Wonder Tavern 1900 - 1904

Folkestone Chronicle 12-5-1900

Monday, May 7^th: Before Alderman Banks, Messrs. Wightwick and Fitness, and Col. Hamilton.

Mr. Reginald Pope produced plans of proposed alterations at the Wonder public house.

The Chief Constable said he did not propose to oppose the alterations, which were necessary from a sanitary point of view.

The Bench concurred.

 

Folkestone Express 12-5-1900

Saturday, May 5^th: Before J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

James O`Connor, who said he came from Manchester, was charged with stealing a pair of boots.

Septimus Holroyd Harrison, manager for Mr. Joseph Tyler, boot manufacturer, of 2, Harbour Street, said on Friday about noon he hung some boots outside the shop, and at 3.30 he examined them and missed a pair of brown bluchers, value 4s. 11½d. He identified those produced as the same.

P.C. William Prebble said at 3.45 on Friday he went to the Wonder Tavern in Beach Street and saw the prisoner there. He had a pair of brown leather boots in a handkerchief under his arm. In reply to a question as to where he got the boots, prisoner said “What`s that to do with you?” He then charged him with stealing them, and prisoner said “All right”. They went together to No. 2, Harbour Street, and prisoner then said he did not steal them, they were given to him to sell.

Prisoner pleaded uilty. Nothing was known as to his antecedents. The Superintendent said he was evidently a “bird of passage”.

Fourteen days` hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 21-7-1900

Robert Duncan was charged on Thursday with stealing an Arabian cover, valued at 1s. 6d.

P.C. Thomas W. Allen deposed that about 10.20 p.m. on Wednesday he was standing near the Wonder Tavern in company with Sergt. Lawrence, when the prosecutor went up to him an said “I have had a cover stolen in the Royal George”. He pointed out to witness prisoner, who was leaving the Royal George, and when prisoner saw the constable he ran away, but witness followed, and near Beach Street he threw something away. He was caught and taken back, and witness saw the cushion cover produced. On the way to the police station prisoner told witness that “he only did it for a joke”. He was sober.

When prosecutor was asked if he wanted to press the charge, he answered “If you wish to give him a chance you can do as you like”.

The accused was discharged, and undertook to recompense the prosecutor.

 

Folkestone Express 16-2-1901

Thursday, February 14^th: Before W. Wightwick, G.I. Swoffer, and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

John Green was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Wednesday, and pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Wellar said he was on duty at the bottom of the town on Wednesday evening about 5.40, and saw the prisoner drunk. He had had occasion to remove him from the Wonder public house. When in High Street the defendant became very disorderly, and threatened to kick witness.

Sergt. Dunster, who was in charge of the police station, said the prisoner, when brought in, was drunk. He did not swear until he was taken to the cell.

The Bench said there was no doubt defendant was drunk, and they inflicted a fine of 10s. and 6s. costs, but as he was unable to pay he was sentenced to seven days` imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 15-6-1901

Wednesday, June 12^th: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pursey, Wightwick, and Pledge, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The following licensing transfer was granted: Mr. Boreland succeeds Mr. Prior at the Wonder.

Folkestone Express 15-6-1901

Wednesday, June 12^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Col. W.K. Westropp.

Wm. Alexander Bourne (sic) applied for the transfer of the licence of the Wonder Tavern, which was granted.

Folkestone Express 10-8-1901

Wednesday, August 7^th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Colonel Keily Westropp.

The following licence was transferred: the Wonder Tavern to Mr. Alexander Barland.

Folkestone Herald 10-8-1901

Wednesday, August 7^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

The following licence was transferred: Alexander Boorland, the Wonder Tavern 

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26-10-1901

Wednesday, October 23^rd: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Henry Chester was granted the transfer of the licence of the Wonder.

Folkestone Express 26-10-1901

Wednesday, October 23^rd: Before W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.

A temporary transfer of the licence of the Wonder Inn was granted to Henry Chester, formerly of Wye 

Folkestone Herald 26-10-1901

Wednesday, October 23^rd: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swofer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Henry Chester was granted the temporary transfer of the Wonder

Folkestone Express 11-10-1902

Wednesday, October 8^th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp and J. Stainer Esq.

Henry Jeffrey was granted a temporary licence for the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street.

Folkestone Chronicle 4-7-1903

Monday, June 29^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

James White was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening.

P.C. Lemar said that at 7.20 p.m. he saw the prisoner drunk and with his coat off outside the Wonder public house, from which he had been ejected. Witness requested him to go away quickly. Instead of that, he went to the Railway Inn, and was ejected from there. He then returned to the Wonder, and challenged the people to come out and fight. With the assistance of P.C. Sharpe witness conveyed prisoner to the police station.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs (leviable by distress), or seven days`.

Inspector Lilley: Haven`t you got any goods?

Prisoner: No, and I don`t want any.

Folkestone Express 4-7-1903

Monday, June 29^th: Before Lieut Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

James White was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Lemar stated that he was in Beach Street at 7.30 on the 27^th inst., where he saw prisoner in a drunken condition outside the Wonder public house. He then went to the Railway Inn, but was ejected, and returned to the Wonder public house and wanted to fight. With the assistance of P.C. Ashby prisoner was conveyed to the police station.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. ciosts; in default seven days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 5-9-1903

Saturday, August 29^th: Before Aldermen Banks and Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

Frank Spicer, a fisherman, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening, August 22^nd. In a loud voice he pleaded Guilty, ad seemed somewhat proud of his little exploit.

Inspector Lilley proved the case, and said that defendant came out of the Wonder public house.

The Chief Constable proved two previous convictions, the last in 1899.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or seven days`

.

John Toppenden then pleaded Not Guilty to being drunk on licensed premises, viz., the Wonder Tavern. Mr. J. Minter appeared to defend.

Inspector Lilley said: At 10.35 on Saturday night, the 22^nd inst., I saw defendant come out of the public bar of the Wonder. He was drunk and fell down two steps on to the pavement. He got up and went across to the convenience, about ten yards away, and returned to the bar of the Wonder. I kept observation until 10.55, when I went in, accompanied by Sergt. Osbourne and P.C. Sharpe. Defendant was then sitting on a seat near the door. I spoke to the landlord, and turning to Toppenden told him I thought it was time he got outside. Defendant went outside and appeared scarcely able to walk. He was at once led away by another man.

Mr. Minter: Why did you let him go back into the house, knowing that he was drunk?

Witness said it was not his duty to stop the man in the first place.

Sergt. Osbourne and P.C. Sharpe gave corroborative evidence as to Toppenden`s condition.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, made a great point of the action of the police inspector allowing defendant to return to the house if he were really drunk. It would be admitted that the man had had a glass or two, but defendant on oath would deny that he was drunk.

Without further evidence, Alderman Banks said the Bench had come to the conclusion that defendant was not so drunk as he was represented to be. The case would therefore be dismissed.

There was some applause in Court when the decision was given.

Henry Jeffrey, the landlord of the Wonder, was the next defendant, being summoned for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises.

Mr. Minter, who defended, tendered a plea of Not Guilty.

Messrs. Banks and Swoffer in this case withdrew from the Bench.

The police evidence related to the two defendants in the previous cases.

For the defence it was urged that the case against Tappenden had been dismissed, while two witnesses and Spicer himself swore positively that he was not served with drink at all at the Wonder, alleging that he did not even go to the bar.

After a long address by Mr. Minter, the Bench held that Spicer was drunk on the premises and fined defendant 20s. and 14s. costs.

Folkestone Express 5-9-1903

Saturday, August 29^th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Frank Spicer was summoned for being drunk and disorderly.

Inspector Lilley said that about 10.50 on Saturday night he saw defendant come from the Wonder Tavern. When outside he wanted to fight, although there was no-one near him, but afterwards went away. There were two previous convictions against defendant for drunkenness, and the Bench considering the case proved, imposed a fine of 5s. and 9s. costs.

John Tappenden was summoned for being drunk while on licensed premises. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lilley deposed that about 10.35 p.m. on Saturday, the 22^nd inst., he saw defendant come from the public bar of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street. He was drunk at the time, and fell down two steps on to the pavement. Defendant got up and went to the urinal some 10 yards away, and after an absence of five minutes returned to the bar of the Wonder Tavern. Witness kept the house under observation until 10.55, when in company with P.S. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe he entered the bar and saw defendant sitting on a seat near the door. Witness spoke to the landlord and then told defendant he had better get outside, which he did at once. When outside defendant was scarcely able to walk, consequently one of his companions led him home by the arm.

Mr. Minter: Why didn`t you tell him not to go back when you saw him go to the urinal? – There is no reason why I should.

P.S. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe corroborated.

In answer to a question from the Bench, the former said that defendant had no drink in front of him when they entered the bar.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench and said that three policemen had given evidence, so that he ought to be satisfied. They had, however, to prove that the man was drunk. His client had had a glass too much, but he wasn`t drunk. He was a respectable working man and on the night in question had made an appointment to go mushrooming at Lyminge, the rendezvous being the bar of the Wonder Tavern, and further his client had had no beer in the house. He would ask the Bench to defer judgement in the case until the case against the landlord had been disposed of.

The Magistrates, however, came to the conclusion that the case was not proved, and dismissed the summons.

The case against Henry Jeffery, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, was then proceeded with.

Inspector Lilley gave evidence similar to that in the last case, but added that in consequence of seeing Tappenden`s condition he watched the house and saw Spicer come out rolling drunk. He used bad language and pulled off his coat, at the same time offering to fight anyone, although at the time there was no-one in sight. During the time he kept observation on the bar, Spicer never entered the house. The reason why he never stopped Tappenden from re-entering the house was because he had received reports respecting the house from constables. When he entered the bar he spoke to the landlord and informed him that a man named Spicer had left the house in a drunken condition, to which he received the answer “I did not notice him, and I have not served him”. Turning to Tappenden, witness said to defendant “Surely you can see his condition; he is drunk”. Defendant replied “I haven`t served him. He has had no drink here”. Witness told defendant that he would be reported for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises.

P.S. Osborne stated in addition to his evidence in the first case that about 11.10 on the night in question he saw Spicer at his home, very drunk and using obscene language to his mother.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on behalf of his client, and said that with regard to Spicer he was a nuisance to all the publicans. His client would swear that he had not served the man at all on Saturday, and it was being refused drink on Saturday night that made him want to fight when he came outside. If it were proved that no drink had been given the man his client would not be liable under the summonses for permitting drunkenness, for the man came in without his consent, and he was not permitted to remain. They could not prevent a man from coming in the house if he chose to do so, but they could refuse to serve him, and this was done.

The defendant then went into the witness box and said that Tappenden came into the bar about 10.30 p.m. on the 22^nd inst. He was not drunk, but witness considered he had had enough to drink. Tappenden called for a pint of beer; witness told him that he didn`t want any more, and a companion also expressed the same opinion. That was all that was said, and Tappenden being quiet was allowed to sit in the bar. Witness did not see Spicer enter the house, and certainly did not serve him. He was a man whom witness did not want near the place, and had previously refused to serve him. Witness was closing the house at 10.55, when the police arrived. They did not enter the house, but stood on the doorstep, and Inspector Lilley said “I shall report you for allowing drunkenness. Spicer has come out, and this man (meaning Tappenden) is drunk”. Witness replied that he had not served either of them.

The Superintendent:Do you say that the police never entered the house? – Yes.

Where was Tappenden? – Sitting in the doorway.

Then they would not have to come far to see him? – No.

What time did the police come to the doorway? – Between 5 and 10 minutes to 11.

You said that Tappenden came in about 10.30 and remained until closing time? – With the exception of five minutes when he was outside.

You said that he was not in a condition to be served? – He was not drunk, but when I see a man has had enough I refuse to serve him with any more, and do not wait until he is drunk.

How long has that been your practice? – Ever since I have kept a licensed house.

Do you remember the police coming to your house in November last? – I do not.

Were you then cautioned about a certain person? – Not that I know of, but if you tell me his name I might remember.

They might have come? – Yes.

Coming to Spicer, you know him very well? – Yes.

Will you swear that he was not in your house from 10.35 until 10.50? – Not to my knowledge.

By the Bench: There were about 30 people in the house.

The Superintendent: How many people were in this particular bar? – About four.

William Knott, a labourer, stated that he had made an appointment with Tappenden to go mushrooming. Tappenden entered the house at 10.30 and called for a drink, but the landlord refused to serve him. He was not drunk, but witness thought he had had enough. When the Inspector came to the door Tappenden was outside, going home to have his supper. Witness did not see Spicer in the bar, and had not seen him all day.

Alexander Valentine, a painter, gave evidence to the effect that he went to the Wonder at 10.30 and stopped there until closing time. Spicer never came into the bar, and was not in the house at all.

The Bench thought that there was no case made out with reference to Tappenden, but with regard to Spicer they had not the slightest doubt that he was in the house, and in a state of intoxication, and it was the landlord`s duty to take notice of it. Therefore they would impose a fine of £1 and 14s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 5-9-1903

Saturday, August 29^th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer.

John Tappenden was summoned for having been drunk on the licensed premises of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, on Aug. 22^nd. Defendant was represented by Mr. J. Minter, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lilley stated that at 10.30 p.m. on the date in question he saw defendant come out of the public bar of the Wonder. He was drunk. In coming out he stumbled down the steps on to the pavement. About five minutes later he returned to the same bar. Witness kept observation on the house, and at 10.55, accompanied by Sergt. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe, he went into the bar. Defendant was sitting on a seat near the door. Witness spoke to the landlord, and also told Tappenden he had better get outside. Tappenden went out at once, and appeared scarcely able to walk. He was led away by another man who was at the door.

P.S. Osborne and P.C. Sharp gave corroborative evidence.

After deliberating for some time the Bench dismissed the case.

Henry Jeffrey, landlord of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. Minter was for the defence. This case was heard by Alderman Herbert and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Inspector Lilley, who was the first witness, gave evidence to the effect that he kept observation on the house, and at 10.55 p.m. Spicer, who was drunk, came out. Witness gathered that he was drunk by his incoherency of speech, by his being almost unable to walk, and by his placing himself in a fighting attitude when there was no-one to fight with.

Mr. Minter: When you entered the house, what took place?

Inspector Lilley: I said to the landlord “A man, Spicer, has just left your house drunk”. He (the landlord) replied “I didn`t notice him, and I haven`t served him”. Turning to Tappenden (defendant in a previous case), who stood up, witness said “This man; you see his condition; he is drunk”. The landlord replied “I haven`t served him. He has had no drink here”.

P.S. Osborne said he did not see Spicer leave the house, but saw him at ten minutes past eleven in his own house in Radnor Street.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated, saying he saw Spicer at his own house drunk. He was using obscene language to his mother.

Defendant, on oath, said Tappenden came into his house on the night in question about 10.30. He did not consider him drunk, but thought he had had as much as he ought to have. Tappenden asked him for a pint of beer, and defendant said to him “I don`t think you want any more to drink”. He did not see Spicer, neither did he supply him with any drink on Saturday night in his house. Witness also said that the police did not enter his house, but only stood on the step outside. He was perfectly sure that neither Spicer nor Tappenden had had drink at his house that night.

Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve, defendant swore that the policemen did not enter his house. In answer to a further question as to why he did not serve Tappenden with drink, Jeffrey stated that it was his opinion that people ought not to serve a man to make him drunk.

Evidence for the defence was also given by William Knott, who said that neither of the policemen went inside the bar. Both he and Tappenden were outside.

Chief Constable Reeve: What condition was Tappenden in?

Witness: He had had enough to drink, but was not drunk.

Are you prepared to say that Spicer was not in the bar with you and Tappenden? – Yes, sir.

Alexander Valentine, another witness, said he never saw Spicer at all; if he was there he never was in the bar.

After consulting with his colleague, the Chairman said that they considered there was no case against Tappenden, but they had not the slightest doubt that Spicer was in the house, and that he was in a state of intoxication. Defendant would be fined £1, with 14s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 12-9-1903

Local News

The “Licensing World” recommends an appeal in the case of the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, convicted of permitting drunkenness.

Folkestone Express 7-11-1903

Saturday, October 31^st: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Horace Edwards was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. W. Prebble said that on Tuesday, shortly after noon, he was standing near the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street, when he saw a man leave in a drunken condition. Witness then heard the landlord request another man to quit the premises, but he refused. Witness was then called by the landlord, and he saw defendant in the bar. He was drunk, and was holding a pint glass half-full of beer. When requested to leave the house, defendant said “Yes, I will for you, but not for that ---- thing”, pointing to the landlord. Defendant left the house, and witness reported him for the offence.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs; in default seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 7-11-1903

Saturday, October 31^st: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

Horace Edwards was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, viz., the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, on Tuesday, the 27^th ult.

Fined 2s. 6d., and costs, 9s.; in default, seven days`.

     

Folkestone Chronicle 5-12-1903

Wednesday, December 2^nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

The licence of the Wonder Inn was transferred from Henry Jeffery to John Matthews.

Folkestone Express 5-12-1903

Wednesday, December 2^nd: Before Colonel Westropp and E.T. Ward Esq.

The licence of the Wonder was transferred from Henry Jeffery to John Matthew.

Folkestone Herald 5-12-1903

Wednesday, December 2^nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

The licence of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, was transferred from Henry Jeffrey to John Matthew.

Folkestone Chronicle 2-1-1904

Monday, December 28^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, Mr. T.J. Vaughan and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Henry James Fedarb was charged with stealing three fowls, the property of Mr. W. Aird.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said that at 2.45 on Saturday last he saw prisoner in company with a man named Newman near the public baths in Foord Road, carrying a bag. Witness asked what the sack contained that he had given to Newman. On examination he found it contained three dead fowls, which Newman said he bought of Fedarb for 2s. Witness took Fedarb into custody. At the station Fedarb said that he had found the fowls at the back of a house above the Railway Bell Hotel on Thursday night.

William Aird said he was landlord of the Valiant Sailor. He had examined the fowls and identified them as his property. Their necks had been broken. The value was 3s. each.

John Hawkins, head milkman in Mr. Aird`s employ, said he counted the fowls every Monday morning. He missed four on Monday morning. The fowls produced were the same sort as owned by Mr. Aird.

Henry Edward Newman said that Fedarb asked him on Saturday to buy three fowls for 2s., which he did. Detective Sergt. Burniston came up and took the prisoner and the fowls to the police station.

Prisoner was sentenced to 14 days` hard labour. Newman was censured by the Bench for buying the fowls for 2s., and warned that he must be more careful in future.

Folkestone Express 2-1-1904

Monday, December 28^th: Before E.T. Ward, W.C. Carpenter and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Henry James Fedarb was charged with stealing three fowls, the property of Mr. Wm. Aird.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said at 2.45 on Saturday last he saw prisoner in company with a man named Newman, near the Public Baths in Foord Road. Prisoner was carrying something in a bag. When near the Castle Inn, prisoner handed the sack to Newman, and went into the public bar of the Castle. Witness stopped him, and asked him what the sack which he had given to Newman contained. He replied “You had better see”. He called Newman outside, and then examined the sack, which contained the three dead fowls produced. Newman said he bought the fowls of Fedarb for 2s. Fdarb said he had won them at the Wonder Inn in Beach Street. He told Fedarb, that not being satisfied with his statement, he should take him to the police station, and he would there be detained while further enquiries were made. Witness went to the Wonder Inn, where he ascertained that the statement Fedarb made was false. He therefore returned and charged him with stealing the three fowls from some person or persons unknown. Fedarb replied “I found them at the back of a house near the Railway Bell Hotel on Thursday night”. Subsequently he charged the prisoner with stealing the fowls from Mr. William Aird, of the Valiant Sailor Inn, to which he replied “I am not guilty”.

Prisoner said he found the fowls just over a fence in a meadow at the back of a house in Dover Road.

William Aird, landlord of the Valiant Sailor, said he kept fowls in houses at the back of the inn, in a farmyard. He had examined the three fowls, and identified two of them as his property. Their necks had been broken. He did not miss them until that (Monday) morning, and had seen them safe on Thursday or Friday. The value was 3s. each. He had missed four since the previous Monday. They were counted every Monday morning.

Prisoner: I have heard you say in your bar that you never knew how many fowls you had got.

John Hawkins, head milkman in the employ of Mr. Aird, said he counted the fowls every Monday morning. That day week there were nine missing, but on counting them that (Monday) morning he missed four. He could not swear to the fowls produced, but they were the same sort as Mr. Aird kept. He had frequently seen the prisoner about the premises, and he had sometimes slept in stacks there, but not with Mr. Aird`s permission.

Henry Edward Newman, foreman bricklayer, in the employ of Mr. Moody, living at 84, Marshall Street, said he knew the prisoner very well, and saw him on Saturday. Fedarb called him and asked him if he would buy three fowls. He asked where they were, and he replied that he would go and get them. He went away and returned with three fowls in a bag, which he carried to the Castle Inn. Prisoner told witness he won them at the Wonder and did not want them, and he could have them for 3s.

Mr. Ward: So you think you gave a fair price.

Witness: Well, you can buy plenty of fowls for 1s. each.

Mr. Ward: Well, we can`t.

Witness continued his evidence: He gave 2s. for the three fowls. Burniston came up a few minutes after and took the fowls, and also the prisoner to the police station.

The prisoner was then charged with stealing two of the fowls. He said he “wanted the job settled”, but was not guilty. He found the fowls in a bag in Mr. Major`s field.

Mr. Bradley reminded the prisoner that his first story was that he won the fowls at the Wonder.

The Bench considered the case proved. It was prisoner`s first offence, and he was sentenced to 14 days` hard labour.

Newman was called forward and censured by the Chairman for buying the fowls for 2s., and told him he must be more careful in future.

Folkestone Herald 2-1-1904

Monday, December 28^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonels Westropp and Fynmore, amd Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

Henry James Fedarb was charged with stealing three fowls.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that at 2.45 on Saturday last he saw prisoner, in company with another man, near the public baths in Foord Road. Prisoner was carrying something in a sack. When near the Castle public house, Fedarb handed the sack to Newman, and went into the public baths. He stopped Fedarb, and said “What does the sack contain that you have given to Newman?” He replied “You had better see”. He called Newman outside, and on examining the sack (produced), found it to contain three dead fowls (also produced). Newman said “I bought these fowls off Fedarb for 2s.”. Fedarb said he had won them at the Wonder Inn in Beach Street. Witness told Fedard he was not satisfied with his answer, and took him to the police station to be detained while he made further enquiries. He then went to the Wonder Inn, and found the statement to be false. He returned to Fedarb and cautioned him, whereupon he said “I found them at the back of a house above the Railway Bell on Thursday night”. That morning he charged prisoner with stealing three fowls from the Valiant Sailor, the property of Mr. Aird. He replied “I am not guilty”.

Mr. W. Aird, landlord of the Valiant Sailor, said he kept fowls in three outhouses in the farmyard. The three fowls produced had been killed by the breaking of their necks. He valued them at 3s. each. He identified them as his property.

John Hawkins said he was in the employ of Mr. Aird, and it was his duty to look after the fowls. He counted them weekly every Monday morning. He counted them that day (Monday), and found four missing. He could not actually swear that the fowls (produced) were Mr. Aird`s property, but they were the same sort as he kept. He had seen Fedarb about the premises at different times. Last week prisoner slept on the premises, unknown to Mr. Aird, and he (witness) saw him leave in the morning.

Henry Edward Newman said he was a foreman bricklayer for Mr. Moody, and resided at 84, Marshall Street. He knew prisoner very well, but was not in his company on the morning in question. He was near the Castle public house when Fedarb called him and asked if he would buy three fowls. He told him he did not know that he wanted them, and asked where they were. Prisoner replied “They are up at my place. I will go and get them”. After about half an hour he returned, and joined witness in the Castle. He showed him the three fowls (produced) in the sack (produced), and told him he had won them at the Wonder, and did not want them as he had no use for them, and witness might have the three for 2s. He (witness) had had them in his possession about three or four minutes when Detective Burniston asked him to let him have them. The Detective then took Fedarb and the fowls to the police station.

When asked whether he desired to be dealt with summarily or to be tried by a jury, prisoner said “I want the job settled”. He pleaded not guilty, still asserting that he found the fowls in a bag near the Railway Bell, at the back of two houses.

Prisoner was sentenced to fourteen days` hard labour, and the Chairman remonstrated with Newman for having bought the fowls for such a price in that way, remarking that if he did anything like it again he would probably find himself in Fedarb`s position. 

Folkestone Express 30-7-1904

Saturday, July 23^rd: Before Alderman Banks, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Henry Brown, a stranger, was charged with assaulting John Mathew, landlord of the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, on the previous day.

John Mathew said the prisoner came into his house at 10.30 p.m. There were three soldiers standing at the bar, and prisoner at once got into conversation with them, talking about the ribbons on their (soldiers) breasts. The soldiers did not want to converse with prisoner, so witness told prisoner to leave the house. Prisoner immediately picked up a glass from the counter and said he would dash it at witness`s head and face. Witness immediately jumped over the counter, prisoner striking at him as he was going over the bar with his fist. They then closed, and both fell into the corner of the room. A constable then came in and dragged prisoner away from witness, who gave prisoner in charge.

P.C. Prebble corroborated.

The Bench considered the case was clearly proved, and sentenced prisoner to fourteen days` hard labour.

As prisoner was leaving the dock he threatened Mr. Mathew, and said he didn`t care if he got ten years for it. He was immediately brought back, and was cautioned by the Bench.

Folkestone Herald 30-7-1904

Saturday, July 23^rd: Before Alderman Banks, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, and C.J. Pursey.

Harry Brown was charged with assaulting John Matthew, the landlord of the Wonder Tavern, by striking him in the face the previous evening. He pleaded Not Guilty.

John Matthew stated that prisoner went into his house about half past ten on the evening of the 22^nd inst. He had been in the house two or three times that day. At half past ten, when he came in, there were three soldiers standing in the bar. Prisoner entered into conversation with one of the soldiers as regards the ribbons on his breast, and what he had in his pocket. The soldier did not want to converse with him, but Brown forced the conversation. With that witness told him to leave the house. Brown immediately picked up a glass from he counter, and said he would dash it in his (witness`s) face. Witness immediately jumped over the counter to eject him, when he struck him. Witness closed with him, and they both fell into the corner of the bar. The soldier dragged prisoner away from him, and a constable went in and also dragged him away. Witness then gave him into custody.

P.C. Prebble stated that shortly after 10.30 on the 22^nd inst. he was outside the Wonder Tavern, where he saw prisoner in the public bar. He heard the landlord say to prisoner “Drink up your beer and leave my house”. Prisoner replied “I will chuck it in your eye”, and began to use very bad language. The landlord jumped over the counter into the bar, and as he went over prisoner struck him on the head with his fist. The landlord closed with him, and they fell to the ground. As he (witness) went into the bar he saw prisoner strike the landlord again three or four times on the head. He pulled the prisoner off Matthew, and asked what was the matter. Matthew replied “I give this man into custody for an assault on me, and using obscene language”. Prisoner was sober.

Brown was sentenced to 14 days` hard labour.

As prisoner was being removed from the Court, he glared threateningly at Mr. Matthew and exclaimed “I`ll do ten years for you when I come out”.

The Magistrates ordered him to be again placed in the dock, and Alderman Herbert said “If you do make any assault on this man when you come out, you will be punished very severely for it. Your threat today will be borne in mind”.