My son and I went out and took him up, got a pail of water, got a
fly, and took him to the hospital. I did not know that deceased had refused to
pay 6d. My son did not tell me what trouble he expected. I thought it was in
consequence of the noise deceased was making. He was talking very loudly. It is
not true that I was trying to put the deceased out of the house when I had hold
of the deceased. He would have been perfectly safe had he not stepped back and
fallen out of the door. I should not think it took half a minute.
By Mr. F. Hall: I could not tell what the deceased was
saying. I did not expect any trouble when I got in the public bar. I never said
a word to deceased. I did not open the door to put the deceased out. When I got
hold of the deceased I turned him round towards the open door. I swung deceased
round to the right. He struggled. It did not strike me there was any danger. I
am not a hot-tempered man. I did not push the deceased; I swung him round. He
was six inches inside the door when I left hold of him. I cannot say why he
wanted to get away from me.
By Mr. G.W. Haines: The other half of the front door was
bolted. If I had intended to put the deceased out, I should have opened both
doors. There are two other doors out of which the deceased could have been put.
By the jury: There was no possibility of my catching hold of
the man to prevent his falling; he was gone so quickly.
Edgar Dalton elected to give evidence, and deposed: I am
landlord of the Foresters` Arms in Folkestone. I was behind the public bar on
Wednesday, 28th March, between six and seven in the afternoon. I
supplied the deceased with some beer, and a friend. On the deceased`s
invitation I had a glass. Deceased did not pay the sixpence. When he came from
the convenience I again asked for sixpence. He used bad language and said he
should not pay. The deceased was talking to two or three soldiers, and got very
excited. He used bad language, and I cautioned him, but he continued. I went to
the private bar, where my father was, and said “Would you mind coming round.
I`m afraid I have some trouble”. I then went into the bar and said to the
deceased “What are you going to do about the sixpence?” He replied “You will
get no sixpence off me”. I told him about using bad language, and that I should
fetch a policeman. He said “Where is the policeman?” He raised his umbrella,
and lifted his right hand clenched as if to strike me. The next I saw was that
father came from the front door to get hold of deceased and swung him round. I
saw the deceased fall backwards out of the door. The deceased`s left hand was
on the left half-door, which swung him to the left on his falling, because he
lay on the pavement on his back opposite the left hand door. I cannot say what
caused the deceased to fall out of the door.
By Mr. F. Hall: The deceased was orderly and well behaved
when he came in. He was not drunk when he came. His excitement was caused, I
believe, by talking about soldiers, not about the sixpence. I did not see the
deceased raise his umbrella twice. I went to my father because te deceased was
abusive and refused to pay for his drinks. It is not true that deceased and my father
struggled for two minutes. There was a slight struggle between my father and
the deceased. I believe my father had let go of the deceased before he fell out
the door. He was not pushed out.
Dr. Francis Clifford Fosbery deposed: I am house surgeon at the
Victoria Hospital. The deceased was brought to the hospital by two men at ten
minutes to seven last Wednesday evening, the 28th. He continued
unconscious until the time of his death, which took place at seven the
following morning. I found the deceased suffering from a fractured skull. There
was a contused wound, star shaped, on the left side and back of the scalp, such
as would be caused by the fall described. I made a post mortem examination, and
the cause of death was haemorrhage on to the brain from a rupture of a vein
immediately below.
After a short adjournment, Mr. Haines addressed the jury at
8.30, dwelling chiefly upon the conflicting statements made by the witnesses,
and assuring them that no-one regretted the fatal accident more sincerely than
did the landlord and his father.
The Coroner, having summed up the points of law, and also
having analysed the evidence, left three questions to the jury:-
1) Did the deceased accidentally fall without being pushed
by any person?
2) Did either of the Daltons, or both, or which of them,
push deceased out of the door of the Foresters` Arms, and if so, was more force
used in ejecting the deceased than was required for the purpose; and was such
degree of caution used as to make it improbable that no danger or injury would
arise from such ejection?
3) Was the deceased drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or
disorderly?
The jury retired at 9.30, and returned into Court at 9.50.
They returned as their unanimous belief the verdict that deceased accidentally
fell without being pushed by anyone. The foreman intimated that his colleagues
were of opinion that the steps ought to be immediately altered, and also
conveyed to the widow the sympathy of the jurors.
Folkestone Chronicle
28-7-1900
Saturday, July 21st: Before Messrs. Pledge,
Vaughan, and Stainer.
Mr. Charles Austin applied to the Bench for the transfer of
the Foresters` Arms, Shellons Street, from Mr. Edgar Dalton.
The usual testimonials were forthcoming, and the Bench
granted the application.
Alfred
J. Austen was granted a transfer of licence for the Foresters` Arms.
Folkestone Express
4-8-1900
Wednesday, August 1st: Before Capt. Carter, W.
Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey and W.G. Herbert Esqs.
Folkestone Herald
4-8-1900
Folkestone Police Court
No comments:
Post a Comment