Belle Vue Hotel 1915 - 1919

Folkestone Herald 2-1-1915

Friday, January 1^st: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillors G. Boyd and W.J. Harrison.

Beatrice Kemp was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. She pleaded Not Guilty, and exclaimed “There you are again”.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Behave yourself in Court.

Defendant: Of course I will.

P.C. Allen said that on Monday evening about 5.45 he went to the Clarence Hotel, in Dover Road. Later he went to the Belle Vue Inn, in St. John`s Street, where he saw defendant.

Defendant: I know you have been following me about for some time.

Witness, continuing, said that he spoke to the landlord, who said that he had tried to put defendant outside, but she would not go.

Defendant again burst out, and said “Yes, I know you have been following me about”.

The Magistrates` Clerk said they had better remand the prisoner in custody till Saturday. Perhaps by then prisoner would be sober.

Prisoner was removed below shouting.

Folkestone Express 9-1-1915

Friday, January 1^st: Before J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, and W.J. Harrison Esqs.

When the name of Beatrice Kemp was called out to answer a summons for being drunk on licensed premises, a rather stylishly-dressed woman stepped forward and said “That`s me”. She pleaded Not Guilty.

When P.C. Allen entered the box to give evidence, she exclaimed “Oh, you again”.

The Clerk (to the defendant): You behave yourself now. You are before the Magistrates.

Defendant: Most decidedly I will.

P.C. Allen commenced his evidence, but was interrupted by the defendant, who shouted out “You have been following me for weeks. You have tried to catch me”.

When the constable was allowed by the defendant to start his evidence, he said at 6.45 on Monday evening P.C. Prebble and himself were called to the Clarence public house. Later he visited the private bar of the Belle Vue Inn, John Street, where he found the defendant leaning against the wall drunk. He drew the attention of the landlord to her.

Defendant: Stick it up against me. Do what you like.

The Clerk (to the Magistrates): Will you remand the defendant in custody until tomorrow, then perhaps she will be sober?

Defendant: That is right. I want a rest.

The Magistrates thereupon remanded her until the following day.

Saturday, January 2^nd: Before J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, and W.J. Harrison Esqs.

Beatrice Kemp, who was ordered on the previous day to be detained in the cells owing to her conduct, was brought before the Magistrates on a summons for being drunk in licensed premises.

Beatrice, who was rather fashionably attired, was in a repentant mood, and she immediately told the Magistrates that she was sorry for her behaviour on the previous day.

P.C. Allen repeated his evidence as to how he went to the Belle Vue public house and found the prisoner in the bar drunk and leaning against the wall. He further stated that he said to the landlord “You see this woman`s condition?” He replied “Yes. She has only just come in. I have already refused to serve her”. The landlord requested her to leave. As she refused to do so, he (witness) requested her to go home, and after a good deal of persuasion she went outside, and was taken home by her mother. He had not the slightest doubt about her condition.

Prisoner: If you will give me another chance, I will sign the pledge.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner had a very bad record. She had already 17 convictions against her, chiefly for drunkenness and obscene language.

Prisoner: Yes, I will promise to sign the pledge.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was last there on November 13^th, when she was fined £1 and costs. She was a great nuisance when in drink.

Prisoner: If I sign the pledge I shall not drink any more. You might give me another chance.

The Chairman said the prisoner had made promises before like that, but she had broken her promises.

Prisoner: I have never promised to sign the pledge before.

The Chairman said the prisoner must find two sureties, herself in one of £10, and another surety of £10, for her good behaviour for six months. In default of finding the sureties, she would have to go to prison for two months.

Folkestone Herald 9-1-1915

Saturday, January 2^nd: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd and Councillor W.J. Harrison.

Beatrice Kemp was charged, on remand, with being drunk on licensed premises. She pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Allen deposed that on the 28^th ult. he went to the Belle Vue Inn, St. John`s Street, where, in the public bar, he found defendant drunk. Witness said to the landlord “Do you see this woman`s condition?” The landlord said that he had asked prisoner to leave. After much persuasion she went outside and telephoned for her mother.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said prisoner had a bad record, chiefly for drunkenness and obscene language.

Prisoner said she would sign the pledge. She was sorry.

The Chairman said she had made promises like that before.

Prisoner said she had never promised to sign the pledge before.

The Chairman said she would be placed under the care of Mr. Holmes (the Police Court Missioner), and would have to find a surety of £10 and enter into her own recognisances in the sum of £10 to be of good behaviour for six months, or go to prison for two months.

Folkestone Express 29-1-1916

Thursday, January 27^th: Before G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace, and C.E. Mumford Esqs.

Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards were charged with supplying cocaine to soldiers, contrary to section 40 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations on January 26^th.

Pte. Herbert Welch, of the Canadian Force, said he belonged to the “Black Devils”. He was billeted at 46, Dover Road.  He recognised the two prisoners, whom he had known about two months. He had purchased from the man, whom he knew as “Horace”, stuff called “cocaine” on 20 or 30 occasions, or perhaps 40. Some times had had paid for it and on others not. He had received the stuff in small packets and had paid 1/- and 2/6 for it, according to the size of the packets. He had received from the female prisoner small packets of cocaine on ten or twelve occasions. He had not paid her anything, but the stuff had been a gift from the woman. He had mainly received the packets from the male prisoner in the Harvey Hotel, but from the female he had received it at the Theatre, in the streets, and in restaurants.

The Clerk: Have you ever been to a house in Shellons Street?

Witness: I cannot say that I have.

Have you ever been to a house to see these prisoners? – No, sir.

Kingsley said he noticed the charge against him was dated the 26^th January. He wished to ask Welch if he sold him any on the previous day.

Welch: No, you did not.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said at the present stage it was immaterial whether he was charged with committing an offence on a certain date. The Bench could receive evidence of any similar transaction within six months of that date.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said that was as far as he could take the case that day and asked for a remand.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had decided to remand the prisoners until next Thursday.

Both prisoners asked to be allowed to have bail, and the Bench fixed the sureties at £25 each defendant, and one surety of £25 each, the sureties to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Constable.

Folkestone Herald 29-1-1916

Thursday, January 27^th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Mr. A. Stace, and Councillor C. Edward Mumford.

Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards were charged with supplying cocaine to members of His Majesty`s Forces, contrary to Section 40 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Both pleaded Not Guilty.

In answer to questions put by the Chief Constable, Herbert Welch, a private in the 8^th Canadian Infantry (the Black Devils), stated he was billeted at 46, Dover Road. He recognised the prisoners. Kingsley was known to him as Horace. He had known them about two months, and had purchased something from him. It was stuff called cocaine. He had purchased it on twenty or thirty, perhaps forty, occasions. Sometimes he had paid him for it, sometimes he had not. He had received it from him in small packets. Sometimes he paid him 1s., and sometimes 2s. 6d. It depended upon the size of the packet. With regard to the female prisoner, he had received things from her ten or twelve times. He had received small packets of cocaine. He had not paid her anything at any time. It had been a gift from the woman. The packets had generally been handed to him from the male prisoner at the Harvey Hotel, and from the female prisoner in different places, sometimes in the theatre, sometimes in the street, and sometimes in a restaurant.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could go with the case that day, and asked for a remand.

The Bench adjourned the case for a week.

Prisoners asked for bail, which was allowed, each in his or her recognisances of £25 and a surety of £25 in each case.

Folkestone Express 5-2-1916

Local News

Yesterday at the Police Court, Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards appeared on remand charged with supplying cocaine to soldiers, contrary to Section 40 of the Defence of the Realm Act.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the two prisoners were before the Court a week previously, and were remanded in order that further inquiries could be made. He had been instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to state that he was willing to conduct the prosecution. Therefore he asked for a further remand for a week on the evidence already given. An analysis had to be conducted, and other matters had to receive attention.

The Clerk said he understood that the prosecution at the next hearing would be represented by Mr. Travers Humphreys.

 

Folkestone Herald 5-2-1916

Thursday, February 3^rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, and Councillor A. Stace.

Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards were charged on remand with supplying cocaine to members of His Majesty`s Forces, contrary to Section 40 of the Defence of the Realm Act.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said the two prisoners appeared before them a week ago, and on that occasion they were remanded till today. He had been instructed that the Director of Public Prosecutions had expressed his readiness to take the case up and prosecute, and he had asked for a remand for another week. Enquiries had to be made.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): They are still being made, I think?

The Chief Constable: Yes, they are.

The Magistrates` Clerk said the drugs were being analysed.

The male prisoner asked for bail.

The Chairman said they would both be remanded till Thursday next, bail being allowed, each in his or her own recognisance of £25 surety and a surety of £25.

Prisoners were remanded for a week, bail being offered, themselves in £25 each, and one surety of £25 each.

Folkestone Express 12-2-1916

Thursday, February 10^th: Before Alderman Spurgen and other Magistrates.

Horace Dennis Kingsley pleaded Not Guilty to three separate charges of selling cocaine to a Canadian soldier on different dates in January. The cases were heard together.

Mr. Travers Humphrey, who appeared on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, said the prosecution was taken under regulation 40 of the Defence of the Realm Act, which provided that if any person gave or sold to a member of His Majesty`s Forces any intoxicant when not on duty with intent to make him drunk or less capable of efficiently discharging his duties would be guilty of an offence. The arrest of the prisoner, together with a woman who would also be brought before the Magistrates, was considered to be a matter of some importance, because Major Morrison, A.P.M., had for some time been endeavouring to find out the source from which Canadian soldiers were getting large quantities of cocaine. The effect of the habit which they acquired was pitiable, and most disastrous. It made it absolutely useless to try and control the man, who was made unreliable, and very often resulted in insanity. If a Canadian soldier was found to have acquired the habit, he was considered absolutely useless for the sake of the Army from that day henceforth.

Corporal Price, of the 8^th Batt., C.I., said he had known the prisoner two months. On January 12^th he was in the Granville public house in Dover Street, when he saw the prisoner with some soldiers and women. He saw the prisoner hand small paper packets, similar to the one produced, to two soldiers and a woman. He spoke to him and asked him what it was, and he replied “Snow”. He asked him how much it was, and he said he would sell him one for 2/-. He bought one. The packet contained white powder, and he marked it January 12^th. On January 16^th he saw the prisoner in Harbour Street, and asked him if he could have more “snow”. He gave him a packet, and witness purchased it for 2/-. He was exactly in the same uniform as he was that day. He was acting under the orders of his superior officers, and to that extent was on military police duty. On January 26^th he accompanied the prisoner to Dover and went with him to Thompson`s  chemist shop, 186, Snargate Street. He waited outside while he went in. When he came out witness asked him if he had been able to purchase any “snow”, and he replied “I have been able to gat half a drachm, and have ordered two drachms for Wednesday”. On Wednesday afternoon, the 26^th, he went to Dover with the prisoner. That was early closing day. The man opened the side door, and prisoner handed him an empty bottle. He afterwards left the shop. They returned in three quarters of an hour, and prisoner went to the side door. The man answered the door again and handed him the bottle, which was full of powder. It was marked “Poison, cocaine hydrochloride”. The label bore the name Lewis Thompson, Snargate Street, Dover. Prisoner put the bottle in his pocket, and after he left the shop he asked him if he would sell him some. Prisoner went into a lavatory, and when he came out he handed him a small packet containing powder, for which he paid 2/6. They came back to Folkestone, and on their arrival prisoner was arrested by Det. Sergt. Johnson with the bottle in his possession. The packets were handed over to Johnson also.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on January 26^th, about 3.40 p.m., he was in company with P.C. Butcher on Grace Hill, and saw the prisoner and Price arrive from Dover. He went to Kingsley and told him they were two police officers, and should take him to the police station. He replied “All right”. At the police station he found in prisoner`s possession the bottle marked “Cocaine; poison”, and an empty bottle which had got the label of Mr. Thompson, and also a packet containing powder. He later charged the prisoner with selling a certain quantity of powder to members of H.M. Forces with intent to make them less capable of performing their duties. Prisoner said “How can I make them less capable? They are my friends”. He later received the packets from Price, and took them to the Laboratory, Shorncliffe, and handed them to Capt. Malone.

Capt. Reginald Malone, M.D., said he was in the C.A.M.C. he received and analysed the contents of packets and bottles. They all contained a soluble salt of cocaine.

Capt. J.B. McMurray, C.A.M.C., said he was acquainted with the effect of cocaine, and had had experience of it. He was in charge of Moore Barracks Hospital. Cocaine was a most dangerous drug and a poison. Taken in repeated small doses it would become a habit. The effect of acquiring the habit eventually led to insanity. It was very difficult to get rid of the habit once acquired. In the early stages of that habit it gave very brilliant ideas, supernatural ideas, and nothing was impossible. The reaction left the man sullen, morose, bad tempered and totally unfit for duty. They had had in Moore Barracks over forty cases of the drug habit. He had examined one or two of the samples, and, in his opinion, if taken in quite small quantities, would have rendered a soldier less capable. Cocaine was a great stimulant drug.

In reply to the Clerk, the forty cases he referred to had acquired the habit. It took about two or three weeks to acquire the habit.

Questioned by the prisoner, witness said one of the small packets would certainly affect a man.

Major Morrison, A.P.M., said he had seen the effect of the cocaine. What first drew his attention to it was the men under its influence coming into the guard room. The effect of cocaine taking rendered a man less efficiently capable of discharging his duties. The cocaine was known as “snow” by the Canadians.

Prisoner elected to give evidence on oath. He said he was living at No. 6, Shellons Street. He had been to Dover on the day he was arrested because his chemist in Folkestone had run short. Owing to the price of the cocaine he was not in a position to give it away, but he did not sell it to the soldiers in a direct manner, receiving 2/6 or 2/- more as a gift when hard up. The men were personal friends of his, and he had known them three months. The Corporal was a little scared that he would be arrested. Corporal Price did not give him any money, although he lent him money to get it. He had no recollection of giving the first two packets to Corporal Price. He was an old soldier himself, and had been 12 years in the Army, had been wounded at the Front, and had been invalided out. He came to Folkestone to recuperate. He had been willing to do his bit and he did not want to injure other people. He had a North West Frontier medal of 1911, having seen service in India. He asked the Magistrates to deal leniently with him.

Cross-examined, prisoner said he had not his military papers with him. They were at 14, Storr Street, Tottenham Court Road. He had a small pension of 1/6 a day from the War Office. He had not applied for it lately, because when he got it he had a “grand slam”, and was no good for three weeks after. He had no occupation at Folkestone. He distributed the cocaine because the men were his personal friends. He got the stuff from chemists at Folkestone, but he would not give the names at present. The soldiers could not get it from chemists, because Major Morrison had put a bar on it for soldiers. He only knew that from what the soldiers said. He knew Rose Edwards, who had given a little cocaine to soldiers. She and he lived in the same house. She came from London. Other people besides themselves gave the soldiers cocaine. The soldiers had given him some because he took cocaine.

Mr. Travers Humphrey: What effect has it upon you?

Prisoner: It makes you more keen on what you are doing than what you would be without. It has a stimulating effect.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said that was a very serious offence. The Bench had found the prisoner Guilty of the charge, and he would be sentenced to six months` hard labour on each charge, but the sentences would run concurrently.

Rose Edwards was then placed in the dock. She pleaded Not Guilty to three charges. Mr. Travers Humphrey prosecuted.

Corporal Price said he knew the prisoner. He saw her on January 14^th at the Bellevue Hotel. When he came out of the house he saw empty some white powder in a soldier`s handkerchief from a small box. He asked her what it was and she said “Snow”. He asked her if she could spare some for him and she said she could. She gave him some for which he gave her 2/6. At half past four the same day he saw her again and he asked if she could sell him another packet, and he paid her 2/- for it. On January 17^th he saw her in the Granville Hotel and he bought a packet of “snow” from her for 2/6. On the 24^th January he visited her house at 9.15 a.m., and he purchased a packet from her for 2/-. She wrapped the cocaine up in an envelope bearing her address as Little Fenchurch Street.

Mr. Travers Humphrey: It is a Y.M.C.A. envelope. (Laughter)

Detective Sergt. Johnson said on January 26^th he saw the prisoner at the police station and he charged her with selling the powder to soldiers with the intent of making them less capable of efficiently performing their duties.

Captain Malone gave evidence of analysing the contents of the packets produced by Corporal Price.

Captain McMurray gave evidence as to the effect of the drug.

Prisoner gave evidence on oath. On the 14^th January she gave Price a little “snow”, but she did not sell it to him. On January 17^th and 24^th she did not see Price at all, as she was in bed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Travers Humphrey, she said she obtained the cocaine from a fellow who sold it in the West End of London. He was not a chemist, but the man sold it to the girls in London. He sold it in the streets. She had never tried to purchase it from a chemist in Folkestone. She had only given it to two Canadian soldiers. She had been in the habit of taking cocaine, but she had broken herself of the habit since Christmas. She had only given “snow” to Price on two occasions. She could get a pill box full of the stuff in London for 2/6.

Kingsley, called by Edwards, said he had never known the prisoner to take money for the cocaine.

The Chief Constable mentioned that the woman belonged to London, and was a well-known prostitute.

The Magistrates sentenced her to six months` hard labour on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently.

Corporal Price was called forward and the Chairman said the Bench wished to express their appreciation on the way he had given his evidence and had acted in the case.

The Chief Constable said with regard to Kingsley`s statement, they had found that on January 17<sup>th</sup>, 1913, he was sentenced to two months` hard labour for felony in London.

Charges under the Pharmacy Act against both prisoners were withdrawn.

Folkestone Herald 12-2-1916

Thursday, February 10^th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Lt. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen. Councillor A. Stace, Councillor C. Edward Mumford, and Mr. H. Kirke.

Horace Dennis Kingsley and Rose Edwards were charged on remand with committing a breach of the Defence of the Realm Act by giving cocaine to soldiers. Mr. Travers Humphrey appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was decided to take the cases separately, so the woman was removed from the dock.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), addressing Kingsley, said he would be charged firstly with that he on January 26<sup>th</sup> did sell to a member of His Majesty`s Service a certain intoxicant with intent to make him drunk or less capable of performing his duties, contrary to Section 40 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and also denied two similar offences on January 12^th and 16^th.

Mr. Travers Humphreys said the Director of Public Prosecutions had taken up these proceedings at the request of the military authorities. It would not prejudice the prisoner if the three charges were taken together. The arrest of the man and the woman was considered to be a matter of considerable importance, because Major Morrison had been for some time trying to find out who were the persons supplying the Canadian soldiers with this drug. The effect of this drug on the soldiers was most pitiful and most distressing. Defendant was a distributing agent for this drug amongst the soldiers. The drug made the person unreliable, delusional, and sometimes produced insanity. If a man was treated for it, he did not get over the ill-effects it produced. They would have certain evidence to show that. If a Canadian soldier was found to have acquired the habit of taking cocaine, he was absolutely useless for the Army from that day forth.

Corporal C.F. Price, of the 8^th Battalion, Canadians, said he had known the accused about two months. On the 12^th January he was in the Granville public house, Dover Street, where he saw accused with some soldiers and woman. Prisoner handed packets to two soldiers and one woman. The packets were small, and similar to those produced. He spoke to the accused, and asked him what it was, and prisoner said “Snow”. He asked how much it was, and the reply was “2s.”. Witness bought a packet, which was quite plain, with no writing on it. It contained white powder. He saw the accused again on the 16^th January in Harbour Street, and bought another packet. He asked prisoner if he could have some more “Snow”, and accused said “Yes”. He paid 2s. again for another packet. He was in uniform, and was acting under the orders of his superior officers. He was on police duty. On the 24^th January he went to Dover with the accused. They went to Lewis Thompson`s chemist shop, 186, Snargate Street, Dover. He waited outside whilst prisoner went in. Witness asked him when he came out if he had got any “snow”, and he said “Yes, only half a drachm. I ordered two drachms, and I have to fetch it on the following Wednesday or Thursday” On Wednesday, January 26^th, he went again with accused to the same chemist. Prisoner went to the side door, as it was early closing, and it was opened by a man.

Prisoner: A lie.

Witness, continuing, said prisoner handed over a bottle to the man at the chemist`s (produced). To his knowledge accused had not more than 7s. or 8s.

Prisoner: No.

Witness said they then left and returned later. The bottle, which was empty, was handed over to accused, full of white powder. The bottle was marked “Poison. Cocaine Hydrochloride. Lewis Thompson, Chemist, Dover”. They left, and witness said he would like some “snow”, asking him to spare him 2s. 6d. worth. Prisoner said he would, and gave witness a little packet containing the white powder. They returned to Folkestone, where they were met by Detective Sergeant Johnson, who arrested the accused with the bottle in his possession. Witness handed over the packets on the 26^th inst. in the evening to the detective.

Detective Sergeant Johnson said on January 26^th, about 3.40 p.m., he was in company with P.C. Butcher on Grace Hill, and saw the prisoner and Price arrive from Dover. He went to Kingsley, told him they were two police officers, and would take him to the police station. He replied “All right”. At the police station he found in prisoner`s possession the bottle marked “Cocaine. Poison”, an empty bottle, which had got the label of Mr. Thompson, and also a packet containing white powder. He later charged the prisoner with selling a certain quantity of powder to members of H.M. Forces, with intent to make them less capable of performing their duties. Prisoner said “How can I make them less capable? They are my friends”. He later received the packets from Price, and, incompany with Major Morrison, took them to the laboratory at Shorncliffe, handing them to Captain Malone.

Captain Reginald Malone, M.D., of the C.A.M.C., said he analysed the contents of the packets and bottles. They all contained a soluble salt of cocaine.

Captain J.B. McMurray, of the C.A.M.C., said he was acquainted with the effect of cocaine, and had had experience of it. He was in charge of the Moore Barracks Hospital. Cocaine was a most dangerous drug and a poison. Taken in repeated small doses, it would become a habit. The effect of acquiring the habit eventually led to insanity. It was very difficult to get rid of the habit once acquired. In the early stages of the habit it gave very brilliant ideas, supernatural ideas, and nothing was impossible. The reaction left the man sullen, morose, bad-tempered, and totally unfit for duty. They had had in Moore Barracks over forty cases of the drug habit. He had examined one or two of the samples, and in his opinion, if taken in quite small doses, would have rendered a soldier less capable. Cocaine was a great stimulant drug.

In reply to Mr. Andrews, witness said the 40 cases referred to had acquired the habit. It took about two or three weeks to acquire the habit.

Questioned by the prisoner, witness said one of the small packets would certainly affect a man.

Major Morrison, Assistant P.M., said he had seen the effect of the cocaine. What first drew his attention to it was the men coming into the guard room. The effect of cocaine taking rendered a man less capable of discharging his duties. The cocaine was known as “snow” by the Canadians.

Prisoner elected to give evidence on oath. He said he was living at No. 6, Shellons Street, Folkestone. He had been in Dover on the day he was arrested because his chemist in Folkestone had run short. He would like to state that owing to the price of hydrochloride cocaine he could not give it away. When he ran short of money his friends would give him a shilling or two. He did not sell it to the soldiers. The soldiers were friends of his, and he had been about with them for two or three months. The Corporal had nit given him any money, although he had lent him money to get it. He had no recollection of giving the first two packets to Corporal Price at all. He had been in the Army for twelve years, and had been to the front. He had only just come out of hospital. He came to Folkestone to recuperate himself. He had a relapse, and was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital. He had been willing to do his bit, and did not see why he should want to prevent these soldiers doing their bit. He had got the Indian North West Frontier medal. He was in a very weak state of health.

Cross-examined, accused said he had not got his military papers. They were at 14, Stall Street, Tottenham Court Road. He had written for them several times, but had received no reply. He came to Folkestone in July. He had a little money he had saved, and 1s. 6d. a day from the War Office. It was paid quarterly, and he had not applied for it yet. He did not get it as it was not much, and as he had been ill he could not have a grand slam. He had not sold any cocaine. He had given it away. He bought the cocaine at different chemists in Folkestone. He would not like to give their names at present. He knew the soldiers were not allowed to buy the stuff from chemists, as Major Morrison had put a bar on it. He knew a woman named Rose Edwards, who had been giving a little cocaine to soldiers. They were living in the same house. She was a friend of his. She did not come from London.

Mr. Humphrey: You were very kind to give it to soldiers.

The prisoner: Yes. When I had not got much the soldiers gave me some.

Mr. Humphrey: What effect does it have?

The prisoner: It makes you most keen on what you are doing.

In reply to a question by the Magistrates` Clerk, prisoner said he had taken the drug for five or six years. It had no ill-effect on him.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said it was a very serious case indeed, and the Bench found him Guilty. He would be sentenced to six months` hard labour in each of the three cases, the sentences to run concurrently, making six months in all. If he was not well enough to do hard labour, the prison authorities would see to that.

Mr. Humphrey said the other charge under the Pharmacy Act would be withdrawn. It was only a minor matter.

Rose Edwards was then charged with three similar offences. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty to all.

Corporal Price said he knew the prisoner. He saw her on January 14^th at the Belle Vue Hotel. When he came out of the house he saw her empty some white powder in a soldier`s handkerchief from a small box. He asked her what it was, and she said “Snow”. He asked her if she could spare some for him, and she said she could, and she gave him some, for which he gave her 2s. 6d. At half past four the same day he saw her again, when he asked if she could sell him another packet, and he paid her 2s. for it. On January 17^th he saw her in the Granville Hotel, and he bought a packet of “snow” from her for 2s. 6d. On the 24^th January he visited her house at 9.15 a.m., and he purchased a packet from her for 2s. She wrapped the cocaine up in an envelope bearing her address (Little Fenchurch Street).

Mr. Travers Humphrey remarked that it was a Y.M.C.A. envelope.

Detective Sergeant Johnson said on January 26^th he saw the prisoner at the police station, and he charged her.

Captain Malone deposed to analysing the content of the packets produced by Corpl. Price, and Captain McMurray spoke of the effect of the drug.

Prisoner said she was living at 6, Shellons Street. Corporal Price came up on the 14^th inst., and asked if she could spare a little. She gave him some. She never received money for the “snow”. On the 24^th she was in bed and did not see Price.

In reply to Mr. Humphrey, prisoner said she got the “snow” from a fellow in the West End in a public house.

Mr. Huimphrey: What sort of a fellow?

Prisoner: He sells it to all of us girls.

In further reply to Mr. Humphrey, the accused said she did not give it to other soldiers. She had taken the drug herself, but broke herself of the habit just before Christmas. She gave it to Corporal Price on two occasions only.

Mr. Humphrey: How much does this powder cost?

Prisoner: Oh! You can get a pill-box full for 2s. 6d. in London.

Kingsley, on oath, said he had never known Edwards to sell cocaine.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said the prisoner came from London. She was a well-known prostitute, although there had been no convictions against her.

The Chairman said it was regarded as a very serious offence at the present time by the Government. Prisoner would be sentenced to six months` hard labour for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently, making six months in all.

The Chairman, addressing Corporal Price, said the Bench wished to thank him. They greatly appreciated the way in which he had given his evidence. They were also grateful for the splendid way he took the matter on, and the way he brought the evidence before them.

The Chief Constable said that Kingsley`s statement as to having served in the Army was incorrect. He was sentenced to two months` imprisonment in London in 1913 for felony.

 

Folkestone Express 22-4-1916

Local News

At the Police Court, on Thursday of last week, before J. Stainer Esq., and other Magistrates, Frederick John Taylor, the licensee of the Belle Vue Inn was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises on April 14^th. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Sergt. G.T. Taylor, attached to the Town Commandant`s staff, said on the evening of the 14^th April he was in the bar of the Belle Vue when he saw Private Bell, of the 32^nd Reserve Battalion, who was under the influence of drink. At twenty minutes past seven he saw the man go to the bar and order a double decker whisky, which was served by the defendant. About half past seven he was served with another double decker by the lady behind the bar. The man became quite drunk, so he went to fetch the picquet, returning at 7.48. The man was then served with a small whisky, the lady behind the bar serving him. The man was sitting down by the door, and Corporal Spilby, who was in charge of the picquet, asked him to stand up. After a little hesitation, he struggled to his feet. Corpl. Spilby then arrested Bell. The man was incapable then of supporting himself. When he told the landlord that he had found a drunken man on his premises, he replied “I am sorry”.

Mr. Haines, in commencing his cross-examination, warned the witness that he must remember he was on his oath. He pointed out that he had given evidence in previous prosecutions, and then asked witness if he was not interested in cases likely to come on. Witness admitted that was so.

Mr. Haines: You have sworn particularly as to Bell`s condition. Were you present at the inquiry at the Camp when he was charged with being drunk?

Witness: I was not.

Who were the military police present then? – I do not know anything about it at all.

Do you know that ten witnesses appeared for the defence on that occasion? – No, sir.

Do you know he was acquitted? – No, sir.

You ordered this man to be arrested? – I turned him over to the picquet.

Did you attend the inquiry to support the evidence? – No, sir.

Do I understand you had been drinking in this house yourself? – Yes, I had a glass of beer.

Replying to further questions, witness said Bell was on the premises when he went into the house at 7.15. He saw Bell served with a double decker by the landlord and another by the lady behind the bar when he became incapable. Afterwards he saw him served with a small whisky by the lady.

Mr. Haines: Now I put it to you this man had only one glass of beer, or a pint of beer in the house. There is a difference between beer and a double decker. – I did not see him have a beer.

You say he was incapable of taking care of himself? – He was quite incapable of taking care of himself after the second glass of whisky.

Mr. Haines (to the Magistrates): I am bringing evidence to flatly contradict this witness. If my evidence is right, then you (turning to Sergt. Taylor) are grossly perjuring yourself. I only want to warn him, and I do not want him to be misled. He says that there were two double deckers drunk and that the man was drunk.

Corporal Mark Mildred, Military Police, said he went to the Belle Vue about a quarter to eight in answer to Sergt. Taylor`s call. He saw Private Bell, who was incapable and drunk. In his presence he called for a small whisky, which was served by the lady behind the bar. He went out and brought the picquet and Corporal Spilby up.

Cross-examined, witness said he was not on duty. Taylor came down into Tontine Street for him, and asked Major Morrison if he could have his assistance. He went to the Belle Vue with Sergt. Taylor about a quarter or ten minutes to eight. The sergeant pointed out the man to him. Bell was sitting just behind the door. He went for the picquet, but the sergeant did not say anything then to witness, as he had previously said there was a man very drunk in the house. The man was quiet enough when he saw him. He simply carried out orders given to him. When ordered to stand up Bell staggered to his feet. He did not know the man had been to the front and had got trench feet. He saw Bell a quarter of an hour afterwards at the guard room. He saw him walk from the house to the main road, and the picquet had hold of him. He was present when Major Morrison saw Bell at the guard room. The man staggered out of the cell with no hat on, and saluted with his left hand. He did not attend at the inquiry.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said he went for the picquet as soon as he called for the small whisky.

Corporal John Spilby said he went into the Belle Vue with a picquet. He went into the public bar, where he saw Bell, who was drunk, sitting down on the left hand side of the door. He asked him to stand up, but he could not do so without witness`s assistance. He was drunk and incapable. He arrested him.

Cross-examined, witness said he was not present when Bell was tried at the Camp. The man certainly needed assistance to enable him to get to the guard room.

Corporal Mills said he was in charge of the Canadian guard room in Rendezvous Street when Bell was brought in. Corporal Spilby preferred the charge against him. He was so drunk and incapable that he had to be held on by either arm.

Cross-examined, witness said Bell smelt very strongly of whisky.

Inspector Swift said on the evening of the 15^th inst., he called on the defendant and told him there had been a report made against him by the military authorities for permitting drunkenness on his premises the previous evening, adding that he would probably be prosecuted. Mr. Taylor replied “That`s wrong; there was no-one drunk here. A little before eight the military policeman looked into the bar here, and said “The picquet has just taken a soldier out of the bar, and most likely the boss will submit a report against you”. I did not see the man myself, but I was afterwards told by other customers he was a soldier known to me as “Old Bell”. He is a regular customer. He came in just as I was drawing the blinds. He was then perfectly sober. He sat down in the chair close behind the door and had one pint of beer only”.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that case presented a very serious aspect. The evidence he had obtained showed that it was entirely at variance with that of the prosecution, and it was clear one side or the other was committing the most wilful perjury. The two could not tally in any way. All the drink Bell had that day was one pint of beer for his dinner and one pint in that house. As for drinking spirits, he was told that he had not touched spirits for the last ten years. Bell had been to the front and now suffered from trench feet and rheumatism, and the consequence was that he now walked with a stick.

Sergt. Taylor, re-called, said he went into another bar to inform the landlord that he had arrested a man for being drunk on his premises. There were a bunch of men from a Highland Regiment in the bar, and he pointed out to the landlord that one Highlander was also nder the influence of drink, with the result that he got the man off the premises.

Cross-examined, witness said the man was sitting down, and he could generally tell when a man was drunk even if he was sitting down. He had his cap off, and was swinging it in his hand. He had a glass in front of him, but he would not swear that it contained milk. He did not know what the man had been drinking. He had not sufficient evidence for summoning the landlord for serving the man on the premises. He had not sufficient evidence to arrest the man. He left the premises in order to get assistance, and when he returned the man had gone away. He went out because he wanted to talk to Corporal Mildred about the other man.

Defendant gave evidence on his own behalf. He had been the licensee of the Belle Vue for six years. On the night in question his wife and he were serving in the bar. Private Bell was a regular customer, and he always found him a quiet and inoffensive chap. He sometimes had one to three pints of beer, but defendant never knew him to drink spirits. Bell came in as he was pulling down the blinds. Witness said “Good evening, Old Bell”. Private Bell then ordered a pint of beer, with which witness served him. He did not serve him with any whisky during the evening. After he had got his pint he sat down by the side of the automatic piano. He never served him with anything more that evening. He saw the man talking to other people in the bar that evening. He began to clear the bar about five or six minutes to eight. He had seen Sergt. Taylor in the bar drinking, and to the best of his knowledge he had beer. That was about ten minutes past seven. He never saw the going of the sergeant. He afterwards came to him in the private bar and said “I have just arrested a drunken man on your premises. I shall report you”. He then went out, but a second or two after he came rushing back and said “Clear these men out of the bar”. He did not point out to witness any particular man. When he came back he said “Where is that man who was here?” He replied that he had gone out. That man had a glass of milk in witness`s house. He was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined, defendant said Private Bell could not have been served without his wife`s or his knowledge. He had known Bell for three or four months.

Mrs. Emily Taylor, the defendant`s wife, also gave evidence. She said she never served Private Bell on that particular night. She had never seen him drink whisky.

Private Oliver Bell, attached to the 32^nd Battalion, C.E.F., said he had been to the front for nine months and came back in December. Before he joined up he had been a prison warder for fourteen months, and he was now on police duty. He came back with rheumatism, and still walked with a stick. It was over two years since he had tasted spirits in the shape of liquor. He drank beer, and was a regular customer at the Belle Vue Hotel. He left Camp on April 14^th at 6 p.m., and came into Folkestone. He had a pint of beer at noon. He went into the bar a little after seven. Previously he had seen Private Bridges in the street. He ordered a pint of beer, and that was all he had in the house that evening. About ten minutes to eight a picquet arrested him. He was seated when they came in, but stood up when he was asked to do so. He was not drunk or incapable. He came before his Commanding Officer the next day on a charge of being drunk. He was examined, and was dismissed. He was told by his officer that it was an honourable dismissal.

Cross-examined, witness said no witnesses gave evidence at the inquiry. He was perfectly sober, and when he asked the Corporal what was the charge against him he replied “You will find out soon enough”. He did not need assistance to get to the guard room.

Private Godfrey Bridges, of the 32^nd Batt., said he had known Bell for about five years. They enlisted together. On Friday, the 14^th, he went to the Belle Vue and left his wife there. He went out, and later saw Bell in the street, returning a few minutes later. Shortly afterwards Bell came in. He went up to the bar and came back with a pint of beer. Witness was with him all the time, and he had nothing more to drink. He could not see how Bell could have got drink without him seeing it. He walked with the aid of a stick. It was not true that he was drunk.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said he came down to the guard room with a sergeant to try and find out what the charge was against Bell. The sergeant, who was away on leave, went into the guard room. He had never known Bell to drink whisky, and in Canada, where witness kept a bottle of spirits always in the house, he had refused to touch it.

Mrs. Bridges and Private Mackintosh gave similar evidence.

Mr. Haines mentioned that he had six more witnesses who would give corroborative evidence, therefore he would not call them. It was clear the Magistrates could not believe both sides, but if they believed the prosecution, then his witnesses were liars. There could be no mistake about what Sergt. Taylor said. He contended that he had laid before them evidence which would make it difficult for them to convict the defendant.

Major Morrison, A.P.M., was called by the prosecution at this stage. He said he went into the guard room on the evening in question, and had Private Bell taken out of the cells. He was satisfied that the man was drunk. The man walked out of the cell into the room without assistance, but staggered. He did not speak to him.

Cross-examined, witness said Bell had no stick with him when he saw him. He saw the man walk three or four yards.

In reply to the Clerk, Major Morrison said the man did not come to attention when he saw him.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said they had had a great mass of evidence before them, and by the utter discrepancy between one side and the other, there must have been gross perjury on the part of someone. There had been deliberate lying by one side or the other. That being so they were going to dismiss the case.

Folkestone Herald 22-4-1916

Thursday, April 20^th: Before Mr. J. Stainer and other Magistrates.

Frederick John Taylor, the landlord of the Belle Vue Hotel, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Sergt. C. Taylor, of the Military Police, attached to the Town Commandant`s staff, stated that on Friday, 14^th April, he was in the bar of the Belle Vue Hotel, where he saw a man named Bell, a soldier of the 32^nd Reserve Battalion, C.E.F., who was under the influence of drink. About 7.20 he ordered a whisky, and was served with it by defendant. It was a double-decker. He drank it, and about 7.30 he was served with another dounle-decker by a lady. He was quite drunk, and witness went out and fetched the picket. It was about 7.48 when he returned, and he then saw the man served with a small whisky. The lady served him on this occasion. Corporal Mildred was with him, and he saw Bell served with the whisky. The man by the door and the corporal with the picket asked Bell to stand up. He staggered to his feet, and the corporal arrested him for being drunk. Witness afterwards told the landlord he would report him for permitting drunkenness on his premises. Defendant said he was sorry.

Corporal Mildred, of the Military Police, stated that he was called by the previous witness to the Belle Vue Hotel. He entered the house, and there saw a man named Bell, who called for a small whisky, and was served by a lady.

Corporal Joseph Spilby, in charge of the picket, said when he went into the public bar he saw Bell, who was drunk. He was sitting down near the door. He asked the man to stand up, but he was unable to do so without witness`s assistance. He found he was unable to take care of himself, and he handed the man over to the picket to be taken to the detention room. He was not able to walk up the street by himself, and was assisted by the picket.

Corporal Horace Hills, C.M.P., stated that when Bell was brought to the guard room he was drunk and incapable. He was assisted by the picket. He smelt strongly of whisky.

Inspector Swift stated that on the evening of the 15^th inst. he called on the defendant and told him there had been a report made against him by the military authorities for permitting drunkenness on the premises, adding that he would probably be prosecuted. Mr. Taylor replied “That`s wrong; there was no-one drunk here. A little after eight the military police looked into the bar, here, and said “The picket has just taken a drunken soldier out of the bar, and most probably the boss will report against you”. I did not see the man myself, but I was afterwards told by other customers he was a soldier known to me as “Old Bell”. He is a regular customer. He came in just as I was drawing the blinds. He was then perfectly sober. He sat down in teh chair – the first one from the door – and had one puint of beer only”.

Mr. Haines said the case presented a serious aspect. There could be no question of a mistake. One side or the other was committing the most wilful perjury. The man had not drunk spirits for years. He had been to the front, and had got trench feet.

Defendant, on oath, said he had held the licence six years. On teh night in question he and his wife were serving in the bar. Bell was a regular customer, and he always found him quiet and inoffensive. He sometimes had one to three pints of beer, but defendant never knew him to have spirits. Bell came in that night as he was pulling down the blinds. Witness said “Good evening, Old Bell”. He ordered one pint of beer, which witness served. He did not serve this man with any whisky during the evening. He saw the man talking to other people in the bar that evening. He began to clear the bar about five or six minutes to eight. Sergt. Taylor was in the bar drinking. To the best of his knowledge he had beer. Later the sergeant came to him and said “I have just arrested a drunken man in your bar”.

Mrs. E. Taylor said she assisted her husband at the hotel. There was no-one else. On the evening in question she was with her husband assisting in the bar. She knew Pte. Bell. She did not see him come in, but saw him during the evening from 7.15 to 8, and during that time she did not serve him with any beer or whisky. As far as she knew, he never drank whisky.

Pte. Oliver Bell, attached to the 32^nd Battalion, C.E.F., said he had been to thje Front for nine months, and came back in December. Before he joined up he was a prison warder for fourteen months, and he was now on police duty. He came home with rheumatism, and still walked with a stick. It was two years since he had tasted spirits in the shape of liquor. He drank beer, and was a regular customer at the Belle Vue Hotel. He left Camp on April 14^th at 6 p.m., and came into Folkestone. He had had a pint of beer at noon. He went into the bar a little after seven. He had had nothing to drink since he left Camp on April 14^th at 6 p.m., and had a pint of beer, but no whisky of any description. He was arrested by the picket shortly before eight. He was seated when they came, but stood up. He came before his Commanding Officer the next day on a charge of being drunk. He was examined, and was dismissed without a stain on his character.

Pte. Godfrey Bridges, of the 32^nd Battalion, said he had known Bell for about five years. They enlisted together. On Friday, April 14^th, he went to the Belle Vue. His wife was there. A few moments afterwards Bell came in. He went up to the bar, and came back with a pint of beer. He was with him all the time, and he had nothing more to drink. He could not see how Bell could have got drink without witness seeing him. He saw Bell arrested and get up. He walked with the aid of a stick. It was not true that he was drunk.

Mrs. Bridges, the wife of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence.

Pte. C. McIntosh, of the 8^th Battalion, said he had known Pte. Bell for five or six years. He used the Belle vue Hotel sometimes. On the night in question he went into the bar about 7.30 p.m. Bell was sitting talking, and witness had a few words with him. Bell was drinking beer. He was drinking beer. He remained in the Belle Vue till closing time. When the military police came in he stood up. He was sober, and did not stagger. It was incorrect to say he was unable to walk alone.

Major E.J. Morrison, Assistant Provost Marshal, said the case of Bell was reported to him, and he personally examined him between 8.30 and 9 p.m. on April 14^th. He was satisfied that the man was drunk. He walked into the room without assistance, but was staggering.

The Magistrates having deliberated in private, the Chairman said there must have been gross perjury on one side or the other. They dismissed the case.