Globe (2) 1895 - 1899

Folkestone Chronicle 31-5-1895

Local News

Mr. Charles Sparrow, late of the Railway Tavern, has entered upon the tenancy of the Globe Hotel, The Bayle, and business at this old house is looking up in the hands of the new tenant, whose sporting and other friends are very numerous. By going to the Globe now one can see a lively Sparrow and get a very refreshing swallow at the same time.

 

Folkestone Express 1-6-1895

Saturday, May 25^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Temporary authority to sell at the Globe Hotel was granted to Mr. Charles Sparrow.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-6-1895

Local News

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday the temporary licence granted to Mr. C. Sparrow to sell at the Globe Hotel was extended to the next special licensing day

Folkestone Express 8-6-1895

Wednesday, June 5^th: Before C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Globe Hotel was transferred to Mr. C. Sparrow 

Folkestone Express 25-4-1896

Wednesday, April 21^st: Before J. Pledge and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

An occasional licence was granted to Mr. C. Sparrow to sell refreshments on the Football Field on the occasion of the Fire Brigade Tournament on the 29^th.

Folkestone Express 21-8-1897

Saturday, August 14^th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Salter, Spurgen and Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan and J. Holden Esqs.

Joseph Charles Pettifer applied for temporary authority to sell at the Globe Hotel, The Bayle, and it was granted.

Folkestone Visitors` List 16-2-1898

Kaleidoscope

On Monday morning at the Folkestone Police Court E.W. Prebble and J. Inglis were charged with stealing a quantity of furniture from the residence of the Hon. Ralph P. Nevill, at 2, Clifton Crescent, on various occasions since the month of October last, from which date the tenants have been absent. The case was adjourned until Monday next. It is expected that evidence will then be given of a surprising character.

Folkestone Chronicle 19-2-1898

Monday, February 14^th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.

Ernest Prebble and George Inglis were charged with stealing a large quantity of furniture, bedding, etc., from 2, Clifton Crescent, the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville, over the value of £5, at divers times since October last.

Walter Richford Warner, landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, said he remembered Prebble coming to the house about a fortnight ago. Witness knew him as a customer. He offered a writing table (produced) for sale. Witness saw it outside in charge of Inglis. Prebble asked 12s, for it, but witness declined to buy. On Saturday, January 29^th, witness was called into his private bar by his wife about 7 o`clock, and saw the two prisoners there with a man named Welch. Inglis had two blankets under his arm, and offered them for sale for 5s. They said they bought them at a sale. He told them he knew a party who would be glad of them, and recommended them to Mrs. O`Brien.

By Inglis: He could not swear which one said he had been to a sale.

Mrs. Minnie O`Brien, widow, 45, Bournemouth Road, said two men came to her house on February 29^th at 7.30 p.m. One of them asked her to buy a pair of blankets, saying Mr. Warner had sent him. He said he was selling them for Prebble, the upholsterer. Witness purchased them for 5s. She handed them to P.S. Lilley on Saturday.

Inglis: I brought the blankets, and said I was selling them for Prebble.

Albert Jenner, 42, Sidney Street, carter, said about seven on the 25^th February he saw Inglis near the Globe Hotel on The Bayle. He asked if witness would buy a table, but he declined. Witness saw Prebble in the Globe, and said he was hard up. He saw the table in the garden of the hotel. Witness gave him 5s. for it. Witness gave the table up to P.S. Lilley the previous day.

Mary Lomax, 26, Bradstone Road, said he had been engaged at 2, Clifton Crescent since October. Witness did not live in the house, but went once a week to keep it clean. The house was furnished, and witness missed articles from it almost every week, and informed Mr. Goldsack at Mr. Sherwood`s office. She identified the articles produced as those missed. She always got the keys from Mr. Sherwood`s and returned them to him. She identified the blankets and the tables produced. The former had the name of Neville on a piece of tape, but it had been cut off. She always found the door locked, but it appeared to her that someone had entered by the back door, as there were marks of feet. She had bolted the back door, but had found it unbolted.

Superintendent Taylor asked for a remand for a week, which was granted, in order that other goods might be traced.

Inglis said he was innocent, and Prebble could clear him if he liked.

Supt. Taylor strongly opposed bail being granted, but the Bench decided to accept two sureties for each prisoner in £25 each, and themselves in £50 each. Failing to get bail, prisoners were remanded in custody.

Folkestone Up To Date 19-2-1898

Monday, February 14^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Ernest William Prebble and George Inglis, two young men, were charged with stealing two birch tables, a pair of blankets, a pair of china figures, one despatch box, and other articles of furniture, &c., the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, from 2, Clifton Crescent. The prisoners pleaded Not Guilty.

Walter Richard Warner said: I am landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. It was about the third week in January that Prebble came as a customer into the private bar, where I was at the time. He asked me if I wanted to buy a writing table. I followed him outside the house, when he showed me a polished writing table which was standing just off the curbstone in front of my house. Inglis was in charge of the table. I looked at it, and Prebble said “That is cheap for 12s.” Inglis said nothing. I remember Saturday evening, the 29^th ult. I was called into my private bar by my wife about seven o`clock, when I saw the two prisoners and a man of the name of Welsh. They were apparently accompanying one another. Inglis was carrying two blankets, and offered them for sale at 5s. I asked if the things were all right, and where the prisoners had got them from, and Inglis said they had been to a sale. I said I knew a friend of ours who would be very glad of them, Mrs. O`Bryan, 45, Bournemouth Road. The three men then left, carrying the blankets with them.

By Inglis: I think it was you who said you had been to a sale, but am not quite sure. It was either you or Prebble.

Minnie O`Bryan: I am a widow, living at 45, Bournemouth Road. I remember Saturday, the 24^th, about 7.30 p,m. I was called to the front door by a knock. The passage was dark, and I cannot identify the man, but a man came and asked me if I would buy two blankets. He said he came from Mr. Warner, of the Clarence Hotel. I asked him the price, and he said he would sell them for 5s. I bought them for that sum and paid him. I have since handed them to Sergeant Lilley.

Inglis: Did not I say they were all right or I should not have brought them to you?

Witness: I believe you did.

Alfred Jenner, of 42, Sidney Street, said: On Friday, the 28^th January, in the evening, I was near the Globe Hotel at The Bayle, when Inglis came and asked me if I would buy a table. He was not carrying anything. I told him a table was of no use to me, and he asked some people who were standing near. I shortly afterwards went into the bar of the hotel, where I saw Prebble, who said he was hard up and wanted money. Before I went to the bar, Inglis had pointed out a birch table to me. Inglis said he was trying to sell for Prebble. Eventually Prebble sold me the table, and I took it away. I have since given it up to the police.

Mary Lomax, wife of Henry Lomax, 26, Bradstone Road, said: I was engaged to look after 2, Clifton Crescent in the absence of the family, and to look after the house once a week, dust it, and keep it aired. I first went there the last week of October. The first week I was there two or three days, and I have continued going there up to the present time. I obtained the keys from Mr. Sherwood. Nearly every time I went I seemed to miss something either from the dining room or the library. The first thing I missed was a rug. That might be in November or later on. I informed Mr. Sherwood`s clerk (Mr. Goldsack) when I returned the keys. I missed a large number of things from the house. I identify the blankets and tables produced. I found the back door unbolted on several occasions, but it was always locked with a key. I never found a window open. The back door lock was in bad condition. I always locked the front door. I had no difficulty with it.

Supt. Taylor then asked for a remand.

Inglis asked for bail, and said that Prebble could prove his innocence if he liked to speak out.

Supt. Taylor opposed bail on the ground that Inglis had no settled residence and the robberies had been of a most extensive character.

The prisoners were remanded for seven days, bail being allowed to Inglis, himself in £50, and two sureties in £25 each.

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 23-2-1898

Kaleidoscope

At the Folkestone Police Court on Monday morning, E.W. Prebble and J. Inglis, who were remanded on the previous Monday, were again brought up on a charge of stealing a quantity of furniture at various times from No. 2, Clifton Crescent, the summer residence of the Hon. Ralph P. Nevill. Further incriminating evidence was given, and the prisoners were committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the Borough, bail being allowed.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-2-1898

Monday, February 21^st: Before Messrs, J. Hoad, J. Holden, and J. Fitness.

Ernest William Prebble and George Inglis were charged on remand with stealing a large quantity of furniture, bedding, etc., from 2, Clifton Crescent, the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville. Mr. Haines appeared for Inglis.

The evidence of Mr. Warner, given last week, was read over. Mrs. Lomax`s evidence was also read, and she was cross-examined by Mr. Haines. He elicited that the articles had been missed since the beginning of November. When she informed Mr. Goldsack, he thought the goods had been taken away for repair.

Francis Poulston, manager, West End Poultry Stores, said he recognised Prebble as the man he bought a table of after Christmas. He asked 10s. for it, and witness gave him 7s. 6d. A week later he purchased a copper stock pot of him. He asked 10s., and said he was very hard up. Witness gave him 6s. for it. He did not know Prebble, and he did not give any name. A few weeks after, Prebble brought a clock, saying he bought it at a sale. Ultimately witness gave him 10s. for it, although he asked 15s. He said he got his living attending sales, in reply to a question of witness`s. On Christmas Eve witness purchased a table from a man named Minnis. Prebble said his things came from the same sale.

By Mr. Haines: He believed he gave Minnis £1 for the table.

The Bench declined to admit the evidence as to Minnis as it did not affect Inglis in any way.

Joseph Charles Pettifer, landlord of the Globe Hotel, The Bayle, said he knew both prisoners as customers. He purchased a dilapidated chair from Prebble about January 3^rd, and believed he gave 6s. for it. About a week later Prebble offered him a clock. He declined to buy, as he did not know if it kept time. Prebble left it for five or six days, and then witness gave him 15s. for it. Prebble and Inglis came together a few days after. Prebble took no part in the sale. Prebble came later with a table and a stationery case. He was accompanied by a man named Welch, whom witness knew had just left the Royal Artillery. He bought the articles for 15s. Shortly afterwards he bought an armchair from Prebble for 4s. or 6s. He knew Prebble was the son of an upholsterer in the town, and believed the articles belonged to him. He said his father often had good old furniture to sell, and would let witness know when he had any. Witness handed all the articles to the police.

P.S. Lilley said he arrested Prebble at the Globe Hotel on the 12^th inst. Inglis and several others were present. He cautioned Prebble, and asked him where he got the things he sold to Miss Beasley in Dover Road. At first he denied selling any, and then said he got them from his own house. He made no reply when charged. On the way to the station, Prebble ran away in Rendezvous Street, but witness caught him. When charged at the police station by Supt. Taylor, prisoner said he sold the articles for a gentleman in London, and had a letter to say he would be down shortly. Witness searched him, and found on him a bunch of small keys and a large door key. Prebble endeavoured to conceal the latter. He said they were his. The large key fitted the lock of the back door of 2, Clifton Crescent, the key of which was missing. About five o`clock on the same day, the prisoner Inglis went to the police station and said “I hear you want me, Sergeant Lilley”. Witness replied “Not just yet”. Pointing to the inkstand, Inglis said “I know something about that, and I can tell you where you can get some of the things. I sold two blankets in Bournemouth Road, and was with Prebble when he sold some things at the Globe, a shop in Bouverie Road, and a shop in Dover Road”. After making inquiries, witness arrested Inglis on the 13<sup>th</sup>. Both prisoners were charged with being concerned in the thefts. Inglis said “I`m as innocent as an unborn babe”. Prebble said “He knows nothing about it”. Whilst taking Prebble back to the cells, he said he should like to give some information. After being cautioned, he told witness where several articles were, and witness recovered them. Only about half a dozen articles were now missing.

By Mr. Haines:  I had searched Inglis`s house and had found no stolen property. The information he gave voluntarily was quite correct.

Marion Stockfort, housekeeper at 2, Clifton Crescent, identified all the articles produced as the property of the Hon. Ralph Nevill. She said the family had not occupied the house since September, 1896. From July, 1897 till September 24^th Mr. Beddington occupied the house. On Oct. 1^st witness went over the house and everything appeared all right. Witness estimated the value of the articles at about £40.

Mr. Haines submitted that there was no evidence of stealing against Inglis. He merely assisted Prebble to carry some heavy articles. Two other men had sold articles for Prebble, but they were not charged. Inglis went to the police as soon as he knew anything was wrong, and gave what information he could.

The Bench committed both prisoners for trial at the Quarter Sessions. They offered Inglis bail – two sureties in £10, and himself in £25.

Folkestone Chronicle 9-4-1898

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday, April 6^th: Before Theodore Matthew Esq.

Ernest Prebble, 28, French polisher, was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Nevill and stealing a quantity of furniture, of value £30. Charles Inglis, 32, groom, was similarly charged, and was further charged with receiving the goods, well knowing them to be stolen. Prebble pleaded Guilty, saying “I am guilty, but this man is innocent”. Inglis pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Mavrogani, instructed by Mr. J. Minter, prosecuted, and Mr. Bowles defended.

Mr. Mavrogani went over the case briefly against Inglis.

Walter Warner, Minnie O`Brien, Robert Jenner, Jos. Pettifer, Mary Lomax, and Mrs. Stockford repeated their evidence given before the magistrates and reported at the time.

P.S. Lilley deposed as to the arrest of Inglis, when he said he was innocent. He had given the police every assistance in tracing the goods.

Mr. Bowles submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury against Inglis as to housebreaking. As to receiving also, there was no evidence to show a guilty knowledge. He merely acted as porter to Prebble, who was the son of a well-known furniture dealer in the town.

Mr. Mavrogani said he should abandon the charge as to housebreaking, but he contended that there was evidence as to receiving, as the goods were sold for such low prices.

Mr. Bowles submitted that that had nothing to do with Inglis, as Prebble did the dealing.

Mr. Matthew said he could not say there was no evidence to go to the jury. It was for them to say if there was a guilty knowledge.

Mr. Mavrogani replied, with a view to showing that Inglis had a guilty knowledge.

Mr. Bowles, at the suggestion of a juryman, produced a business card of the prisoner Prebble, showing he was a dealer.

Mr. Pettifer, re-called, produced a similar card.

Mr. Bowles addressed the jury, denying that the prosecution had produced a tittle of evidence showing that Inglis knew the goods were stolen. He merely carried furniture about for Prebble. Others had done the same, yet they were not charged. If he was guilty, were they not equally so?

In summing up, the Deputy Recorder said the only thing the jury had to consider was whether Inglis knew the goods were stolen. He pointed out some circumstances which might be suspicious in the course of the dealing, and also the weakness of the evidence against him in many ways. If the jury believed Inglis only acted stupidly, then he must be acquitted; but if they thought he acted guiltily he must be convicted. If any doubt existed, he must be given the benefit of it.

The jury considered for a minute, and found Inglis Not Guilty. There was some applause at the verdict.

The Deputy Recorder said he quite concurred in the verdict. He hoped Inglis would not act so stupidly in the future. He was then discharged.

Prebble said it was his first offence,, and, as he had already been in prison two months, he asked to be leniently dealt with.

Mr. Mavrogani said there was nothing previously against Prebble, and his father was a most respectable tradesman in the town.

Mr. Matthew said the offence was a very serious one, but it was prisoner`s first. He would be sentenced to three months` imprisonment with hard labour.

The prisoner: Thank you, sir.

The goods were ordered to be given up to the Hon. Ralph Nevill.

Folkestone Up To Date 9-4-1898

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday, April 6^th: Before Mr. Theobald Matthew

Ernest William Prebble, 28. French polisher, and George Inglis, 32, groom, were charged with feloniously breaking into and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Neville, and stealing therefrom twelve chairs, seven tables, one stationery case, etc., together value £30, the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville, on the 29^th January, and on other dates, at Folkestone. Mr. Mavrogani appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bowles for the prisoners.

When asked to plead, Prebble said: I am Guilty. This man (Inglis) is innocent.

Inglis: Not Guilty.

Mr. Mavrogani, in stating the case to the jury, said: You have heard the charge against the prisoners of housebreaking and stealing from the house, No. 2, Clifton Crescent, articles of which we have just heard read. Inglis is charged together with Prebble, who has just pleaded Guilty of the same offence. The facts of the case, shortly, are as follows: Prebble and the prisoner Inglis for some time past in the month of January went about stealing furniture, and subsequently it was discovered that this furniture had been taken from an unoccupied house at Clifton Crescent. Prebble, as you have heard, has pleaded Guilty to the offence, and the only question for you to decide is as to whether Inglis is also Guilty. Prebble, I may tell you at once, has said that Inglis is innocent of the charge. As regards Inglis, the case for the prosecution is that about the third week in January, Prebble and he went to Mr. Warner, the landlord of the Clarence Inn, and offered writing table for sale. There was some bargaining about the table, as Mr. Warner did not want it. He asked them where they had got it, and one of them, Inglis, I think, said “We have been to a sale”. He told them with regard to some blankets which they had also been offering him that they might take them to a Mrs. O`Bryan, who perhaps wanted them. Accordingly Inglis took the blankets to Mrs. O`Bryan and sold them to her for 5s. On the 28^th January, Inglis went to a Mr. Jenner and asked him if he would buy the table. The only other evidence against Inglis is that he was seen about with Prebble carrying the table, which was sold to a Mr. Pettifer. Gentlemen, the only question for you to decide is whether Inglis, when carrying these goods about, and when assisting Prebble to dispose of them, knew that they were stealing them, although he did not take any part in the transaction, and I may tell you that when Prebble was arrested, Inglis apparently heard of it, and immediately went to the police and said “I hear you want me, Sergeant Lilley”, addressing the sergeant, and the sergeant said “No, I don`t want you at present”. So Inglis went to the police before the police had any charge against him, and afterwards, when he was charged, he said “I am as innocent as the babe unborn”, and Prebble said in his presence “Inglis knows nothing about it”. These are the facts that I am going to prove, and when they are proved it will be for you to say whether you think the prisoner is guilty or not.

The following evidence was then called:

Walter Warner said: I am the landlord of the Clarence Inn, Folkestone. In January, the prisoner Inglis came with a writing table. I did not buy it. Shortly afterwards I saw Inglis again. He came with two blankets. Both prisoners were together, and there was another man. I spoke to the three. I told them where to go if they wanted to get rid of the blanket. They went to a Mrs. O`Bryan.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bowles: I saw nothing strange in the fact that Inglis was carrying the table. I could not swear that Inglis said they had been to a sale. When they came again, Prebble did the talking.

Minnie O`Bryan said: I am a widow, living at 45, Bournemouth Road. I remember on the 29^th of January a man (Inglis) bringing me some blankets. He came to the door, and told me he was selling them for an upholsterer. He told me to go to the last witness for reference. I did not know that Prebble was a dealer. I bought the blankets, and gave 5s. for them.

By Mr. Matthew: I do not often buy blankets; 5s. was a good price to give for them, because they were second hand.

Mr. Matthew advised the witness to be more careful for the future in buying second hand goods.

Alfred Jenner said: I am a carter, living at 41, Sidney Street. I remember seeing the prisoner Prebble on the 28^th January. He asked me to buy a table. Inglis fetched it for me, and I bought it. I gave 5s. for it. I did not know that Prebble was a furniture dealer.

By Mr. Bowles: I thought it was quit a natural transaction. Prebble was not there.

By Mr. Matthew: I do not often buy furniture and know very little about it.

Mr. Matthew: I should advise you not to buy any more.

Joseph Pettifer: I am the landlord of the Globe Inn. I have only known the prisoners a few months. Inglis offered me a table. Prebble brought it, and Inglis carried it for him. Prebble came in with all the things, and they were always carried by Inglis, who brought the table on the 10^th January. The clock was brought by Prebble about the 8^th or 9^th January. There was nobody with him then. Prebble sold the table himself. Inglis was with him.

By Mr. Bowles: The prisoner Inglis looked to me as though he were a hired man, carrying the furniture for Prebble. I did not think there was much wrong with a dealer having a man to carry goods for him.

By Mr. Matthew: I gave 15s. for the clock. I rather objected to take the clock without I had time given to test it, and I got a week`s time. I gave 6s, for the chair produced, 16s. for the card table, 12s. for the other table behind and from 4s. to 6s. for the framework of a chair. I do not think I got the goods extra cheap. I bought them as second hand articles. The table was out of repair. I had not the slightest suspicion that the goods had been stolen.

Mrs. Lomax, wife of Henry Lomax, No. 6, Bradstone Road: I used to go to the Hon. Mr. Neville`s house at Clifton Crescent to dust. There is a garden to the house, and an iron gate with a lock. When I went to the house I used to unlock the garden gate, and then the door of the house. I have frequently missed things from the house, and identify articles produced. I never left the house without locking or bolting the door.

By Mr. Bowles: I do not identify the prisoner Inglis. I have never seen him near the premises.

By Mr. Matthew: Prebble has been in the habit of visiting the house, but he was not visiting it while the things were missed, to my knowledge.

Marian Stockford: I am housekeeper to the Hon. Mr. Neville. The family left the house in 1897. Last October I went over the house and saw everything in order. The things produced were all missing property.

P.S. Lilley: I am a police sergeant of the Borough. I saw Inglis the day that I apprehended Prebble. I was at the police station about five o`clock on the evening of February 12^th, when Inglis came to me and said “I sold some of the articles at a shop on the Dover Road, and another on the Bouverie Road”. Inglis then went away, but was apprehended on the next day. I charged both prisoners together.

By Mr. Bowles: Inglis made a statement voluntarily I had previously searched his rooms.

This evidence closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Bowles (addressing Mr. Matthew) said: I humbly submit that there is no charge whatever against Inglis. As to the charge of housebreaking, there is no evidence whatever to go to a jury. As to the other count of receiving, I again submit that there has been no evidence that Inglis had any guilty knowledge. Inglis was simply working as a porter for a well-known man in the town, who was in business as a furniture dealer, and had parents in the same line of business. He was therefore perfectly entitled to take the position of porter, and to work for Prebble. Nor has it been proved that he had a knowledge whence the furniture came.

Mr. Mavrogani: As to the housebreaking, I do not intend to proceed, but with regard to the count of receiving I submit that there is evidence to go to the jury.

Mr. Matthew (to Mr. Bowles): What do you say as to the evidence on the second count? The goods are proved to have been stolen and sold at an unreasonable price.

Mr. Bowles: As far as the receiving goes, it is Prebble who did the dealing.

Mr. Matthew: If the jury think that, well and good, but I cannot say that there is no evidence to go to a jury.

Mr. Mavrogani then addressed the jury. He said: The only question for you to decide is whether Inglis received these goods knowing them to have been stolen. Did he know these goods were being taken from Clifton Crescent? We have heard that shortly after these things were missed they were being hawked about Folkestone in a way that did not excite any suspicion, because it happened that the father of the prisoner Prebble was a furniture dealer. It is for you to say whether the man that Prebble employed knew that the goods were being taken wrongfully from this house, or whether he thought that they were goods that he had in the shop. With regard to that there is one rather significant point. When the table and the blankets were taken to Mr. Warner, you will remember that there were three men there, the two prisoners and another man, and one of them said “We have been to a sale”. It is entirely a question for your consideration whether that was an explanation of the prisoners outside the inn that the furniture was furniture they had bought. If Inglis told a lie about that furniture, or acquiesced in the telling of a lie by any person, I submit that there is evidence of his knowing where the furniture really came from. Then you have the fact that as soon as he knew Prebble had been arrested, Inglis went to the police station. It may be that Inglis was anxious to give all the information he could. It might also be that he knew his own arrest was merely a matter of time, and that he went there entirely to save trouble.

Mr. Bowles (addressing the jury) said: I shall not keep you very long on the subject. You have heard that the charge of housebreaking has been withdrawn. Therefore the only fact you have to deal with is the fact of receiving goods well knowing them to have been stolen. In order to be successful, the case against Inglis ought to be proved up to the hilt. Has my learned friend brought any evidence to show that there was a guilty knowledge on the part of Inglis as to the place from which the stolen goods came? A furniture dealer in the position of Prebble might be quite justified in engaging an assistant like Inglis to take furniture round. Every tradesman has to employ somebody when moving about furniture. What on Earth was there to prove that Prebble had got the furniture dishonestly? A man taking work from Prebble had reason to believe that he was an honest dealer. Inglis was only working as Prebble`s servant. Whenever there is any dealing you will find that Prebble does all the talking. Inglis was never in it in any way whatever so as to incriminate himself. There was nothing incriminating about him. I addressed the Deputy Recorder on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to go before a jury. The Deputy Recorder thought there was, but I repeat that there is nothing to show that Inglis necessarily knew that the things were stolen.

Mr. Matthew, in addressing the jury, said: You have been told quite properly that there is only one matter to be proved, and that is whether the prisoner Inglis received these goods knowing them to have been stolen. Prebble you can dismiss from your minds altogether because he has pleaded guilty, and the learned counsel for the prosecution has not thought it proper to proceed with the more serious charge against Inglis. Gentlemen, you have heard all the witnesses in the case, and I know I have listened to them, but perhaps I may remind you shortly of what it is that they speak, and what their evidence came to. Warner, as far as the prisoner Inglis was concerned, said only this, that Prebble and Inglis came to his place with a writing table. There is no doubt that the writing table had been stolen from the Hon. Mr. Neville`s house, and that Inglis was then in possession of it. He was in possession of it in company with Prebble, who we know had stolen it, and they were offering it to Warner at a low price. Warner says he saw Inglis a short time afterwards when Inglis had some blankets with him. That was all that Warner said with regard to Inglis, except this, that one member of the party – whether it was Inglis or Prebble or a third man he did not say – had been to a sale, and had bought the blankets there. Mr. Mavrogani, the counsel for the prosecution, asks you to say that that is evidence against Inglis, evidence of his guilt, because he was giving an untrue account of his possession of the goods. On the other hand it is possible that Inglis did not make that statement. If Prebble said he had been to a sale Inglis may or may not have known that the statement was true, and therefore you must not rely upon that particular piece of evidence as against Inglis. Mr. Bowles says it is quite true that Inglis came with the stolen goods, but he knew that Prebble was a furniture dealer, and that these goods may have been Prebble`s honestly. Prebble might have had the goods from his father`s premises, and so far as Inglis knew it was quite possible that the thing was fair and square. The principal evidence against Inglis is that the goods were offered and sold at a small price. Now I suppose it is left to you to decide that perhaps Inglis did not know the price was small. Perhaps he was not experienced in furniture dealing, and it was only a matter in which Prebble was concerned, and Inglis only carried the things as a hired man. You will probably consider that Inglis left Warner`s place and went to Mrs. O`Bryan and said that he was selling some blankets for Prebble, an upholsterer, and I think we are justified in calling attention to the fact and saying that it is not the sort of thing a guilty man would do – tell a person where the goods came from. I feel quite justified in relying upon that fact as an evidence of innocence. Then came the witness Jenner, and he too said that Prebble and Inglis came together on one occasion with a table, and on another occasion with a clock. Inglis asked if Jenner would buy a table. You have further the evidence of Mr. Pettifer and that of Sergeant Lilley, who said Inglis fairly and honestly came and told the police where the stolen things were to be found. He told the police about the blankets and certain other things, and when the policeman went to Inglis`s house he found nothing incriminating. It may be therefore that Inglis acted throughout perfectly honestly. He went about, as far as we know, in the broad daylight. It has not been proved he shared in the profits Prebble made in respect to these transactions. If you think that he only behaved stupidly you will acquit him, but if you think the case against him has been proved you will find him guilty.

A juryman: What was Inglis paid?

Mr. Matthew: We do not know anything about that. We have no evidence.

After a brief consideration of the case the jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Prebble, and Inglis Not Guilty.

Mr. Matthew: Well, Inglis, the jury have done right in acquitting you. You were very stupid in going about with this furniture, and you must be very careful for the future, but I am sure you did not intend to do anything criminal.

Prebble (to the Deputy Recorder): This is the first offence. I hope you will deal leniently with me as I habe been already in prison two months.

Mr. Matthew: Is there any previous conviction?

Mr. Mavrogani: Not that I know of.

Prebble then wished to call the Rev. Mr. Dale, but that gentleman did not appear.

Mr. Matthew: I understand this is your first offence, but it is a serious one. You have stolen a deal of property worth a lot of money, and you have led another man into temptation. You have put that man Inglis in very serious danger. However, it is your first offence, and I must remember that in passing sentence. You are sentenced to three months` hard labour.

Superintendent Taylor stated, in answer to Mr. Matthew, that unless he was otherwise instructed, the furniture mentioned in the indictment would be returned to the owner.

Folkestone Herald 9-4-1898

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday, April 6^th: Before Theodore Matthew Esq.

Ernest William Prebble, described as a French polisher, aged 28, of imperfect education, and George Inglis, a groom, aged 32, and also of imperfect education, the latter surrendering to his bail, were indicted  for feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, and stealing therein twelve chairs, seven tables, one stationery case, etc., together value £30, the goods of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, on the 29^th January last, at Folkestone. Inglis, and with receiving the same knowing them to have been stolen.

The prisoner Prebble pleaded Guilty, and said “This man (meaning Inglis) is innocent”. Inglis pleaded Not Guilty on each count. Mr. Mavrogani appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bowles for Inglis.

The facts have been already fully reported in the Herald.

Inglis was acquitted; Prebble was sentenced to three months` hard labour.

   

Folkestone Visitors` List 13-4-1898

Kaleidoscope

At the Folkestone Quarter Sessions held at the Town Hall last Thursday, Mr. Theobald Matthew acted as deputy for the Recorder.

The last case was the indictment of Ernest William Prebble and George Inglis for feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, at Clifton Crescent, Folkestone, and stealing therefrom various articles of furniture. Prebble pleaded Guilty and also stated that Inglis was innocent. Inglis pleaded innocent, and on the evidence given by various witnesses the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. Prebble pleaded that it was his first offence and asked for leniency from the Court as he had already been two months in prison.

The Deputy Recorder, in passing sentence, said that it was a very serious offence, and that the least he could do was to sentence him to three months` imprisonment with hard labour. An order was made for the restitution of the goods stolen to Mr. Nevill, the owner.

 

Folkestone Express 20-5-1899

Saturday, May 13^th: Before Colonel Hamilton and J. Stainer Esq.

The licence of the Globe Hotel was provisionally transferred to Mr. Faber.

Folkestone Herald 3-6-1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday last temporary authority was granted to Mr. Faber for the Globe

Folkestone Up To Date 3-6-1899

Saturday, May 27^th: Before Col. Hamilton and J. Stainer Esq.

Mr. Carl Faber was granted the transfer of the Globe, on The Bayle

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17-6-1899

Local News

The following licence transfer has been granted: Globe Hotel, to Louis Faber.

Folkestone Express 17-6-1899

Wednesday, June 14^th: Before J. Hoad, W. Wightwick, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.,

The licence of the Globe Hotel was transferred from Joseph Charles Pettifer to Louis Faber.

Folkestone Herald 17-6-1899

Felix

Whether it is a sign of general prosperity or otherwise there is quite a “boom” in local public houses. There is scarcely a place which is not being rebuilt or smartened up. I note in this connection that the Shorncliffe Hotel, which for years was tenanted by the late Mr. Quested, has now passed into the hands of Mr. Bull, of Folkestone, and that the Globe Hotel, on The Bayle, is now held by Mr. Faber, who for a long period of time was head waiter at the Queen`s and also at the Lord Warden and the Dover Castle Hotel, Dover. Mr. Faber ought to know something of the business, and I shall be very much surprised if he does not make things hum all round. The new White Lion at Cheriton, too, admirably conducted by Mr. Sid Saunders, is a grand improvement to the locality. Of course there are those in the world that would raze all public houses to the ground, but when a publican conducts his business in an honourable and respectable manner, then he is entitled to the highest esteem. Mr. Saunders is one of these. He is essentially the right man in a difficult place. His new bar is one of the largest in the country, and is capable of accommodating a large number of customers. The house is well fitted from top to bottom, and is a credit to the builders. I note that Mr. Cliff Willars, the upholsterer of Folkestone, has been entrusted with furnishing the bars, etc., and right well he has carried out his work.

   

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday the following transfer was granted: Globe Hotel, Mr. Louis Carl Faber.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 17-6-1899

Wednesday, June 14^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Transfer of Licence

Globe, The Bayle: Joseph Charles Pettifer to Louis Carl Faber

Folkestone Express 24-6-1899

County Court

Tuesday, June 20^th: Before Judge Selfe.

Phillips v Pettifer: Mr. Watson, of Dover, for plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for defendant. Claim £13 4s.

Plaintiff is a licensed valuer at 65, Biggin Street, Dover, and he was instructed to make an inventory and valuation of the effects in the Globe Hotel, Folkestone, for defendant. Plaintiff said he commenced the work, and on that day he met Mr. Hayward, who was the valuer for the opposite party. He had some conversation with Mr. Hayward and left. The next he heard of the business was a letter from Mr. Faber, the new tenant, and he went to see him. Mr. Faber told him that Mr. Pettifer had thrown him over and taken on Messrs. Banks and Son, because he was trying to get him out of the house and leaning to the side of the brewers, Messrs. Leney and Co. He subsequently saw Mr. Pettifer, on whom he called. He asked him when it would be convenient for him to complete the work. Defendant said he would not be allowed to do any more because he was acting on behalf of the brewers, and trying to bundle him out. He produced the book, in which he made his entries at the valuation, and also letters from Mr. Pettifer relating to the matter. He said an agreement was as usual presented to Mr. Pettifer, drawn by Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, but he refused to sign it, on the ground that the date was blank. The reason of that was that the date would be fixed to suit the convenience of the outgoing tenant. He had valued all but the bar fixtures and the stock. The usual commission was five percent on the first £100, and 2½ on the remainder. The valuation of Messrs. Banks and Son was £428.

In cross-examination by Mr. Minter, complainant said he represented Messrs. Watts, spirit merchants of Deal, and had in that capacity supplied Mr. Pettifer with spirits. He was in the habit of meeting Mr. Hayward as opposing valuer but he never received any intimation from Mr. Hayward of any change likely to take place in a public house. Mr. Pettifer informed him that he was under notice to quit on the 24^th May. At that time he did not know Mr. Faber. He knew him later, but had not taken any order from him for Messrs. Watts, although he believed Messrs. Watts were supplying him. He requested Mr. Pettifer to sign the agreement, leaving the date open. Mr. Pettifer refused, and said he might be bundled out at any moment if he signed the agreement with the date blank. He told him that was absolutely untrue. He made no notes until the day fixed for making the inventory. He made his inventory in the valuation book produced. Mr. Pettifer said his own furniture was mixed up with the other, and he had not made up his mind what he was going to take. That was before he made his official valuation – sometime in March. At that time, as he understood, Messrs. Leney were anxious that Mr. Faber should take possession on the 25^th March. He had charged on the amount for the stock – that was usual.

His Honour requested plaintiff to cast up the figures in his book.

Louis Charles Faber said he understood Mr. Phillips was valuing for Mr. Pettifer. The valuation came to £428. Mr. Hayward acted for him and for the brewers.

Mr. Minter said he was not going to deny that plaintiff was told on the first occasion he would be employed.

Witness said Mr. Pettifer told him that he had “chucked” Phillips because he wanted to bundle him out.

In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said he was offered the house six months before he took it. He understood then that Mr. Pettifer wanted to get out, but found out afterwards that he did not want to leave till the 24^th May.

Mr. Minter`s contention was that if Mr. Pettifer did actually engage Mr. Phillps to make the valuation that he never did any work at all. If His Honour came to the conclusion that there was a breach of contract, then it would be for him to say what defendant would have to pay for that.

The defendant said Mr. Phillips saw him at the Globe Hotel a few days after he had notice to quit. He did not then engage him as his valuer. On the 4^th March Mr. Hayward took him an undated agreement. He declined to sign it until he had had time to look over it. Mr. Phillips saw him and asked him to sign it, and he asked why he was in such a hurry to get him to leave. His suspicions were excited that he was working for the other side, and then he told Mr. Faber he would have nothing more to say to him. Mr. Phillips went round the house, and made a few notes. He went round the whole house except the bar, the glassware and the stock. He was engaged about three hours. He made notes in a small book. Defendant met him two or three times while he was engaged. He subsequently told Mr. Phillips he should have no more to do with him, and he replied “Then you`ll hear from my solicitor”.

The plaintiff`s valuation came to £160.

His Honour said it was admitted the defendant engaged the plaintiff, but subsequently cancelled it. The correspondence did not show he had good ground for cancelling the appointment, and was ill-advised in quarrelling with him on that ground. The question was, what amount Mr. Phillips was entitled to? There was no evidence of any custom, and it therefore remained to be said what he did, and what he should be paid for his work. He was engaged for three or four hours, and had done a considerable portion of the work, but nothing like all. He gave judgement for £5 5s. and costs of one witness.

Folkestone Herald 24-6-1899

County Court

Tuesday, June 20^th: Before Sir W. Lucius Selfe.

Phillips v Pettifer: This was a claim by Mr. Phillips, licensed valuer, Dover, against Mr. Pettifer, late landlord of the Globe, Folkestone, for £13 4s. commission. Mr. Watson appeared for the complainant; Mr. Minter for defendant.

Plaintiff deposed: I saw the defendant, I believe, in the early part of March. I went to see him at his hotel. He told me that he had notice to leave from his brewers, and that he was under notice to quit on the 24^th May. When I discovered that Mr. Pettifer was leaving his house, I solicited his business to act in valuation for him, and after some little thought Mr. Pettifer engaged my services to take him out. A day was fixed for his doing so. A little bit later he consulted, I believe, his wife and daughter upon the time when it would be convenient for me to come over and take the inventory. One or two days were mentioned by me and he selected a day. I thereupon came over at the time he fixed himself, and I then proceeded to do my work. There was one small section of the work left undone because it was the bar. As they were busy, it was arranged that I should complete my work in the course of a week or so, considering there was plenty of time up to the 24^th of May when he would leave the house. That was to suit the defendant`s convenience. I was to await his orders when to come and complete the work. The first occasion I went there I saw Mr. Pettifer and his daughter in the bar. On the same afternoon when I was about to leave, Mr. Hayward, the opposing valuer, was there. Mr. Pettifer said, turning to me, “This is my man”. I received a letter from the new tenant, Mr. Faber, upon a matter that he wished to see me about. I went to see him. Mr. Faber said Mr. Pettifer had thrown me up and engaged Messrs. Banks, of Folkestone. I asked him if he knew why. He said “Because Mr. Pettifer says you are acting on the side of the brewers and trying to bundle him out”. I said that there was not an atom of truth in the assetion that I was leaning over to the brewers. Messrs. Leney always employed Mr. Hayward. I was on my way from Hythe and called on him. I asked when it would be convenient for me to come and complete his work. He said that I wouldn`t do any more work for him; I was acting on the side of the brewers and trying to bundle him out. My reply was that it was untrue, I was acting on his side, and it was an absolute untruth. I said “No doubt you will hear from my solicitor”. I did my very best.

Letters were read which witness had received from Mr. Pettifer. One asked him to be good enough to delay his visit for a fortnight, when they would be ready for him. In another letter, Mr. Pettifer deferred signing an agreement, a date in which had been left blank, he saying that if he signed any date might be fitted in to suit the other side.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, witness said he held an agency for a firm at Deal, and was in the habit of selling spirits to the defendant. If he met Mr. Hayward, it would be as opposing him. Mr. Pettifer informed him that he was under notice to leave. The stock was valued on the day of exchange.

Mr. L.C. Faber also gave evidence.

Mr. Minter spoke at some length on behalf of Mr. Pettifer, who he called as a witness.

Mr. Pettifer deposed: I received a notice on the 21^st February to quit on the 24^th May. Mr. Phillips was a friend of mine and a traveller for a firm of spirit merchants. He came down a few days after the notice to quit. I told him. He solicited to act for me as my valuer, and I did not consent to employ him then, but did afterwards. In March, Mr. Hayward brought me an agreement to sign for going out in favour of Faber. The date for leaving was not in. I refused to sign it there and then. Mr. Phillips two or three times asked me to sign. I asked him why he was in a hurry. I found out from Mr. Faber that it was agreed upon that he should come into my house on the 25^th March. I told Mr. Phillips that he was working on the other side. I would not have any more to do with him. On one occasion, Mr. Phillips said he would just run round. I said I didn`t want this to go on, and told him not to interfere at all. He said it would be all right; it would not make any difference whatever. I told him what he was doing was on his own responsibility, and I was not going to pay. He was there three or four hours. I handed him my inventory before he went round; he had the use of it. He had a small book to take it down in. I did not go round and point the things to him,, only on one or two occasions I met him in the rooms. He never did anything beyond that.

Ultimately His Honour gave judgement for five guineas.

Folkestone Up To Date 24-6-1899

County Court

Tuesday June 20^th: Before Sir William Lucius Selfe

Phillips v Pettifer: The plaintiff is a valuer at Dover, and the defendant was recently landlord of the Globe, on The Bayle.

Mr. Watson, of Dover, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. Minter, of Folkestone, for the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed £13 4s. for an outgoing valuation of certain effects, etc., at the Globe.

Cornelius Phillips said: I am a licensed valuer, carrying on business at 65, Biggin Street, Dover. I have known Mr. Pettifer ever since he has had his hotel. Some time ago, I went to see him at the Globe Hotel, and he informed me that he had had notice from the brewers to leave. After a conversation, he engaged me to make a valuation for him. The date of his leaving was the 24^th May. I awaited his orders for the completion of the work. I remember going into the smoking room where I saw Mr. Hayward, the opposing valuer. The next I heard of the matter was from Mr. Faber, the new tenant of the house. I saw him at Canterbury, when he told me that the defendant had thrown me over, and engaged Messrs. Banks, of Folkestone, as he (the defendant) believed that I was working on the side of the brewers, and trying to turn him out. I afterwards heard a confirmation from the defendant of the report I had had from Mr. Faber, and was told by the defendant that I should do no more work for him. I said “Very well; I shall have to consult my solicitors”. It is always usual when a man leaves an hotel to sign an agreement between the outgoing and incoming tenant. Mr. Hayward handed me a copy of the agreement. It is always usual to have an agreement to sell. It is the custom of the outgoing and incoming tenant to assign a convenient date. The usual commission is 5 per cent on the first £100, and 2½ per cent afterwards. The valuation was £428, I believe.

Mr. Minter: I do not understand how the claim of £15 is made out.

Mr. Watson: I believe I have explained that. The claim has been reduced to £13 4s. We did not know the exact amount of the valuation when we took out the summons.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, the plaintiff said: I was in the habit of going to the Globe and selling spirits to the defendant. I was not at the Globe on the 21^st February, when the defendant received notice to quit. I said the defendant could leave the date to go out open in the agreement between himself and Messrs. Leney. The defendant said I was acting in the interests of the brewer, as the fact that I wanted him to sign an agreement with the date space left blank showed. I did not go over the house until the date fixed for my inventory, in March. The defendant said there were a lot of things he intended to take away with him. He went round the premises and pointed out the things he should want to take away. Sometimes we take out inventories two or three months beforehand. Messrs. Leney wanted the defendant to leave in March. I am not interested in that firm of brewers. I was informed, however, that they wanted him to leave on the 25^th March, so I thought I had better get through my valuation as soon as possible.

By His Honour: My valuation was £428.

Louis Charles Faber: Mr. Pettifer gave me to understand that Mr. Phillips was going to act as his valuer. Mr. Hayward, of Dover, was acting for the brewers. He also acted for me. I remember meeting Mr. Phillips, and telling him that the defendant intended to change his agent.

By Mr. Minter: I had applied for the Globe. I was given to understand that he wanted to go out on the 25^th March, but I found that I should have to wait.

By His Honour: I entered the house on the 24^th May.

Mr. Minter, on addressing the Court on behalf of the defendant, argued that the attempt of Mr. Phillips to induce the defendant to sign the agreement as to leaving the Globe left undated was a good ground for the defendant`s conduct in cancelling the arrangement with the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, valuations were not made as Mr. Phillips said they were. The defendant only allowed Mr. Phillips to go round the premises so early as March for the purpose of taking a few notes. In fact Mr. Phillips was not a proper agent for the defendant, because he was acting in the interests of the brewers. The contention on behalf of the defendant was that Mr. Phillips did not do the work in connection with the outgoing valuation, because the arrangement with him was cancelled.

The following evidence was then called for the defence:

Mr. Pettifer: I was formerly landlord of the Globe, under Messrs. Leney, and received a notice to leave on the 24^th May. Mr. Phillips used to travel to my house for orders. He solicited to act as my valuer. When I first saw him I did not instruct him to act as my agent. I instructed him when I got the agreement from Mr. Hayward. Mr. Phillips recommended me to sign the agreement with a blank where the date should be. Mr. Phillips seemed to wish the incoming tenant to enter on the 25^th March, and the way in which he acted excited my suspicion, and I told him I should not pay him for working further for me. In March he went over my place, and was engaged upwards of two or three hours. He had the use of my inventory, and had a small book in his hand when he was taking notes. I did not go round with him. I had my work to do. I could not make out why Mr. Phillips was in such a hurry to make an inventory.

By Mr. Watson: It is not a fact that I wanted to leave on the 25^th March. Mr. Phillips said if I was going to act like I was doing he should consult with his solicitor, and cut up rough. I said “All right. I shall cut up rough too”. Otherwise I had nothing against Mr. Phillips at all.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said that in this case it was admitted that the defendant employed the plaintiff, but for a sufficient reason, as he thought, had cancelled the engagement before the work was done. He (His Honour) must confess that he did not think the evidence bore out the view that there was a good reason for cancelling the engagement, because Mr. Phillips took every care to protect Mr. Pettifer`s interests, and to do nothing to cause him to be turned out before the proper date. Therefore Mr. Pettifer was ill advised to quarrel with Mr. Phillips. That being so, the question arose what Mr. Phillips` rights were, having regard to the fact that he was admittedly engaged, and that the engagement was cancelled. It could not be stated that he should receive the amount he would have had if the engagement had gone through. The defendant was entitled to cancel the engagement, but not to refuse reasonable compensation for what the plaintiff actually had done. What had Mr. Phillips done? He had gone through the defendant`s house on the 4^th March, and was there four hours. It was stated, on the other hand, that he had done so without consent. It was plain that he had not only made a partial inventory, but had had to submit it to the parties on the other side. He was of opinion that five guineas would be ample compensation, and judgement would be for that amount.