Updates

9th February, 2013: Folkestone Herald Reports for 1900 Added.

Two Bells (2) 1900s

Folkestone Express 4-8-1900

Wednesday, August 1^st: Before Capt. Carter, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

A. Burchett was granted a transfer of his father`s licence for the Two Bells Inn. 

Folkestone Herald 4-8-1900

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday, the licence of the Two Bells was transferred from Mr. Edward George Brickett to Mr. Arthur Brickett. 

Foresters` Arms 1900s

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 26<sup>th</sup>. 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 28<sup>th</sup> 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, 28^th 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, 28<sup>th</sup>, 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 28^th, 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 28<sup>th</sup>, 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 28^th. 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 28^th, 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 28<sup>th</sup>, 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, 28^th 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, 28<sup>th</sup>, 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 28^th. 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, 28<sup>th</sup> 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 28^th 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 28^th, 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 28^th 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, 28<sup>th</sup> 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 28^th. 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 21^st: 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.

Folkestone Express 4-8-1900

Wednesday, August 1^st: Before Capt. Carter, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Alfred J. Austen was granted a transfer of licence for the Foresters` Arms.

 

Folkestone Herald 4-8-1900

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday, the licence of the Foresters` Arms was transferred from Mr. Edgar Dalton to Mr. Albert James Austin