Martello 1915 - 1919

Folkestone Express 6-3-1915

Local News

At the Police Court on Thursday, before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and other Magistrates, James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews, and William Henry Page, all in the employ of the Railway Company, were charged with stealing a number of watches from a broken case at the S.E. And C. Railway Company`s Station at the Harbour. Arthur Sydney Barker, watch repairer, and Albert William Bridges, a licensed victualler, were charged with receiving a number of watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Bridges.

Charles Edward Gaines, night Inspector for the Harbour, said Spicer, Andrews, and Page were employed as extra labourers in unloading trucks. On February 3^rd, about 5 o`clock, the three men were on duty in the goods shed, when he took charge of a truck which contained a consignment of watches which had arrived by the Dieppe steamer. Three or four of the cases were very much broken, and he saw a quantity of pink boxes like the one produced, containing watches, loose in the cases. They were in a small net in the goods truck. The loose watches were placed in a rainproof sheet, under his direction, and taken to the Customs examination room. The three men were engaged in that work. He handed up the watches to Mr. Gilpin, the night clerk. About ten minutes later he saw them in the lock-up cage. The cases of watches were forwarded to London the following night.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said the previous day, about 12.45 p.m., he saw Barker in his workshop off Dover Road, and cautioned him. He told him he was making inquiries respecting a quantity of ladies` wristlet watches missing from the Folkestone Pier, and he understood that he (prisoner) had sold some. He said he had bought some, and further stated “I bought them off a man I knew by sight, but I don`t know his name. He`s a business man in the town”. He took him to the police station. Later he charged him with receiving several ladies` wristlet watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. He showed him the two boxes which contained nine wristlet watches (produced), and told him he had received them from Mr. Warren, jeweller, of High Street.  Prisoner replied “I bought them off a business man in the town who has pounds”. Later, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he went to prisoner`s workshop. In a drawer he found three boxes (produced) containing nine wristlet watches. Later, from what Inspector Simpson told him, he went to the cell door and saw Barker, who said “Yes, it will all have to come out; I bought them off Bridges, the landlord of the Martello Hotel. You go and see him”. Accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he went to the Martello Hotel, where he saw Bridges. He cautioned him, and told him that a man named Barker, a watchmaker, was in custody for receiving a quantity of stolen ladies` wristlet watches, and from a statement he had made it appeared he bought them from him. Bridges said “About a fortnight ago a man came into the public bar and showed me several ladies` watches in cardboard boxes, and said they were travellers` samples. He asked me 2s. 6d. each for them. I bought four boxes, which contained six watches in a box. I gave him 15s. for each box. I know his name as William Page. He looked as if he was a South Eastern man. I sold twenty two of the watches in the boxes to Mr. Barker, whom I know as a customer, and kept two for myself, which I gave to my daughters. The two watches (produced) are the two I kept”. He then handed him the two watches. He then brought him to the police station. The witness then described how he saw the other three men separately. He also explained that he cautioned them. When charged, Spicer said “I didn`t steal them”. Andrews said “I had four; two of them I have given away, but I decline to say who to. The other two are broken, and they are at home on the mantelpiece”. When charged at the police station, he replied “I`ll say nothing”. Page replied “Oh, all right”. He brought him to the police station and formally charged him, and he made no reply.

Mr. Harry W. Price, jeweller, of Sandgate Road, said Barker, who he had given work on and off for some years, came to his shop about ten days or a fortnight ago, and said he had got some wristlet watches, and would he purchase them? Barker brought twelve watches up the following day. He asked him the price of them, and where he obtained them. He said “I`m selling them on commission for a man that sells auction lots at Ashford market”. Witness asked prisoner if the man was all right, and he said “Yes, he`s sold them there for nineteen years”. Witness said “They seem all right, and I`ll buy them”. The next day he gave Barker £3 15s. for the dozen, the price he asked. In his experience of the trade he thought that that price was the full value. He asked him if he would like to have some more watches a day or two later. He replied “No, I don`t want any more rubbish”. The retail selling price would be about 8s. or 9s. each.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said there were two qualities of watches. One quality was worth 5s., and the other quality about 7s. or 8s. The small watches were rubbish.

Mr. F.H. Warren, watchmaker, of 83, High Street, gave evidence of purchasing twelve watches for £3. He returned three of the watches which had stopped, and paid him £1 16s. for the other nine, claiming credit for 9s., which Barker owed him. Barker told hima similar story to what he had Mr. Price.

Mr. A.S. Jones deposed to Barker coming to him, and in consequence of a similar statement to that given to the previous two witnesses, he purchased three of the watches, two for 5s. each, and a third for 7s.

At this stage a remand for a week was granted, and bail was offered to each of the prisoners in one surety of £10 each, and themselves in £10.

Folkestone Herald 6-3-1915

Thursday, March 4^th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore and other Magistrates.

James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews, and William Henry Page were charged with stealing a number of watches from the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Pier, Folkestone Harbour, and Arthur Sidney Barker and Albert William Page were charged with receiving a certain quantity of the watches. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Bridges.

Charles Edward Gaines, night inspector at Folkestone Harbour, in the employment of the S.E. and C.R., said that the three men in the dock, Spicer, Andrews and Page, were engaged by the Company as extra labourers. They were employed in unloading cargo from the steamers arriving at the Pier from Calais, Boulogne and Dieppe, and also in loading the trucks for rail transit. The loading for transit was under his directions. On the evening of February 3^rd he was on duty at the Harbour on the arrival of the steamer from Dieppe. The boat arrived about 5 o`clock. The three prisoners were on duty at the time in the goods shed, on the station premises. He took charge of a truck, which contained a consignment of watches, which had arrived by the Dieppe steamer. About three or four of the cases were broken very much. He saw a quantity of cardboard boxes loose similar to those produced. There were several dozen cardboard boxes, and they contained watches. When he first saw them they were in a mail net in a goods truck. He immediately took charge of the truck and sent a man to bring two smaller waterproof cases. Under his direction and in his presence the boxes of watches contained in the mail net were placed in a canvas sheet. He then had them removed to the Customs examination room. The three prisoners in the dock were on the spot and were engaged in this work. He could not say that the three men actually took part in the removal of the watches to the Customs examination room. On arrival at the examination room he handed the boxes over to Mr. Galpin, the night clerk. About ten minutes later he saw them in the lock-up caege in the examination room. The cases were forwarded the following night. The cardboard case placed in the cage contained watches similar to the case before witness.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said the previous day, from information received respecting a quantity of ladies wristlet watches missing from Folkestone Harbour Pier, he made enquiries. About 12.45 he saw prisoner Barker in his workshop, which led off Dover Road. He said to him “You know me, Mr. Barker?” Defendant said “Yes”. He then cautioned prisoner and told him he was making enquiries respecting a quantity of ladies wristlet watches missing from Folkestone Harbour Pier, on or about February 3^rd, and he understood that prisoner had sold some. Accused said “Yes, I have bought some”. Witness said “Where did you get them from?” Prisoner replied “I bought them of a man I know by sight. I do not know his name. He is a business man in the town”. Witness then told him he would take him to the police station to make further inquiries. Later at the police station he charged him with receiving several ladies wristlet watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. He showed him two boxes (produced), which contained nine ladies wristlet watches, and told him he had recovered them from Mr. Warrand, a jeweller, in High Street. He then cautioned prisoner, who replied “I bought them of a business man in the twon who has pounds”. The prisoner was wearing one ladies wristlet watch (produced). Later, accompanied by prisoner`s wife and P.C. Butcher, witness went to defendant`s workshop. In a drawer he found the three boxes (produced) containing nine ladies wristlet watches. Later, from what Inspector Simpson told him, he went to the cell where Barker was confined. He said to him “I understand that you want to speak to me”. Prisoner replied “Yes, it will all have to come out. I bought them of Bridges, the landlord of the Martello Hotel; you go and see him”. About 2.30, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he went to the Martello Hotel, where he saw Bridges, the landlord. In his private room he told prisoner they were two police officers, and cautioned him. Witness told him that a man named Barker, a watchmaker, was in custody for receiving a quantity of stolen ladies wristlet watches, and from a statement he had made he bought them from him (Bridges). Mr. Bridges then said “About a fortnight ago a man came into the public bar and showed me several ladies watches in cardboard boxes. He said they were travellers` samples, and asked me 2s. 6d. each for them. I bought four boxes, which contained six watches each. I gave him 15s. for each box and watches. I know his name is William Page, and he looked as if he was a South Eastern man. I sold 22 of these watches with the boxes to Mr. Barker, whom I know as a customer. I kept two for myself, which I gave to my daughters. The two watches (produced) are the two watches I kept”. Witness, continuing, said Bridges then handed him the two watches produced, numbered 96 and 1164. He read the statement over to prisoner Bridges, who signed it. Witness and P.C. Butcher also signed it. About 1.45 on Wednesday they saw prisoner Spicer in the public bar of the True Briton, in Harbour Street. Witness called him outside and told him that they were two police officers and cautioned him. He told prisoner that he would be charged with stealing a quantity of ladies wristlet watches from Folkestone Harbour Pier on or about February 3<sup>rd</sup>. He replied “I did not steal them”. At the police station witness formally charged him, and he made no reply. At 4.50 the same afternoon, in company with P.C. Butcher, he saw prisoner Andrews at the Folkestone Harbour. He told him that they were two police officers and cautioned him. He further told prisoner he was making inquiries respecting a quantity of ladies watches missing from the Folkestone Pier on or about February 3<sup>rd</sup>. Witness asked him if he knew anything about them. Prisoner replied “I had four. Two of them I have given away. To whom I decline to say. The other two are broken, and they are at home on the mantelpiece”. He then took prisoner to the police station and detained him. Later he charged him with being concerned with two other men with stealing a quantity of watches from the Folkestone Pier on or about February 3<sup>rd</sup>. He cautioned prisoner, who replied “I`ll say nothing”. At 5.45 the same evening witness went to 16, Rossendale Road, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, and saw the prisoner Page. He told him who they were, cautioned him, and told him he would be charged with two other men with stealing a quantity of ladies wristlet watches from Folkestone Pier on or about February 3^rd. He told him he (witness) had recovered two of the watches from Mr. Bridges, the landlord of the Martello Hotel, out of the twenty four which prisoner had sold to Mr. Bridges. Prisoner replied “Oh! All right”. At the police station he formally charged him, and prisoner made no reply.

Harry William Price, a jeweller, carrying on business at 13, Sandgate Road, said he had known Mr. Barker for six or eight years as a working watchmaker and jeweller. Prisoner worked for him now and again. About ten days or a fortnight ago prisoner came to his shop. He said he had some wristlet watches, and asked if witness would purchase them. Witness asked prisoner to let him see them, and the next day prisoner brought them up to him. There were about twelve. They were in two boxes, one of which was the box produced. Each box contained six watches. The eight watches produced were eight of the twelve. Witness asked him the price and where he obtained them. Prisoner said “I am selling them on commission for a man who sells auction lots at Ashford Market”. Witness asked him if the man was quite all right, and he replied “Yes, he has sold them there for nineteen years”. Witness told him, as it seemed all right, he would have them, and gave prisoner £3 15s. for the dozen. That was the price he asked. From his experience of the trade that was the full wholesale value. A day or two afterwards prisoner again came to witness and asked if he would like to have some more watches. In the meantime witness had thoroughly examined the watches and he replied “No, I do not want any more rubbish”. The watches were known in the trade as “ladies wristlet Geneva watches”. They were made in Switzerland in very big quantities. The retail selling price would be about 8s. 6d. or 9s.

Cross-examined, witness said there were two qualities of watch. One quality was worth 5s. and the other quality was worth about 7s, or 7s. 6d. The enamel ones were rubbish absolutely.

Frederick Warrand, a jeweller, carrying on business at 83, High Street, said that he had known Barker for a few months as a working watchmaker. About a week or ten days ago prisoner came and offered some watches for sale. He said they were ladies wristlet watches, enamel ones and plated. Accused asked 6s. 6d. each for them. Witness replied that he would like to see them. Prisoner came in for work almost each day and witness asked him if he still had the watches. On Tuesday, March 2^nd, he brought the watches to witness, who bought one dozen. Each box contained six watches. The nine watches produced were a portion of the twelve. Witness offered him £3 for the 12 watches, and prisoner accepted it. On Wednesday morning he paid prisoner, and also returned three of the watches because they had stopped. Witness paid prisoner £1 16s. for the other nine and gave him credit for 9s., an amount which prisoner owed him. When prisoner first mentioned he had watches for sale witness asked prisoner where he got them from. He said “From a man in the Ashford Market”. Witness asked him if they were quite all right. Prisoner replied “Yes”, and that he thought they were bankrupt stock.

Alfred Spencer Jones, a watchmaker, carrying on business at 10, Dover Road, said that prisoner Barker came to him on Sunday, February 21^st. He showed witness three boxes of watches similar to those produced. Witness asked prisoner where he got them from, and Barker said “At Ashford Market from an auctioneer”. Prisoner said the auctioneer had been at Ashford Market for a great many years and had a large number of those watches in his possession to sell. After examination witness purchased three of the watches; two for 5s., and the third for 7s. That was the price prisoner asked him. Witness had known Barker for four or five years.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said that was as far as they were going to take the case that day. He would ask for a remand for a week.

Prisoners were remanded accordingly.

Mr. Haines applied for bail for Mr. Bridges.

The three prisoners in the dock (Spicer, Andrews and Page) also asked for bail.

Inspector Swift objected, saying all the three men were single.

The prisoners Bridges and Barker were allowed bail in their own recognisances of £10 each. The other prisoners were allowed bail in their own recognisances of £10 each, and one surety each of £10.

Folkestone Express 13-3-1915

Thursday, March 25^th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, R.G. Wood Esq., and Colonel Owen.

James Spicer, William Andrews, and William Page, on remand, were charged with stealing a quantity of watches, and Arthur Sidney Barker and Albert W. Bridges were charged with receiving, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Bridges, and Mr. C.H. Brewer, of the Brighton Railway Company, prosecuted.

Mr. Brewer said the property was sent from France to this country, and in ordinary times it would have gone to Newhaven. The traffic which the Dieppe boat brought was still in the interest of the Brighton Railway Company, and that was why he was prosecuting. The police had made stringent inquiries, and the case would develop into a most important one. The missing property was valued at £136, and the police would have a very hard task to trace more of the missing watches. He would therefore ask for a remand, with Mr. Haines` agreement, as the property would have to be traced, perhaps, all over the country. He would therefore like a remand for a week.

Remanded for a week, the same bail being allowed.

Folkestone Herald 13-3-1915

Local News

A very important development in the case at the Folkestone Police Court involving charges of alleged theft and receiving of watches was indicated by the prosecuting solicitor on Thursday morning, when the prisoners appeared on remand, before Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, Councillor R.G. Wood, and Colonel G.P. Owen.

James Spicer, William A. Andrews, and William A. Page, employed by the S.E. and C.R. at Folkestone Harbour as labourers, are charged with the theft of a number of watches which formed part of the cargo of the boat from Dieppe, and Arthur Sidney Barker, working jeweller, and Albert William Bridges, the licensee of the Martello Hotel, are charged with receiving the watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen.

Much interest was shown in the case, the public portion of the Court being filled.

Mr. C.H. Brewer, assistant solicitor of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, now appeared for the prosecution; Mr. G.W. Haines is defending Bridges.

Mr. Brewer said the property which formed the subject of the charges had been sent from France to this country, and in ordinary and normal times it would have come via Dieppe and Newhaven on to the Brighton Railway Company`s system, and been dispatched to their goods department, Willow Walk, London. Newhaven Harbour, however, was closed owing to the War, and through the courtesy of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, the Brighton Company`s boats, in the present case the Sussex, were allowed to have the hospitality of Folkestone Harbour. But the traffic which that boat brought still found its way on to the Brighton Company`s lines and so to Willow Walk Depot; it was still their traffic and was consigned by their route. The stolen property and the whole of the traffic was through the Brighton Railway Company, and, therefore, after consultation with the south Eastern Railway Company`s solicitor, it was quite clear that the Brighton Railway Company were the proper people to prosecute in the present case. Since the first hearing, further inquiries had been made, and from information received it was quite apparent that the prosecution was going to develop into rather an important one. He had been able to trace a great deal of the property, and it appeared that the property which had been recovered, namely the watches, formed part of a very large consignment, and was not only contained in the case broken while being lifted from the boat, and the total value of the missing property was £136. The police had a very big task in front of them in tracing all the property and proving when it arrived. He therefore asked for a further remand. He understood that Mr. Haines, who appeared for Bridges, had no objection, and he thought it was important that they should have all the facts before them when they went into the case, and there might be an alteration of the charges. He therefore offered no evidence that day, but asked for a seven days` remand, so that the police could continue their inquiries. There was a lot of inquiries to be made; a great deal of the property might be traced, and it meant going over different parts of the country, and probably communicating with Switzerland, and having regard to the amount now involved, he thought it would be best to start practically afresh at the next hearing.

Mr. Haines said he had no objection to the remand. He courted every inquiry.

A remand for seven days was ordered, prisoners being allowed bail on the same terms as before.

Folkestone Express 20-3-1915

Local News

On Thursday there was a crowded Court at the adjourned hearing of a charge against James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews and William Henry Page for stealing a number of watches from the Harbour Station, and also the charge against Arthur Barker and Albert William Bridges for receiving watches well-knowing them to have been stolen. The Magistrates on the Bench were Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Jenner, R.G. Wood Esq., and Colonel Owen. Mr. C.H. Brewer prosecuted on behalf of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, and Mr. G.W. Haines represented Barker and Bridges.

Mr. Brewer said the Magistrates would remember that at the last hearing he asked them to kindly grant a remand in order that there might be an opportunity of obtaining further evidence. He then intimated that the case was a serious one, and that enquiries by the police would have to cover a very large area. He then had no idea that the inquiries would be so great as they had found to be necessary. The Borough Police, with the assistance of the Company`s Police Superintendent, had been working on that case ever since the remand, and inquiries had had to be made in Birmingham, Switzerland, Dieppe, and also Aldershot. When he told them that the charges which were being preferred against the prisoners related to two missing cases, one containing 144 watches, and the other 370 watches, and that those watches had been disposed of to a large number of people, they would appreciate that he would not be able to complete the case that day by any means. There was no doubt they had a very serious case to deal with, and one which would necessitate very hard work on the part of the police to bring all the evidence before them. The Magistrates would remember that some watches came out of a broken case that was transhipped from Dieppe to Folkestone. He asked them to dismiss that from their minds and to start de novo. With a few exceptions those watches had not been traced to the seller. They had been able to trace them to numerous channels, but they wanted to trace them to the person who actually sold them. He was there that day to prosecute in a charge of stealing two cases, one of which would be identified as No. 575, and the other as No. 37. Case No. 575 came from Dieppe, consigned by Schottlander, of Hatton Gardens, London. The other was sent out to someone in Birmingham, but he was not in a position to identify that yet. With regard to the 370 wristlet watches, the total was £109 13s. 7d., and they were consigned to London. He would call evidence to show that everything was brought on the quay at Folkestone. The reasonable inference was that that case containing 370 watches never arrived in London, and out of those 370 watches, 22 had been traced. Nine of them they could prove were sold to a Mr. Warren by the prisoner Barker. Nine watches were also found on the premises of the prisoner Barker, seven of which could be traced to case No. 575, and two to the Birmingham case. Three had been received in the town, sold by Barker, and with regard to three others they had not been able to trace the original seller, but they had been identified as forming part of the case No. 575. Case No. 37 contained 144 watches of the total value of £60, and that was consigned to Birmingham. That case they could trace at Folkestone, and it was actually dealt with at Folkestone, but it never arrived in London. Twelve of those watches had been recovered and identified by the owners as originally forming part of the watches in that case. Of those twelve two were found in Barker`s shop, and two had been sold to soldiers now stationed at Aldershot, and who had identified Spicer and Andrews as the men who sold the watches. Two had been sold by Barker to a witness named Price, and two to a witness named Bradwell. Four had been recovered and identified, but they could not trace the seller. The Magistrates would appreciate as they went on how difficult it was to get all the loose ends together. He thought they could certainly make out a strong prima facie case that those two cases came over to that country and to that very port, and that over 500 watches were missing. He would like to point out that where a man was found in possession of recently stolen property the onus was  upon him to prove to the Magistrates` satisfaction how he came in possession of them. It was clear there had been a large pilferage going on, and the watches had been scattered broadcast, and so made it difficult to trace them.

The Clerk said the evidence given at the previous hearing was effective on the definite charges now before them.

Mr. Haines said so far as his clients were concerned, they were charged with receiving certain property, and that property was absolutely put in evidence there, and it could be allowed to remain.

The Clerk asked what objection there was to the charge being altered to one of stealing 514 watches.

Mr. Brewer said that would be the charge, and all the evidence previously given was effective, except the conjectural evidence concerning the watches placed in the net.

The Clerk: You will keep it as one charge?

Mr. Brewer: Yes.

Mr. Haines thought that the prosecution should show that the property was missing.

Mr. Brewer said he was going to call evidence as to that.

Adolf Vallet, the Chief Checker of the French State Railway, said he lived at Dieppe. He was on duty at the Harbour Station at Dieppe on February 17^th when the steamship Sussex was alongside the quay preparatory to leaving for Folkestone. The steamer belonged to the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway company. It was loaded with a quantity of cargo for London via Folkestone. The goods included a case of watches marked “575, L.W.C.”, and also a case marked “C.R.F.C. 37”. He produced the Customs certificate in support of his statement. He was sure both cases were put on board the vessel for transport.

In reply to the Clerk, he said he was not present when the cases were put on board the boat. He never saw the cases at all.

Mr. Brewer said he could not ask for M. Vallet`s statement to be taken as evidence. The documents showed what should have been in the train, and the Customs had certified that everything in the train had been loaded into the boat.

The Clerk said the Customs certificate was not evidence in that Court.

Mr. Brewer said all they could do was to get the French authorities to send the man who had done the loading of the cases. They had evidently sent the Chief of the department.

The Clerk: What do you propose to do with regard to him?

Mr. Brewer said he could only agree to his evidence being withdrawn.

William Joyce, a delivery checker in the employ of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway at Willow Walk, said on February 22^nd he was on duty in the Continental goods shed on the arrival of a goods train from Folkestone Harbour. It was his duty to check the goods, and he received an invoice and authorisation (produced) which arrived with the train, and contained a list of the goods which should have come on the train.

Mr. Haines objected to the production of the declaration being put in without it being proved as to who wrote it.

Witness, continuing, said the declaration produced was the sender`s declaration, containing a list of the goods which should have arrived.

The Clerk could not see it was admissable or material.

Witness said the declaration contained a reference to two cases marked “L.W.C. 575” and “C.R.F.C. 37”. Neither of those cases arrived by the train, and they were still required at Willow Walk. The two lists (produced) were made out by himself, and they contained a complete list of the goods arriving by the train, and did not include either of the two cases referred to.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said there were only five trucks on the train. He did not unload them by himself.

Aaron marks Schottlander said he was employed by the Lagendorff Watch Company, of 9, Hatton Gardens. On or about February 22^nd he was expecting 20 cases of watches from their factory in Switzerland. He had previously received the invoices (produced) from the factory, and included on them were the cases of goods numbered 573, 574 and 575. Only two arrived – numbers 573 and 574 – on or about February 22^nd. The case numbered 575 had not been since delivered to them. There should have been, according to the invoice, 370 watches, of the value of £109 13s. 7d. in the case numbered 575. He would know some of those watches if he saw them. The nine watches (produced) should have been in the case. The cardboard boxes were their boxes, and one should certainly have been in the case. The further seven watches and the two cardboard boxes should have been in case No. 575. The three separate watches received from Mr. Jones, a witness, should also have been in the case. The watches received from Nash should have been in the case as well. Six separate watches (produced) should have been in the case. The approximate value of the enamel watches would be about 12/6, and that of the smallest watches about 15/-. There was a third variety among the watches identified, and their ordinary retail value was from 21/- to 25/-. No-one in Folkestone had authority to deal with the consignment.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said the reason why he stated the watches should have been in the case was by the pattern numbers on the boxes in which the watches were placed.

Thomas Hill, of 30, Gladstone Road, said he was a checker in the employ of the S.E. And C. Railway Company at the Harbour. He was on duty in the goods loading shed on the night of February 17^th, and was engaged in checking goods from the s.s. Sussex. The slip (produced) was the one he made out that night. Among those goods he checked goods placed in a railway van for Willow Walk. Among the goods placed in the van was a case marked “C.R.F.C. 37”. The number of the van was 662.

Corpl. William Edward Honeywood, of the 5^th Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Aldershot, said between 7.30 and 8 p.m. on February 25^th he was in the Chequers Inn in the bar parlour. The prisoners Spicer and Andrews were there. Spicer had two cardboard boxes containing watches in his hand, and he saw him sell one to a corporal, whom he did not know, for 2/6. Spicer said to him “Will you have one?”, and he (witness) said “Show me one”. Prisoner showed him the watch (produced) and he bought it for 5/-. There were three sorts of watches. Andrews was sitting near, and was in a position to see and hear all that took place. Andrews said to a corporal in the room “Have one; You can raffle it for 2d. a man”. He did not see Andrews with a watch.

Pte. William John Sturges, of the 5^th Royal Berkshire Regiment, said between 7.30 and 8 p.m. on February 25^th he was in the bar parlour of the Chequers Inn. He saw Spicer and Andrews there. He saw Corpl. Honeywood buy a watch from the former for 5/-. Afterwards he (witness) asked Spicer if he would let him have one like it, and he replied “Yes”. He eventually bought the watch (produced) for 5/-. Andrews took no part in the transaction.

Mabel Bridgeland, of No. 9, Dover Street, said for some months past she had been employed at the Chequers Inn. On the evening of February 25^th she was attending to the customers in the bar parlour, and she then saw Spicer and Andrews and several soldiers there between seven and eight o`clock. She saw Spicer sell a watch to Corpl. Honeywood. As the latter was buying it, Spicer said he would not get one if he went down the street for less than 21/-. She saw Spicer had two cardboard cases. Andrews was seated close by. She did not hear him say anything. Both men arrived together in the house, and left together.

Charles Edward Gaze, an inspector in the employ of the Railway Company, said Spicer, Andrews and Page were on duty at the Harbour Station on the evening of February 17^th. Andrews and Page were employed in dealing with the goods traffic from the Dieppe boat, and Spicer was employed on the goods traffic from the Flushing boat.

Mark Cloke, a jeweller`s assistant at 60a, High Street, in the employ of Mr. T.W. Baker, said he was in his shop on the 25<sup>th</sup> February between 11 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., when Spicer came into the shop and asked him if he could fit a wrist strap to a wristlet watch he showed. The watch was similar to the one produced. He had not a strap in stock at the time. Spicer then asked him the value of it, and after examining the watch he said he had seen similar watches sold for anything up to 25/-. Spicer then said “Do you think the governor could do with any? It is not dear for 4/- or 5/-, is it?” He (witness) said to him “Have you any more for sale?”, and Spicer replied “Yes, these two boxes”, at the same time producing two cardboard boxes. The two boxes contained 69 watches altogether. He (witness) said “Will you call again and see the governor?” Spicer said he would, and he called again on the 27<sup>th</sup>. The prisoner produced to Mr. Baker two or three similar boxes containing watches, and said “Can you do with any of these?” Mr. Baker then said “I can`t buy these off you unless you can produce a receipt for the same”. Spicer then said “They are quite all right. There is nothing to be afraid of. Then you can`t do with any?” He then left the shop. On the first occasion when Spicer produced the watches to him he said he was selling some for 3/6 and others for 4/-.

Mr. Brewer said that was as far as he could take the case that day. He asked for a further remand.

The Magistrates remanded the five men until Friday next, bail again being allowed.

Folkestone Herald 20-3-1915

Local News

The case against five Folkestone men involving charges of stealing and receiving watches in transit through the Harbour was resumed at the Borough Police Court on Thursday morning, before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, Councillor R.G. Wood, and Col. G.P. Owen.

James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews, and William Henry Page, employed by the S.E. and C.R. at Folkestone Harbour as labourers, appeared on remand charged with the theft the watches, and Arthur Sidney Barker, a working jeweller, and Albert William Bridges, the licensee of the Martello Hotel, appeared on remand, charged with receiving the watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen.

Mr. C. Brewer, the assistant solicitor of the London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, is appearing for the prosecution, and the prisoners Barker and Bridges are defended by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Mr. Brewer said that at the last hearing he intimated that the case was a serious one, and that the inquiries by the police would have to cover a very large ground. He was right. He had no idea that the inquiries would have to be so extensive. The borough police, with the assistance of the Brighton Railway police superintendent, had been engaged on the case ever since the last remand, and inquiries had had to go so far afield as Birmingham, Aldershot, Switzerland and Dieppe, as well as Folkestone. The charges that were now preferred against the prisoners related to two cases, one of which contained 144 watches, and the other 370 watches, and those watches had been disposed of to large numbers of people in ones and twos at a time. From this the Bench would appreciate the nature of the inquiries, and he would not be able to complete the case that day. He could not give a very lucid and connected story at present, but he proposed to call some evidence that day, and then ask for a further remand so that the inquiries could be completed. There was no doubt it was a very serious case, and one which would necessitate very much hard work on the part of the police in order to get together the whole of the evidence. At the first hearing there was some reference to watches which came out of a case which was broken while being unshipped, and were placed in a mail net. He asked the Bench for the present to dismiss that from their minds, and let them start de novo, because with a few exceptions those watches had not been traced to the seller. They had been traced through numerous channels, but they had not yet been traced to the person who actually sold them originally. He was going to deal that day with two cases, numbered respectively 575 and 37. Case 575 came from Dieppe and was consigned to a Mr. Schottlander, of Hatton Garden, London. Case 37 also came from Dieppe and was consigned to Birmingham. He was not in a position to put forward evidence of identification of the Birmingham consignment yet. As regarded Case 575, that contained 370 wristlet watches of the total value of £109 13s. 7d. Inquiry had been made at Folkestone, and they could not yet find the checker`s slips, which were missing. These would prove that the case was put on the train or was received from the ship, but he had evidence from France. The Chief Checker of the State Railway would tell them that the case was loaded at Dieppe on board ship and came across the water to Folkestone. He hoped to call evidence to show that everything on the ship was unloaded on to the quay at Folkestone, but he could not do that at present. It was, however, a reasonable inference that the goods were unloaded at Folkestone after coming across the Channel. That case, No. 575, never arrived in London. Out of the 370 watches which it contained, there had been traced twenty two. Of those they could prove that nine were sold to Mr. Warrand by the prisoner Barker. Nine were also found on the premises of Barker. Of those nine, seven could be traced to Case 575 and two to Case 37. Three of the twenty two had been received by someone in the town and were sold to him by the prisoner Barker. They had not been traced to the original seller, but had been identified as forming part of the case. Both cases arrived at Folkestone about February 17<sup>th</sup>. Case 37 contained 144 watches of the total value of £60. It was dealt with at Folkestone, but never arrived in London. Of the 144 watches it contained, twelve had been recovered and identified. Of those twelve, two had been found in Barker`s shop, which made the balance, with the seven found there, of the original nine. One had been traced to Aldershot, and had been sold to a soldier who had been in Folkestone. He had evidence to prove that it was sold by Spicer and Andrews to a soldier named honeywood. Another watch at the same time and place was sold to a soldier named Sturges. One of the watches was being worn by Barker when he was arrested. Two had been sold by Barker to a witness named Price, and another one to someone else. The remaining four had been recovered and identified, but the sellers could not be traced. Even that day they could make out a strong prima facie case against the prisoners in connection with the two cases. Of the 500 watches they contained a considerable quantity had been traced to the prisoners, and Andrews, Spicer and Page were actually employed on February 17^th about the quay, and would have had access to, and possibly the handling of the cases. Two of them had been selling watches to soldiers, while the two men charged with receiving had purchased the watches at particularly low prices, and sold them to different people in the town, and in every case it had been Barker who had done the selling in the town, and in every case he had made reference to a fictitious person at Ashford Market, where he said he had got them from. That was absolutely untrue. They were stolen property. Under the doctrine of recent possession of stolen goods, the onus was on Barker and Bridges to prove to the satisfaction of the Bench how they got the watches.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), Mr. Brewer agreed that the evidence previously given remained effective, except for the suggestion that the watches came from the broken case. He also agreed that the case could be dealt with as a joint charge against the prisoners Spicer, Andrews and Page of stealing 514 watches.

In reply to Mr. Haines, Mr. Brewer said he would call evidence to show that the watches received by the prisoners Bridges and Barker were stolen property.

Adolf Vallet, who gave evidence through an interpreter, said he was the chief checker of the French State Railway, and lived at Dieppe. He was on duty at the Harbour Station at Dieppe on February 17^th when the s.s. Sussex was loaded at the quay for Folkestone. The steamer belonged to the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company. It was loaded with a quantity of cargo for London via Folkestone The goods included a case of watches marked “575 L.W.C.” and also a case marked “C.R.F.C. 37”. He produced a Customs certificate in support of his statement. He was sure both cases were put on board the vessel for transport.

In answer to the Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), witness said he was not present when the cases were shipped. He never saw the cases at all.

Mr. Brewer said he could not submit what the witness said as evidence. The witness had had handed to him certain documents showing what should have been in the train when it arrived at Dieppe, and the Customs certificate showed that everything on the train had been loaded into the ship.

The Magistrates` Clerk: The Customs certificate is not evidence in this Court.

Mr. Brewer said he was aware of that. All they could do was write to the French State Railway and ask them to send the man who actually saw the loading. The Brighton Railway had already asked particularly for the right witness, but no doubt wishing to be courteous, the French Railway had sent the chief, but he was not the right witness, and he would withdraw him.

Mr. Aaron Mark Schottlander, who was sworn in the Jewish fashion, said he represented the Langendorf Company at 9, Hatton Garden, London. About February 22^nd he was expecting 20 cases of watches from the firm`s factory at Langendorf, Switzerland. He had previously received the invoice produced. The invoice embraced cases numbered 573, 574 and 575. Only 573 and 574 arrived. The case numbered 575 had not been since delivered. There should have been, according to the invoice, 370 watches in case No. 575, of the total value of £109 13s. 7d. He could identify any of the watches if he saw them. The nine watches produced should have been in the case. Oth of the cardboard boxes produced were those of his firm, and should have been in the case. The three separate watches produced, received from the witness Jones, should also have been in the case. The two watches received from Nash should also have been in the case. The retail value of the enamel watches would be about 12s. 6d., and that of the smaller watches would be about 15s. There was a third variety of the watches identified which had a lever movement, and the ordinary retail value of these was 21s. to 25s. No-one in Folkestone had any authority to deal with the consignment.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not agree with the statement of a previous witness that the watches were rubbish.

Thomas Hill, a checker employed by the S.E. and C.R. at Folkestone Harbour, said he was on duty at the goods loading shed at the Harbour on the night of February 17^th engaged in checking goods from the s.s. Sussex. Among the goods he checked some into a railway van for Willow Walk, London. He made out the list produced. The case C.R.F.C. 37 was amongst those put in the truck. The number of the truck was 662.

William Joyce, delivery checker in the employ of the L.B. and S.C.R. at Willow Walk Goods Depot, London, said that on February 22^nd he was on duty in the continental shed, when a goods train arrived from Folkestone Harbour. The invoice and declaration form produced arrived with the goods, and contained a list of goods that should be on the train. The document was the sender`s declaration, containing a list of the goods which should have arrived.

The Magistrates` Clerk said the document was not material or admissible.

Mr. Brewer said it showed that the two cases were missing.

Witness, continuing, said the document contained a reference to two cases marked “L.W.C. 575” and “C.R.F.C. 37”. Neither of the cases arrived by the train, and were still missing. The two lists produced were made out by himself and contained a complete list of the goods which arrived by the train. The lists did not include either of the two cases referred to.

Cross-examined, witness said there were five trucks on the train.

Corporal William Edward Honetwood, of the 5^th Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Aldershot, said that about 7.30 p.m. on February 25^th he was in the bar parlour of the Chequers Inn, Folkestone. The prisoners Spicer and Andrews were there. Spicer had two cardboard boxes containing watches. Witness did not notice how many watches the boxes contained. Spicer had the watches in his hand, and he offered one for sale to a corporal whom he did not know for 2s. 6d. Witness would know the corporal again if he saw him. Spicer said to witness “Will you have one?” Witness said “Show me them”. He then showed witness the watch produced. Witness bought it for 5s. Witness saw three sorts of watches in Spicer`s possession. Andrews was present when witness bought the watch, and was in a position to see and hear all that took place. Andrews said to a corporal in the room “Have one. You can raffle it for 2d. a man”. He did not see Andrews with any watches.

Pte. William Sturges, of the 5^th Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Aldershot, said that about 7.30 p.m. on February 25^th he was in the bar parlour of the Chequers Inn. He saw Spicer and Andrews there. He saw Corporal Honeywood buy a watch from Spicer for 5s. Witness asked Spicer if he could let him have one like it. He said “Yes”, and witness bought the watch produced from Spicer for 5s. Andrews took no part in the transaction.

Mabel Bridgland, of 9, Dover Street, said that for some months past she had been employed at the Chequers Inn. In the evenings she attended to customers in the bar parlour, and did so on February 25^th. Between seven and eight o`clock Spicer and Andrews were there and several soldiers. She saw Spicer sell a watch to Honeywood. As Honeywood was buying the watch Spicer said to him “You can go down the street, and you would not get one under 21s.” She saw Spicer had two cardboard cases. Andrews was seated close by, but she did not hear him say anything, nor did she see him with any watches. Spicer and Andrews arrived together and left together.

Inspector Gaze, of the S.E. and C.R., said Page, Andrews and Spicer were on duty at the Harbour Station on the night of February 17^th. Page and Andrews were employed in dealing with the Dieppe goods traffic from the s.s. Sussex, and Spicer was dealing with the Flushing goods traffic.

Mark Cloke, a jeweller`s assistant employed by Mr. T.W. Baker, 60a, High Street, said that on February 25^th, between 11 a.m. and 12.30, he was in the shop, when Spicer came in. He produced a wristlet watch and said “Can you fit me a strap for this watch?” It was similar to the watches produced. Witness told him he was sold out of straps.  He then asked the value of the watch. Witness examined the watch and said “I have seen similar watches sold for anything up to 25s.”. Spicer then said “Do you think the governor could do with any? It is not dear for four or five shillings, is it?” Witness said “Have you any more for sale?” Spicer said “Yes” and produced two cardboard boxes similar in appearance to those produced. They contained altogether from six to nine watches. Witness said “Will you call again and see the governor?” Spicer said he would. He called again on February 27^th. Witness was present. Spicer produced to Mr. Baker two or three similar boxes containing watches. He said “Can you do with any of these?” Mr. Baker said to him “I cannot buy these off you unless you can produce a receipt for the same”. Spicer then said “They are quite all right. There is nothing to be afraid of. Then you cannot do with any?” He then left the shop. On the first occasion when he produced the boxes of watches to witness Spicer said he was selling some for 3s. 6d. and some for 4s.

A remand until Friday was ordered, bail being allowed on the same terms as before.

Folkestone Herald 27-3-1915

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday, before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, Councillor R.J. Wood and Col. G.P. Owen, the hearing was resumed in the case in which five Folkestone men are charged with stealing and receiving 514 watches, value £160, while in transit through the Harbour.

The accused, who appeared for the fourth time, and are all allowed bail, are James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews, and William Henry Page, labourers employed by the S.E. and C.R. Company at Folkestone Harbour, who are charged with the theft of the watches, and Arthur Sidney Barker, a working jeweller, and Albert William bridges, the licensee of the Martello Hotel, who are charged with receiving a number of the watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen.

Mr. C.H. Brewer, assistant solicitor of the L.B. and S.C.R. Company appeared for the prosecution. Mr. G.W. Haines defended Bridges and Barker.

There was again a very large attendance of the public to listen to the proceedings.

Mr. Brewer said he had tried to get witnesses from Switzerland to prove that the watches had actually been placed in the two missing cases, Nos. 575 and 37, but no reply had been received. They could not compel people to come from Switzerland, and communication between this country and Switzerland just now was not of the most quick character. But he could now call evidence to prove that the case 575 was put on the boat at Dieppe and that all the cargo was unloaded at Folkestone. As regarded case 37, he now had evidence from Birmingham to prove what should have been in the case, and it had already been given in evidence that a certain number of the watches produced should have been in the case.

Felix Legras, a checker at Honfleur, in the employ of the French State Railway, said that on February 17^th he was working in a similar capacity at Dieppe. He checked the goods into the s.s. Sussex. He saw all the goods put on board. He produced a list containing an entry of the case 575. The list showed that three cases of watches, numbered 573, 574, and 575 were put on board the Sussex. He checked the entries himself. The cases bore the lettering “L.W.C.”.

In cross-examination, witness said he only knew what were the contents of the cases from the description on the list.

George Streeter Robinson, an officer of H.M. Customs, stationed at Southampton, said that on February 17^th he was on duty at Folkestone Pier when the s.s. Sussex arrived from Dieppe at 5.30 p.m. She landed passengers for two hours, and he then went on board to search the boat for contraband. At the same time he saw that there was no cargo remaining on board.

The witness Thomas Hill, a checker at the Harbour, who spoke at the last hearing to checking the goods from the s.s. Sussex into the train for Willow Walk, London, including the case No. 37 C.R.F.C., now said he did not check into the train the case No. 575 L.W.C. on February 17^th. That number did not appear on his checker`s list, but the list contained a reference to cases Nos. 573 and 574. If the case 575 had been put on the train it would have been put on the list.

Cross-examined, witness said the case should have been put on the list if placed in the train.

Evelyn Grace Oliver, of 49, Barker Street, Birmingham, said she was the head clerk in the employ of Mr. Louis Jacot, watch manufacturer, of York terrace, Hockley Hill, Birmingham. On February 11^th she received an invoice (produced), dated February 6^th, from Fleury and Co., of Switzerland, watch manufacturers. It contained a list of 24 boxes of silver wristlet watches. There would be six watches in each box, the total being 144. Mr. Jacot had ordered the watches. On February 14^th she received the postcard produced from Messrs. Danzas and Co., carriers, of Bale, announcing that they had on February 10^th sent from Bale for delivery to Mr. Jacot a case of watches marked 37 C.R.F.C. The case contained the first lot of watches of a particular kind consigned to Mr. Jacot, and each watch bore the stamp “L.J.” in the back of the watch. All watches consigned to him bore that stamp. The case had never arrived at Mr. Jacot`s place of business. The factory value of the watches in the case was £60. All the watches in the case were exactly the same, and the wholesale reselling price was 13s. 6d. each. The retail was generally double the wholesale price. (Laughter)

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): We are in the wrong occupation (Renewed laughter).

Witness, continuing, said that the seven watches produced to her should have been in the case No. 37 C.R.F.C.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said they were all initialled “L.J.”.

Mr. Brewer said that completed the case for the prosecution, subject to any questions arising out of the reading of the depositions. He applied for the accused to be committed for trial.

He stated that he wished to make it quite clear that acting as he did for the Brighton Railway Company he wished to be perfectly impartial, and he was bound to confess that the evidence against Page and Andrews was of a somewhat slight nature. As regards Page, it consisted in the facts that when told that Bridges said he had bought the watches from him (Page) he said “All right”, and that he was on duty at the Harbour on the night of February 17^th, when the Sussex arrived.

Mr. Haines: You might as well arrest the whole of the Harbour staff if that is the only evidence against him.

Mr. Brewer said the statement of Bridges was not evidence against Page. As regarded Andrews, the evidence was that he was with Spicer when the latter sold the watches to the soldiers at the Chequers Inn, and Andrews made a remark that they could not get such watches in a shop for less than 21s. Andrews when arrested said he had had four. As regards Bridges and Barker, he submitted that the evidence was strong against them. In charges of receiving it was impossible to prove absolutely conclusively what a man knew, but they could draw inferences from his conduct. He argued that the evidence showed that they knew the watches were unlawfully come by. The evidence of the witness Cloke was very strong against Spicer. Against all the accused except Page the evidence was quite clear, but as regarded Page he left it to the Bench whether they committed him for trial or not.

The Magistrates` Clerk said the Bench were of opinion that they could not withhold the case from a jury, subject to any observations that might be made by Mr. Haines.

Mr. Haines submitted that there was no prima facie case against his clients, Bridges and Barker. He argued that it must be proved conclusively that they knew the watches were stolen, and that had not been done. The prosecution now said there was no evidence against Page, and it was Page who was the only connecting link with Bridges and Barker. To prove a larceny they must trace the goods. The prosecution had undoubtedly had very great difficulty in doing that, and he did not think the difficulties had been surmounted sufficiently to prove that the watches produced were actually in the cases 575 and 37. Those watches were manufactured in thousands, and cases of them were always coming over. There was a long list of such cases even in the Sussex alone. There was no proof that the watches did not come from the boat on February 3^rd, which was the date given in the original charge. The case 575 had not been traced in Folkestone, and there was no evidence to show that it was not put overboard as the boat came over. Where was it? It had not been proved that Bridges bought the watches after February 17^th or sold them to Barker after that date. Mr. Haines further argued that a man of Mr. Bridges` high reputation, and holding the position which he did, would not have bought the watches if he had known them to be stolen, and Barker, in buying them from Bridges, whose unblemished reputation he knew, would have no reason to suspect that he had come by the watches unlawfully. Bridges said Page told him the watches were travellers` samples. It was a fact that jewellery travellers, towards the end of the year, did dispose of their samples. He (Mr. Haines) had known himself of that being done in Folkestone. At the Rose Hotel, which was at one time a commercial house, he had known many samples in watches, chains, sets of plate, etc., to be sold at a very much lower price than what was usually charged. He accepted the statement that was made to him, and the Bench had got to be satisfied that he knew they were stolen goods before they could commit him. It was no use for the prosecution to say what he ought to have known. Bridges might have been careless, a fool,, but that did not necessarily make him a criminal.

The depositions having been read over, the Court adjourned for lunch.

On resumption of the proceedings, the prisoners were formally charged and cautioned. Spicer, Andrews and Page were charged with stealing on February 17^th 514 ladies wristlet watches, value £169 13s. 7d., the property of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company Ltd. Bridges was charged with receiving 24 of the watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen, and a similar charge in respect of 22 watches was preferred against Barker.

Spicer said: I only say I am Not Guilty. I was not working on that steamer on February 17^th. On February 17^th the Sussex was lying on the outer berth. The boat I was employed on, the Flushing boat, was lying at the inner berth, near the Harbour.

Andrews also pleaded Not Guilty.

Page said he was Not Guilty of stealing any watches.

Bridges went into the witness box. He said he had held the licence of the Martello Hotel since November 20^th. Prior to that he held the licence of the White Horse, Hawkinge, for 23 years. He was the Chairman of the Hawkinge Parish Council, a member of the School Board, and an overseer, having held the latter office for 18 years. He was also a member of the Burial Board. He knew the prisoner Page as a frequent customer at the Martello Hotel. He did not know what Page`s occupation was. He remembered Page coming to the house one day with some watches. It was about four or five in the afternoon. He said “I have got some watches, if they are any use to you. I bought them as travellers` samples”. He produced five boxes from his pocket and opened them. Witness saw that they contained watches. Some of the watches had blue round them and some were plain. Witness asked him what he wanted for them, and he said 2s. 6d. each. Witness did not know anything about the value of watches. He told Page he would have the watches. He took it that the watches were samples that travellers had been using and were selling before going away. He saw that some had glasses cracked and one had the hands off. He paid Page £3 15s. He had at that time received no notice from the police that there had been robberies of watches in Folkestone. Since he had been in Folkestone the police had been in once or twice to inquire if he knew of anyone offering stolen property for sale. The transaction with Page took place on a Thursday. He paid him from the money he had in his pocket. He believed the date was the first Thursday in February. He told Detective Sergt. Johnson when he called that it was about a fortnight before. It was not on February 17^th or since the 17^th. He gave two of the watches to his daughters the same evening. He showed them the boxes and they each chose a blue watch. He had known Barker for twelve years. He saw Barker the same evening between seven and eight, when he came into the house. He told him he had bought some watches as travellers` samples. He told him he had given two to his daughters, and the winding screw of one had fallen off. Barker took it to repair it, and said he would look at the others the next day. Witness had said that he could buy them if they were any use to him. He told Barker how much he had given for them. Barker called in early the next evening, and witness told him he could have the watches for the same price as he had given for them, if they were worth that to him. Barker said the watches would be worth a shilling or two more when he had put them in order, and he would give witness 10s. profit. There were six watches in each box. Barker said he would take two boxes first and paid 30s. He took the other three boxes on the following Monday. Witness handed them to him and said “Pay when you like”. Barker said he would pay when he had sold them. Witness`s daughters wore the watches he gave them. Both girls assisted in the bar. From that date until March 3^rd, when Detective Sergt. Johnson called, he was not aware that there had been any robbery of watches. He told the detective that he bought four boxes because he hardly knew what he was saying when he was told that the watches were stolen, it upset him so. Page had always seemed respectable. Witness had no reason to believe that the watches were stolen, or that Page was dishonest. There was no-one else in the bar when he offered the watches to witness, and nobody came in during the transaction; no-one was there when Page came in.

Cross-examined, Bridges said he had always been on good terms with the police. He did not know that a public house in a seaport town was a likely place where people would sell stolen property. He did not think a public house was a likely place for such a thing. Page had never told him where he was employed. He had always dressed in plain clothes. He said to Det. Sergt. Johnson that it was about a fortnight ago or more when he bought the watches from Page. He bought the watches simply as a speculation; they were of no use to him. He hoped to get a profit by re-selling. He had not then made up his mind to whom he was going to sell them. In his time he had bought several little things in his bar. He had bought a bullock in his bar before now, and other things as well, to sell again. When he bought the watches he did not know whether he had bought a “rabbit” or not. Barker asked him what he gave for them, and he told him. He asked Barker if they were worth the money, and he said “Yes”. He did not notice that any of the watches were silver. He took them for white metal watches. He did not ask Page what he paid for the watches.

Barker, giving evidence, said he was a working jeweller, working for himself. He had been in Folkestone for seventeen years. He was a customer at the Martello Hotel. Some time in February, on a Thursday or Friday, he went into the public house after tea. It was seven weeks ago that day. He fixed it in his own mind, but had nothing to show it. He went into the saloon bar. There was no-one there. Mr. Bridges showed him some watches, and said he had bought them as travellers` samples from a customer. He said he had paid 2s. 6d. for them, and asked witness what they were worth. He examined them and said they were very common. He said he would take them off him if he did not want them. Bridges said he could have them, if he liked, at the same price as he bought them for. Witness offered to give him half a sovereign on the deal. He took the one watch to repair, as Mr. Bridges had said. He called the next day, and looked at one or two, and then took away two boxes, containing twelve watches. He paid 30s. to Mr. Bridges. He said he would repair the watches and sell them, and pay Mr. Bridges at the rate of 15s. a box. There was not one of the watches in saleable condition. Not one of them would go. He had to expend on them before he could get them to go. Subsequently he sold some of them to Mr. Worrald, Mr. Price and Mr. Jones. He had had similar watches brought to him by customers, and they were in his workshop when he was arrested. When he sold the watches he said he bought them at Ashford, necause he was not going to open his market to anybody. He believed Mr. Bridges` statement as to how he had come by them, as he had known him a great number of years. He did not tell Det. Sergt. Johnson at first where he got them from, because he did not want to disturb Mr. Bridges` peace of mind. He had not received any information of watches having been stolen before his purchase from Mr. Bridges, nor until he was arrested.

In cross-examination, Barker said he sold the watches at a substantial profit in each case. He would not have minded Mr. Bridges knowing what profit he made. Mr. Bridges was not particularly anxious to sell the watches, and he was not particularly anxious to buy them. He sold one watch for 10s. 6d. to a Mr. Bradwell. He only knew the names of some of his customers who had brought him similar watches for repair. One of these customers was named Bailey; he did not know his address.

Mr. Brewer: Is his Christian name William, by any chance?

Accused, continuing, said it was quite likely that a traveller would have a wristlet watch as a sample without a strap to it; without a strap the sample would not take up so much room. The watches looked as if they had been knocked about.

By the Bench: He sold the two boxes which he first received from Mr. Bridges before he had the other three from him, he thought. The first two boxes he sold to Mr. Price. When he took the other three boxes it was some few days afterwards, nearly a week. Those sold to Mr. Worrald were part of the second lot.

The Chairman said the Bench considered that a prima facie case had been made out, and the accused would be committed for trial at the next Borough Quarter Sessions, on April 12^th.

Bail was allowed on the same terms as before.

Folkestone Express 3-4-1915

Local News

On Friday, for the fourth time, the Magistrates, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Jenner, R.G. Wood Esq., and Colonel Owen, at the Police Court, had before them five men on charges with respect to a large number of watches, which were, it was alleged, stolen from the S.E. And C. Railway Company`s Harbour on February 17^th. James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews, and William Henry Page, three casual porters were charged with stealing 514 watches valued at £160, while Sidney Barker, a watchmaker and repairer, and Albert William bridges, the licensee of the Martello Hotel were charged with receiving a number of the watches well-knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. C.H. Brewer, assistant solicitor of the L.B. and S.C. Railway Company, prosecuted, and Mr. G.W. Haines defended Barker and Bridges.

Mr. Brewer, in opening the proceedings, said the Magistrates would remember the case was adjourned in order that they could get witnesses from Switzerland to prove that the watches were actually placed in the two missing cases, Nos. 575 and 37, but no reply had been received. They could not compel people to come from Switzerland, and the communication between that country and Switzerland just now was not of the most quick character. But he could now call evidence from France to prove that the case 575 was put on the boat at Dieppe, and that all the cargo had been taken off at Folkestone. As regarded case 37, he was going to call evidence from Birmingham to prove what should have been in the case, and it had already been given in evidence that a certain number of watches found in possession of certain people should have been in the case.

Felix Legras, a checker at Honfleur in the employ of the French State Railway, said on February 17^th he was employed in a similar capacity at Dieppe. On that day he checked the goods into the s.s. Sussex. He saw all the goods put on board, and made out the list produced containing “case No. 575”. He checked the entries on the list himself. Three cases, Nos. 573, 574 and 575, were placed on board the s.s. Sussex. The cases bore the lettering “L.W.C”.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not know the contents of the case No. 575 except from the description given on the list.

George Streeter Robinson, an officer in H.M. Customs, at present at Southampton, said on February 17^th he was on duty at the Folkestone Pier when the s.s. Sussex arrived at 5.30 p.m. from Dieppe. After the landing of the passengers, which took two hours, he boarded the vessel and searched her for contraband. He then found there was no cargo left on board.

Thomas hill, a checker of the S.E. and C. Railway Company, said at the last hearing he produced a slip showing the goods he checked from the s.s. Sussex on February 17^th into the train for Willow Walk. He did not on that day check into the train a case marked “L.W.C. 575”. That number did not appear on the list. Cases No. 573 and 574 appeared on the list. If case “L.W.C. 575” had been put on the train it would have appeared on the list.

Cross-examined, witness said it was not possible for the case to be put on the train without it being entered on the list.

Evelyn Grace Oliver, of 49, Barker Street, Birmingham, said he was a clerk in the employ of Louis Jacot, watch manufacturer, York Terrace, Hockley Hill, Birmingham. On February 11^th she received the invoice (produced) dated February 6^th, from Fleury and Co., watch manufacturers, of Switzerland. It related to 24 boxes of silver wristlet watches. There were six watches in a box, and the number of watches was 144. Mr. Jacot had ordered the watches. On February 14^th she received the postcard (produced) from Messrs. Danzas and Co. Ltd., of Bale, announcing that they on February 10^th sent from Bale for delivery to Mr. Jacot a case of watches marked “37 C.R.F.C.”. The case contained the first lot of watches of that kind consigned to M. Jacot, and bore the stamp L.J. In the back of the watch. All the watches consigned to M. Jacot bore that stamp. The particular case No. 37 never arrived at their place in Birmingham. The factory value of the watches was £60, and the wholesale value, as they sold them, for each watch was 13/6. All the watches in the case were exactly the same. The retail price of the watches was generally double the wholesale price. (Laughter)

The Magistrates` Clerk: We are in the wrong occupation. (Renewed laughter)

Witness, continuing, said the seven watches produced to her should have been in the case “37 C.R.F.C.”.

Cross-examined, witness said all the watches were marked “L.J.”.

Mr. Brewer said that was the completion of the case, subject to questions arising out of the reason of the evidence. He asked for the defendants to be committed for trial. He ought to briefly say he particularly wished to make it quite clear that, acting as he did for the Brighton Company, he wished to be perfectly impartial. He was bound to confess the evidence against the prisoners Page and Andrews was of a somewhat slight nature. As regarded Page, it absolutely rested on a statement he made to Det. Sergt. Johnson when arrested. When Johnson told him he had recovered a number of watches which Bridges said he had bought from him (Page) he said “All right”. That was all the evidence against Page except that he was on duty at the Harbour on the night of February 17^th when the Sussex arrived.

Mr. Haines: You might as well arrest the whole of the Harbour staff if that is the only evidence against him.

Mr. Brewer said the statement of Bridges was not evidence against Page, whose reply of “All right” to the Det. Sergt. Might be construed into an admission. As regarded Andrews, the evidence was that he was with Spicer when the latter sold watches to the soldiers at the Chequers Inn, and Andrews made a remark that they could not get a better watch down the street for a guinea. Andrews, when arrested, said he had had four watches, two of which were at home on the mantelpiece. As regarded Bridges and Barker, he submitted that the evidence was strong against them. In charges of receiving it was impossible to prove absolutely conclusively what a man knew, but they were entitled to infer from a man`s behaviour and conduct. He contended that the evidence showed that he knew the watches were not come by lawfully. The evidence of the witness Cloke was very strong against Spicer. Against all the accused except Page the evidence was quite clear, but as regarded Page he left it entirely to the Bench whether they committed him for trial or not.

The Magistrates` Clerk, after the Magistrates had consulted together, said the Bench were of opinion that they could not withold the case from a jury, subject to any observations that might be made by Mr. Haines.

Mr. Haines said he submitted there was no prima facie case against Barker and Bridges, who were charged there with regard to receiving the watches well-knowing them to have been stolen. The very essence of that offence was that the men had knowledge the watches had been stolen, and it had to be proved that they knew of that. Unless the Magistrates were satisfied that knowledge was brought home to the men there was no case against them. In the first instance they had heard respecting Page that the prosecution suggested that there was no evidence against him. The only evidence against that man was that he was at work on the Harbour. On the very same day forty or fifty other men were working at the Harbour, all of whom might just as well have been arrested. The Magistrates must remember that Page was the only connecting link with Bridges and Barker to bring them there. Not one single jot of evidence had been given which connected them with Spicer or Andrews. The prosecution were there to prove that those two cases of watches were stolen, and they actually stated that Page was a party to stealing them. He contended there was no case against Page, and if the Magistrates dismissed him from that charge He was the only one with whom Bridges and Barker came into contact. To prove a larceny they must trace the goods. The prosecution had undoubtedly had very great difficulty in doing that, and he did not think the difficulties had been surmounted sufficiently to prove that the watches which were before the Court were actually in the cases 575 and 37. Those watches were manufactured in thousands, and cases of them were always coming over. There was along list of such cases, even in the Sussex alone. First of all the charge of stealing was dated February 3^rd. There was no proof that the watches did come from the boat on February 3^rd. The case 575 had not been traced into Folkestone, and there was no evidence to show that it was not put overboard as the boat came over. Where was it? It had not been proved that Bridges bought the watches on or after February 17^th or sold them to Barker after that date. Evidence would be given by Bridges that he bought them before February 17^th. If the Magistrates believed that that transaction took place before the 17^th February there was no prima facie case against his clients. He (Mr. Haines) might have purchased the watches from Bridges if he had been in Barker`s position, knowing the high reputation of Mr. Bridges and knowing the position he held. He contended anyone would be justified in purchasing anything from Bridges, whose unblemished reputation he knew, and would have no reason to suspect that he had come by the watches unlawfully. Bridges said he bought the watches from Page because he told him the watches were travellers` samples. It was a fact that jewellery travellers, towards the end of the year, did dispose of their samples. He (Mr. Haines) had known himself of that being done in Folkestone. At the Rose Hotel, which was at one time a commercial house, he had known samples in watches, chains, sets of plate, etc., to be sold at a very much lower price than what was usually charged. Bridges migt have thought the watches had been sold in a similar way. He accepted the statement that was made to him, and the Bench had to be satisfied that he knew they were stolen good before they could commit him. Mr. Haines also pointed out that the Magistrates had to take into consideration Bridges` high reputation.

After the evidence was read over the Court adjourned for lunch.

On the resumption the defendants were charged, and the usual caution was read over to them.

Spicer said: I only say I am not Guilty. I was not working on that steamer on the 17^th February. On the 17^th february the Sussex was lying on the outer berth. The boat I was employed on, the Flushing boat, was lying at the inner berth, near the harbour.

Andrews said: I am Not Guilty.

Page said: I am Not Guilty of stealing any watches.

Bridges, giving evidence on oath, said he was the licence holder of the Martello hotel, and had been there since November 20^th. Prior to that he held the licence of the White Horse, Hawkinge, for 23 years. He was Chairman of the Hawkinge Parish Council, and was a member of the School Board and an Overseer, the latter office having been held by him for 18 years. He was a member of the Burial Board. He knew Page by sight as a frequent customer at the Martello, but did not know what his occupation was. He remembered Page coming to his house one day with some watches about four or five o`clock in the afternoon. He said “I have got some watches if they are any use to you. I bought them as travellers` samples”. He then produced some boxes from his pocket and opened them. He (defendant) then saw that they were watches of different kinds. He showed him five boxes, but some were blue round them, and some were quite plain. He asked him what he wanted for them, and Page replied “2/6 apiece”. He (defendant) did not know anything about the value of watches. He told Page he would have them. He took it the watches were samples travellers had been using, and were selling before going away. He noticed some had the glasses cracked, and one had the hands off. He paid Page £3 15s. At that time he had received no notice from the police or anyone that there had been a robbery of watches in Folkestone. Since he had been in Folkestone the police had been in his house once or twice to inquire of he knew of anyone offering stolen property for sale. The transaction took place on a Wednesday, but he did not make any note of the date. He took the money out of his pocket. He believed the date was the first Wednesday in February. When he saw Det. Sergt. Johnson he told him it was about a fortnight before. He would swear that the date was not on February 17^th, or since that date. He did not show the watches to anyone on that date, except to his daughters the same evening, and they each chose a blue watch, which he gave to them. He knew Barker, andf had known him for twelve years. He saw Barker the same evening between seven and eight, when he came into his house, and he told him he had bought some watches as travellers` samples, and that he had given two to his daughters, and the winding screw of one had fallen off. Batker took it to repair, and said he would look at the others the next day. The reason for the last statement was that he (Bridges) had told them he could buy them if they were any use to him. He told him what he had given for them. Barker then left, but called in the next evening. He told him he could have the watches for the same price if they were worth it to him. Barker said the watches would be worth a shilling or two more after he had put them in order, and he would pay him 10/- in addition. There were six watches in each of the boxes. Barker paid him for two of the boxes, which he took away with him, giving him 30/-. On the following Monday Barger again called and took the remaining boxes. He said “Pay me when you like” and he replied that he would pay him when he had sold them. His daughters had worn them since, and they had worn them when assisting in the bar. From that date until March 3^rd, when Det. Sergt. Johnson came, he was not aware there had been any robbery of watches. He told Johnson that he had bought four of the boxes, but that was because he hardly knew what he was saying. He was very perturbed at the time. Page had always seemed respectable, and he (defendant) had no reason to think that the articles were stolen and that Page was dishonest. There was no-one in the bar when Page brought out the watches, neither was there anyone in when he went into the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer, defendant said he had been on good terms with the police since he had been in Folkestone. He did not know that a public house in a seaport town was an eligible place for people to sell stolen property. Page had never told him where he had been employed. He was dressed in plain clothes, and always had been. There was something in the dress that suggested that he worked on the South Eastern Harbour. He generally wore a blue jersey. He told Det. Sergt. Johnson that the date when he bought the watches was a fortnight or more ago when he made the statement to him. He bought the watches simply for speculation, for they were no use to him. He hoped to have got a profit by re-selling them. He had not made up his mind to whom he was going to sell them. He had bought several little things before in his bar. He had even been offered a bullock. (Laughter) He had tried to sell things before he had purchased in that way. Page had never offered anything to him before. He gave the price which Page asked. When he bought the watches he did not know whether he was buying a “rabbit” or not. (Laughter) Barker came in on that particular night quite casually. He (defendant) knew he was a watchmaker, and so he told him about the watches. He told Barker he had bought them to speculate. He asked Barker if they were worth the money, and he said “Yes”. Barker had paid him for two boxes, but had never paid for the others. He was not sure how many watches he had bought wanted repairing. It would be a surprise to him if he heard that some of the watches were worth a pound apiece. He took them for white metal watches. He did not ask Page what he paid for the watches, and he accepted Page`s statement as being honest.

Arthur Sidney Barker said he was a working jeweller, and had been working in the town for seventeen years. He was a customer at the Martello Hotel. Sometime in February he went into the bar after tea. It was a Friday, but he could not say the date. It was seven weeks ago that day. He saw Mr. Bridges in the saloon bar. There was nobody in there, and the door to another bar was open. Mr. Bridges showed him some watches, and said he had bought them as travellers` samples from a customer. He said he gave him 2/6 each for them, and asked if they were worth the money. He said they were very common, but he would take them off him if he did not want them. Bridges told him he could have them at the same price he gave for them, but he offered half a sovereign on the deal. He had done work for Mr. Bridges for 14 years. He took a broken watch away to be repaired, but that was all he took. The next day he went in again and looked at one or two of the watches, and he took away two boxes containing twelve watches, paying 30/- for them. With regard to the others, he said he would repair the broken ones and sell them, and then pay Mr. Bridges for them. He was going to sell them at 15/- the box. There was not one watch in saleable condition, and before he could get them to go he had to spend some time on them. Subsequently he sold some to Mr. Warren, Mr. Price and Mr. Jones. He had had similar watches brought to him by customers, and they were in his workshop when Det. Sergt. Johnson came to him. He told Mr. Warren that he bought them at Ashford because he was not going to open his market to anybody. (Laughter) He believed Mr. Bridges` statement. He did not tell Det. Sergt. Johnson at first where he got them from, because he did not want to disturb Mr. Bridges` peace of mind. He was wearing one of the watches when he was arrested. He had never been informed that there had been robberies in the town. He usually had notice from the police of such robberies, but had not received any in that instance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer, defendant said he had a substantial profit in each deal with Messrs. Warren, Price and Jones. He was not particularly keen in buying the watches off Mr. Bridges. He should not care if Mr. Bridges had known about the profit. He expected to get four or five shillings apiece for the watches. He sold one watch for 10/6 to Mr. Bradwell. One customer named Bailey brought a similar watch to him to be repaired. He did not know where he lived, or what the man`s Christian name was.

Mr. Brewer: Was it William? (Laughter)

Witness said he should not be surprised if it was. It did not take long to repair the watches, ranging from a few minutes to an hour each. They seemed as if they had been knocked about. He thought it quite probable that a bona fide traveller would have a wristlet watch without a strap, as it would not take up so much room. He went into the Martello Hotel frequently, but had never bought anything before. The watch selling did not strike him as curious.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said he had taken two boxes to Mr. Price before he had the other three from Mr. Bridges. The watches he sold to Mr. Warren were from the second consignment.

The Chairman said the Bench considered that a prima facie case was made out against the defendants, who would be committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, fixed for April 12^th.

Bail was allowed to the defendants in the same recognisances as previously.

Folkestone Express 17-4-1915

Quarter Sessions

Monday and Tuesday, 12^th and 13^th April: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Three separate trials had to be gone through with regard to the five prisoners who had been committed for trial in connection with the theft of 514 watches from the Folkestone Harbour.

James Spicer (38), William Alfred Andrews (22), and William Henry Page (47), pleaded Not Guilty to stealing 514 ladies` wristlet watches, of the value of £169 3s. 7d., the property of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company. Mr. Dickens prosecuted on behalf of the Crown and the prisoners were undefended.

Mr. Dickens, in opening the case, said all the three men were employed at the Harbour. He could not offer any direct evidence by any witness that saw those men take the watches.

Aaron Mark Schottlander, the representative of the Langendorff Watch Company, said on February 22^nd he received an invoice of a number of cases of watches which were being sent from Switzerland to his firm at 9, Hatton Gardens. Included in the cases were three numbered L.W.C. 573, 574, and 575. They purported to contain 370 ladies` wristlet watches to the value of £109 13s. 7d. The watches were packed in cardboard boxes of sixes. There were nine kinds of watches altogether in case 575, and the values ranged from 4/1 to 8/10. The retail value of the watches would be from about 8/6 to 21/-. Cases 573 and 574 had arrived at their place, but case 575 had not arrived. The cardboard boxes produced were like those usually sent over by their firm.

Felix Le Gras, a checker on the French State Railway, said on February 17^th he checked a number of cases at Dieppe, placed in the s.s. Sussex. He put the marks on the list produced of the cases placed on the ship, and among those he checked were cases 573, 574, and 575.

This witness`s evidence had to be interpreted for the Court by M. P. De Caower, who was complimented by Mr. Dickens on his clear interpretation.

George Streeter Robinson, an officer in H.M. Customs, said on February 17^th he boarded the s.s. Sussex at Folkestone Pier both before and after the unloading of the goods. At eight o`clock in the evening he went on board to search for contraband, and at that time there was no cargo left on board.

Miss Evelyn Grace Oliver, clerk for M. Louis Jacot, watch manufacturer, of Birmingham, said on February 11^th she reveived an invoice from Messrs. Reufli, Fleury and Co., watch manufacturers of Switzerland, relating to 24 boxes of ladies` silver wristlet watches. She later received a postcard from Switzerland showing that the watches had been dispatched in case C.R.F.C. 37, which was marked with the initials of the firm. The postcard was received in the ordinary course of business, and was in the handwriting of their correspondents in Switzerland. The watches bore the stamp of the initials of the firm, L.J., and their value was £60. There were 144 watches altogether. They consisted of one class of watch. There would be three values to the watches. The factory price to the firm by whom she was employed was 8/6. They would then sell to the wholesale people at 13/6, and the retail people would charge about 27/- each for the watches. Two watches, marked 13 and 14, were both her firm`s property, and were stamped “L.J.”, and they should have been in case 37.

Thomas Hill, a checker in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, said on February 17^th he checked the goods which were unloaded from the s.s. Sussex, which had arrived from Dieppe. He made out the list produced, and it contained an entry showing that case 37 was placed in the van No. 662 on the train for Willow Walk, London. The cases No. 573 and 574 were loaded in the truck 2,956. There was no mention of case 575 on the list. He could not say whether case 37 ever got to London.

William Joyce, a delivery checker, employed by the L.B. and S.C. Railway Company, said on February 22^nd he was on duty at the continental shed at Willow Walk depot, London, when the goods train from Folkestone Harbour arrived. He received an invoice of the goods which arrived on the train. It contained references to cases L.W.C. 575 and C.R.F.C. 37, but neither of the cases arrived by the train, and they were still required to complete the invoice.

Charles Edward Gaze, an inspector in the employ of the S.E. and C. Railway Company at Folkestone Harbour, said he knew the three prisoners as men who had been employed from time to time for extra work in unloading cargo off the steamers on their arrival, and loading it into the trains. They were all on duty on February 17^th at the Harbour. Andrews and Page were employed on the work on the Sussex, and Spicer was employed in unloading the Flushing boat. Both boats were lying close together. Page and Andrews had been employed on the Harbour roughly for ten years, and Spicer on and off for two or three years. Page usually wore a blue jersey.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on March 3^rd he saw Spicer in the True Briton public house in Harbour Street. He cautioned him, and then told him that he would be charged with stealing, on or about February 3^rd, several ladies` wristlet watches from Folkestone Pier. He replied “I did not steal them”. He saw Andrews later, and when he charged him he said “I had four; two of them I have given away, but I decline to say who to. The other two are broken, and they are at home on the mantelpiece”. When charged at the police station, he replied “I`ll say nothing”. Page, when charged at his home, said “Oh, all right”. He brought him to the police station and formally charged him, and he made no repkly. He told Page that Mr. Bridges had handed to him two watches out of 24 which had been stolen.

Page: You did not do any such thing.

Cross-examined by Spicer, Johnson said he had no proof that he had stolen the watches.

Cross-examined by Andrews, the Detective Sergeant said he had not recovered any of the watches he (Andrews) had stolen. When before the Police Court he then said Andrews told him he had four watches. The words used by Andrews were “I took four”.

The witness produced his notebook in support of his statement, and answering Andrews further he said that he did not tell him (Johnson) that the watches he had were black watches.

William Henry Honeywood, a corporal in the 5^th Royal Berkshire Regiment, described how on February 25^th, between 7.30 and 8 p.m., he purchased a watch from Spicer in the bar parlour of the Chequers Inn. Andrews was sitting in the bar at the time. He bought one of the watches which had been identified by Miss Oliver for 5/-. Andrews said to another corporal who bought a watch from Spicer “You can raffle it to your mates in the barrack room for 2d. a man”.

William George Sturges, a private in the 5^th Battalion of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, said he was in the Chequers on February 27^th about 7 o`clock, when Spicer and Andrews were there, the latter sitting down. He bought a watch from Spicer for 5/-. He left the two men standing outside the house together after closing time.

Cross-examined by Andrews, witness said he did not hear him make any remark during the time he was there.

Mabel Bridgeland, who served in the bar of the Chequers, spoke to seeing Spicer and Andrews com into the bar on February 25^th together. They also left together. She saw Spicer with the boxes containing some watches, and also noticed him sell the watch to Honeywood. Spicer said to Honeywood “If you went down the street you would not get one under 21/-“. Andrews was sitting close by at the time.

Mark Cloke, a jeweller`s assistant, employed by Mr. T.W. Baker, of 68, High Street, said on February 25^th Spicer came to the shop in the morning and asked him if he could fit a strap to the watch which he produced. He told him that he had sold out of straps. Spicer then asked him if he could tell him the value of the watch. He replied, after examining it, that he had seen such watches sold for anything up to 25/-. Spicer then asked him if he thought the governor could do with any, and added that they would not de dear for 4/- or 5/-. Spicer showed him three different watches. He (witness) asked him to call again, as he did not like to deal with it. On February 27^th Spicer came to the shop, when Mr. Baker was present. He produced two or three boxes, and asked Mr. Baker if he could do with any of the watches. Eventually Mr. Baker said he could not do with any unless he could produce a receipt for them. Spicer left the shop immediately after.

The Recorder, addressing the witness, said the Court considered that he had acted with the greatest propriety, and they only wished others had taken the same course.

The statements made by the prisoners before the Magistrates were the read over.

Mr. Pitman, who said he did not represent any of the prisoners in that case, suggested on behalf of the other two prisoners concerned in the charges respecting the watches, that there was no evidence. The manner in which the indictments had been drawn placed him in a rather embarrassing position.

The Recorder said he could not hear Mr. Pitman. He also could not withhold the case from the jury.

Spicer gave evidence on oath. He said he was not engaged on the steamer Sussex on that particular night. He bought seven watches from a stranger, but he did not know the date.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens, prisoner said he met the stranger one evening in Dover Road about seven o`clock. The man, who was clean shaven, asked him the way into the town from the Junction Station. They then got into conversation together, and the man told him he was a traveller in watches. The man showed him the watches, and he bought seven of them for £1. He did not know the value of them, or whether they were metal or silver. He had only told that story to Andrews, whom he had not known two or three months, when they had met in the Chequers a few nights later. He did not think they went into the Chequers together. He did not on that occasion hear Andrews pass any remark to the soldier about raffling a watch.

Andrews, in the box, said the four watches to which he referred in his statement to Det. Sergt. Johnson he had had for some years. The detective had given a false statement, for at the police station he said that he (Andrews) stated to him “I had four watches”, and that day he stated “I took four”.

Cross-examined, prisoner said Johnson did not at first charge him with stealing the watches. He told the officer he could go to his home and examine the watches. When Johnson asked him if he knew anything about the broken cases of watches on February 3^rd, he told him he knew nothing about them, but he had four watches at home. The police had not troubled to go to his home to get the watches. They did not search his parents` house, but they went to the house and knocked at the door. When they asked if there were any watches on the mantelpieces, his father replied that if his son wanted the watches he must come and get them. He denied saying anything in the public house about the soldier raffling the watch. It was not until they went out of the Chequers that night that he asked Spicer where he got the watches.

Page said he did not wish to give evidence. He had nothing to say except that he was Not Guilty.

The jury retired, and were absent for about ten minutes. On their return into Court they announced that they had found Spicer and Page Guilty, but Andrews was Not Guilty.

The Recorder discharged Andrews, and intimated that he would postpone sentence on Spicer and Page until he had heard the other cases.

Arthur Sidney Barker, who pleaded Not Guilty, was then placed in the dock on a charge of receiving 22 watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Dickens prosecuted, and Mr. Pitman defended.

The evidence given by Mr. Schottlander, Miss Oliver, Felix Le Gras, George Streeter Robinson and Thomas Hill was repeated.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on March 3^rd he saw Barker in his workshop off Dover Road, and cautioned him. He told him he was making inquiries respecting a quantity of ladies` wristlet watches missing from the Folkestone Pier, and that he understood that he (prisoner) had sold some. He said he had bought some, and further stated “I bought them off a man I knew by sight, but I don`t know his name. He`s a businessman in the town”. He took him to the police station. Later he charged him with receiving several ladies` wristlet watches well-knowing them to have been stolen. He showed him the two boxes, which contained nine wristlet watches (produced), and told him he had received them from Mr. Warren, jeweller, of High Street. Prisoner replied “I bought them off a businessman in the town who has pounds”. Later, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he went to prisoner`s workshop. In a drawer he found three boxes (produced), containing nine wristlet watches. Later he went to the cell and saw Barker, who said “Yes, it will all have to come out. I bought them off Bridges, landlord of the Martello Hotel. You go and see him”. Accompanied by P.C. Butcher he went to the Martello Hotel, where he saw Bridges.

Cross-examined, witness said Bridges was a respectable man. He told him at once how he came by the watches.

Re-examined, Johnson said Bridges made the following statement to him, which he signed: “About a fortnight ago a man came into the public bar and showed me several ladies` watches in cardboard boxes. He asked me 2/6 each for them. I bought four boxes, which contained six watches in a box. I gave him 15/- for each box. I know his name as William Page. He looked as if he was a South Eastern man. I sold twenty two of the watches in the boxes to Mr. Barker, whom I know as a customer, and kept two for myself, which I gave to my daughters. The two watches (produced) are the two I kept”. He then handed him the two watches.

Evidence of purchasing some of the watches from Barker was given by Mr. H.W. Price, Mr. F.H. Warren, and Mr. A.S. Jones, all jewellers.

Barker gave evidence on his own behalf. He said he had been working in the town for seventeen years. When he bought the 22 watches he had no idea they were stolen property. He had known Mr. Bridges for some years. Nearly all the watches wanted repairing, and he spent a great deal of time on them. Similar watches to those he had bought had been brought to him to repair. The reason he told the jewellers to whom he sold the watches that he hda got them from a man at Ashford market was because he did not want to let them know where his market was. He bought the watches openly, and sold them openly.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens, Barker said there was nothing, in his opinion, to conceal about the transaction. The reason he told the detective sergeant the various stories was because he did not want to disturb Mr. Bridges` peace of mind. If Mr. Bridges had offered him the watches at 6d. each he would have paid him that amount. When he offered to let him have them at 2/6 each, he said he would pay him 10/- over as profit, as he thought the purchasing of the watches might have meant a drink or two to him. He had got an average of a little over 5/- for the watches. He purchased 28 watches altogether from Mr. Bridges, and that must have been at the beginning of February. He might have told Mr. Warren the watches were bankrupt stock. He did not take the names and addresses of those people who had brought similar watches to him to be repaired.

Albert William Bridges said he had been the licensee of the Martello Hotel since November 20^th last year. Previously he had held the licence of the White Horse, Hawkinge, for 23 years. At that village he was chairman of the Parish Council, a member of the School Board, an overseer, and a member of the Burial Board. Page was a customer at the Martello, and one day he came in and showed him some watches, which he said were travellers` samples, and wanted 2/6 each for them. He did not know the value of the watches, and he gave him what he asked for them. Three watches had the glass broken, and one had the hands off. None of the watches looked as new as they might have done. He purchased 30 watches altogether. The reason he told Det. Sergt. Johnson he had bought four boxes of six each was because he was upset. From first to last he had not the slightest suspicion that the watches were stolen property.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens, witness said he could not remember the date he purchased the watches. He could not swear it was not since February 17^th.

The jury, after a retirement of twenty minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty.

The Recorder announced that the Court would be adjourned until the following day, when he should give his sentence.

On Tuesday morning, the charge against Albert William Bridges, licensee of the Martello Hotel, was proceeded with. The same jury who tried the previous cases were empanelled, and the same counsel as on the previous day were engaged.

Mr. Dickens said the prisoner was a man of good position and character, and therefore the charge against him of receiving stolen property was a very serious one. But the circumstances, he urged, were such that he must have known when he bought 24 watches that they were stolen. But if that had been the only case against Bridges the prosecution would not have proceeded against him. There was his subsequent action and his statements to the police. He had told an obvious untruth when he said he had the watches in the beginning of February, when it was perfectly clear that they came out of the cases which were stolen from the steamer. There was another point against him; that was his statement to Barker that he was selling them without a penny profit. The case was full of suspicion, and it could only point to the fact that the prisoner must have known there was something wrong about the transaction. He should put in his statement that he sold the watches to Barker, and that Barker sold them to others.

Mr. Aaron Mark Scottlander gave evidence on the same lines as he did on Monday, as to what the cases should have contained, and what the value of the watches, and he identified the watches put in as the property of his firm. No-one had any authority to sell the watches in Folkestone.

Miss Oliver, a clerk, gave evidence as to the invoices received by her for the firm from the Swiss firm, and also identified the handwriting on a postcard as the same as had been familiar to her for years.

Mr. Pitman objected to the invoice and the postcard as not being admissible evidence.

Witness gave evidence as to the value of the watches produced.

Felix Le Gras, a Frenchman, said he was employed as a checker of goods at Dieppe on the 17^th February, and saw certain goods put on board of the steamer Sussex. He produced a list of the goods in which were the cases of watches referred to in the charge.

George Robinson, Thomas Hill, William Joyce, Harry William Price, A. Jones, and Detective Sergt. Johnson were called, and repeated the evidence given on the previous day.

Sergt. Johnson produced the prisoner`s signed statement, in which he said he bought 24 watches from Page, kept two, and sold 22 to Barker.

In reply to Mr. Pitman, the witness said Mr. Bridges had held a licence at Hawkinge for 23 years, and had only moved recently into Folkestone (about November last). At Hawkinge Bridges was chairman of the Parish Council and an overseer of the poor.

The Recorder: Don`t the jewellers in the town comminucate with the police sometimes?

Witness: Sometimes.

The Recorder: But they did not do so in this case?

Witness: No.

Prisoner then went into the witness box and gave his version of the transaction. There were five different boxes and three different sorts of watches. Page wanted 2/6 eaxch for them, and he bought them at that price - £3 15s. for the lot. He had not the slightest suspicion that they were stolen property. He had not had any notice from the police that there had been a robbery of watches. He gave two of the watches to his daughters, and they wore them on their wrists until the police came.

In cross-examination by Mr. Dickens, Bridges said the watches he bought were similar to those produced. There were three sorts. He did not know that Page was employed at the Harbour. He looked like a South Eastern man. Page said he bought the watches from a commercial traveller, but he did not say how much he paid for them, nor did he ask. He thought they were cheap metal watches – not silver. He offered them to Barker at the same price he paid for them, in order that he might make a few shillings out of them. When he made the statement to Johnson he was so much upset that he hardly knew what he did say. He could not swear that it was not on the 17^th February or since. He was not sure of the date.

The Recorder asked to see the book kept by Johnson containing the signed statement of prisoner.

The Rev. A. Simpson, Rector of Hawkinge, said he had known Bridges for 14 years, and he bore a very good character while at Hawkinge, and he should think he was the last man who would purchase stolen property knowingly.

Mr. Pitman, in addressing the jury, said Mr. Bridges was the one man in the case who throughout had acted straightforwardly. The only question for them to decide was: did Bridges deal with those watches knowing they had been obtained feloniously? He did not attempt to say that Bridges did not act foolishly, but the law dealt with knaves, not with fools. He asked the jury to say that the explanations given by Bridges were perfectly honest explanations, and that he was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged.

The Recorder, in summing up, said the Crown had to satisfy the jury that the prisoner had a guilty knowledge. He read the statement made by Bridges to Johnson, and it was most important when compared with the statement made when before the Magistrates, which latter was that the watches were purchased long before the 17^th February. He read those two statements, and pointed out that they were totally different statements, and on that ground the jury had a right to say that he had a guilty knowledge. The evidence as to character was important. He prisoner had held positions and offices, but he was bound to point out to them that he, having held those positions, he could not be held to be an absolute fool, and, therefore, that evidence cut both ways. If after carefully weighing the facts, even if it did spell ruin to the prisoner, they had a duty to perform, and whatever the consequences they must perform it.

The jury, after a lengthy retirement, announced that the prisoner was Not Guilty.

The Recorder thereupon discharged the prisoner.

Spicer, Page and Barker were then placed in the dock.

Mr. Reeve (Chief Constable) said there were no convictions against Barker or Page, but Spicer had been previously convicted by the Magistrates, and sentenced to one month`s hard labour for stealing.

The Recorder: Have you been able to find out anything about the large bulk of the watches? We are only on the fringe of this inquiry in this Court.

Mr. Reeve said they had recovered 50 watches altogether from different people. They had passed through so many hands that it had been very difficult indeed to trace them.

The Recorder asked if the jewellers concerned had given him any information about the watches before they were seen on the matter.

The Chief Constable replied in the negative.

Mr. Price, Mr. Warren and Mr. Jones then stepped into the witness box at the request of the Recorder, who said he was extremely sorry to think that they did not take the course that Mr. Baker and Mr. Cloke took, which was the only redeeming feature in that case, in declining to have anything to do with the watches. He was bound to say that their action in that matter did not commend itself to the Court; on the contrary, it was deeply to be deplored that gentlemen in their position should engage in such transactions with a man like Barker. All he could say was he marked his sense of it by disallowing any expenses which any of them had incurred in or about that case.

Mr. Pitman, who said he was instructed to defend the prisoner Barker by Bridges, who felt very strongly he had been guilty of a foolish act, and that to a certain extent it was through his indiscretion that Barker had got into trouble, appealed to the Recorder to be lenient with Barker.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said Spicer and Page had been convicted by the jury, who had taken the more lenient view of saying that they had received the goods, and that they did not actually steal them. He believed they actually stole them, and that each of them, if they felt so disposed, might have disclosed a story which would have enabled the Court to have dealt in a somewhat different manner than the Court proposed to deal with them. They had had very nearly 24 hours in the cells to think over their position, but they had refrained from telling the Court anything about it. It was a very serious robbery. They were in positions of trust. As servants they betrayed their trusts. He had no doubt there were others who were with them, whom the Court did not know of. Spicer had a previous conviction of felony against him. If he did not look out he would find himself undergoing a very long term of imprisonment. The sentence upon him was that he be imprisoned for twelve calendar months with hard labour. As for Page, they knew that some 30 of those watches were traced to him, and that he disposed of them. The jury had given the purchaser of the watches the benefit of the doubt. It was impossible to treat his (Page`s) offence other than as a very serious one. He would be imprisoned for nine calendar months with hard labour. With regard to Barker, he wished he could have acceded to the appeal which had been made by his counsel. If that appeal had been supported by any evidence at all of good character it would have affected the mind of the Court. In his opinion that receiving of stolen goods had been going on all too long in that borough, until it had become a scandal, and a reproach on the fair name of Folkestone. He was amazed to think that jeweller after jeweller could come into that Town Hall and admit that they took watches under the circumstances which it had been proved the watches were taken. Barker knew perfectly well the value of those watches, and that made his crime more serious. He would be imprisoned, with hard labour, for twelve calendar mionths.

On the application of the Chief Constable, the Recorder made an order for the restitution of the watches to the Railway Company.

Folkestone Herald 17-4-1915

Quarter Sessions

Monday and Tuesday, April 12^th and 13^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

James Spicer, aged 38, William Alfred Andrews, aged 22, and William Henry Page, aged 47, labourers, surrendered to their bail to answer a joint indictment for stealing on February 17^th, 514 ladies wristlet watches, value £169 3s. 7d., the property of the L.B. and S.C.R. Company. Albert William Bridges, aged 55, a licensed victualler, and Arthur Sidney Barker, aged 35, a watchmaker, also surrendered to their bail, and were separately indicted for, in the case of Bridges, receiving, on February 17^th, 24 of the watches from Page, well-knowing them to have been stolen, and, in teh case of Barker, receiving, on February 20^th, 22 of the watches from Bridges, well-knowing them to have been stolen.

The Recorder said it was most extraordinary that the indictments should have been framed in such a way.

Mr. Dickens, who appeared for the prosecution, said it was due to a misunderstanding that separate indictments had been drawn up.

Mr. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines), who represented Bridges and Barker, said it was extremely embarrassing for the defence.

The Recorder agreed, and said it had been a joint charge before the Magistrates all the way through.

The prisoners all pleaded Not Guilty.

The case against Spicer, Andrews and Page was first proceeded with.

Mr. Dickens, in opening the case, outlined the evidence recently given at the Police Court. This was to the effect that two cases of ladies wristlet watches, marked 575 L.W.C. and 37 C.R.F.C. were shipped from Switzerland to England via Dieppe and Folkestone. The first case was destined for London and the second for Birmingham, but neither of them arrived. They were landed at the Folkestone Harbour from the s.s. Sussex on February 17^th and disappeared. The case 575, counsel said, never got beyond the Harbour, while case 37 was put on the goods train but was stolen before the train started. Subsequently Page, an extra labourer employed at the Harbour sold 30 of the watches to Bridges, the landlord of the Martello Hotel, for £3 15s., and Barker bought 28 of them from Bridges. Other watches belonging to the consignments were sold in the Chequers Inn, Folkestone, to soldiers by Spicer, who was accompanied by Andrews.

Mr. Aaron Mark Schottlander, of 9, Hatton Garden, London, representing the Langendorff Watch Company, Switzerland, the consignors of the case 575, spoke as to the non-arrival of the case after he had received the invoice for it. The case should have contained 370 watches, value £109. The retail prices of the various kinds of watches would be 12s. 6d., 15s., and 21s. to 25s.

Felix Legras, a checker employed by the French State Railway, deposed that both cases were shipped at Dieppe, and Mr. G.S. Robinson, an officer of H.M. Customs, spoke to the Sussex being unloaded at Folkestone.

Miss E.G. Oliver, a clerk employed by Mr. Jacot, watch manufacturer, of Birmingham, to whom the case 37 was consigned, deposed that it had not arrived, although advice of its dispatch had been received. The case should have contained 144 watches, value £60. The retail price was about 25s.

Two railway checkers, Thomas Hill, employed by the S.E. and C.R. at Folkestone Harbour, and William Joyce, employed by the L.B. and S.C.R. at Willow Walk Goods Depot, London, having given evidence, Inspector Gaze, S.E. and C.R., deposed that the three prisoners, Spicer, Andrews and Page, were employed at Folkestone Harbour on the night of February 17^th, when the Sussex arrived.

Answering the Recorder, Inspector Gaze said Andrews and Page had been employed for quite ten years, and Spicer about two or three years. They were paid by time.

Det. Sergt. Johnson gave evidence as to the statements made by the prisnoners when arrested, and as to the recovery of the watches produced.

Corporal Honeywood, 5^th Berkshire Regiment, and Pte. Sturges, of the same regiment, said they purchased watches from Spicer at the Chequers for 5s. each.

Miss Mabel Bridgland, barmaid at the Chequers, deposed to Spicer selling watches at the inn.

Mark Cloke, assistant to Mr. Baker, jeweller, of Folkestone, stated that Spicer came into the shop and tried to sell some of the watches, but Mr. Baker would have nothing to do with them unless Spicer could produce a receipt.

The Recorder said the Court considered that Mr. Baker acted with the greatest propriety, and he only wished that all others would act in the same way. The witness could take the compliments of the Court to Mr. Baker, and say that he had acted in a way in which it was only to be expected he would act, knowing his high reputation in the town.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Pitman said the case was to a certain extent embarrassing from the point of view of the defence of Bridges and Barker, who were charged with receiving a portion of the goods. It must be important from their point of view as to whether Page was convicted or not. Counsel asked to be allowed to make a submission that there was no evidence against Page, who was the only connecting link with the two prisoners represented by him (Mr. Pitman).

The Recorder said the instructions to prepare separate indictments were given by the railway company. If Mr. Pitman had any complaint to make he must make it against them. He (Mr. Coward) could not hear his submission, as he was not appearing for the prisoners being tried at the moment.

Spicer, giving evidence, said he was unmarried. He had worked in several capacities. He had been a steward on P. and O., White Star, and Union Steam Navigation of New Zealand boats. He was not working on the Sussex on February 17^th; he had no access there, and no business to go there. He was at the Flushing boat. He bought the watches that were in his possession from a stranger. It was seven watches that he bought. He had two boxes containing three and four respectively. He could not say when he bought them.

In cross-examination, Spicer said he bought the watches from a stranger in the Dover Road, at about seven p.m. The stranger asked him the way into the town from the Junction Station. He walked down the road with him, and during their conversation the stranger showed him the watches. He said he was a traveller in watches. He offered the watches to witness for 3s. 6d. each, bur eventually he (Spicer) paid him £1 for the seven. He did not know the value of the watches. He bought them to sell again at a profit. He did not know whether they were metal or silver. He had not told his story of how he had bought the watches before, because he had not been asked. He knew Andrews as a fellow worker at the Harbour. After he had sold the watches at the Chequers, Andrews asked him how he got them, and he told him. He did not hear Andrews offer to raffle one. He sold three in the Chequers, and four to other people about the town.

Andrews also gave evidence. He said the four watches which detective Sergeant Johnson stated that he said he had were his own property, and he had had them for some years. The detective had previously stated that he (Andrews) that he “had” four watches, whereas he stated in that Court that he “took” four. He told the detective that the four watches he had were black watches, but he had not put that in his statement. None of the stolen watches had been traced to him.

Cross-examined, Andrews said he told the police they could go and examine the watches he had, but they only went to the door and asked if there were any watches on the mantelpiece belonging to him. His father said there were not, and if he (prisoner) had any watches he must fetch them himself. The police did not make a search. Spicer told him as they left the Chequers that he had bought the watches from a man who looked like a traveller. He denied that he said anything at the Chequers as to raffling a watch. He took no part in the conversation at the Chequers.

Page, in a statement from the dock, said he was Not Guilty of stealing the watches.

After a brief retirement the jury found Andrews Not Guilty and he was discharged. Spicer and Page were found Guilty of receiving.

The Recorder postponed sentence until all the trials were concluded.

The trial of Arthur Sidney Barker, on the indictment of receiving 22 of the watches from Bridges, was next proceeded with. Mr. Dickens prosecuted, and Mr. Pitman defended.

Similar evidence having been called as in the first case with regard to the cases of watches, Mr. W.H. Price, a jeweller, of Sandgate Road, spoke to buying 12 of the watches for £3 15s. from Barker, who said he got them from a man at Ashford Market.

Answering the Recorder, witness said he had never purchased watches from Barker before. The enamelled ones were rubbish, but the silver ones were not.

Mr. F. Worrald, jeweller, of High Street, and Mr. A.S. Jones, a watchmaker, of Dover Road, also spoke to buying watches from Barker, and said they had never bought any from him before. Mr. Worrald said he bought 12 for £3. Mr. Jones said he bought two at 5s., and one at 7s.

Barker went into the witness box and gave evidence similar to that given by him in the Police Court. He said he bought the watches from Bridges for the price he gave for them, plus 10s. He had no idea they were stolen property. It was before February 17^th when the transaction took place.

Bridges gave evidence as to purchasing watches from Page and then selling them to barker. He believed they were travellers` samples, and that they were white metal watches. If he thought they were stolen he would have had nothing to do with them. It was before February 17^th when Page came.

After a brief retirement the jury brought in a verdict of Guilty.

The time being now about 7.15 the Court adjourned until the following day.

The sessions were resumed at half past ten on Tuesday, when the trial of Bridges was proceeded with.

Mr. Dickens again conducted the prosecution and Mr. Pitman represented the prisoner.

The evidence for the prosecution was the same as in the case against Barker.

Prisoner went into the witness box and repeated his evidence given in the trial against Barker.

The Rev. Algernon Simpson, Rector of Hawkinge, was called to give evidence as to prisoner`s good character. He said he had been Rector of the Parish for fourteen years, and had known Mr. Bridges during the whole of that time. He had held the posts of Chairman of the Parish Council and Overseer, and was also on the School Board. Witness knew Mr. Bridges well, and he belived entirely in the integrity of his character. He bore a very good character during the whole time he was at Hawkinge, and from all witness knew of him he should think Mr. Bridges would be the last man who would knowingly receive stolen goods. Mr. Brown, one of the churchwardens, had also attended the Court on Monday to speak as to prisoner`s character, but had been called away on business that day.

Mr. Pitman, in addressing the jury, said Mr. Bridges was the one man who throughout the case had acted perfectly straightforwardly.

The Recorder, in summing up, said the burden rested upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner knew he was receiving stolen goods. The evidence as to his high character was important, but it cut both ways, because a man who had held the positions and had the experience that prisoner had had was no tyro – he could not be looked upon as a fool.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at 12.30, and were still absent when the Court rose for lunch at one o`clock.

The Court reassembled at 1.45, when the jury brought in a verdict of Not Guilty, and prisoner was discharged.

Spicer, Page and Barker were then put up for sentence.

Spicer admitted a further indictment against him for a previous conviction at the Borough Police Court for felony in 1914.

The Chief Constable stated that there were no convictions against Barker and Page, but Spicer had been convicted as stated, and sentenced to one month`s imprisonment for stealing. Spicer belonged to Folkestone. For some time he had been a licensed bathchairman, and he had worked at the Harbour as a casual labourer for about two years. Page had been working at the Harbour for several years. Barker had a small workshop, and had been in the town for some twelve or fifteen years.

The Recorder: Have you been able to find out anything about the large bulk of these watches? Of course, we are only on the fringe of this inquiry.

The Chief Constable said the police had recovered fifty altogether from different people in the town to whom they had been sold. The police had traced the watches as far as they could,, but they had passed through so many hands that it had been very difficult indeed. None of the jewellers in the case had sent to the police.

The Recorder called Messrs. Price, Worrald and Jones forward, and said to them that he was extremely sorry to think that they did not take the course that Mr. Baker took – to his mind the only redeeming feature of the case – in declining to have anything to do with the watches. He was bound to say that their action did not commend itself to the Court – on the contrary, it was deeply to be deplored that gentlemen in their position should engage in such transactions without further inquiry. It was a blot on the fair name of Folkestone. He marked his sense of it by disallowing every penny of their expenses as witnesses.

Mr. Pitman, speaking on behalf of Barker, said he had been convicted of receiving watches from Bridges, who himself had been acquitted. It was an isolated act on Barker`s part. The police could not show that he was a man of bad character. He had been instructed to defend Barker by Bridges, because the latter felt very strongly that he had been guilty of a foolish act, and that to a certain extent it had been through his indiscretion that Barker had got into trouble. It was perfectly clear, as the jury had found, that a man in Barker`s position must have known the value of watches, and he presumed that it was upon that that the jury had found him guilty. He asked the Recorder to deal with Barker leniently. It was not suggested that Barker was a habitual receiver of stolen goods; a “fence”. It was an isolated instance of a man who was presented with goods by an innocent party. The jury no doubt felt that he should have advised Mr. Bridges and gone to the police, and in that isolated instance he had failed in his duty. He asked the Recorder to deal with Barker leniently as a first offender.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said the jury had in the case of Spicer and Page taken the more lenient view and had only convicted them of receiving. He believed they actually stole the watches, and each of them, if he felt disposed, might disclose a story which would have enabled the Court to deal with them in a different manner. But they decided to keep their lips sealed. It was a very serious robbery. Spicer and Page were in positions of trust – they were servants – and they had betrayed their trust. He had no doubt there were others that the Court did not know of who were implicated with the prisoners. Spicer would be imprisoned with hard labour for twelve months. It was also impossible to treat Page`s offence as other than a very serious one, and he would be imprisoned with hard labour for nine months. As for Barker, he (Mr. Coward) could have wished indeed that he could have acceded to the appeal which had been made on his behalf, but it was not supported by any evidence of good character which certainly would have affected the mind of the Court. That receiving of stolen goods had been going on all too long in the borough. It had become a scandal and reproach upon the fair name of Folkestone. He was amazed to think hat jeweller after jeweller could come into the Court and admit that he had taken those watches in such circumstances, and not think in the first instance to communicate with the police. There was only one redeeming feature in the case; that was the attitude of Mr. Baker and his assistant, Mr. Cloke. Barker must have known perfectly well the value of the watches, which made his crime the more serious. He would be imprisoned with hard labour for twelve months.

Folkestone Herald 24-4-1915

Local News

Appeals have been entered by Arthur Sidney Barker and William Henry Page, who were convicted at the recent Folkestone Quarter Sessions of receiving a number of watches well-knowing them to have been stolen, and were sentenced respectively to twelve and nine months` hard labour. A subscription list has been opened to provide funds to defray the legal expenses of Barker.

Folkestone Express 15-5-1915

Appeal

On Tuesday, at the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Avery and Mr. Justice Low heard the appeals of William Henry Page and Arthur Sidney Barker, who were convicted at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions on April 13^th for receiving a number of watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. The former was sentenced to nine months` hard labour, and Barker was sentenced to twelve months` hard labour.

Mr. Dickens, on behalf of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, appeared in support of the convictions, while Mr. C.M. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) appeared on behalf of the appellants.

It will be remembered that 514 watches were missing from the steamship Sussex after its arrival at Folkestone on February 17^th, and the Police Court proceedings and the trials of the various prisoners at the Quarter Sessions were of a lengthy nature.

Mr. C.M. Pitman, in the case of the appeal made by Page, stated that the chief grounds of the appeal were that there was no evidence against the prisoner that he had stolen the watches, or that they had ever been in his possession. There was a second ground, and that was that Page was not charged before the Petty Jury with receiving stolen goods, but only with stealing them, and that the jury found he was not guilty of larceny, but guilty of an offence with which he was not charged. He did not desire to rely upon the technical objection to the conviction standing. He argued that there was not the slightest evidence against Page, other than that he was working with other men on the ship on the night in question, and that when the police arrested him and told him that Bridges had made a statement that he, Page, had sold to him some watches which had been stolen, the appellant`s answer was “All right”.

The Lord Chief Justice, in giving the finding of the Court, said that was an appeal against a conviction of nine months` hard labour for receiving goods well-knowing them to have been stolen. The only evidence, if evidence it might be called, against the prisoner, was that he was working on the ship with some forty or fifty other men on the night on which it was alleged the watches were stolen. That was really no evidence. Another point put forward by the prosecution was that when Bridges` statement was made to Page by the police, he replied “All right”, and it was contended that that was an admission of guilt on his part. However, reading the statement which was made by the police officer to Page it could be divided into two portions – one being the statement of Bridges, and the other that he would have to go to the police station for an explanation. His answer of “All right” was consistent with both innocence and guilt, and in any case where a statement could be so construed it certainly should be construed in favour of the prisoner as evidence of his innocence. In their opinion there was no evidence whatever against Page. Another point had been suggested that he was indicted for stealing, and by another Court of receiving, and that he was given in charge to the petty jury for stealing only, and that jury brought in a verdict that he was not guilty of stealing, but found him guilty of another offence, namely, receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen – an offence with which he was not charged, and for which he was not tried. That objection would be fatal, and under the circumstances the Court was of opinion there was no evidence against Page, and the conviction must be quashed.

In the case of Arthur Sidney Barker, Mr. Pitman said the ground of appeal was that the goods had not been proved to have been stolen. The evidence of the prosecution was that certain cases of watches had been put on board the steamship Sussex at Dieppe, but that at Folkestone case No. 575 containing watches was not proved to have been received. On behalf of the appellant the admissibility of evidence of the watches having been consigned in that particular case, 575, was raised, and it was urged that the person who made out the invoice should have been called, otherwise the invoice was hearsay evidence, and that the witness Schottlander and others based their evidence purely on the invoice.

The Lord Chief Justice questioned whether it was necessary to prove that those goods were actually despatched from Switzerland or that they even arrived in Folkestone, if there was evidence to go to the jury that the goods were stolen.

Mr. Dickens submitted that Mr. Schottlander`s evidence was that certain watches were the first of a special pattern manufactured for his firm, and which had never been brought into that country before. Barker was wearing a watch of that identical pattern at the time of his arrest, and the watch was identified by Mr. Schottlander as one of the particular pattern in question.

Mr. Pitman argued that the identity could not be established without bringing in the invoice, which had been put in simply to show that the watches in question had been sent from Switzerland. The proper course for the prosecution to have pursued was to have called witnesses who could speak as to the goods being despatched. It was contrary to the law of evidence that a written document such as the invoice in question should be put in without being properly proved by the writer, especially in a criminal charge.

The Court deferred their decision in order that they could give the matter further consideration.

Folkestone Herald 15-5-1915

Appeal

In the Court of Criminal Appeal, on Monday, before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Avory and Low, the appeals of Arthur Sidney Barker and William Henry Page against convictions at the Folkestone Borough Quarter Sessions, for, it was alleged, receiving a number of watches stolen on Folkestone Pier, well-knowing them to have been stolen, came on for hearing.

Barker was sentenced to twelve months` imprisonment with hard labour, while Page`s sentence was nine months` imprisonment with hard labour. Both men now appealed against their convictions on points of law.

The case of Page was dealt with first, and Mr. C.M. Pitman, who appeared on his behalf, said he had two points, viz., that there was no evidence that Page had anything to do with the theft or receiving stolen goods, and that he could not be found guilty of receiving seeing that he was never charged with that offence. It appeared, said counsel, that cases containing 500 wristlet watches consigned from Switzerland were landed at Folkestone Pier. They then disappeared, and five men were connected with the occurrence. There was, however, no evidence that Page had anything to do with the theft, the only evidence being that he sold 30 of the watches to a Mr. Bridges, an hotel proprietor in the town. The fact that he sold the watches did not prove that he stole them, and, as he was not indicted for receiving, there really was no case for him to answer.

Mr. Justice Low: What did he say “All right” for, when he was charged?

Mr. Pitman: I don`t know. That, at any rate, is not sufficient to prove that he admitted the theft. (Laughter)

Mr. Justice Avory: If he had said “All wrong”, you might have made a point of it. (Laughter)

Mr. Justice Low: There was no evidence that Page handled any of the particular cases which were unloaded?

Mr. H.E. Dickens (for the Crown): No, but there was evidence that he was there with other men unloading the ship.

Mr. Justice Avory: There was no evidence that he hadled this particular case?

Mr. Pitman: No.

The appeal of Arthur Sidney Barker was then proceeded with. Mr. Pitman said the evidence against the appellant was that he received stolen watches from Mr. Bridges of the Martello Hotel, who in turn had bought them from the appellant Page. Mr. Bridges was charged with receiving the watches, but he had such an excellent character that the jury believed him when he said he was innocent of any offence, and found him not guilty. In spite of the fact that Barker bought the watches from Mr. Bridges he was convicted, the suggestion being that as he was a working jeweller, and in the trade, he should have become suspicious when he purchased, for 2s. 6d. each, watches which should have been sold at 15s. each. In addition it was said against him that he told a lie when asked where he got the watches from.

Mr. Justice Avory: The jury discharged Bridges, who bought the watches from Page, a railway porter, but convicted Barker, who bought them from Bridges, a licensed victualler with a good character?

Mr. Pitman: Yes, that is the curious position. A point should be made of the fact that the watches were not by any means in good repair.

The Lord Chief Justice said the thing which might have weighed with the jury was the fact that Barker was dealing with other watches from those he received from Mr. Bridges. There seemed quite a lot of watches about just at this time.

Mr. Pitman: Yes, there are a lot of people in Folkestone now, including soldiers and Belgian refugees. (Laughter)

The hearing was then adjourned until Tuesday.

When the hearing was resumed on Tuesday, Mr. Dickens continued his arguments on behalf of the Crown.

The Lord Chief Justice said it would be a great pity if the Court expressed any rule which would relax any law of evidence. In this case there was no evidence that any particular person stole the case: how could a man be convicted of receiving goods the theft of which had not been proved, but only assumed?

Mr. Dickens submitted that the rules of evidence had been carried out. He thought he had a very strong case for the theft, for he could prove that the goods were stolen and where they were stolen from.

The Lord Chief Justice said the whole difficulty arose from the extraordinary confusion brought into the case, which was not by any means a complicated one.

Delivering the judgement of the Court, the Lord Chief Justice dealt with the case of Page first. The only evidence against the man, he said, was that of answers he gave to a police officer when questioned about the theft. There was no doubt that Page was, with other men, engaged in unloading the vessel at Folkestone Pier, but beyond that fact there was nothing to connect him with the theft. Therefore, they were thrown back on the answers the man made to the policeman who told him that he would be charged with other men with the theft. Page said “All right”. Such an answer, taken by itself, was equally as consistent with innocence as with guilt. The Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence against the man. There might have been other evidence which could have been offered, but the Court could not consider that. On the evidence which had been heard the conviction could not stand and would be quashed, and Page would be released. With reference to the appeal of Barker, the Court would reserve its decision for a short time.

Mr. G.W. Haines, of Folkestone, instructed Mr. Pitman on behalf of the appellants.

Folkestone Express 22-5-1915

Appeal

It will be remembered that last week the Court of Criminal Appeal heard an appeal by Arthur Sidney Barker, a Folkestone watch repairer, against his sentence at the Quarter Sessions of twelve months` hard labour for receiving a number of watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Judgement was then deferred. On Monday, at a sitting of the Court, the Lord Chief Justice announced that the conviction must stand.

Folkestone Herald 22-5-1915

Local News

The appeal of Arthur Sidney Barker, a working jeweller, of Folkestone, against his conviction and sentence at the Folkestone Borough Sessions, for receiving twenty two stolen watches, was dismissed by the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Avory and Low in the Court of Criminal Appeal on Monday. Barker received a sentence of twelve months` hard labour, and after hearing the arguments in support of the appeal on the 10^th instant the Court reserved judgement.

Delivering the considered judgement of the Court, the Lord Chief Justice said the appellant was convicted of receiving twenty two stolen watches, and the ground of appeal mainly was that two invoices were wrongly admitted, that the contents might show that the goods were stolen, it being a mystery how the case containing the goods was “spirited away”. The other point was that there was no evidence to prove that the watches were stolen. It appeared that the watches formed part of a caseful sent from Switzerland to a firm in London. It was, with two others, sent from Dieppe to Folkestone, and landed on Folkestone Pier. Two cases reached their destination, while the third disappeared. There was no doubt that the invoices showing the contents of the case were clearly not admissible as evidence, but there was other evidence that was admissible, for the watches produced in Court, and which had been found on the prisoner, were sworn as to being watches made by the Swiss firm. They were identified by their particular design. No objection was made at the trial to the admission of that evidence, and a careful examination showed the Court that the case was fought on the issue of the appellant`s guilty knowledge. The Court thought there was ample evidence that the goods were stolen, and that the appellant must have known of that fact. He was a working jeweller who knew the price of such watches, and, in addition, he told falsehoods as to his possession of the articles. There seemed plenty of material on which the jury were justified in coming to the verdict they gave, and therefore, notwithstanding the wrongful admission of the invoices, there was no miscarriage of justice, and the appeal would be dismissed.

Mr. Pitman, appearing for the appellant, urged that the sentence should be reduced. There was no evidence, he said, that the appellant had been in trouble before, and therefore the sentence seemed heavy.

The Lord Chief Justice said, in the circumstances, acting on the principles which guided that Court, they saw no material on which they could interfere with the sentence. The term of imprisonment could commence from the date of conviction.

Folkestone Express 31-3-1917

Friday, March 23th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor C.E. Mumford, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Albert William Bridges was summoned for making an alteration at the licensed premises of the Martello Hotel without having obtained permission from the authorities.

Mr. Arrowsmith, of Canterbury, appeared for the defendant and the owners of the house (Messrs. Ash and Co.) and forthwith admitted that a technical offence had been committed. It appeared that, at the request of the Military Authorities, a door was made from one of the departments to the public bar so as to establish a separate bar for women, the owners being given to understand that unless this were done the house might be put out of bounds to the military. Messrs. Ash and Co. placed the matter in the hands of their builder who, they assumed, would make the necessary application for permission to carry out the alteration, while, on the other hand, the builder assumed that Messrs. Ash had obtained assent. So far as the alteration itself was concerned, it was undoubtedly an improvement, and as plans were now before the Bench, he (Mr. Arrowsmith) would suggest that the question of approval be adjourned till the next licensing sessions.

The Bench acceded to the request on condition that the door was fastened up and not used until authority was obtained from the Licensing Justices. The brewers ought to have known they should not have done this.

Undertakings were given on behalf of the owners and the licensee.

Folkestone Express 14-4-1917

Local News

The Magistrates on Wednesday dismissed the adjourned summons against Albert William Bridges, the landlord of the Martello Hotel, for making alterations to his premises without the sanction of the Justices. The plans of the alterations were submitted to the Bench, and they were approved.