Updates

1st February, 2014: Hythe Reporter 1906, Southeastern Gazette 1906 - 1912, and Kentish Gazette 1768 - 1770 Reports Added.

Rendezvous 1910s

Folkestone Herald 17-12-1910

Saturday, December 10^th: Before Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Mr. G. Ensink, of the Rendezvous Hotel, applied for an occasional licence to sell at the Leas Pavilion on the occasion of the annual ball of the Geneva Association, from ten o`clock in the morning till three o`clock the following morning. Granted.

Folkestone Express 8-7-1911

Wednesday, July 5^th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Aldermen Vaughan and Penfold, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, R.G. Wood, G. Boyd, and W.C. Young Esqs.

Plans were submitted for alterations to the Rendezvous Hotel, and they were passed, subject to being approved by the Buildings Committee.

Folkestone Daily News 19-9-1911

Tuesday, September 19^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Vaughan and Fynmore.

Elizabeth Ann Rogers was charged with being drunk and incapable in High Street.

Inspector Lawrence deposed to seeing prisoner in High Street at 5.30 on Monday afternoon being ejected from the Rendezvous Hotel. He found she was drunk and incapable, so he took her into custody.

Prisoner, a very respectably dressed woman, said she was not feeling very well and took a drop of brandy which overcame her.

The landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel said prisoner came into the house, and seeing she was the worse for drink he had her ejected.

Prisoner was fined 2s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 7 days`.

Folkestone Express 23-9-1911

Tuesday, September 19^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Elizabeth Agnes Rogers, an elderly woman, was charged with being drunk and incapable in High Street the previous evening. She pleaded Guilty.

Inspt. Lawrence said at 5.20 the previous evening he was in Rendezvous Street, when he saw Rogers being ejected from the Rendezvous Hotel by the landlord. As soon as she got out of the door she fell helplessly on the pavement. She was drunk and incapable of taking care of herself, so he brought her to the police station.

Prisoner said she was unwell and took a little brandy.

The Chief Constable said the woman was not served in the Rendezvous Hotel.

Mr. Ensink, the landlord, said his wife called him down to the bar when she noticed the woman there. He observed the prisoner`s condition, and being quite satisfied she was drunk he ejected her. She was not served in the house.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there was nothing against the woman.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days` hard labour in default.

Folkestone Herald 23-9-1911

Tuesday, September 19^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Alderman T.J. Vaughan.

Eliza Agnes Rogers was charged with being drunk and incapable.

P.S. Lawrence deposed that at 5.30 the previous evening he was in Rendezvous Street, where he saw the accused being ejected from the Rendezvous Hotel by the landlord. When witness got up to her he found that she was helplessly drunk. With assistance he brought accused to the police station.

Defendant said that, not having been well, she took a little brandy.

Mr. Gerard Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, stated that he was called to the bar by his wife at 5 p.m. He ejected the accused, who was not served at the hotel.

The Chief Constable said he thought it was only fair that it should be stated that accused was not served at the hotel.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 7 days`.

Folkestone Daily News 18-11-1911

Saturday, November 18^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Vaughan, Jenner, Fynmore, Wood and Boyd.

George Edward Trice was charged with stealing some hundreds of pounds worth of jewellery, the property of Lady D`Oyly, of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens. Mr. De Wet defended.

Detective Leonard Johnson deposed to hearing of the robbery on the 12^th. He arrested the prisoner at Salford on the 16^th. He cautioned him and charged him with stealing the articles specified between September and October. The articles consisted of 1 diamond bracelet, 1 diamond ring, 1 gold bracelet, 2 gold tie brooches, 1 gold Albert, 1 gent`s gold ring, and 1 lady`s ring, the property of Lady D`Oyly, valued at £700. Prisoner replied that he knew nothing about it. On the following morning witness was told that prisoner wished to see him in his cell. On going there he said he wanted to make a statement. Witness cautioned him that whatever he said would be used before the Justices. He replied “Sure”, and made the statement produced as follows: “I stole the diamond ring and bracelet, and got a man to pawn the ring for £35 in London. I showed the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, the bracelet. He asked where I got it from. I said “I never bought it”, and he said he was going to Holland and would dispose of it. I gave the bracelet to him and said I wanted £100 for it. A few days afterwards he sent me £90. I gave £11 to Cottrell, £6 to Gussie, and £6 to Taylor”. He was brought to Folkestone station and formally charged. He made no reply.

He was remanded for one week.

Gerard Ensink, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, was charged with receiving a diamond bracelet, value of £200, stolen by the previous prisoner, well-knowing it to have been stolen.

George Edward Trice, the previous prisoner, sworn, deposed that he was acquainted with a woman named Dalton, who was in charge of Lady D`Oyly`s house in Westbourne Gardens. He also knew a girl named Laws who was employed there. During Lady D`Oyly`s absence he occasionally stayed at the house with the knowledge of Mrs. Dalton. During his visit he became acquainted with the fact that there were two large cupboards in one of the rooms which contained valuable jewellery. They were both locked. He opened them with a key that he found upstairs. This happened about five or six weeks ago; at that time Mrs. Dalton was away from the house on her holidays. She had given permission for him to stay at the house with Laws. During her holidays he found certain articles of jewellery, amongst them being a diamond bracelet, which he took with a diamond ring. He took them away from the house. He had been in the habit of visiting the Rendezvous Hotel, where he had been formerly employed as potman. He had been on friendly terms with Ensink. He showed him the bracelet two weeks previously. He had taken the jewellery to London with the girl Laws, but at her instigation took them back and replaced them in the cupboard. He afterwards took the bracelet, and it was then that he went to the Rendezvous Hotel and showed it to the prisoner. He asked him where he got it from. He thought he said he never bought it. Prisoner replied that it was worth a lot of money. He then took the bracelet away. Three or four days later he saw the prisoner again, who asked him where the bracelet was. He said he was going to Holland and would dispose of it for him if he liked. He bracelet was at Greenbank. He took it from the cupboard. It was in a case. He took it to the prisoner at the Rendezvous and gave it to him. He asked him how much he wanted for it, and he replied £100. It was about a month since, either a Saturday or Monday evening, in the saloon bar. There was no-one in the bar at the time. On the Thursday evening following, at 11,30, the prisoner`s wife handed him a registered letter from Amsterdam. Albert Cottrell was with him. He opened it in his presence. It contained £90 in £5 Bank of England notes, and a letter, which he read and handed to Cottrell, who also read it and threw it on the fire. He himself burnt the envelope. The letter was addressed from some hotel in Amsterdam. It said that £90 was all that he could get for the bracelet, and that he had not deducted his expenses. The prisoner had been away from the hotel for four or five days to his knowledge. He saw him a day or two after at his hotel. He said he supposed he wanted some “ready”, and he said “No, that is all right”. He had said at one time that he had relatives in Holland who were diamond polishers. Witness continued to frequent his house. Prisoner made no reference to the bracelet until he was going away to Manchester. He had got rid of the £90. He had made up his mind to leave the country, and went to Manchester on the 4^th November. He had about £30 with him. On the night before he went away he told the prisoner where he was going.

Asked where the two diamond rings are, he said he had pawned one in London; the other was put back in the cupboard.

He took the pawn ticket to Manchester, and wrote to prisoner on Tuesday last asking him to lend him five pounds on the ticket. He addressed the letter to the prisoner from the Swan Hotel, Manchester, signed Ted Davis. He received a telegram remitting £2.

In reply to Mr. De Wet, he said the only articles he stole and disposed of were the ring and bracelet; everything else he put back.

Thomas J. Golder, billiard marker at the Rendezvous Hotel, deposed that he remembered prisoner going for a holiday about two months since. During his absence two registered letters arrived. One was addressed to Mr. Trice and one to Mrs. Ensink. He put them on the till in the bar.

Albert Edward Cottrell, of 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton, tobacconist and confectioner, a friend of Trice and a customer of the Rendezvous, deposed to seeing a letter handed to Trice. He saw him take a bunch of notes and put them in his pocket. He read the letter and handed it to witness to read; its contents were “Find £90”. He did not notice any address or signature, and could not recognise the handwriting. He did not burn it, but he never saw it again. Trice owed him £5 or £6 for money lent. About an hour afterwards Trice paid him £2 10s. out of a note, the witness giving him the change. That took place at the Rendezvous Hotel. Prisoner was away at the time.

Chief Constable Reeve deposed that at 10.20 prisoner came to the Town Hall. He told prisoner he was trying to trace some jewellery that had been stolen from a house in Sandgate Road. He cautioned prisoner and told him Trice had made a statement, and asked him if he had a pawn ticket of a ring pledged in London for £35, and whether he knew anything about other jewellery that had been stolen, and prisoner replied “No”. The Chief Constable then arrested him and charged him. Prisoner denied the charge.

He was remanded for a week without bail.

Mr. De Wet made an application for Trice, which was refused. The Chairman, in refusing, said it was in the interest of the boy himself.

Folkestone Express 25-11-1911

Local News

There was a large and excited crowd at the Folkestone Police Court on Saturday, the news having got abroad that a case of serious jewellery robbery was to be investigated. The excitement was even more intense when the evidence, which was of an extraordinary nature, was given. The Magistrates on the Bench were The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, Lieut Col. Fynmore, and R.G. Wood and G. Boyd Esqs., when Edwin George Trice, a rather good-looking young fellow of about 23 years of age, was placed in the dock, and charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery valued at £700.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was charged with stealing, some time in October, a quantity of jewellery, of the value of some hundreds of pounds, from a dwelling house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, and the property of Lady Hastings D`Oyley. He was not in a position that day to complete the case, which was a very complicated one. Her ladyship was in London, and it would be necessary to apply for a remand. He proposed only to call the evidence of the officer who arrested the prisoner, and then ask the Magistrates to grant a remand.

Mr. De Wet appeared on behalf of Mr. J.H. Myers to represent the prisoner.

Detective Officer Johnson said in consequence of receiving information of the loss of jewellery from Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, on the 15^th inst., he made certain inquiries and on the 16^th he proceeded to Salford, Manchester. He saw the prisoner at Salford police station in custody about eight o`clock in the evening He said to him “I am a police officer from Folkestone” and then cautioned him. He then said to prisoner “You will be charged with stealing, between September and October, from a house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Folkestone, one crescent diamond bracelet, one gent`s single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, two gold and diamond tie brooches, one gent`s 18ct. gold Albert, one gent`s gold ring set with three diamonds, one lady`s gold twisted ring set with diamond and pearl, the property of Lady Hastings D`Oyley, together of the value of £700”. He replied “I don`t know anything about it”. On the following morning about nine o`clock he was at the Salford police station, when he was informed the prisoner wished to see him in his cell. He went to him and prisoner said “I want to make a statement”. Witness said “Before you make any statement to me I must caution you that whatever you say I shall take down in writing and use when before the Magistrates”. He replied “Sure”. He then took down the statement in his pocket book produced. The statement was as follows: “I stole the diamond ring and diamond bracelet. I got another man to pawn the ring for £35 in London. The man I know only by sight. I showed Ensink, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, the bracelet, and he asked me where I got it from. I said “I never bought it”. Two days after, he said to me “I am going to Holland, and will dispose of it for you, if you like”. He said “How much do you want for it?” I said “One hundred pounds”. About three or four days after I gave the bracelet to him he sent me £90 from Holland. I gave Albert Cottrell about £11 of it, and Gussie about £6, and £6 to Taylor”. The prisoner signed the statement. The same day he brought the prisoner to the Folkestone police station, and there formally charged him, and he made no reply.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could take the case that morning, and asked for the prisoner to be remanded in custody.

The Magistrates granted a remand for a week.

Gerard Ensink, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, was then brought before the Magistrates on a charge of receiving the property, well knowing it to have been stolen.

The Chief Constable said Ensink was charged with receiving a crescent diamond bracelet, which he understood was stolen. In that case it would be impossible to complete the case, and after having heard two or three witnesses he must ask the Magistrates to grant a remand.

Edwin George Trice, a lift attendant,, and the prisoner in the last case, said he lived at 78, St. John`s Street, Folkestone. He knew a house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, occupied by Lady D`Oyley. He was acquainted with a woman named Dalton, who was in charge of the house during the absence of the family. He also knew a girl named Laws, who was formerly employed there. He had no idea when Lady D`Oyley went away. In September last he from time to time visited the house in company with the girl Laws, and in that month and the following month he occasionally stayed in the house with the girl, with the knowledge of Mrs. Dalton. During his visits to the house he became acquainted with the fact that there was a large wardrobe in one of the rooms, and it had two small centre cupboards, both of which contained valuable jewellery.

The Clerk, addressing the prisoner, said the questions he was about to put to him would probably incriminate him if he answered; so he asked him if he was prepared to speak the truth about the matter.

Mr. De Wet said he was there on behalf of the poor boy, and everything, whether it incriminated him or not, he intended to answer, to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Trice then, in reply to the Clerk`s questions, said the two centre cupboards were locked, and he unlocked them with a key which he found upstairs about five or six weeks ago. At that time Mrs. Dalton was not in the house, but was away on holiday. She had given permission to Laws that he should remain in the house during the time she was away. She wired to Laws to that effect. When he opened the cupboard he found certain articles of jewellery, and amongst them was a diamond crescent bracelet. He took the bracelet and other articles out of the cupboard, and amongst the other articles was a single stone diamond ring. He took them away from the house. He had been in the habit of visiting the Rendezvous Hotel, kept by the prisoner. He had been formerly employed there by the prisoner as barman and potman, and had remained on friendly terms with him and so was well acquainted with him. He took the bracelet to the Rendezvous Hotel and showed it to the prisoner. After having shown the bracelet to the prisoner he did not take it back to the house. He kept the bracelet in his possession a day or two. He took all the articles of jewellery back after a day or two, but during the first time he took all of them in a handkerchief to London, intending to dispose of them, but at the instigation of the girl Laws he brought them back to Folkestone and replaced them in the cupboard. She was in London with him and knew he had them. Having replaced them all, with the exception of two rings, which he wore, he did not go to the cupboard again in order to take some of the articles again until a fortnight or three weeks after. The crescent diamond bracelet was amongst them. It was then he took it to the Rendezvous Hotel and showed it to the prisoner. Ensink asked him where he got it from, and he thought he said “I never bought it”. Prisoner said “It is worth a lot of money”, and nothing else was said that day, when he went to London with the bracelet. Three or four days after, he went to the Rendezvous Hotel again.

The Clerk: Who introduced the subject of the bracelet on this occasion?

Prisoner, continuing, said Ensink asked him where the bracelet was. He said “I will get it”. Ensink then said “I am going to Holland and will dispose of it for you if you like”. There was no mistake about the prisoner saying that. The bracelet was then at Greenbank, and he went to the house again and took the bracelet, which was in the case (produced). He then brought the bracelet and the case to the Rendezvous Hotel, and handed the bracelet to the prisoner, who asked him how much he wanted for it, and he said “£100”. That was at the time he gave him the bracelet. It must be a month ago since he handed the bracelet to the prisoner, and it was on either a Saturday or a Monday in the evening when he did so in the saloon bar of the house. No-one saw him give it to the prisoner. On the Thursday morning following, so far as he remembered, he was in the Rendezvous Hotel about half past eleven in the morning, when the prisoner`s wife handed him a foreign registered letter, with the Amsterdam postmark, addressed to him at the Rendezvous. Albert Cottrell, a friend of his, was with him and he opened the envelope in his presence. It contained £90 in £5 Bank of England notes, and a letter, which he read and handed to Cottrell, who also read it, and he destroyed it by throwing it on the fire, where it was burnt. He (Trice) also threw the envelope on the fire and kept the notes. The envelope and the letter were in the prisoner`s handwriting. The letter was addressed from some hotel in Amsterdam, and it said that £90 was all he could get for the bracelet, and that he had not deducted his expenses. The prisoner had been away from the hotel four or five days. He next saw Ensink a day or two after, at his hotel, and he asked him if he had received his letter. He made no reference to the banknotes. He (witness) answered “Yes”. He said to the prisoner “I suppose you want some ready (meaning money)”. He said “No, that is all right”. He thought that was all that took place. Prisoner told witness either then or before he took the bracelet that he had relatives in Holland, who were diamond polishers. Ensink did not say where he took the bracelet, and made no actual reference as to where he sold it. He continued to frequent the prisoner`s house afterwards, and on one occasion Ensink told him he was making a fool of himself with the money, but made no reference to the bracelet.

The Clerk: What became of the £90?

Prisoner said he got rid of it, and he made up his mind to leave the country. He left Folkestone a fortnight ago that day, and went to Manchester, where he remained until his arrest. He had about £30 with him. Before leaving Folkestone, the night previous, he told the prisoner he was going to Manchester. No reference was then made to the bracelet.

The Clerk: You referred to the fact that you had two diamond rings, which you retained in the first instance and wore. I want to take you to them. What became of them?

Trice said he put one back and the other was pawned. They were both single diamond rings, and he kept the best one. He pawned it in London, previous to the bracelet affair, for £35. He took the pawn ticket with him to Manchester, and on Tuesday last he wrote to the prisoner to the effect, asking him if he would lend him £5 on the ticket, which he enclosed. He addressed the envelope to the prisoner at the Rendezvous Hotel.

The Clerk (to prisoner): Have you got that letter?

Prisoner: I never received it.

Continuing, Trice said he wrote the letter in the name of Ted Davis, from the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. He asked him to wire the money. On the following day he received a telegram from the prisoner remitting £2.

Mr. De Wet (to Trice): With the exception of the ring you sold for £35, or pawned, and this bracelet you sold for £90, was there any other jewellery you took away from Greenbank, after taking it back again?

Prisoner: None at all; all the rest of the jewellery I returned to Greenbank. Two of the rings I have never seen.

Albert Edward Cottrell, of 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton, said he was a tobacconist and confectioner. He was a customer at the Rendezvous Hotel, and a friend of Trice. He was in the saloon bar one morning with Trice, when the landlady handed Trice a letter between eleven and half past eleven. Trice opened it, and he saw him take out a bunch of something which looked like bank notes, and immediately put it in his pocket. At the same time he stood aside and read the letter, which he handed to him. He read the letter, and, as he remembered, the contents were “Enclosed find £90”. He saw no signature whatever. He could not swear as to the writing. He did not see any address on it. He would not say that there was no heading. Trice said “I want that letter back”, and he gave it back to him. He (witness) did not burn it. He never saw it anymore. At that time Trice owed him between £5 and £6 for an old-standing debt for money lent. Trice, about an hour afterwards, took a £5 Bank of England note from his pocket and gave him the note, and he (witness) took out £2 10s. from his pocket, and gave it to Trice, who said he wished to pay £2 10s. on account. Ensink was away on a holiday at that time. Prisoner had said in his presence before leaving that he was going to the Continent.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, said about 10.20 that morning the prisoner came to the Town Hall in consequence of a message he (witness) sent over. He said to him “I am making inquiries and trying to trace a quantity of jewellery stolen from a house in Sandgate Road during the last month. A man named Trice is in custody charged with stealing it, and in consequence of a statement he has made I must caution you that anything you say I shall use in evidence if a criminal charge is preferred against you respecting it”. He then said “Have you in your possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or do you know anything about any other jewellery Trice has disposed of?” He said “No, sir”. He (witness) said “I shall arrest you and you shall be charged with receiving on or about the 20^th October from Edward Trice, the diamond bracelet, well knowing the same to have been stolen”. He replied “I do not know anything about it”. He was then searched and locked up.

The Chief Constable said that was as far as he could take the case that morning. There would be other witnesses to be called, and further inquiries to be made. He would like a week`s remand in that case.

The Chairman then informed the prisoner that he would be remanded to that day week at eleven o`clock.

Prisoner asked for bail.

The Chief Constable said he felt, owing to the complications in the case, and the fact that none of the property had been recovered, he must object to bail being granted, particularly as to Ensink.

The Chairman said bail would be refused.

Mr De Wet said in the other case he had an application to make for bail for Trice, although he admitted it was on somewhat slight grounds. They had seen the young man in the box, and he had given every possible information, and he thought it would be admitted by the police to assist them in the recovery of the property. Up to the time of that sudden temptation he had enjoyed appointments and always acquitted himself creditably. He had two sureties there who would stand bail for him. One was his stepfather, who was employed as a postman in Folkestone, and was highly respectable. He would be able, if allowed out on bail, to take the police to the place where the ring was pawned, and would give them every possible information. The lad wanted to make a clean breast of it, and whatever the consequences might be he was prepared to stand by them. He asked the Bench for the sake of his mother and stepfather to grant the application.

The Chief Constable said he agreed with Mr. De Wet to a certain extent, and also to the effect that the prisoner had expressed his willingness to assist them to recover all the property he had stolen. He was sorry for the prisoner`s stepfather and the mother, but that was a serious charge. Lady D`Oyley only came down there on Wednesday, and they had a tremendous lot of work to do in getting up the case up to now. A great deal remained to be done. He did not think, having regard to all the circumstances, and the fact that he believed there were others implicated in that matter, that it was in the interests of Trice himself that he should be liberated at the present time.

The Chairman said bail would be refused.

Mr. De Wet said that decision, he took it, would not affect a similar application at the next hearing.

The Chief Constable: Circumstances would alter cases.

Mr. De Wet said he did not quite think bail would be granted on that application. He quite appreciated that other witnesses might be able to get at Trice if he was allowed out.

The Chief Constable: That is just what I feel.

The Chairman said it was in the interests of the boy himself that they refused bail.

At the request of the Chief Constable the witnesses Cottrell and Golder were bound over in the sum of £10 to attend the Court at the remand hearing.

Folkestone Herald 25-11-1911

Local News

A case of great interest concerning the disappearance of jewellery to the value of £700, the property of Lady Hastings D`Oyly, of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, was opened at the Folkestone Borough Police Court on Saturday. Edward George Trice, formerly a lift attendant, of 78, St. John`s Street, was charged with stealing the jewels, and Gerard Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, was charged with receiving a diamond bracelet, valued at £200, well-knowing it to have been stolen.

The Magistrates present were The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Vaughan, Alderman Jenner, Mr. E.T. Ward, and Mr. G. Boyd. Mr. De Wet appeared on behalf of the prisoner Trice.

The opening stages of the case against Trice were taken first.

The Chief Constable stated that the prisoner was charged with stealing, some time during the month of October, a quantity of jewellery, to the value of some hundreds of pounds, from the dwelling house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Sandgate Road, Folkestone, the property of Lady Hastings D`Oyly. He was not in a position to complete the case, which was a very complicated one, that morning, and her ladyship was also in London. Therefore it would be necessary for him to ask for a remand. He proposed simply to take the evidence of the police officer who arrested the prisoner at Salford, and he would then ask for a remand in custody. Meanwhile he would prosecute enquiries. Trice was charged with stealing one diamond crescent bracelet, one gentleman`s single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, two gold diamond tie brooches, one gentleman`s 18ct. gold Albert, one gentleman`s gold ring set with three diamonds, and one lady`s gold twisted ring, set with diamonds and pearls, the property of Lady Hastings D`Oyly, together of the value of £700.

P.C. Leonard Johnson stated that he received information and a report of a loss from Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens. He made certain inquiries on the 15^th November, and on the 16^th he proceeded to Salford, Manchester, and received the prisoner in custody. He saw the prisoner at the Salford police station at about eight in the evening. He said to him “I am a police officer from Folkestone”, and cautioned him. Witness then said to him “You will be charged with stealing, in September or October, from a house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Folkestone, one crescent diamond bracelet, one gentleman`s single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, two gold diamond tie brooches, one gentleman`s 18ct. gold Albert, one gentleman`s gold ring set with three diamonds, and one lady`s gold twisted ring, set with diamonds and pearls, the property of Lady Hastings D`Oyly, together of the value of £700”. He replied “I do not know anything about them”. At about 9 o`clock on Friday, the 17^th inst., he was at the police station at Salford, when he was informed that the prisoner wished to see him in his cell. Witness went to the accused in his cell, and he said “I want to make a statement”. Witness remarked “Before you make any statement to me I must caution you that whatever you say I shall take down in writing, and use when before the Magistrates”. He said “Sure”. Accused then proceeded to make a statement, and witness took it down in his presence in his pocket book, now produced. The statement was as follows:- “I stole the diamond ring and diamond bracelet. I got another man to pawn a ring for £35 in London. The man I know only by sight. I showed the bracelet to Ensink, the landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone. He asked me where I got it from. I said “I never bought it”. Two days after, he said to me “I am going to Holland, and will dispose of it for you if you like”. I gave it to him. He said “How much do you want for it?” I said “£100”. About three or four days after I gave the bracelet to him, he sent me £90 from Holland. I gave Albert Cottrell about £11 of it, and Gussy about £6, and £6 to Taylor”. Witness produced the pocket book containing the signed statement. The same day he brought the prisoner to Folkestone police station and formally charged him.

The Chief Constable said he would like as long a remand in custody as possible.

Mr. De Wet said he had an application to make, but he would reserve it until the hearing of the other case. He did not resist the application for a remand, but he had an application, which he reserved.

The Mayor said the accused would be remanded until eleven o`clock the following Saturday morning.

The charge against Gerard Ensink was then proceeded with.

The Chief Constable said that this prisoner was charged with receiving from Trice a diamond bracelet, which he (Mr. Reeve) understood from Lady D`Oyly was worth about £200, well-knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen. In this case, also, he could not complete the evidence. He would ask for three or four witnesses to be called, and he would then ask for the prisoner to be remanded.

Edward George Trice was the first witness. He stated that he was a lift attendant by trade, and he formerly lived at 78, St. John`s Street, Folkestone. He knew the house, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, occupied by Lady D`Oyly. He was acquainted with a woman named Mrs. Dalton, who was in charge of the house during the absence of the family. He also knew a girl named Laws, who was formerly employed there with Lady D`Oyly. In the month of September last he visited the house from time to time in company with the girl Laws, and in that month and the month following he occasionally stayed in the house with the girl, with the knowledge of Mrs. Dalton. During the period spoken of he occasionally slept in the house. He slept in the bedroom where there was a large wardrobe once. During his visits to the house he became acquainted with the fact that there was a large wardrobe in one of the bedrooms with two small central cupboards, and that both of these central cupboards contained valuable jewels.

The Magistrates Clerk drew the attention of the witness to the fact that the questions that would be put would tend to incriminate him if he answered them.

Mr. De Wet, interposing, said he was there on behalf of that poor boy, and everything, whether it incriminated him or not, he would answer, and he would speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Whether it incriminated him or not, he would do so.

Continuing. The witness Trice stated that the two central cupboards were locked, but he opened them with a key which he found upstairs. That would be about five or six weeks ago. At that time Mrs. Dalton was not in the house, but was away on a holiday. She gave him permission to stay in the house with the girl Laws. She wired to that effect. When he opened the cupboard with a key, he found certain articles of jewellery, and amongst them was a diamond crescent bracelet. He took this bracelet out of the cupboard with other articles; he also took a single stone diamond ring. He took them away from the house. He had been in the habit of visiting the Rendezvous Hotel, kept by the prisoner. He (Trice) was formerly employed there as barman and potman. He had remained on friendly terms with him, and was well acquainted with him. He took the bracelet to the Rendezvous Hotel, and showed it to the prisoner, and after having shown it to him he took it back again. He had it in his possession practically only a day at first. He replaced it. After that he took all the articles away to London.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Why did you take them?

Trice said he took them to London to frighten the girl more than anything else, but added that he took the whole of the articles in a handkerchief to London, where he intended to dispose of them. However, at the instigation of the girl Laws, he brought them back to Folkestone and replaced them in the cupboard. The girl Laws was in London with him, and knew he had them. Having replaced them, he retained two rings. He took the articles a second time about two or three weeks after. He did not take the whole of them. He was wearing two diamond rings, which he took from the cupboard, intending to put them back. A few days after he took the crescent diamond bracelet and the other diamond rings spoken of away from the cupboard. It was then that he took the bracelet to the Rendezvous Hotel, and showed it to the prisoner. When he showed it to the prisoner, he asked witness where he got it from. He (witness), as far as he could remember, said “I never bought it”. Prisoner said that was worth a lot of money. He did not think anything else was said then. He went to London that day withe the bracelet, but he did not intend to dispose of it. He saw the prisoner again three or four days after, when he again went to the Rendezvous Hotel. Prisoner on this occasion introduced the subject of the bracelet. Witness frequented the place at this time. Accused asked witness where the bracelet was. Witness said “I can get it”. He believed he (Trice) said “I will get it”. Prisoner then said he was going to Holland, and would dispose of it for him if he liked. There was no mistake about prisoner having said that. He had not got the bracelet with him then. It was at Greenbank, in the cupboard. He then went and took it from the cupboard. It was in the case now produced. He took the bracelet in the case to the Rendezvous Hotel, and gave the bracelet to the prisoner. He did not give it to him in the case. That took place, he believed, on the same day, but he could not quite remember; the matter was so complicated. He handed the bracelet to the prisoner, and the accused asked him how much he wanted for it. Witness said “£100”. He was quite clear he said that at the time he gave the bracelet to the accused. That must have been about a month ago. It was either on a Monday or a Saturday that he gave the bracelet to the accused, but he could not be quite sure. It was in the evening, and it was at a late hour, in the saloon bar of the hotel. No-one else saw him give the bracelet to the accused; he believed he was alone with the prisoner at the time. It was on the Thursday morning following, so far as he remembered, that he went to the Rendezvous Hotel at about 11.30 in the morning. Prisoner`s wife handed him something; it was a registered letter addressed to him at the Rendezvous Hotel; it had the Amsterdam postmark. Albert Cottrell, a friend of his, was with him at the time. He opened the letter in Cottrell`s presence. It contained £90 in £5 Bank of England notes, and a letter. He read the letter and handed it to Cottrell, and he also read it. Cottrell destroyed the letter by throwing it in the fire in the saloon bar. The envelope he (witness) destroyed. It was in the prisoner`s handwriting. The letter was addressed from some hotel in Amsterdam. Accused, in his letter, stated that £90 was all he could get for the bracelet, and that he had not deducted his expenses. The prisoner had been away for four or five days, to his knowledge. He did not see the prisoner off, and he did not think that Cottrell did. He next saw the prisoner a day or two later at the Rendezvous Hotel. Ensink asked him if he had received his letter. He made no reference then to the Bank of England notes. Witness answered “Yes”, and added “I suppose you want some ready for the costs?” By that he meant ready money. Accused said “No”, and added that it was all right. Witness believed that that was all that took place then. The accused never mentioned anyone`s name in connection with the matter, but before he went away to Holland he believed he said he had some relatives there who were diamond polishers; that was before he took the bracelet away. He did not say where his relatives were in Holland. He did not say where he took the bracelet to, and he (witness) made no further reference to the matter. Accused made no reference to whom he sold it, or to whom he disposed of it, that he could remember. Witness continued to frequent the house afterwards, and accused said once that he (witness) was making a fool of himself with the money. Witness did not refer to the matter when he was going away to Manchester. He gave some of the money to his friends; he got rid of it. He then made up his mind to leave the country, and he left Folkestone two weeks ago that day – the 4^th November – and went to Manchester. He remained there until he was arrested. He had about £30 with him then. Before leaving Folkestone he saw the prisoner and had some conversation with him the night previous. He told accused he was going to Manchester, but no reference was made to the bracelet as far as he could remember. With regard to the two diamond rings which he retained in the first instance, one he put back, and the other he pawned. They were both single stone rings. He kept the best one. He could not remember the name of the pawnbrokers in London. He retained the pawn ticket. He pawned it for £35. He took the ticket to Manchester with him, and on the previous Tuesday he wrote to the prisoner asking if he would lend him £5 on the ticket, which he enclosed. He addressed the letter to Ensink, at the Rendezvous Hotel. He did not write the letter in his own name, but in the name of Ted Davis, Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. He asked Ensink, in his letter, to wire the money. That was on Tuesday. Following that he received a telegram at the Swan Hotel the next day for £2.

Mr. De Wet (to witness): With regard to this ring which you pawned for £35, and the bracelet which was sold for £90, was there any other jewellery that you took away from Greenbank after putting it back?

Witness replied that they were the only two articles he disposed of. There was no other jewellery, and two of the articles mentioned on the list he had never seen. All the others were returned.

Thomas James Golder, billiard marker at the Rendezvous Hotel, stated that he had been employed there since January. He remembered Mr. Ensink going for a holiday. He did not know the exact time, but it must have been about two months ago. He was absent about a week. During his absence he remembered two registered letters arriving. He did not know if they were foreign or not. He signed for them. One was for Mr. G. Trice, and one was addressed to Mrs. Ensink. He left the letters on the table in the bar. That was all he knew about them.

Albert Edward Cottrell stated that he lived at 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton, and was a tobacconist and confectioner. He had been accustomed to visiting the Rendezvous Hotel. He was a friend of the witness Trice. He was in the saloon bar of the Rendezvous Hotel one morning when Trice was handed a letter. He did not know whether the letter was registered or not; this was between the hours of 11 and 11.30 a.m. Trice opened the letter in his presence, and he saw Trice take a bunch of something out; it looked like notes. At the time Trice had his letter handed to him, he (witness) was reading a letter himself. Trice stood aside and read his letter, and afterwards handed it to him to read. Witness read the letter; he remembered it said something about “enclosed find £90”. He did not remember any more of it. He saw no signature whatever. He could not swear to the writing. He did not see any address on the letter; he noticed no heading on the paper; he would not swear whether there was any name on the paper or not. When he had read the letter Trice said that he wanted it back, and witness gave it back to him. He did not know any more about the letter after he handed it back to him. He (witness) did not burn anything; he burnt nothing. Trice owed him some money for a debt which had run on for some two years. He owed him between £5 and £6 for some money he had lent him. It was an old-standing debt. When Trice received the letter he gave him nothing at the time; it might have been an hour afterwards that he did so. He might have gone down the High Street in the interval. About an hour afterwards Trice took a £5 banknote from his pocket; he thought it was one of the bunch he received. He did not pull it out of his pocket in witness`s presence. He brought witness the £5, and said “I am going to pay some money out”. Trice then gave him the £5 note, and witness gave him 50s. change. The 50s. was on account of the old debt. At the time he received the 50s. the prisoner was away on holiday. He went across to the continent somewhere. Accused had said in witness`s presence that he was going away to the continent.

The Chief Constable deposed that at about ten o`clock that morning the prisoner came to the Town Hall in consequence of a message he (Mr. Reeve) sent across. He said to him “I am making inquiries, and am trying to trace a quantity of jewellery stolen from a house in Sandgate Road during the last month. A man named Trice is in custody charged with stealing it, and in consequence of the statement he has made I must caution you that anything you say I shall use in evidence if a criminal charge is preferred against you respecting it. Have you in your possession, or recently had in your possession, a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or do you know anything about any other jewellery that Trice has disposed of?” He replied “No, sir”. Witness then said “I shall arrest you, and you will be charged with receiving, or or about the 20^th October, from Edward Trice, a diamond bracelet, well-knowing the same to have been stolen”. He replied “I know nothing about it”. He was then searched and locked up.

The Chairman (to prisoner): You will be remanded until this day week at 11 o`clock.

Prisoner asked for bail to be allowed.

The Chief Constable stated that he felt that, owing to the complications there were in this case, and the fact that none of the property had been recovered, he must object to bail being granted, particularly to this prisoner.

The Chairman: Bail is refused.

Mr. De Wet said he had an application to make on behalf of Trice for bail, although he based his application on somewhat slight grounds, he admitted. He asked the Bench to allow bail. They had seen the young man in the box, and he had given every information to the police to help them in the recovery of these things. Up to the time of this sudden temptation he had enjoyed appointments in Folkestone, and had always filled them creditably. He could call employers and people who would stand for him. One was his stepfather, a postman employed in Folkestone. He was a highly respectable young lad, but unfortunately he had erred, as some had erred in the past. He asked them to allow him out on bail. He would be able, if he was allowed to do so, to take them to the place where the ring was pawned, and that would be further information. He would give them every possible information he could, and make a clean breast of it. Whatever the consequences were he was prepared to stand by them. In granting bail they would not find this was a case when bail was granted and a man gone. For the sake of his mother and stepfather, he asked them to grant the application for bail.

The Chief Constable quite agreed that Trice had expressed his willingness to try and recover the property. He also admitted that the stepfather was a very respectable man, and he was sorry for him and the mother. But this was a very serious charge. Her ladyship only came down and reported this matter on Wednesday. They had had a tremendous amount of work in working the case up so far, and a great deal remained to be discovered. He did not think, having regard to all the circumstances of the case – because he believed there were others implicated in the matter – that it would be advisable, or in the interests of the boy himself, to liberate him at the present stage.

The Chairman: Bail is refused.

Mr. De Wet said he quite appreciated the position. He advised the stepfather not to ask for bail on that occasion, because he quite appreciated there were other witnesses, who, if he was out on bail, might get at him.

The Chief Constable: That is just what I feel. It is fairest to the boy himself that during this adjournment he should be remanded in custody.

The Chairman: It is in the interests of the boy himself.

Folkestone Daily News 25-11-1911

Saturday, November 25^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Jenner, Fynmore, Swoffer, Spurgen, Vaughan, Wood and Boyd.

George Edward Trice and Gerard Ensink were brought up on remand this morning. The Court was crowded to excess. Mr. Douglas De Wet defended Trice, and Mr. H. Myers defended Ensink. The prosecution was conducted by Chief Constable Reeve.

Both of the accused displayed an anxious attitude, and did not seem to have improved by their week`s incarceration at Canterbury.

Mr. F.G. Frayling, late of the Treasury, and director of Police Prosecutions Department, who this year retired from the Civil Service after a service of 45 years in the Criminal Courts, and who is now a resident in Folkestone, was present in Court as a spectator.

Mr. Myers asked that no sketching or snapshotting be allowed in Court. He understood a representative of the Daily Mirror was in Court, and he asked that he be restrained from taking any snapshots of his client, or anyone interested in the case.

The Chief Constable said he had an alteration to make in the charge against Trice. Since the charge was made against him Lady D`Oyly had found one article had not been taken, but he (the Chief Constable) had added another ring which had been overlooked in the first instance. He had since found that the articles stolen by Trice were valued at £650, and the bracelet at £350. The deposition of Johnson was read over, and Trice was re-called and his depositions read over.

Lady D`Oyly, the owner of the jewellery, was sworn, and deposed that she went away on the 18<sup>th</sup> Sept. for a fortnight`s change. She left the cook, Mrs. Dalton, in charge. She had been with her for eight months. She left no-one else on the premises. She had sole charge when she left. She had two cupboards, in which the property subject to the charge was deposited. She returned on the 15^th Nov., when she discovered some jewellery missing. Other jewellery was left in the cupboard. She found the bracelet case empty. The bracelet was of the market value of £250, and was missing, as were the other goods specified. She saw all the goods safe in the cupboard before leaving the house. She immediately gave notice to the police. On Monday last she went to Messrs. Hawes, pawnbrokers, of London, and identified the diamond ring (produced) as her property, and was one of the articles stolen.

Mr. Pearch, of the Folkestone Post Office, deposed that he had the receipts of the two registered letters from Amsterdam, which he produced, and also a telegraphic money order for £2, payable to Ted Davis, Swan Hotel, Manchester, on the 14^th Nov., sent by Louis Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone. It was duly sent to Manchester, and signed by Edward Davis, Swan Hotel, Manchester. He also produced a telegram sent from Colchester by J. Dalton, and having the official Colchester mark of the 2^nd October.

Arthur Woodthorpe, manager to Messrs. Hawes and Sons, Cranbourne Street, London, deposed to taking in pledge a diamond ring, produced, from Charles Hanson, on which they lent £35, on the 18^th Oct. He produced the ring. He knew the man, as a customer, who pledged it.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: The value of the ring was about £60. It was not worth £200. It was a flawed stone, and would not fetch more than £60 at a public auction. He lent the money at once, without asking any questions. He did not see the man in Court who pawned the ring. The man was a foreigner. The firm were in the habit of taking such property in daily.

Lady D`Oyly identified the ring.

Lady D`Oyly was cross-examined by Mr. De Wet, and said she left some jewellery in a box besides what was in the cupboard. Four bracelets were left in a box, but she did not know whether it was locked or not. She did not think a mohair bracelet was in that box. She found the rings which Trice had been charged with stealing in another box in the cupboard.

Agnes Dalton, wife of G.T. Dalton, gunner in the R.F.A. stationed at Colchester, deposed she entered the service of Lady D`Oyly on the 17<sup>th</sup> of December last. She remained in her service till the 24<sup>th</sup> Nov. Laws was parlourmaid for one month from July to August. Lady D`Oyly went away on the 3^rd Sept. with all other members of the family, leaving witness as sole charge. On the 2^nd Oct. she went for a holiday to Colchester, and returned on the 24^th. She became acquainted with Trice on the 20^th of Sept. through Laws, who came down from London. Trice had been in the habit of staying at the house with Laws, who returned to the house unbeknown to Lady D`Oyly, who had discharged her. She was an intimate friend with witness and stayed with her till the 2<sup>nd</sup> of Sept. Trice frequently slept at the house as an intimate friend of Minnie Laws; another man also slept there. She sent a telegraph money order to 5, Camden Terrace for 8s. to Trice, to which were the words “Get key of Greenbank. Be careful of lights”. Trice was looking after Cottrell`s shop. She returned on the 24^th Oct. Trice and Laws came to Greenbank House and slept that night. Laws slept there all the time, Trice on two or three occasions. She saw Trice off from Shorncliffe Station on the 4^th Nov. Laws was also there. He said he was going to Manchester, and afterwards to America. She never saw the jewellery till afterwards. She knew the Rendezvous Hotel and Ensink. She had been there with Laws on several occasions to see if Trice was there. Sometimes they met him there.

Examined by Mr. De Wet: Five other men besides Trice used to come to Greenbank. One night she asked Minnie Laws to pawn her ladyship`s bracelet. She afterwards went up into the dining room. She did not see that they had used the dining room for their meals. She could not remember whether she told them there were some £100s worth of jewels in the wardrobe. Trice and others were there. She knew there was jewellery in the bathroom in a tin box.

(At this juncture the witness became excited. She said she was worried, and rushed out of the box, but was brought back by the inspector.)

There was a gold coin bracelet in the tin box. Trice did not sleep at Greenbank on the 3^rd Nov. Alec Copeland and Albert Cottrell met them, and after he had left they all went to Greenbank. Some of them stopped the night, and also another man.

Minnie Laws deposed that she lived with her parents in Folkestone. She had known Mrs. Dalton four years, and Trice all her lifetime. She left Lady D`Oyly`s service on the 20^th of August, and returned the next day. She visited her frequently and slept there. A telegram was sent from Mrs. Dalton`s at Colchester to Cottrell`s shop at Cheriton. She and Trice were there. In consequence of the telegram they took charge of Greenbank and slept there every night, with one exception, when they went to London. The morning after Mrs. Dalton left she noticed the two cupboards open. Trice was in the room and had some jewellery in his handkerchief. She said “Teddy, what are you doing?” He said he was going to London to sell it. She said “Teddy, don`t do it”. He would not listen to her, and she went out of the room. He wanted her to go to London, and said if she would not go he would send her £10 to say nothing about it. They subsequently went to London. She saw the two rings in his possession. She told him unless he went back to Greenbank and put the jewellery back she would give him in charge. They went back, and she saw him put the jewellery back. When Mrs. Dalton came back she continued to stay until Lady D`Oyly`s return. She did not say anything to Mrs. Dalton about Trice and the jewellery. She saw Trice off at Shorncliffe on the 4^th November, when he said he was going to Manchester and London.

Cross-examined: When she went up in the train there were Sam Cottrell and a soldier in the train. Cottrell said “Why don`t you tell them?” She said she knew all about it. She first introduced Trice to Mrs. Dalton at the Rendezvous. There were two others there; one was Chilvers. Mrs Dalton invited them up to Greenbank. They stayed there 14 days. One day when they were in the scullery, Mrs. Dalton asked her to pawn one of her ladyship`s bracelets. She said she had never been to a pawnshop and they would ask her whose it was. She would have to reply “Lady D`Oyly`s”. She repeated this before the others. Alton said it could be pawned and redeemed.

Robert Dale Court, jeweller, of 72a, High Street, deposed to seeing Trice in the Harbour Hotel six weeks since; he was wearing two rings. He asked witness its value. He told him at least £20. He again met him and asked if he was open to do a deal and make a bit for himself by disposing of some bracelets worth £200, when he said “I may as well tell you it isn`t on the square”. Witness said it wanted thinking about, and he replied “It would not be found out for three months”. Witness had seen him several times since, but had never mentioned it. Afterwards he was the worse for liquor, and he did not think he was serious.

The prisoner Trice was then sworn and deposed that he had known Ensink 6 or 7 years. He made his acquaintance when he was page boy and Ensink was lounge waiter. He left and did not continue the friendship. He became acquainted with him again 4 years since, when he took the Rendezvous Hotel, about Michaelmas, 1908. He went in his service as barman and remained about 18 months. They did not part on bad terms. He frequented there occasionally. He had been in other employment till June this year. From that time he used the house daily, and was on excellent terms with Ensink. He had used the billiard room largely, and was a billiard player, having been a marker, when he showed Ensink the bracelet. He knew he was out of work. He went to London twice before receiving the registered letter on the 18^th. He produced the diamond ring in their presence before leaving at the Central Station. Ensink said he had previously seen the ring and would like it. When the three arrived in London they met Bittner, a German waiter, whom he had known in London. They all three arranged to get him to pawn the rings. Ensink took them to the Artists` Club in Little Newport Street. They did not find him there, but met him in the street. Ensink spoke to him and walked on in front. They ultimately stopped, and the German waiter asked him to show him the ring, saying “You are sure it`s not a white sapphire?” Ensink stood by and heard. He replied that it was a diamond. He said “How much do you want?” Witness did not reply, and either Ensink or Chilvers said “£40”. He went to Hawes, the pawnbrokers, and after twenty minutes came out and said he wouldn`t do it again for a fiver. Ensink was not there. They then went to the bar of the Hippodrome, but Ensink was not there. Bittner gave witness £35, less expenses of pawning. He asked for £5, but witness gave him £2 10s. Ensink had come in, and was present when he paid the money. Bittner handed him the pawn ticket, made out in the name of Hanson. They then went to a hat shop, where witness bought the three men a hat each. Chilvers left, and witness and Ensink returned to Folkestone at 12 o`clock by the night excursion train.

Cross-examined by Mr. Myers: During the last seven months he had led the people to believe he had money. At Ascot he borrowed money of Ensink. Of late he had been betting freely, and led people to suppose he had won money at betting.

Examined by Mr. De Wet: Since these occurrences he had been drawn by people, who threatened him. He had been asked to send a list to Manchester to be disposed of. It was suggested that he should buy Chilvers` ticket for America, and go to London by the 1.55 train on the 18^th, and it was suggested by Cottrell and Chilvers that he should go to Greenbank and get the jewellery.

William Lawrence Chilvers, an hotel employee, deposed to having known Trice for twelve months. On the 18^th Oct. he accompanied Trice to London and was present when the German waiter disposed of the ring, but generally denied Trice`s statement.

The Chief Constable and Clerk consulted with the Bench, and then warned Chilvers that he would be treated as a hostile witness, and when cross-examined was told that he might find himself in a very serious position.

Elizabeth Whittaker, wife of James Whittaker, living at Manchester, temporarily engaged at the wan Hotel, deposed to being introduced to Trice on the 5^th Nov. On the 13^th he asked if a wire came whether she would put it on one side. A wire came addressed to E. Davis. Trice eventually fetched it.

Edward Tattersall, a bookmaker`s clerk at Salford, deposed to being in the Swan Hotel, Manchester. Ensink came up and asked Whittaker if anyone with the name of Teddy was staying there. She said it would be a friend of her brother`s. She directed him to her house in Mahlam Street. Ensink engaged a taxicab and they proceeded to 27, King`s Street. They saw Mrs. Whittaker. Ensink asked for Teddy. She replied “You are too late. They have got him”. She asked if he was a detective. He said he was a friend of Teddy. He gave witness 2s. for his trouble.

Emma Whittaker, wife of John Whittaker, of Manchester, deposed that she had a son named John living with her. Trice came to her house on the 4^th of November with John, who had known him in Folkestone. Her son was going to America, and Trice told her he was also going there. He had his food at her house until he was arrested. Afterwards Ensink called and asked for Trice. She replied that they had taken him the previous night, and asked if he was a detective. He then had a conversation with her son. Ensink was excited.

Both prisoners were committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail was refused.

Southeastern Gazette 28-11-1911

Local News

At Folkestone Police Court on Saturday, Geo. Edward Trice, aged 22, was charged on remand with stealing jewellery belonging to Lady D'Oyly, of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Folkestone, and Gerard Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, was charged with receiving a diamond bracelet, valued £200, Lady D'Oyly left her .residence for a fortnight in change of a custodian, and it is alleged that Trice, who was courting the parlourmaid and slept at the house frequently, took the jewellery and disposed of it. At the previous hearing Trice gave evidence against Ensink, alleging that he pawned the diamond bracelet abroad. Prisoners were committed for trial at' the Quarter Sessions, bail being refused. It was stated that since the last hearing some of the missing jewellery had been found, and the loss now amounted to £650. In cross-examination the parlourmaid admitted that five other men slept at Greenbank while Lady D'Oyly was away.  

Folkestone Express 2-12-1911

Local News

There was an enormous crowd at the Police Court on Saturday, and hundreds of those who desired to force their way in were unable to do so. The occasion was the adjourned hearing of the charge against Edwin George Trice, of stealing jewellery of the value of £750, belonging to Lady D`Oyly, and against Gerard Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, of receiving a diamond bracelet, well knowing it to have been stolen.

The Magistrates were The Mayor, Aldermen Vaughan, Spurgen and Jenner, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and G.I. Swoffer, R.G. Wood, and G. Boyd Esqs.

The Chief Constable said the two prisoners, Edwin George Trice and Gerard Ensink, were before the Court a week ago that day. Trice was charged, they would remember, with stealing a quantity of jewels from a dwelling house, and the prisoner Ensink was charged with receiving a diamond bracelet well knowing it to have been stolen. He had a slight alteration to make in the charge against Trice. Lady D`Oyly, since the remand, had found that she had overlooked two or three of the articles in the charge, and therefore he had struck them out. But he had added one other article which was missing. So the charge against Trice at the present time was stealing one diamond crescent bracelet, one gent`s single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, one gent`s gold ring set with three diamonds, and one lady`s gold ring set with five diamonds, of the total value of £650, the property of Lady Hastings D`Oyly. And the bracelet that Ensink was charged with receiving was, he first understood, of the value of £200. But he had now ascertained from Lady D`Oyly that it was worth £350.

Mr. De Wet said he appeared for the prisoner Trice. He might say, and perhaps it was only fair to the other prisoner, that he did not know how the report got into the press that he was appearing for Mr. Myers. He was not. Mr. Myers, of course, represented Ensink and their interests were entirely opposite to each. Trice pleaded Guilty to certain of the articles, and not guilty to the others.

Mr. Myers, who appeared for Ensink, said he should like to make an application that no sketching or snapshotting should be allowe in Court. There was a representative of the Daily Mirror in court who had been annoying his client`s wife. He had even called at the hotel.

The Clerk said he did not think the Bench could go in to what had transpired out of court. Was the gentleman in the court now?

Mr. Myers: Yes, he is – in order to snapshot my client.

The Clerk said the Magistrates could deal with that at their discretion.

Alderman Vaughan said it certainly ought not to be allowed.

The Mayor: We do not allow it.

Mr. Myers said he had another application, that all witnesses be ordered out of Court in the interest of his client.

Detective Johnson`s evidence was first read over.

Trice was then put into the box, and his evidence was read over.

The Clerk said he proposed to cut out from the depositions the contents of the letter received by Ensink from the prisoner (Trice) in the name of Ted Davis at Manchester.

Mr. De Wet said he had spent a whole day at Canterbury with the prisoner and got a long statement from him. He had no wish to conceal that statement from the police, who he was prepared to let have a copy. If therefore they wished to examine Trice on that statement they could do so, or if they preferred that he should examine him on that he was quite prepared to do so.

The other evidence given against Ensink was also read over.

Lady Hastings D`Oyly was the first witness called, and was allowed a seat. She said she was the wife of Sir Warren Hastings D`Oyly, Bart., and wasd the owner of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens. She also was the rated occupier of the house. She left Greenbank on September 1^st for a fortnight`s change, and left the cook, of the name of Mrs. Dalton, in charge of the house. She had been in her service for eight months. She left her in sole charge. At the time she left she had in two small cupboards in a wardrobe a quantity of valuable jewellery. The cupboards were locked, one key doing for both. She came down to Greenbank on November 15<sup>th</sup>, and at once went to the wardrobe and unlocked the cupboard. She found some of the jewellery she had left there in the cupboard, but missed certain other articles. She found the case (produced) empty, exactly in the place where she left it. It had contained a diamond crescent bracelet, which was missing. The market value of it was £350. She also missed a single stone diamond ring valued at £200, another ring, set with three diamonds, valued £40, another, inset with five diamonds, valued £40, and a mohair bracelet valued at £15. Those articles were safe in the cupboards when she left in September. She saw them just before leaving the house. She at once gave information to the police. On Monday she went to Messrs. Hawes and Son`s shop, Cranbourne Street, and was there shown the single stone diamond ring.

Mr. T.C. Pearch, Superintendent of the Folkestone General Post Office, produced two receipts for registered postal packets bearing the Folkestone official stamp, October 26^th, 1911, Nos. respectively 109 and 110. The office of posting was stated to be Amsterdam in both cases. The address on the one was Mrs. Ensont, Rendezvous Hotel, and on the other Mr. F. Trice, Rendezvous Hotel, and they each bore the signature of the receiver, T. Golder. (Ensont was apparently a mistake for Ensink)

Mr. Peach, continuing his evidence, said he produced an application handed in at the Post Office for a telegraphic money order on November 14^th. It was numbered 2384. It was for the despatch by telegram of the sum of £2, payable at Manchester to Ned Edward Davies. The signature on it was that of the applicant. It was sent by “Louis Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel”, and payable to the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. The course of procedure would be, a telegram would be despatched to the hotel and in the ordinary course of business a telegram was despatched to the Swan Hotel, the original of which he produced, which was as follows:- To Manchester. 2384. Louis Ensink. £2 (Two Pounds). Edward Davies, Swan Hotel, Fountain Street. He also produced the official receipt for the £2, signed Edward Davies.

Mr. Arthur Woodthorpe, manager to Messrs, Hawes and Son, 7, Cranbourne Street, Leicester Square, said he produced a single stone diamond ring. He received in pledge personally on Oct. 18^th, 1911, from a person giving the name of Charles Hanson, 30, Newport Street, and he advanced the sum of £35. He thought he knew the man who he had seen as a customer previously.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet, witness said he did not know whether the man had a dog with him. Newport Street was close to his shop, and was a locality frequented by artists and theatricals. The value of the ring was about £60. It was nothing like worth £200. It would not raise anything like £100 at a public auction. The stone was full of flaws. He lent the money at once.

Mr. De Wet: Did you ask him any questions? Was he not in your shop twenty minutes?

Witness: I could not say. He further said they always made inquiries before they lent money. The man was a foreigner, and the neighbourhood was principally composed of foreigners.

Lady D`Oyly said the ring (produced) by the previous witness was her property.

Mr. De Wet then put several unimportant questions to Lady D`Oyly as to where certain articles were placed.

Agnes Dalton, the wife of George Thomas Dalton, a gunner in the R.F.A., stationed at Colchester, said she entered the service of Lady D`Oyly as cook on 17<sup>th</sup> December last year. She remained in her service until the previous day. A girl named Minnie Laws was in service there as parlourmaid. She remained one month, from July 20<sup>th</sup> to August 20<sup>th</sup>. Lady D`Oyly and the other members of the family left the house either on Sept. 2^nd or 3^rd, leaving her in sole charge of the house. She went on a visit to Colchester on October 2^nd. She stayed there three weeks and one day, returning to Greenbank on October 24^th. She was acquainted at that period with Trice, with whom she became acquainted on or about September 20^th, since which time he had been a visitor to Greenbanks heaps of times, with Minnie Laws, who was in the house before her ladyship left, unknown to Lady D`Oyly. Laws was a friend of hers and one day after she left Lady D`oyly`s service, she allowed Laws to sleep in the house. Laws stayed with her right up to the time she (witness) went to Colchester for her holiday. Off and on other people slept in the house. Trice slept there frequently. She knew him to be a friend of Laws, and, she thought, was courting Laws at the latter part of the time. (Laughter). The application (produced) for the telegraphic money order for 8s., at Colchester, bore her signature, A. Dalton, and it also contained a message: Get key Kirby. Sleep at Greenbank. Careful of lights. Make no sound”. She despatched that to Trice, 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton. The prisoner was looking after his friend`s (Cottrell) business at that address. She returned to Greenbank on October 24^th, and Laws and Trice came to the house the same night and slept there. Trice went away the next morning, and after that day he slept twice more in the house. Laws remained in the house for a fortnight. Trice told her he was going to Manchester, and then to America. She never saw anything of the jewellery until after her ladyship returned, and knew nothing about it. She did not know Ensink to speak to. From the time Lady D`Oyly left Greenbank she had been in the Rendezvous Hotel with Laws to see if Trice was there several times. They met him there sometimes.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet, witness said five men were in the habit of making the house a place of call. She did not know who informed Trice that there was jewellery in the house. She had told him that all the silver had gone to the bank. She remembered one night in the scullery telling Laws to take her ladyship`s bracelet and pawn it. She only said it in fun. She also remembered her refusing to do so because they would ask her questions. After that Minnie Laws went up into the dining room, where there was a girl named Flossie, “Chummy” Austin, and Trice, but she was not there when Laws went up into the room. She remembered two days after at dinner in the dining room, when the same people were present and another man also, but she could not remember saying that there were some hundreds of pounds worth of jewellery in the wardrobe. She could not say whether she said it or not. In the box in the bathroom she knew there were four bracelets, because she packed them herself. In a box there were a gold coin (she thought Japanese) bracelet, two chain bracelets, and one very old fashioned bracelet.

At this stage the witness left the box in a greatly agitated state, saying she would not answer the question.

Witness said it was perfectly true that at that time, when her ladyship went away, there was a gold coin bracelet. The prisoner Trice went away on November 14^th, but he did not sleep there the previous night. On that evening a man named Alec Copeland came up to Greenbank, and in consequence of what he said she, Laws, and Copeland went up into the bathroom and examined the jewellery in the box. At that time it was intact. From the moment she saw Trice at Shorncliffe Station in the train for Manchester he had not been to the house again. Alec Copeland, Gus Chilvers, and Bert Cottrell got out of the carriage in which Trice was. After the train had gone they went and had a drink, and the whole lot of them then returned to Greenbank. After lunch Copeland left, and the others left at five o`clock. Another man, whose name began with a “J”, came in in the afternoon, and Chilvers and Cottrell came in again at half past eleven, and the three men stopped the night. On November 11^th Laws got another situation, and on the 14^th she went to see her and told her a bracelet was missing. Laws said “Well, there is only Gus or Albert who could take it”.

At this stage the Court was adjourned for lunch.

After the adjournment Minnie Laws was called. She said she lived with her parents in Folkestone. She was in the service of Lady D`Oyly at Greenbank during the month of July. She had known Mrs. Dalton about four years. She had known Trice practically all her life, as she went to school with him. She left Lady D`Oyly`s service on the 20<sup>th</sup> Aug., and on the following day returned to the house, knowing Mrs. Dalton. With Mrs. Dalton`s consent she slept there until she went to Colchester. Trice used to visit her at the house from the time Lady D`Oyly went away, and he frequently slept there. After Mrs. Dalton went to Colchester, on the same day she was at 4, Camden Terrace with Trice, when a telegram was handed to him in her presence. She read it, but could not swear to the words. In consequence of that wire she and Trice took charge of Greenbank until Mrs. Dalton returned about three weeks after. They slept there every night, with one exception. The morning after Mrs. Dalton went away, she was in Lady D`Oyly`s bedroom and she noticed the two cupboards in the wardrobe were open. Trice was in the room at the time. He had some jewellery on the bed. She said to him “Teddy, what are you doing?” He said “I am taking this jewellery, and I am going to London with it to sell it”. She said “Don`t do it”. He did not take her advice. She then left the room. He later said “If you will not go to London, I will send you £10 if you do not say anything about it”. He and she went to London by the five o`clock train that day and stayed there until the following evening. They returned to Folkestone and went to Greenbank. In London she saw Trice with two diamond rings, and she said to him “You must either go back to Greenbank, Teddy, or I must give you in charge, as I cannot stand it”. The next morning, after they returned, she asked him again to put the jewellery back, and she went to the cupboard with him and saw him do so. She thought in addition to the rings there was a diamond bracelet in a blue velvet case, the twisted chain brooch and other articles, which she could not describe. After Mrs. Dalton`s return she continued to stay at Greenbank until two days before Lady D`Oyly`s return. She did not say anything to Mrs. Dalton about Trice and the jewellery. On November 4^th, she saw Trice off by train to Manchester, and he said he was going to America.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet, witness said she told Trice in the bedroom that wherever he went she would follow him and give him in charge. In the railway carriage in which they went to London, Cottrell and Sam asked her if she knew anything about the jewellery, and she said she knew about it. It was on a Sunday afternoon in the Rendezvous when she introduced Trice to Mrs. Dalton. There were two others with Trice, and they all came back to Greenbank on Mrs. Dalton`s invitation. One of the other men was named “Chummy”. He remained there that night, and for fourteen days afterwards, then going back to the Camp. On that evening nothing was said about jewellery. A few days after, she was in the scullery with Mrs. Dalton, who asked her if she would go to the pawnshop and pawn one of her ladyship`s bracelets. She said if she did so, they would ask her questions and refuse. She then went into the dining room and told Flossie, Chummy Austin and Teddy what Mrs. Dalton said, and Mrs. Dalton said she did not think it would matter so long as it was got out and put back. On another occasion Mrs. Dalton told them that there were hundreds of pounds worth of her ladyship`s jewellery in the cupboards. There were other persons present besides her and Teddy. Five other men besides Trice had slept at the house, and it was on Mrs. Dalton`s invitation. Teddy never told her anything about pawning the ring in London. On November 4^th she and Mrs. Dalton went to Shorncliffe to see Teddy off, and Cottrell, Gus and Alec Copeland got out of the carriage and they all returned to Greenbank.

Robert H. Court, watchmaker and jeweller, 72a, High Street, said he had known Trice for some years. About six weeks ago he saw Trice in the Harbour Hotel, and he was wearing two rings. He took one ring off his finger and asked him to value it, and he told him it was worth at least £20. It was a single stone diamond. A few days after, he again met Trice at the Harbour Hotel, and asked him if he was open to do a deal and make a bit for himself. Witness asked him to explain himself, and the prisoner asked him if he could dispose of about a couple of hundred pounds worth of of jewellery, diamond stuff. He also said they were bracelets. Trice then said “I may as well tell you it is not on the square”. He also told witness it would not be found out for another three months and he (witness) then said he would think about it. He had seen Trice since, but he had never mentioned the matter of the jewellery again. He did not think Trice was talking seriously, as he was the worse for liquor at the time.

Trice was then placed in the box. He said he had known Ensink ever since he was employed as a page boy six or seven years ago at the Pavilion Hotel, where Ensink was also employed as lounge waiter. After he (witness) left the hotel he did not keep up the acquaintance, which was renewed when Ensink about four years ago took the Rendezvous. At the end of the season 1908 he entered Ensink`s service as barman and remained as such for about eighteen months. They did not part exactly on very friendly terms. He still continued to visit the Rendezvous. He ultimately came out of employment about midsummer this year. From that time he began to use the Rendezvous frequently and went there every day. He was then on excellent terms with Ensink, and he used the billiard room extensively to his (Ensink`s) knowledge.

Witness continued that after his return from London with the girl Laws he showed Ensink the bracelet. Previous to that Ensink knew he was out of work. Ensink had seen the girl Laws in the saloon bar of the house with him before he showed him the bracelet. He had also seen Dalton there with him and Laws. He did not remember ever making any reference to Greenbank to Ensink. It was on the 26^th Oct. that he received the registered letter  containing the banknotes from Ensink. He remembered going to London on two occasions before he received that letter. On Wednesday, the 18^th October, he went to London with Chilvers and Ensink. Before leaving he produced the single stone diamond ring, and showed it to them at Folkestone Central. Ensink, who had previously seen the ring, said he would like it. When they got to London they met a man named Bittner, a German waiter, whom he had known in Folkestone. Bittner had been employed at the Metropole Hotel, and Chilvers, Ensink and he went to look for him, as Ensink said he would pawn the ring for them. Previously he (witness) had mentioned that he would like to pawn it. Ensink then said “Fatty” Charlie would pawn it. Ensink was the guide, and took them to the Artists` Club, Little Newport Street. Bittner was not there, and later, on returning, they met Bittner in the street nearby. Ensink spoke to him and walked with Bittner in front of Gus and him. “Fat” Charlie turned round and said to him “Let me look at it”. He showed him the ring, and Charlie said “You are sure it is not a white sapphire?” Ensink stood by and heard the conversation, and he (prisoner) said “I am sure it is not. It is a diamond”. Bittner said “How much do you want on it?” Either Ensink or Chilvers said “Forty pounds”. With that Bittner walked away with the ring, and he followed him. He went to a pawnshop not far off, and he (prisoner) thought it was kept by Hawes. Bittner entered the shop and stayed there about twenty minutes. “Fat” Charlie said he would not go through it again for a fiver. Chilvers, Bittner and he then went to the bar of the Hippodrome and before Ensink`s arrival had drink. Bittner offered him £35, less 6s. expenses, for pawning the ring. He said to him as he was handing him the £5 notes “Give me one of those”, but he eventually gave him £2 10s. after Ensink joined them. Bittner handed him the pawn ticket, which was made out in the name of Charles Henson. They left the bar and went to Dunn`s hat shop in the Strand, where he bought each of the three others a new hat. Chilvers afterwards left them and Ensink and he came home by the night excursion. On the official receipt (produced) for £2 on a money order, the signature Edward Davies was in his handwriting. The prisoner Ensink was known locally as Louis Ensink.

Mr. Myers then cross-examined the prisoner, who in reply said since he had had the money for the bracelet and the ring he had thrown money about. At Ascot on the Cup day he borrowed money from Ensink. He had never given Ensink to understand he had money. He had never told Ensink he was engaged to a lady with money. He had been betting a little lately and had occasionally won money, but he had never told Ensink he had. During the last three months he told Ensink he had won money by backing “Long Set”. All the customers at the hotel were more or less gamblers. He had not spent money freely at the Rendezvous, for sometimes he was broken, and he added “I could not then get a drink”. He never remembered saying that he was engaged to a young lady with money, but one never knew what they said when they felf half-past-eleven. (Laughter)

Cross-examined by Mr, De Wet, Trice said he borrowed £3 5s. from Ensink at Ascot. He paid him £1 back afterwards, and later Ensink took £3 out of the money he received for the ring. Of the £35 and the £90 a little gang kept drawing on him by threatening him if he would not give them anything. He had even been asked by one of the gang for a list of the jewels to be sent to Manchester to be disposed of. It was at Ensink`s suggestion that he should go to London to pawn the ring. Ensink said at eleven o`clock outside the Rendezvous he knew a man who would buy the ring, and suggested that they should go to London by the 1.55 train on the following morning. It was arranged that they should do so. Cottrell and Chilvers were also present. He was prevented from getting the other jewellery by Laws. On the day they went to London (October 18^th), after they had been to Dunn`s, Ensink, Chilvers and himself went into an inn in the Strand. He there gave £25 to Chilvers in Ensink`s presence, and Ensink told him to take it to the Rendezvous and leave it with Mrs, Ensink. On the following morning he was given the notes by Ensink at the hotel. He remembered being in Mr. Brett`s shop one day when Ensink told him he had better get away, as the boys were kicking up a row, as they wanted more money.

William Lawrence Chilvers, an hotel employee, living at Cheriton, said he had known Trice about twelve months. He accompanied Ensink and Trice in October by an excursion train to London and was present when Trice had an interview with a man named Charlie. They had a friendly meeting. Before meeting him they had not been to try and find another man anywhere. He saw Trice with a single stone diamond ring on his finger. They went into two or three public houses and also into the Hippodrome bar. Ensink, Trice, Charlie and himself were present. He did not see Charlie hand anything to Trice. They were all drinking together. He did not see anything pass between them. Trice handed him a letter in the Strand, but he could not say what it contained. He was asked to bring it to the Rendezvous.

The Clerk, after a consultation with the Magistrates, told him he would be treated as a hostile witness, and cautioned him as to his answers.

Witness, however, adhered to his statement.

In answer to Mr. De Wet, he said he did not have £1 from trice in London. He remembered playing billiards with Ensink in a public house in London. The only money he had received from Trice was £1. Trice asked him to leave the letter on the shelf behind the cash register in the Rendezvous Hotel.

Elizabeth Whittaker, the wife of James Whittaker, living at 35, Charles Street, Broughton, Salford, said she was temporarily engaged as a waitress at the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester, which was kept by her sister-in-law, Mrs. Parker. About November 5^th she was introduced to Trice in the Swan Hotel. Trice a week last Monday told her there might be a wire for him and asked her to put it on one side. On the following day a telegram did arrive, addressed in the name of Edward Davies. Trice subsequently called and received it.

Edward Tattersall, living at 61, Darley Street, Salford, said he was a bookmaker`s clerk. On Tuesday, 16<sup>th</sup> November, he was in the bar of the Swan Hotel, Manchester. About 10.20 a.m. Ensink came into the bar and asked Mrs. Parker if anyone named Teddy was staying there. Mrs. Parker said “No”, but shortly afterwards said “Oh, yes; it would be a friend of my brother`s”. Ensink asked Mrs. Parker where he could find him, and she directed him to her brother`s house, Mahlan street, Broughton. He (witness) volunteered to put him n his way, and proceeded with him in a taxi cab which Ensink engaged and went to Tully Street. On arriving at 27, Tully Street they both went inside, where they saw Mrs. Whittaker. Ensink asked her if anyone named “Teddy” lived there, and she ultimately replied “No; you are too late; they have got him”. She said to him “Are you a detective?”, and he replied “No; I am a friend of his”. Ensink then accompanied her into the kitchen. Later her returned and gave him 2s. for his trouble and he (witness) left him.

Emma Whittaker, the wife of Isaac Whittaker, said she resided at 27, Tully Street, Broughton. She recognised Trice, who came to her house on November 4^th, being brought by her son, John, who had known him in Folkestone. Her son was about to leave for America. Trice said he was also going there. He had his food at her house until November 15^th, the night of his arrest. On the following morning, between ten and eleven o`clock, Ensink called at her house and said “Is Edwin Trice in?” She replied “No; you are too late. They took him last night. Are you a detective?” He replied “No, I am not a detective, but a friend”. She called her son, who had a conversation with the prisoner. Ensink seemed excited.

The Chief Constable said that completed the case for the prosecution and if the Magistrates were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out he would ask them to commit both prisoners for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

The Chairman said they were agreed that a prima facie case was made out.

Ensink, in reply to the charge, said he was Not Guilty, and reserved his defence.

Mr. De Wet said Trice had already made his statement, and on the previous occasion was warned by the Clerk as to the probable consequences of such a statement. As he told them on that occasion he told them now, Trice pleaded Guilty to the theft of the diamond bracelet and also of the ring that had been pawned, and produced in that Court. He submitted to the Magistrates that as regarded the other articles of jewellery there was not one tittle of evidence to disclose before the Magistrates a prima facie case on which he should be committed for trial. Trice was perfectly willing to give every possible assistance to the police.

Trice said he pleaded Guilty to stealing the crescent bracelet and the ring but Not Guilty in respect of the other articles.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had decided that each of the prisoners should be committed on the whole charge.

Mr. De Wet then applied for bail and referred to the fact that Trice had given every assistance.

The Mayor said the Magistrates were unanimously of the opinion that it was in the best interests of Trice himself that bail should be refused.

Mr. Myers said he had to make an application for bail for Ensink. He had two sureties present, one a gentleman of independent means, and another, a tradesman in the town.

The Chief Constable said he most strongly objected to bail being granted.

The Mayor said in Ensink`s case they were unanimously of opinion that bail must be refused.

Folkestone Herald 2-12-1911

Local News

The Folkestone Police Court was absolutely packed on Saturday, when the jewel robbery case, which had been adjourned from the previous Saturday, again came up for hearing. By ten o`clock a considerable number had assembled outside the Town Hall, and before eleven o`clock there were several hundreds outside. Only a small percentage were able to gain access to the Court. There was a full Bench. The Mayor occupied the chair, and there were also present Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Aldermen T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen and C. Jenner, Councillor R.J. Wood, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

The prisoners, Edwin George Trice and Gerard John Anton Ensink, landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, at this hearing appeared in the Court together. Trice was again represented by Mr. V.D. De Wet, and Ensink by Mr. H.J. Myers.

The Chief Constable remarked that the two prisoners were before the Court a week ago. Trice was charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery from a dwelling house, and the prisoner Ensink with receiving a diamond bracelet, well-knowing it to have been stolen. He had a slight alteration to make in the charge against Trice. Lady D`Oyly, since the remand, had found that shad had overlooked two or three articles which were included in the charge, and therefore he had struck them out. But he had added one other ring which was missing, so the charge now was that of stealing one crescent diamond bracelet, one gentleman`s single stone diamond ring, one gold mohair bracelet, one gentleman`s gold ring set with three diamonds, and a lady`s gold ring set with five diamonds, of the total value of £650, the property of Lady D`Oyly. The bracelet, which Ensink was charged with receiving was, at the previous hearing, said to be of the value of £200. He had now, however, ascertained that it was worth £350

Mr. De Wet said he did not know how the report got into the Press that he was appearing for Mr. Myers. Mr. Myers represented Ensink, and their interests were entirely opposite to each other. His client pleaded Guilty to stealing certain articles, and Not Guilty to stealing others.

Mr. Myers said he would like to make an application that no sketching or snapshooting should be allowed in Court. In Court there was a representative of the Daily Mirror, and he had been annoying his client`s wife. He called at the hotel.

Mr. Andrews (the Magistrates` Clerk) did not think that the Bench could go into that. Was the gentleman he referred to in Court?

Mr. Myers said that he was, and was prepared to snapshot his client.

Mr. Andrew (to the Magistrates): You can deal with it at your discretion.

The Mayor: We do not allow it.

Mr. Myers asked that all witnesses should be ordered out of Court, and this was done.

The evidence given at the previous hearing by Detective Johnson, Trice, T.J. Golder, A.E. Cottrell and the Chief Constable was now read over and confirmed.

Mr. De Wet said that the Magistrates would remember that on the last occasion he had told them that Trice wished to make a clean breast of everything so far as he himself was concerned. He had, since the remand, spent a whole day with Trice at Canterbury, and he had got a very long statement from him. He did not wish to conceal it from the police; he was perfectly prepared that they should have a copy of it, or if they preferred that he should examine Trice, and bring out everything, he was equally prepared to do so.

Lady D`Oyly now gave evidence. She said she was the wife of Sir Warren Hastings D`Oyly, and was the owner of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, being also rated occupier of the house. She left Greenbank on the 1^st September for a fortnight`s change from home. She left the cook (Mrs. Dalton) in charge of the house. Mrs. Dalton had been in her service for eight months. She left her alone, and in sole charge. At the time witness had in two cupboards in a wardbrobe in her bedroom certain valuable articles of jewellery. She left the wardrobe and the cupboards locked. There was one key to both cupboards. She returned to Greenbank on the 15^th November. She at once went to the wardrobe, and unlocked the cupboard. She found some of the jewellery she left there still in the cupboard, but she missed certain of the articles. She found the case (produced) exactly where she left it, but empty. It had contained the diamond crescent bracelet. It was missing from the case. The value of the bracelet was £350. She also missed a large single stone diamond ring, of the value of £200, another ring set with three diamonds (value some £40 or £50), another set with five diamonds (value £40), a gold mohair bracelet (value £15 or £20). Those articles were safe in the cupboards when she left the house on the 1^st September. They were her personal property, and she saw them when she left the house. Witness at once gave information to the police. She was taken on the following Monday to the shop of Messrs. Hawes and Son, pawnbrokers, of Cranbourne Street, London, and she was there shown the single stone diamond ring.

Mr. Thomas Charles Pearch, Superintendent at the General Post Office, Folkestone, said that he was present at the request of the Chief Constable to produce certain documents. With reference to the telegram, he was instructed to decline to produce the telegram unless expressly ordered to do so by the Bench, and he was to ask them to be good enough to refer to the Telegraph Act of 1868.

Having consulted with the Magistrates` Clerk, the Mayor said: In the interests of public justice we call upon you to produce it.

Mr. Pearch then produced two postal packets, bearing the Folkestone official stamp of the 26^th October, 1911, and numbered consecutively 109 and 110. The office of posting was Amsterdam in both cases. The address on the one was Mrs. L. Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel, and on the other Mr. F. Trice, Rendezvous Hotel. Each bore the signature of the receiver, Mr. T. Golder.

T. Golder was called, and said that the signatures on the receipts were in his handwriting. That date was the 26^th October. They referred to the two postal packets which he received from the postman at the Rendezvous Hotel, as stated in his previous evidence. Witness did not then know the date, but he was now able to say that it was the 26^th October.

Mr. Pearch, continuing his statement, said that he produced an application received at the General Post Office, Folkestone, on the 14^th November, for a telegraphic money order. The application was numbered 2,384. It was for the despatch by telegram of £2, payable at Manchester, to Ned Edward Davies. It was sent by Louis Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel, and was payable to the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. After the application had been made, the proceedings would be to despatch a telegram to the hotel at Manchester, and a telegram was despatched to the Swan Hotel, Manchester, the original of which he produced. It read as follows: To Manchester, 2,384, Louis Ensink £2 (two pounds). Edward Davies, Swan Hotel, Fountain Street. Witness also produced the official receipt for this £2, signed Edward Davies. He further produced a telegram for an 8s. order from Colchester (produced), sent by J. Dalton, and bearing the official Colchester mark, and the date, 2^nd October, 1911.

Arthur Woodthorpe said he was Manager to Messrs. Hawes and Sons, 7, Cranbourne Street, Leicester Square, London. He produced a single stone diamond ring, which he personally received in pledge on 18^th October, 1911, from a man giving the name of Charles Hanson, of 30, Newport Street, and witness advanced the sum of £35 on the ring. He thought that he knew the man – that he had seen him as a customer.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Witness did not know whether the man had a dog when he came into the shop. Newport Street was quite close to his shop, and was a poor locality. It was one that was frequented by artists and theatricals. The value of the ring, in his opinion, was £60. It was not worth anything like £200. It would not fetch £100. If it was a perfect stone it would be a very different thing, but it was full of flaws, and it would not realise anything like £100 at a public auction. He should say that £60 would be about the limit. Witness lent the £35 on the ring at once. He dared to say that he asked the man who brought it in whether it was his, but he could not remember exactly. He could not say whether the man was in the shop 20 minutes. They had rings worth as much as that coming in every day. They always enquired before they lent their money, and asked some question or another. He could not see the man who brought in the ring in Court that day. He was a foreigner. The neighbourhood was principally inhabited by foreigners.

Lady D`Oyly (re-called) said that she identified the single stone diamond ring produced as her property. It was one to which she had referred in her evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Besides the jewellery in the wardrobe, witness left some more jewellery in a tin box in the bathroom. She thought that she locked the tin box, but she was not quite sure. In the box there were four bracelets, as far as she could remember. She would certainly say that it was not impossible for the gold mohair bracelet to be in the bathroom.

Agnes Dalton deposed that she was the wife of Geo. Thos. Dalton, who was a gunner in the Royal Field Artillery, stationed at Colchester. Witness entered the service of Lady D`Oyly on the 17<sup>th</sup> December of last year, and remained in her service till the previous day. A girl named Minnie Laws was also in service as house parlourmaid. She remained from the 20<sup>th</sup> July to the 20<sup>th</sup> August. Lady D`Oyly left home on either the 2^nd or 3^rd September, and the other members of the family. Witness was left in sole charge of the house. She went away on the 2^nd October on a visit to Colchester, and returned to Greenbank on the 24^th. Witness became acquainted with Trice on the 20^th September. From the 2^nd or 3^rd September to the 2^nd October Trice had very frequently been to Greenbank. Minnie Laws was in the house before her ladyship left, unknown to her ladyship. She was a personal friend of witness. One day after she left service she returned, and witness allowed her to sleep in the house. She had been staying and sleeping at the house the whole time till witness went for her holiday. Off and on other people slept at the house. Trice slept there frequently. Witness knew Trice to be an intimate friend of Minnie Laws. She thought at the latter part of the time he was courting her (Laughter). Produced was an application for a telegraphic money order for 8s. at Colchester, signed H. Dalton. At the foot was the following message to Trice “Get key, Kirby. Sleep at Grenbank. Careful of lights. Make no sounds”. Witness despatched it to Trice at Camden Terrace, Cheriton, on the 2^nd October. He was looking after a shop for Cottrell. Witness knew that to be his address. She returned to Greenbank on the 24^th October. Witness met Minnie Laws in the Sandgate Road. Laws and Trice slept at the house that night. Trice left the next morning, and did not return for a couple of days. Witness thought that after the 24^th October Trice slept at the house twice, and Laws for another fortnight. Trice told her that he was going to Manchester. She never saw the jewellery until after her ladyship returned, and knew nothing about it. Witness knew Ensink. During the period between her ladyship`s departure and Trice`s going to Manchester witness went with Laws several times to see if Trice was at the Rendezvous, and she sometimes met him there.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: During the time that her ladyship was away she thought that there were five other men besides Trice who made Greenbank their place of call. She did not know who informed Trice that there was any jewellery in the house. Witness remembered that on one occasion, in the kitchen, she said to Minnie Laws “Take her ladyship`s bracelet, and go and pawn it”, but she only said it in fun. Minnie Laws refused to do so, saying that questions were sure to be asked. Witness did not think she replied “No, they won`t ask any questions”. Witness remembered that Laws went into another room, where others were present, but witness was not there. Witness did not remember saying in the presence of others that there were some hundreds of pounds worth of jewellery in the cupboard in the wardrobe. Witness knew that there was jewellery in the bathroom, because she packed the box.

Mr. De Wet closely examined the witness as to the contents of the box in the bathroom, and at this stage she rushed hysterically from the witness box, protesting that she would say no more.

Continuing with his cross-examination. Mr. De Wet elicited from Mrs. Dalton the statement that Trice went away on the 4^th November, and did not sleep at Greenbank the night before he left. On that evening, in consequence of what she was told by a man named Alec Copeland, witness and Laws went up into the bathroom, and found that the jewellery was intact. From the moment after witness saw Trice at Shorncliffe Station, when he was on the way to Manchester, he had not been to the house again. Copeland, Gus Chilvers, and Bert Cottrell got out of the same carriage. They – not Trice – all had drinks, and then returned to the house. After lunch Copeland and the others left, and another man, whose name began with “G”, came in. Chilvers and Cottrell came back at 11.30, and the three men stopped the night. On November 11^th Laws obtained another situation, and on the 14^th witness went and told her that another bracelet was missing. Laws said “There was only Gus or Cottrell could take it”.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

On the hearing being resumed Minnie Laws gave evidence. She said that she lived with her parents at Folkestone, and was in service with Lady D`Oyly during the previous July. She had known Mrs. Dalton four years. She also had known Trice practically all her life. They went to school together. She left Lady D`Oyly`s service on 20<sup>th</sup> August. The following day she returned to the house, knowing Mrs. Dalton, and with her consent continued to sleep there till she (Mrs. Dalton) went to Colchester. Trice used to visit her at the house during that period, and frequently slept at the house. On the same day that Mrs. Dalton went to Colchester she was at 5, Camden Terrace, Cheriton, with Trice, when a telegram was handed to him in her presence. She read it, but did not remember the words. After they received the telegram witness and Trice took charge of Greenbank till Mrs. Dalton returned three weeks later. They slept there every night with one exception. One morning after Mrs. Dalton left on the 3<sup>rd</sup> October, witness was in Lady D`Oyly`s bedroom. She noticed that the two cupboards in the wardrobe were open. Trice was in the room at the time, and he had some jewellery on the bed. Witness said “Teddy, what are you doing?”, and he said “I am taking this jewellery, and I am going to London to sell it”. Witness replied “Teddy, don`t do it”. But he did not take her advice. Witness left the room. Trice said that if she would not go with him to London, he would send her £10 if she did not say anything about it. They went to London by the 5 o`clock train that day. They stayed together in London till the following evening, when they returned to Greenbank. Witness, while in London, saw him with the two diamond rings. She said that Trice must go back and put the rings back, or she would give him in charge. Trice returned, and the following morning witness asked him to put the jewellery back. She went to the cupboard with him, and saw him do so. She thought there were articles in addition to the rings. Up to Mrs. Dalton`s return witness continued to remain at Greenbank, and after that up to the 13^th November. She did not say anything to Mrs. Dalton about the jewellery. On the 4^th November witness saw Trice off by train. He said he was going to Manchester, and then to America.

Cross-examined: Witness had told Trice in the room that unless he gave up the jewellery she would give him in charge. There were others in the carriage when they went to London, amongst them being Cottrell and Sam. Sam said to Trice “Why don`t you tell me? I know about it”. Witness introduced Mrs. Dalton to Trice at the Rendezvous Hotel; two others were present. At Mrs. Dalton`s invitation they all came to Greenbank. One named “Chummy” remained at Greenbank for 14 days. A few days after, Mrs. Dalton said “Minnie, will you go and pawn her ladyship`s bracelet?”, but witness refused, saying that questions would be asked. Witness then went into the dining room, where there were Trice and others, and she told them what Mrs. Dalton had said. Mrs. Dalton then said that she did not think it would matter if it was got out and put back. On another occasion, while “Chummy” was there, Mrs. Dalton said that there were hundreds of pounds worth of jewellery in the cupboard. Five other men, besides Trice, had slept at the house on Mrs. Dalton`s invitation. Trice never told her about his pawning the ring in London. When seeing Trice off on the 4^th November, Albert Cottrell, Gus, and Alec Copeland got out of the carriage, and the three – not Trice – went back to Greenbank. Rice did not sleep at the house the night before he went away.

Robert Court, watchmaker and jeweller, of 72a, High Street, Folkestone, said that he knew Trice. About six weeks ago he saw him wearing two rings. He took one off, and asked witness to value it. He told Trice it was worth at least £20. A few days after witness again saw Trice, who asked him if he was open to do a deal, and make a bit for himself. Witness asked him to explain himself, and he asked if he could dispose of about £200 worth of diamond stuff. He said “I may as well tell you it isn`t on the square”. Witness replied that it would take a bit of thinking about, and he said that it would not be found out for another three months. Witness said he would think it over. He had not mentioned the matter since, although witness had seen him. Witness did not think he was talking seriously. He was the worse for liquor at the time.

Trice was now called to give evidence against Ensink. He said he had known Ensink since he was page at the Royal Pavilion Hotel six or seven years ago. Ensink was employed there at the same time as lounge waiter. After witness left the hotel he did not keep up the acquaintance, but renewed it when Ensink took the Rendezvous Hotel. About Michaelmas, 1908, witness entered his service as barman. He remained there for about 18 months. They did not part on very friendly terms. Witness used the house afterwards. He came out of employment about midsummer of this year. He used the Rendezvous more frequently, and was on excellent terms with Ensink, using the billiard room frequently, to his knowledge. Previously to his showing him the bracelet, Ensink knew that he (Trice) was out of work. Ensink had seen witness with the girl Laws on several occasions before witness showed him the bracelet. He had also seen Dalton there. Witness did not remember making any reference to Greenbank on those occasions. Witness knew that it was on the 26^th October that he received the registered letter containing the banknotes from Ensink. He remembered going to London twice before receiving the registered letter. On Wednesday, 18^th October, he went to London with a man named Chilvers, and Ensink. Just before leaving, while at the station, in the presence of these two, witness produced the single stone diamond ring. Ensink said he had previously seen the ring, and would like it. While in London they met a German waiter called Bittner, whom he had known in Folkestone. They went to look for him, because he would pawn the ring. Witness though that he had said to Ensink that he wanted to pawn the ring, and he (Ensink) said that “Fat Charlie” - (laughter) – (meaning Bittner) would pawn it. Ensink took them to the Artists` Club, Little Newport Street. (Laughter) He was not there, but later they saw him in the street near the Club. Ensink stopped him, and walked on in front, talking to him. “Fat Charlie” turned round and said to witness “Let me look at it”. Witness produced the ring, and he said “Are you sure it is not a white sapphire?” Witness said “Yes, I`m sure it`s not”. Ensink stood by and heard this. Witness said that it was a diamond. “Fat Charlie” said “How much do you want on it?”, and either Ensink or Chilvers said “£40”. With that, Bittner walked away with the ring, witness following. He went to a pawn shop, kept, witness thought, by Hawes. He entered it, and witness remained outside. He stayed inside about twenty minutes, and then came out. “Fat Charlie” said he would not go through it again for a fiver. (Laughter) Ensink was not there, and a few minutes afterwards they (Trice and Bittner) went into the bar of the Hippodrome. They were having drinks, and Bittner offered him six £5 notes and other money, amounting altogether to £35, less 6s., expenses of pawning. He said “You`ll give me one of them”, but witness gave him £2 10s. Ensink had come in, and was present when witness paid the money. Bittner handed him a duplicate form in respect of the ring, made out in the name of Charles Hanson. They left the Hippodrome together, and witness took them to a hat shop, and bought them each a new hat. Chilvers afterwards left them, and witness and Ensink returned to Folkestone by the night excursion. On the official receipt for £2 (produced) the name “Edward Davies” was in witness`s handwriting. Ensink was known locally as Louis.

Cross-examined by Mr. Myers: Since he had had the £90 he had let his money go everywhere. He gave Ensink to understand at Ascot in the pasdt summer that he had money by borrowing it. (Laughter) He had never told Ensink that he was engaged to a lady with money. He had lately won money by betting. All the customers, more or less, at the Rendezvous were gamblers. He had not spent money freely at the Rendezvous. Sometimes he was broken, and could not get a drink. He never remembered telling anyone that he was engaged to a lady with money. When he was intoxicated he might have said that. (Laughter)

In reply to Mr. De Wet, Trice said he borrowed £3 5s. at Ascot from Ensink. He later repaid him £1, and later Ensink took £3 from the money received from the pawning of the ring. Out of the £90 and the £35, there was a little gang in the town who had drawn on him, and threatened to tell. He had even been asked to send a list of the jewellery to a man in Manchester for the purpose of disposing of it. On the evening before 18^th October he had an interview with Ensink outside the Rendezvous at 11 p.m., and Ensink said that he knew a man in London who could buy the ring, and suggested to witness that they should go to London by the 1.55 a.m. train. It was arranged that they should do so. The witness Cottrell was present, and Gussy Chilvers. Chilvers had tickets for America, and he did not want to waste them, so he offered them to witness for £5. Witness could not say whether Ensink heard the suggestion that witness should go and get the rest of the jewellery from Greenbank. On the day they went to London, after they had pawned the ring, they were in an inn on the Strand (Ensink, Chilvers, Bittner and witness), and the witness gave £25 in notes to Chilvers, and Ensink told him to take it to the Rendezvous to Mrs. Ensink. The following morning witness received the notes from Mrs. Ensink at the Rendezvous. He remembered being at Mr. Brett`s shop when Ensink told him he had better get away as the boys were kicking up a row, for they wanted more money.

William Laurence Chilvers said that he was an hotel employee, and lived at Cheriton. He had known Trice about twelve months. He accompanied Ensink and Trice in October by an excursion train to London, and was present when Trice had an interview with a man named Charlie. Before meeting him they had not been to try and find some other man somewhere. Witness saw Trice with a single stone diamond ring on his finger. He went into two or three public houses, and into the Hippodrome bar. Ensink, Trice, Charlie and himself were present. He did not see Charlie hand anything to Trice. They were all drinking together. Trice handed him a letter in the Strand, but he could not say what it contained. He was asked to bring it to the Rendezvous.

The Clerk, after a consultation with the Magistrates, told Chilvers that he would be treated as a hostile witness, and warned him to be careful as to his answers.

Witness, however, adhered to his statement.

Elizabeth Whittaker said that she was the wife of James Whittaker, living at 35, Charles Street, Broughton, Salford, and was temporarily engaged as a waitress at the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester, which was kept by her sister-in-law, Mrs. Parker. About November 5^th she was introduced to Trice in the Swan Hotel. Trice, a week the previous Monday, had told her there might be a wire for him, and asked her to put it on one side. On the following day a telegram did arrive, addressed in the name of Edward Davies. Trice subsequently called and received it.

Albert Tattersall, living at 61, Darley Street, Salford, said that he was a bookmaker`s clerk. He was in the bar of the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, on 16<sup>th</sup> November at 10.20 a.m. when prisoner Ensink came in and asked if anyone named “Teddy” was staying there. The landlady said “No”, but shortly afterwards said “Oh, yes; it would be a friend of my brother”. Ensink asked where he could find him, and the landlady directed him to her brother`s house in Mahlam Street. Witness volunteered to put him on his way. They proceeded in a taxicab to 27, Tully Street. They saw Mrs. Whittaker, and asked if anyone named “Teddy” was there. She said “No, you are too late; they have got him”. She asked whether Ensink was a detective, and he replied “No, I am a friend of his”. Ensink then accompanied him into the kitchen.

Mrs. Emma Whittaker said that she lived at 27, Tully Street, Broughton. Prisoner Trice came to her house on the 4^th November. He was brought by her son, John. Witness`s son was about to leave for America, and Trice told her he was going too. He had his food at her house till the night of the 15<sup>th</sup> November, when he was arrested. On the 16<sup>th</sup>, between 10 and 11, Ensink called and asked for Trice. Witness said “No, you`re too late; they took him last night. Are you a detective?” He said that he was a friend. Ensink seemed to be excited.

This closed the evidence, and the Chief Constable asked, if the Bench considered that a prima facie case had been made out against the prisoners, that they should be committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Mr. De Wet said that Trice had, of course, already made his statement, and he pleaded Guilty to the theft of the diamond bracelet and the ring which had been pawned. With reference to the other articles of jewellery, Mr. De Wet submitted that there was not one tittle of evidence to disclose a prima facie case on which Trice might be committed for trial on those charges. Trice was quite willing to do what he could to assist the police, and he hoped as much as the police did that before the Quarter Sessions came round “Fat Charlie” would be found. That, however, did not in any way justify his action. Mr. De Wet submitted that they should dismiss the other charges against him, and commit him for trial on the two charges which he had admitted.

When formally charged, Trice pleaded Guilty to stealing the bracelet and the ring which was pawned.

Ensink pleaded Not Guilty, and Mr. Myers said he reserved his defence.

Both prisoners were committed for trial, Trice on the charge of stealing the five articles specified, and Ensink with receiving the diamond bracelet.

Mr. De Wet asked for bail for Trice.

The Bench, however, refused, being of opinion that it was in the best interests of the prisoner himself that he should not have bail.

Mr. Myers asked for bail for Ensink.

The Chief Constable, however, said that he must strongly object in that case, and bail was refused.

The hearing lasted over five hours.

Folkestone Herald 30-12-1911

Local News

At the Folkestone Borough Police Court yesterday (Friday) morning, before Mr. J. Stainer, Major Leggett, and Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd, application was made for the temporary transfer of the Rendezvous Hotel from Gerard John Anton Ensink to James Algernon Hobson of Dover. Mr. Mowll appeared for Mr. Hobson and Mr. Ensink was represented by Mr. Myers.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared to support the application on behalf of his client, Mr. James Algernon Hobson, and to ask the Magistrates to grant him a protection order to enable him to sell at the Rendezvous Hotel until the next annual transfer session. The present licensee, Ensink, was not on the premises because, he understood, he was at present at Canterbury awaiting his trial, but he had given his assent to this application. He would like to say at once – and he thought the Bench would agree with him – that it would be unfair of him in any way to reflect upon the present licensee; he was awaiting his trial, and obviously he must say nothing to the Bench which might tend to prejudice him in having a fair hearing at the ensuing Quarter Sessions. But it must be very apparent that in his unfortunate position at Canterbury he was unable to exercice that control and supervision over the premises in Folkestone which really tended to the proper conduct of the licensed house. The brewers, Messrs. Flint and Co., had taken steps to obtain a new tenant, Mr. Hobson, in order really that there should be no question as to the complete supervision and good conduct and management of this house. He might just here explain who Mr. Hobson was, and he might say at once that he found, from the Superintendent of Police, that there could be no possible objection to the personal good character and suitability for the holding of the licence by Mr. Hobson. He kept for ten years the Belle Vue Hotel in this town, and afterwards he made the only mistake of his life by leaving Folkestone. He went for a short period to Dover, where he maintained his good character as licensee of the Cricketers` Hotel, just outside the cricket ground. He held that licence for four years and nine months, and only came out within the last few months. Mr. Hobson was a man of irreproachable character, and had had some experience in catering. He was versed in everything that tended to make the licensed victualler what he was really intended to be, a man for providing refreshments of all kinds, intoxicating or otherwise. He felt confident that there would be no possible objection to Mr. Hobson upon any personal grounds. Continuing, he pointed out to the Bench that, even if the present licensee was convicted, the law had provided for such a contingency, and gave the owners power to come forward and make an application for a protection order, but that was not his case here, because the man had not been convicted. He mentioned it just to show that the tendency of the legislature was not to prejudice the carrying on of the licensed business in consequence of any irregularity of the present licensee, but rather to give the owners the opportunity of obtaining the assistance of the Court to enable that business to be carried on. He though he had said sufficient to satisfy them as to the motives of making this application, which was really for the good conduct and management, and the proper carrying on of the business, and he would not say any more if it were not for the fact that he understood from the Chief Constable that it was his intention to offer objection to this application, not on personal grounds against Mr. Hobson, but because he was not satisfied with the man who up to the present was the licensee. He could only say one word upon that. It was obviously impossible for him to deal with the state of affairs which existed, but he desired to put before them what seemed to him to be, if he might say so, the commonsense way of looking at it. If there was any question of misconduct on the premises, the proper time to inquire into it would be at the annual licensing meeting, when the notice could be given, and the whole matter thrashed out. This was only an interim hearing, and it was only another month before the licensing meeting would be brought on. It seemed to him in the good interests of the public that it was important to get the very best character of man to hold the licence immediately, and not in any way to prejudice the good order of the town. He did not know whether he could dispose of the opposition of the Chief Constable, but he would make a suggestion to the Bench that the Chief Constable could now say “While there are questions about the conduct of the house which I should like to bring before the Bench, and having brought them in a general way now, it would be best that the present application should be granted, without prejudice to the rights of the Chief Constable to lay the whole matter before the Bench at the annual licensing meeting”. He only suggested that as a proper course, and he had another reason for making the suggestion, inasmuch as the Bench at the annual licensing session would be a full one, whereas that day they were only sitting at the Petty Sessions. If there was anything further which the Bench would like to know with regard to the arrangements as between the brewers and Mr. Hobson, he would be only too pleased for them to make the fullest possible inquiry regarding the actual tenancy agreement, which had been filed with the Clerk, and there was a further agreement which had been filed. They did not require it, but he was quite willing to show it to them, to show them that Mr. Hobson would have a substantial interest in the premises, and was, in fact, a man of substance himself.

After a short deliberation, the Magistrates signified their desire to see the agreement referred to, and Mr. Mowll then read out the agreement, in which it was stated that the tenant would deposit with the owners a sum of £200 as a guarantee of good faith, and another £100 at the end of a year. There were other references with regard to furniture, and it was stated that the stock would be the property of the licensee. Continuing, Mr. Mowll drew attention to the fact that the licensee would be interested in the business veru substantially, and laid emphasis on the fact that the stock would be his.

The Chief Constable said he had no objection to offer to Mr. Hobson as the tenant. His character was very satisfactory indeed, but he did object to the transfer being made that morning.

Mr. Evelyn Phillips, a valuer residing at Dover, said he served the notice in regard to the application on the Superintendent of Police and the Clerk to the Magistrates. On the 23^rd December he saw the licensee, Ensink, at Canterbury Gaol, and handed him a copy of the written notice of the application today. He produced a copy of the notice, with the statements signed by him. He agreed to the suggested transfer to Mr. Hobson.

Mr. Hobson said he took over possession that morning. The premises were at that time closed.

The Chief Constable: What rent will you pay, Mr. Hobson? - £70.

When do you start? – Next year.

You will have twelve months rent free? – Yes.

You are quite prepared to take over this house this morning, supposing the Magistrates grant a protection order, whether it is opposed at the annual sessions or not? – Yes.

The Magistrates` Clerk: You understand that possibly the licence might be opposed then? – Oh, yes. That will not interfere with me in my business.

The Magistrates then retired to consider the matter.

On their return the Magistrates` Clerk asked Hobson how he proposed to pay the £200 to the brewers.

Mr. Hobson: It is in my pocket.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Where did you get it? – Out of the bank.

The Magistrates` Clerk: It is your own money. It was not lent to you or advanced for the purpose? – No.

The Chairman said they granted the temporary transfer without prejudice to anything which might transpire at the annual sessions or the general sessions.

Mr. Mowll said the licence was granted by endorsement, but, unfortunately, it was not there. It had been mislaid, but under Section 43 the Magistrates had power, on being satisfied, to grant another copy on payment of a small fee.

A clerk in the employ of Mr. Myers deposed that he had searched for the licence, but it could not be found; all the old ones were found.

The Magistrates sanctioned the issue of another copy.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Express 6-1-1912

Local News

At the Petty Sessions on Friday application was made for temporary authority to sell at the Rendezvous Hotel by James Algernon Hobson, who asked for the temporary transfer of the licence from Gerard John Ensink. The Magistrates present were J. Stainer, G. Boyd, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Major Leggett. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Myers, on behalf of Ensink, assented to the transfer.

Mr. Mowll, at some length, detailed the circumstances under which the application was made. It was, he said, made under Section 23 of the Consolidation Act of 1910, and Mr. Hobson was now the tenant and occupier of the premises. The present licensee, a Mr. Ensink, was not on the premises himself, being, as the Bench would understand, at Canterbury, awaiting his trial. But he had assented to the application, as he (Mr. Mowll) was prepared to prove to them. He would like to say at once, and he thought the Bench would agree with him, that it would be unfair of him to in any way reflect upon the present licensee. He was awaiting his trial, and obviously he might say something to the Bench which might tend to prejudice him in having a fair hearing at the ensuing Quarter Sessions. But it must be apparent to the Bench that through his unfortunate position at Canterbury that he was unable to exercise that control and supervision over the premises at Folkestone which really tended to the proper conduct of a licensed house. Consequently, Messrs. Flint and Co. had taken steps to obtain a new tenant, Mr. Hobson, in order really that there should be no question as to the complete supervision, good conduct, and management of the house. He might just there explain who Mr. Hobson was, and he might say at once that they would find from the Superintendent of Police that there was no possible objection to the personal good character or suitability for holding a licence, of Mr. Hobson. He kept, for six years, the Bellevue Hotel in Folkestone, as the licensee, and afterwards he made probably the only mistake of his life when he left Folkestone and went over for a short period to Dover, where he maintained his good character, and was the licensee of the Cricketers` Hotel, immediately outside of the cricket ground. He held that licence for four years, and came out of it within the last few months. Mr. Hobson was a man of irreproachable character. He had held a licence for a number of years, and, moreover, he was a man acquainted with and having had some experience in the catering side of the business, having acquired a knowledge of all that was so necessary to make a licensed victualler what he really was intended to be in the first instance, and not merely a seller of intoxicating liquors, but everything for the refreshment of man. He felt confident there could be no possible objection to Mr. Hobson on personal grounds. The application was made, as he had said, at a time when the licensee was awaiting his trial, and therefore he desired to say nothing that would prejudice him, but he would like to point out to the Bench, if the licensee were to be convicted, the law had provided for such a contingency, and now gave the owners power in case of a man`s conviction for a first offence of felony, to come forward and apply for a protection order. But that, of course, was not the case there. The man had not been convicted, but he mentioned it just to show the tendency of the legislation was not to prejudice the carrying on of a licensed business in consequence of any irregularity on the part of the licensee, but rather to give the owner of the premises an opportunity of obtaining the assistance of the Court to enable the business to be carried on. He thought he had said sufficient to satisfy them as to the motives of making this application, which was really for the good conduct and management, and the proper carrying on of the business, and he would not say any more if it were not for the fact that he understood privately from the Chief Constable that it was his intention to offer objection to this application, not on personal grounds against Mr. Hobson, but because he was not satisfied with the man who up to the present was the licensee. He could only say one word upon that. It was obviously impossible for him to deal with the state of affairs which existed, but he desired to put before them what seemed to him to be, if he might say so, the commonsense way of looking at it. If there was any question of misconduct on the premises, the proper time to inquire into it would be at the annual licensing meeting, when the notice could be given, and the whole matter thoroughly thrashed out. That was only an interim hearing, and it was only another month before the licensing meeting would be brought on. But the present licence, as they knew, went on until the 6^th of April. It did not seem to him that in the good interests of the public that is was important to get the very best character of man to hold the licence immediately, and not in any way to prejudice the good order of the town. He did not know whether he could dispose of the Chief Constable, but he would make a suggestion to the Bench that the Chief Constable could now say “While there are questions about the conduct of the house which I should like to bring before the Bench, and having brought them in a general way now, it would be best that the present application should be granted without prejudice to the rights of the Chief Constable to lay the whole matter before the Bench at the annual licensing meeting”. He only suggested that as a proper course, and he had another reason for making the suggestion, inasmuch as the Bench at the annual licensing sessions would be a full one, whereas that day they were only sitting as the Petty Sessions. If there was anything further which the Bench would like to know with regard to the arrangements as to between the brewers and Mr. Hobson, he would be only too pleased for them to make the fullest possible inquiry regarding the actual tenancy agreement which had been filed. They did not require it, but he was quite willing to show it to them to show them that Mr. Hobson would have a substantial interest in the premises, and was, in fact, a man of substance himself.

The Clerk said it was a point that the applicant should be shown to have a real and substantial interest in the house.

The Chairman said they should ask Mr. Mowll to furnish them with the agreement.

Mr. Mowll produced and read it. It set forth that the applicant had paid £200 and given a promissory note for a further £100, payable at the end of twelve months, and he was to be responsible to the owners for the proper use of the furniture in the hotel, which would remain the property of the owners.

Mr. Mowll also said there was a signed consent by Ensink to the transfer of the licence.

Mr. Myers, who represented Ensink, said the agreement could be put in.

After a few further observations, the Chief Constable said if Mr Mowll would allow him, he would like to say that he had no objection to offer to Mr. Hobson as a tenant, but he strongly objected to the transfer being granted that morning.

The Clerk: Now, that comes to grips. That was an application to the Court as a court summary jurisdiction – under Section 23 of the Act which gave power to give protection – not a transfer – until the next transfer day or the general annual licensing meeting. It was in the discretion of the Magistrates to say whether they would grant the protection asked for. He quoted the words of the section, and added of course they would hear what the Chief Constable had to say.

Mr. Evelyn Phillips was then called by Mr. Mowll, who said he served the requisite notices on the Superintendent of Police on the 21^st inst. He had also seen the licensee, Mr. Ensink, in Canterbury Gaol on the 23^rd December, and handed him a copy of the notice of intended application, and produced a statement signed by him.

This was then put in.

Mr. Hobson gave evidence as to the terms on which he was about to take over the premises, and as to his experience.

In reply to the Chief Constable, he said he was quite willing to take over the licence, whether it was proposed to be opposed at the annual licensing meeting or not.

Mr. Mowll said the applicant quite understood the risk.

The Magistrates having retired to consider their decision, on their return into Court the Chairman said they granted the application temporarily. It was without prejudice to anything that might transpire at the annual licensing sessions or the transfer sessions.

The original licence having been mislaid, it was agreed that a duplicate should be issued to the applicant.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 20-1-1912

Local News

The Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning, when the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel again came before the Bench. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared in the case of the Rendezvous Hotel, and he applied for the transfer of that licence. Temporary permission had already been granted. He proposed to formally prove the notices, and he called Edwin Phillips, who said he served a copy of the notice on the Superintendent, the Justices` Clerk, and Mr. Vaughan, one of the Overseers, on the 2^nd January.

Mr. Mowll said in regard to that case he did not know how far it was necessary for him to really argue the matter before them that morning. He had the pleasure of arguing it before the Petty Sessions on the 29^th December, and he then explained the application was really one to enable the licensed business of the Rendezvous to be carried on under the best possible conditions, and in a manner in respect of which the respectability of the applicant could not possibly be questioned. And that argument very much appealed to their brethren sitting in Petty Sessions and they then granted the application for a temporary transfer in favour of Mr. Hobson without prejudice to the future. There was a point about it, which was that the then licensee, Mr. Ensink, was compulsorily away from the premises, and it was felt on one hand that being away he could not exercise the supervision which it was desirable every licensed house should have from the licensee; and at the same time it was hardly fair to go into other matters which might possibly prejudice that man on his trial at Quarter Sessions. It seemed better to deal with the matter in such a way that the licence should be transferred into the name of Mr. Hobson, a very experienced licensed victualler, about whom personally there was no possible question, and leave any question of other matters to be more suitably considered at the annual licensing meeting. On that occasion the Chairman of the Bench put it to Mr. Hobson whether he quite understood the risk there might be at the annual licensing meeting, and he said he did and was willing to take the licence under those conditions. That really seemed to be the position that day. And subject to what the Superintendent might say – he thought he had the right to reply – he proposed to formally ask them to ratify that arrangement, so that the licence might be in Mr. Hobson`s name without the question as to the renewal.

The Chief Constable said in the first place he offered no objection to Mr. Hobson as the incoming tenant of the house, as his character was in every way satisfactory. He had given the matter most careful consideration, and of course he was very anxious not to do or say anything likely to prejudice Ensink at the trial at Quarter Sessions. Therefore he proposed that morning not to object to the transfer, but reserved himself the right of opposing the renewal at the annual licensing meeting.

The Chairman, addressing Hobson, asked him whether he clearly understood – it was put to him the last time – that if they granted the transfer now it was without any question affecting what might take place at the annual licensing sessions.

Mr. Hobson replied in the affirmative.

The Chairman said under those terms it would be granted.

Folkestone Herald 20-1-1912

Wednesday, January 17^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared in the case of the Rendezvous Hotel to apply for a transfer of the licence, the temporary permission having already been granted. He proposed just formally to prove the notice, and then make his application.

Mr. Evelyn Phillips stated that he served a copy of the notice on the Superintendent of Police, the Justices` Clerk, and one of the Overseers on the 2^nd January.

Mr. Mowll remarked in regard to this case he did not know how far it was necessary for him to argue the matter before them that morning. He had the pleasure of arguing at the Petty Sessions on the 29^th December, and he explained how the application was really one to enable the licensed business of the Rendezvous to be carried on under the best possible conditions, and in a manner the respectability of which could not possibly be questioned. That argument very much appealed to their brethren sitting in Petty Sessions, and they then granted the application for the temporary transfer in favour of Mr. Hobson, without prejudice as to the future. There was a point about it, which was this, that the then licensee, a man named Ensink, was compulsorily away from the premises, and it was felt that, being away, he could not exercise that supervision which it was desirable every licensed house should have from the licensee. At the same time, it was hardly fair to go into other matters which might possibly prejudice that man in his trial at the Quarter Sessions. It seemed better to deal with the matter in such a way that the licence should be transferred to the name of Mr. Hobson, a very experienced licensed victualler, about whom personally there was no possible question, and to leave any question as to other matters to be more suitably considered at the annual licensing meeting. Mr. Hobson came forward on that occasion, and the Chairman of the Bench then put it to him if he quite understood the risk there might be at the annual licensing meeting, and he (Mr. Hobson) said he did, and he was willing to take the licence on those conditions. That seemed to be the real position that day, and, subject to what the Chief Constable might say – and he thought he should have a right of replying – but, subject to what he might say, he would propose formally to ask them to ratify that agreement, so that the licence should be in the name of Mr. Hobson, without prejudice to the question of renewal.

The Chief Constable said he offered no objection to Mr. Hobson as the incoming tenant of the house. His character was in every way satisfactory. He had given this matter the most careful consideration, and, of course, he was very anxious not to do anything which would be likely to prejudice Ensink in his trial at the Quarter Sessions. Therefore he proposed that morning not to object to this transfer going through that day, but he reserved to himself the right to oppose the renewal of the licence at the annual licensing meeting.

The Chairman then called Mr. Hobson forward, and asked him if he clearly understood the question put to him at the last meeting, that the licence was transferred without any prejudice to what might take place at the annual licensing sessions.

Mr. Hobson replied in the affirmative.

The Chairman: Under those circumstances we grant it.

Folkestone Daily News 6-2-1912

Quarter Sessions

Monday, February 5^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The Recorder, in his address to the Grand Jury, clearly pointed out the cases. He referred particularly to the Trice and Ensink case. He reviewed the evidence given before the Justices, and also Ensink`s story to the Chief Constable. He suggested that they had no alternative but to return a true bill in the case.

The Grand Jury, after retiring for some time, returned true bills against Trice and Ensink.

The case, fresh in the memory of the ratepayers, occupied the attention of the Borough Bench in December last, and was fully reported in our columns.

The young man Trice, a native of the town, pleaded Guilty to robbing a Lady on the Leas of a large quantity of valuable jewellery, having taken advantage of invitations given by the cook-housekeeper to visit the house during the mistress`s absence.

He had also become associated with a young girl named Minnie Laws, a former parlour maid in the employ of the prosecutrix, but who had taken up abode there during her former mistress`s absence in London.

Gerard John Anton Ensink, the late proprietor of the Rendezvous Hotel, a native of Holland and a former hotel employee, had been acquainted with Trice for many years. They were formerly fellow servants in the employ of the Fredericks Company Ltd., proprietors of the Royal Pavilion Hotel. About four years since Ensink left his employment and took the Rendezvous Hotel, which he carried on until his arrest on this charge. Trice continued on friendly terms with him, and at one time was in his employ as potman, and had also had other situations at hotels in the town as billiard marker, lift attendant &c.

Among the articles stolen was a bracelet, valued from £100 to £200. Trice`s story was that Ensink told him he had a brother, a diamond merchant, in Amsterdam, and could probably sell the bracelet for him, and Trice eventually took the same from the house on the Leas and handed it to him. Ensink went to Amsterdam, sold the bracelet, and remitted to Trice £90 of the proceeds. Other statements were also made by Trice incriminating Ensink in connection with the theft of a diamond ring, and the pawning of the same in London.

When Trice was arrested he gave all particulars to the police, and the Chief Constable sent for Ensink, whose hotel is but a few yards from the police station, to come over to the station and explain certain statements that had been made by Trice. He came over, was interviewed by Chief Constable Reeve, and disclaimed all knowledge of the affair. After being cautioned he was arrested and charged before the Justices, remanded to Canterbury gaol for a week without bail, brought up on remand at the end of the week, further charges were preferred against him, when he was committed for trial, bail being refused, and he has laid in Canterbury gaol until this morning. When before the Justices he was represented by Mr. H. Myers, solicitor, of Guildhall Street, who reserved his defence.

Trice was represented by Mr. De Wet when before the Justices, and pleaded Guilty to stealing some of the goods, but denied stealing others with which he was charged.

This morning at the Quarter Sessions Ensink was defended by Mr. Wetton, instructed by Mr. H. Myers. Mr. H.G. Roath represented Trice, instructed by Mr. De Wet. Mr. Wardley, of Tunbridge Wells, prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, instructed by Mr. A.F. Kidson.

Mr. Roath, on behalf of Trice, requested that he should be sentenced before he gave his evidence against Ensink. He submitted that such was the conduct of the Recorder at the Central Criminal Court in order that he should not be influenced in this evidence.

The Recorder refused the application and decided to withhold sentence until the case was completed against Ensink.

Mr. Wardley opened the case, and addressed the jury at great length. He reviewed the evidence given at the enquiry before the Justices. He also explained the law on the subject both as to stealing and receiving.

He then called Lady D`Oyly, who repeated her evidence given before the Justices, viz., that she left the jewellery at Greenbank while she went away on a holiday in Sept. On her return on the 15^th Nov. she discovered it had been stolen. She saw the ring produced, and it was part of the stolen property.

Cross-examined: She had no reason to believe the ring was worth £200. She told Mr. Reeve the bracelet was worth £200. She was not a judge of diamonds and did not know to a hundred pounds its value.

Edwin George Trice`s evidence was the same as given before the Justices, viz., that he worked for Ensink as billiard marker and waiter for eighteen months, and had been friendly with Ensink. He explained where he saw the jewellery at Greenbank, of which he was told by Mrs. Dalton. He took the jewellery, put it in a handkerchief, and took it to London. He brought it back and put it in the cupboard. Subsequently he took the bracelet and rings. He spoke to Ensink about the bracelet about a week after, in company with Chilvers, who showed him the ring. He was under the influence of drink at the time. On the next day they went to London. Chilvers and himself and Ensink went to dispose of the ring. Ensink said Bittner, a former waiter at the Metropole, would sell it for them. They went to the Artists` Club, but “Fat Charlie” was not there. They then went to the Devonshire Arms, Picadilly, and asked the proprietor £20 for it. They afterwards met “Fat Charlie” and gave him the ring. He went into the pawnshop and came out saying he would not go through it again for a fiver. They all went to the Hippodrome, where “Fat Charlie” gave him the money for the ring. Ensink took the money for safety. They bought four hats. He afterwards got the money at the Rendzvous from Ensink. Ensink asked him about the bracelet. He said it was at Greenbank. He afterwards brought it and gave it to him. A few days after he was in the Rendezvous when he got a registered letter containing £90. He handed the letter to Cottrell, who destroyed it. The letter had reference to the ring, and also that he was to pay Ensink the costs. He sent a letter to Ensink in Amsterdam, but could not recollect the address of the hotel. He afterwards saw Ensink in Brett`s, who said the boys were complaining of not getting enough, which witness understood to mean they were not getting their share of the proceeds of the robbery. He meant Cottrell, Chilvers, etc. He went to the Rendezvous. They were there, but said nothing to him. Ensink said a man named Moser was chattering, so he gave him a sovereign and told him to hold his tongue. He then went to Manchester and was arrested.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wetton: He was a Folkestone boy, was 23 years of age, and had always had a good charcter. He had been employed by Ensink, who always trusted him. Mrs. Dalton invited him to stay at Greenbank. Minnie Laws asked him not to take the jewellery, but he took it to frighten her. He took the bracelet to London twice.

His attention was called to the difference of his statement at the Police Court and today. He replied that he had been in prison three months and had been thinking about it.

Ludovicus J. Luinica, a restaurant keeper and diamond polisher deposed to two men coming to his shop and showing him a diamond bracelet. He believed the prisoner Ensink was the man. He bought it from them for 2,200 guilders. He paid it the next day; it was the equivalent to about £183 in English money.

Goulden, a billiard marker in the employ of Ensink, deposed to his employer going to Amsterdam, and a registered letter arriving.

Albert Cottrell deposed to being at the Rendezvous when the registered letter was handed to Trice by Mrs. Ensink. Trice took some banknotes from it and showed him the letter, which he handed back.

Cross-examined: He did not burn the letter, and it did not contain statements to which Trice had sworn.

Gus Chilvers deposed to going to London with Trice when the ring was sold. Trice gave him a sealed envelope to take home to the Rendezvous for him. That was money for the hats which Ensink had paid.

Mr. Woodthorpe, a pawnbroker`s manager, deposed to taking the ring from a waiter named Methuen.

Witnesses from Manchester were called, and repeated their evidence.

Chief Constable Reeve repeated his evidence.

Ensink, who was sworn and examined by Mr. Wetton, deposed he was 34 years of age and had lived in Folkestone for nine years. He was at the Pavilion Hotel four and a half years. He took the Rendezvous Hotel in 1907. The police had made every enquiry before the licence was granted. He had known Trice for eight years, and had always found him strictly honest. He had been sent to the bank with money which had always been right. In October last he saw Trice with rings, but had no suspicion they had been stolen. Trice showed him the bracelet, and he asked where he got it from, but did not take particular notice of his reply. He went to the Brewery Exhibition in October and met Trice and Chilvers. He told them he was going to meet Charlie, and Trice asked him to have a drink. They went to the Devonshire Arms in Picadilly, where Trice asked the landlord the value of the ring. The landlord said about £20. Trice went with “Fat Charlie” to the pawnshop, and witness went to have a shave. Afterwards they went to the Brewery Exhibition. He was going to Amsterdam in Oct. Trice heard this and asked him to buy the bracelet. He asked 90. He sold it in Amsterdam as described. He did not know they were stolen until the 15^th of Nov., when he went to Manchester to see Trice to put things right. When he was arrested he did not understand the law and did not have a solicitor. He left his defence in the hands of a solicitor.

Mr. Wetton addressed the jury at great length.

The Recorder sentenced Ensink to 18 months` hard labour. Trice was bound over under the First Offenders` Act for 1 year.

Comment

When the announcement was made by the Recorder that Trice was only to be bound over, which meant that he was practically acquitted, a sensation had apparently been caused in the Court, afterwards extended throughout the town.

No-one seemed to be vindictive or uncharitable towards Trice, but at the same time they felt that he had been treated with rather dangerous leniency. They also seemed to think that his offence was a very serious one, and that it deserved and needed a more wholesome punishment than that which had been meted out.

Many in court noted that he was not asked a single question as to what he had done with the money, how he had disposed of it, or whether he was willing to make restitution to the loser. £125, according to his own confession, had passed through his hands in about three weeks. £90 he had received for the bracelet, and £35 for the ring. Neither was he questioned very closely as to his visits to Greenbank.

The prosecution, which of course means the police, abandoned the charges of his having stolen any other property, excepting his own admission of the ring and bracelet. Probably they had good reasons for abandoning those charges, and good reasons for extraordinary suppression of evidence which was heard at the police court, and which of course appeared on the depositions.

We, of course, are not behind the scenes, neither do we want to be. We are not in the secrets of the mysteries of prosecutions and police courts, neither do we wish to be. We prefer to be unhampered by any such considerations.

We are a public newspaper, in fact we may say the only public newspaper in Folkestone that is free and unfettered, and able to re-echo the opinions of its readers and the general public.

We therefore join with our readers in expressing dissatisfaction at the way in which the case was presented and conducted on Monday last, and in commenting on it we shall only deal with what evidence has been made public. We shall not deal with any rumours or with what takes place outside, or any statements that would favour or condemn anyone.

The case was presented in November at the police court, which disclosed the fact of what is known as “downstairs hospitality and conviviality”. The mistress was away, and the woman in charge, with the other servant, had invited friends to spend the evenings at the house. Although such things are objectionable they are not necessarily criminal. It is a procedure that has been going on for years, and will go on for all time. It is not every gay Lotharian that is invited by his lady love to a kitchen supper who would rob the house or get her into trouble. Neither was there any evidence in the first instance that would lead anyone to suppose that the servants suspected this.

The evidence further disclosed that the cook, a married woman, took advantage of her mistress`s absence to pay a visit to her husband, leaving Trice and the other servant, who were on friendly terms, to act as caretakers in her absence. Trice and the girl Laws both stated that they had known each other from childhood. The latter, in giving her evidence, described her surprise at seeing Trice with all the jewellery tied up in a handkerchief, admitting that he was going to steal it. “Oh, Teddy”, she said, “put it back”. Trice`s evidence corroborated her statement by his saying that he only took it to frighten her. The girl described the visit to London, when she begged of him to take it back, and even threatened to charge him if he did not. The cook`s evidence practically corroborated that of the witness Laws.

Chilvers` evidence practically corroborated Ensink`s as to the ring transaction.

Trice`s evidence given before the police court varied materially from his evidence given before the Quarter Sessions.

Now, what is agitating the lay mind – not the legal mind – is an explanation why these witnesses were not called. We venture to say that had the girl Laws given her evidence at the Quarter Sessions as she did in the police court a different view might have been taken.

It is well-known that Laws was under the impression that Trice was going to take her to America, instead of which he went off by himself without even telling her he was going. We are under the impression that it was Laws who furnished the clue as to his whereabouts. The whole evidence, as it presents itself to ourselves and the public, is that Trice, a good-looking young fellow of 23, partook of the “below stairs hospitality” of two women. As far as the evidence shows, no temptation was held out on their part to steal the jewellery, and no evidence was given that it was done at their instigation or that they took any part in it; in fact, the evidence was the other way.Trice stole the stuff on his own initiative, according to his own statement, and exercised great shrewdness and sagacity in disposing of the same.

He went away under an assumed name, and when caught made a clean breast of it, implicating many others with whom he had formerly been associated, and who probably would have been put on their trial had there been a little of corroboration of his statements against them.

Hence he is free, and we hope he will profit by the leniency shown him. We are not going to say a word against the Recorder`s action. He is kindness itself. When the prosecution recommended him to mercy, and when the lady who had lost her valuable jewellery joined in that recommendation, with the characters that had been given, the Recorder only did what might have been expected of him.

We have not said a word as to Ensink, as in case there should be an appeal we do not, in accordance with our usual custom, discuss matter until sub judice.

Folkestone Daily News 7-2-1912

Annual Licensing Sessions

Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, Herbert, Leggett, Stainer, Swoffer, Fynmore, Hamilton, Boyd, and Jenner.

The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chief Constable gave notice of opposition to the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous on the ground that it had been badly conducted.

The Chairman also announced that it was also to be opposed on the ground of redundancy. It will be dealt with at the adjourned sessions on March 8^th.

Folkestone Express 10-2-1912

Annual Licensing Sessions

The annual Brewster Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning. The licensing Justices were E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd Esqs., Major Leggett, Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton, and Alderman Jenner.

The Chief Constable reported as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 121 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.: Full licences 74, Beer “on” 7, Beer “off” 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers 14, Grocers, etc., “off” 10, Confectioners Wine “on” 3, Chemists Wine “off” 7. This gives an average, according to the Census of 1911, of one licence to every 276 persons, or one “on” licence to every 413 persons. This is a decrease of two “on” licences as compared with the return submitted last year.

At the last adjourned general annual licensing meeting, the renewal of three “on” licences was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the meeting of the Compensation Committee held at Canterbury on 19^th July, one licence, viz., the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, was renewed, and the other two, the Duke of York and the Castle Inn, both situate in High Street, Sandgate, were refused. After the payment of compensation, the two latter houses were closed on December 30^th last.

Since the last annual licensing meeting, 12 of the licences have been transferred.

Five occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 38 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions.

During the year ended 31^st December last 85 persons (54 males and 31 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 66 were convicted and 19 discharged. This is a decrease of 15 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year. Of those proceeded against, 35 were residents of the borough, 27 persons of no fixed abode, 10 soldiers, and 13 residents of other districts.

No conviction has been recorded against any licence holder during the past year. Proceedings were taken in one case for a breach of the closing regulations, but the case was dismissed.

Four clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.

There are 20 places licensed for public music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing.

There is also one house licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of wines and spirits off the premises, for which no Magistrates` certificate is required.

I am pleased to report that the licensed houses generally have been conducted in a satisfactory manner, and beg to point out that this is the second year in which no conviction has been recorded against a licence holder for a breach of the licensing laws.

I beg to give notice of my intention to oppose the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel, on the ground that the premises have been ill-conducted, and respectfully ask that the consideration of the renewal may be deferred until the adjourned meeting.

I have received notice of one application to be made at these sessions for a new licence, viz., one beer “off”.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman said it was very satisfactory to think that there had been no proceedings or convictions against any licence holder during the past two years. He thought the cases of drunkenness were the smallest this century. There was only one regrettable fact – that was the number of females that were charged with drunkenness. Of the 85 persons charged at the police court with drunkenness during the year, 31 were females. It seemed to be rather a pity. Before they heard the Chief Constable`s report they had decided in their own minds to instruct him to give notice to the Rendezvous Hotel on the ground of redundancy.

The Chief Constable asked whether the Magistrates to give notice to that effect as well?

The Chairman said the case would be adjourned to the adjourned sessions.

Quarter Sessions

The long-deferred trial of the two men, Trice and Ensink, the first charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery belonging to Lady D`Oyly, on the 21^st October last, and the latter with receiving the same, well-knowing it to have been stolen, came on at the Quarter Sessions before the Recorder on Monday.

The Recorder, in the course of his charge, pointed out the salient features of the jewellery robbery case, which are quite familiar to our readers. He said Lady D`Oyly left her residence in the charge of a servant named Dalton, who appeared to have shamefully abused her trust. But into what transpired in that house during the month of October, it was not necessary for him then, nor would it probably be necessary for him to refer to it. But there was this fact, that Trice had admitted that he had taken a diamond crescent bracelet, valued at £350, and a diamond ring, worth £200. Trice had been for eighteen months in the service of Ensink as potman, and at the time the transactions he referred to took place he knew Trice was out of employment. Nevertheless, they went to London together, and the diamond ring was pawned for £35 at a pawnbroker`s in the neighbourhood of Leicester Square, and out of the proceeds Ensink received a new hat. He had knowledge of the bracelet being in the possession of Trice, and told him he was going to Holland and would dispose of it for him. It would be proved that he sold the bracelet in Amsterdam for £180. The person who bought it would be called before them. Ensink appeared to have sent half the money to Trice and kept half for himself. He did not propose to go at length into the evidence before them. It was not within their (the Grand Jury`s) province to try the case. All that they had got to do was to see whether a prima facie case existed against the man of receiving that property and disposing of it well-knowing it to have been stolen. He only just wanted to point out to them the evidence of what took place when Ensink was charged with receiving the valuable diamond bracelet. He was sent for by the Chief Constable, who said to him “Have you in your possession or recently had in your possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or do you know anything about any other jewellery that Trice has disposed of?” Ensink said “No, sir”, whereupon the Chief Constable said “I shall arrest you and charge you with receiving a diamond bracelet, well-knowing it to have been stolen”. Ensink replied “I don`t know anything about it”. He had taken the trouble to put the salient facts of the case before them so that they would understand what portions of the evidence to direct their minds.

The Grand Jury returned true bills in each case.

Trice was then placed in the dock and formally charged with, on the 18^th October, 1911, at Folkestone, feloniously stealing in the dwelling house of Amy Agnes D`Oyly, one crescent diamond bracelet, one gold ring set with diamond, one gold ring set with three diamonds, one gold ring set with five diamonds, and one gold mohair bracelet, the goods and chattels of the said Amy Agnes D`Oyly, and of the value of £645, and pleaded Guilty to stealing the diamond crescent bracelet and the diamond ring.

Mr. Wardley said, on behalf of the Crown, he proposed to accept Trice`s plea.

Ensink was then charged separately with stealing and receiving the articles named in the indictment, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. A.W. Wardley prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr. G.H. Rooth (instructed by Mr. De Wet) appeared on behalf of Trice, and Mr. Ernest Wetton (instructed by Mr.H.J. Myers) on behalf of Ensink.

Mr. Rooth, on behalf of Trice, said he thought it be desirable, perhaps, if the Recorder sentenced his client before hearing the evidence against the other prisoner. The invariable practice at the Central Criminal Court and at the London Sessions when such a state of things takes place was to sentence the man, before he gave evidence, for it was considered he would not be under any fear or favour, or imagine he would gain any favour for the evidence he would give in the other case.

The Recorder said it had not occurred to him in that light, and he must say his own opinion was that he should not sentence Trice until he had had all the facts before him in connection with the case against Ensink, for Trice and Ensink were very much mixed up together in that case. It seemed to him under all the circumstances that it would be desirable to postpone sentence until the other case was heard.

Mr. Wardley said it was entirely a matter for the Recorder. The only difficulty he saw was that it would mean repeating the story if Trice was not sentenced first.

The Recorder: I shall not sentence Trice until I have heard all the evidence.

Mr. Rooth thereupon asked if the Recorder would allow him to address him on behalf of his client.

The Recorder: I fail to see what locus standi you have at this stage.

Mr. Wardley then opened briefly, relating the circumstances of the case to the jury.

Lady Agnes D`Oyly, wife of Sir Warren Hastings D`Oyly, said she was the owner of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens. On the 1^st September last she left Greenbank, which she left in charge of the cook, Dalton, who had been with her some eight or nine months. She had had a girl named Minnie Laws in her service in June and July as a parlourmaid. She did not know anything about her coming back again. When witness left she had a quantity of jewellery in her bedroom. The case contained the diamond bracelet. When she left on the 1^st September the bracelet was in the case in the wardrobe. She also had in the same place a gold ring set with a diamond, another gold ring with three diamonds, one with five diamonds, and two mohair bracelets. When she returned on the 15^th November she missed the diamond bracelet, the diamond ring, the ring with three diamonds, and one with five diamonds. She valued the bracelet at £350, single diamond gold ring within £200, and other rings about £35 and £50. She had seen the single diamond ring in London at the pawnbroker`s at Leicester Square, and she identified it as her property. The ring produced by Mr. Woodthorpe was her property, and it was in the same case as when in her wardrobe.

Mr. Wetton cross-examined the witness as to the values she set on the various articles of jewellery, and the Recorder pointed out that it did not matter a straw what the value of the jewellery was. Hey wanted to keep the thing in narrow limits. The question of the value was not a question for the jury.

Lady D`Oyly said she was given to understand that the ring had a flaw in it when it was given to her.

Edwin George Trice said he was a lift attendant, and had not been in employment since last June. He had been a barman and page at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, where he first met Ensink, who was a lounge waiter there. His acquaintance with him had ripened after Ensink took the Rendezvous Hotel, which he (witness) used pretty frequently. He was employed about eighteen months by Ensink as barman and billiard marker in September, 1907, till June, 1909. He was then nearly two years at the Harbour Hotel. He kept up the acquaintance with Ensink. He was introduced to Mrs. Dalton by Minnie Laws. After that he visited Greenbank, where Mrs. Dalton was. That was in September. While he was there he learned from conversation of a quantity of jewellery being in the house. It was in the wardrobe in Lady D`Oyly`s bedroom. He remembered Mrs. Dalton going away. The next morning he went to the wardrobe and found some jewellery there. Mrs. Dalton left on October 2^nd. Witness took all the jewellery out of both cupboards and put it in a handkerchief and took it to London. Laws went with him and they returned the next day. There was then a conversation between witness and Laws about the jewellery, but it was not in consequence of that he put the jewellery back. He put it back of his own accord in the wardrobe, with the exception of two rings. They were two single stone diamond rings. Amongst the things he took on the first occasion was the bracelet referred to. Witness had a conversation with Ensink with reference to the jewellery. He first spoke to him about it after Mrs. Dalton went away. It was a week after his return from London. The conversation was in the Rendezvous Hotel. Chilvers, in witness`s presence, had tickets for America, which he wanted to dispose of. Witness had the diamond rings on him, and they were referred to. It was suggested the single stone diamond ring should be pawned in London, and Ensink knew a man in London who would buy it. The next day they went to London by the midday excursion train. Witness, Chilvers and Ensink went together. When they got to London they went to find a man named “Fat Charlie”. At the Folkestone station they spoke about the diamond ring, and Ensink said “Fat Charlie” will pawn it”. “Fat Charlie” was a waiter who had worked at the Metropole. His name was Bittner. Witness had met him at the Rendezvous Hotel. Ensink took them to the Artists` Club at London, and from there they went to the Devonshire Arms, Picadilly. Ensink found “Fat Charlie” in Little Newport Street, and they walked a few paces in front of witness and Chilvers. “Fat Charlie” turned round to witness and said “Show me it”. Witness gave him the ring, and “Fat Charlie” went round the corner, followed by witness. Ensink was close by. “Fat Charlie” went into Hawes, the pawnbrokers. Subsequently he came out and gave witness six £5 notes and £4 10s. The other diamond ring he put back. While in London it was worn by Ensink, who gave it back to witness next day, at the request of witness. Ensink was going to buy it for £5, but there was an engraving on it and witness replaced it. A few days later, at the Rendezvous Hotel, Ensink asked witness where the diamond bracelet was. He said it was at Greenbank. Ensink said he was going to Holland the next day, and would dispose of it. Witness fetched the bracelet and gave it to Ensink, who asked him how much he wanted for it. Witness said “£100”, and Ensink said “All right”. Witness had previously showed Ensink the bracelet. He had not seen the bracelet since handing it to Ensink. He identified the case (produced). On the Thursday following the Monday he received a registered letter containing £90 in £5 Bank of England notes. It was handed to him by Mrs. Ensink at the Rendezvous Hotel. It was addressed to “Trice, Rendezvous Hotel”. It was accompanied by a letter which he handed to Cottrell, who was present, and he had not seen it since. The letter said that £90 was all that Ensink could get for the bracelet and he was to hand Mrs. Ensink the cost of the journey and destroy the letter. He also told witness to fetch the ring out of pawn at London and send it to Ensink. It must be there before Friday. Witness showed Cottrell the letter. He did not hand Mrs. Ensink any money. Cottrell and witness then went to the Post Office and wrote to Ensink at an hotel in Amsterdam that he was not troubling about the ring. The date was the 26^th October. On Ensink`s return from Holland he asked witness at the Rendezvous if he had received it all right, and witness said “Yes”. He never said how much he had got for the bracelet. Witness saw Ensink every day after that. One day, in at Brett`s, Ensink said the boys were kicking up a row because they had not had enough money. He said “I should get away if I was you” Witness then went into the Rendezvous and saw the boys there. He also saw another man named Moser, who had heard something about the jewellery. Witness gave Moser a sovereign to keep his mouth shut. Witness went to Manchester on November 4^th, intending to go to America. He told Ensink he was going to Manchester, to his friend`s. About ten days after, witness wrote to Ensink from the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchester. He told him he was going to America, and asked him to advance £5 on the pawnticket. He wrote in the name of Ted Davies. The next day Ensink wired him £2 in the name of Ted Davies. He saw no more of Ensink until after his arrest, the next day, when he was taken to Salford, and brought to Folkestone.

The receipt for £2 was produced, and identified by Trice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wetton, witness said he had lived in the town all his life and had always borne a good character. He had known Ensink some six or seven years. He was employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, and Ensink, who was a lounge waiter there, always found him straightforward in his dealings. From 1908 to 1910 witness was employed as barman at the Rendezvous Hotel by Ensink, who trusted him implicitly. Then he was employed at the Harbour Hotel and then as lift attendant at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. He fell out of employment. Mrs. Dalton invited him to Greenbank as her guest. On the morning of the third October he and Laws went in all the rooms and he remembered having the jewellery on the bed. Laws asked him not to take the jewellery in the first instance, and he took it to frighten her. In the first place he intended to steal it, but he also took it to frighten Laws. He did not know why. He had the bracelet with him when he went to London with Laws on October 3^rd, and also when he went to London the second time ten days later with John Wyllie and Chilvers. Between the two visits to London he had shown the bracelet to Ensink. He had been wearing the two diamond rings all the time. On the 18^th October he met Ensink accidentally at the railway station and he (Ensink) said he should like the ring. Ensink was going to the Brewers` Exhibition. Mr. Chapman, the landlord of the Devonshire public house, Picadilly, was the man who Ensink suggested to witness would buy the ring. With regard to the bracelet, he asked Ensink £100 for it, not £90. Questioned about the contents of the letter from Ensink, Trice admitted that he did not divulge it all at the Police Court proceedings.

Ludovius J. Linnekamp, carrying on business at 52, Agatha Dehenstraat, Amsterdam, was the next witness. His evidence had to be interpreted, as he could not understand English. He said he was a cafe keeper and carried on business as a diamond polisher at Amsterdam. He remembered a Tuesday some weeks ago, when two men came into his cafe. He believed he recognised one of the two men, who were brothers, in Ensink, the prisoner. One of the two men who came to his shop that day showed him a diamond bracelet and asked him to buy it. He offered them 2,000 guilders or florins for it, but they would not take it. The men returned again, and he eventually bought it for 2,200 guilders, and paid the money the next day in two one thousand notes and two one hundred notes. He polished the diamonds and sold them for 3,000 guilders.

Thomas John Golder, billiard marker at the Rendezvous Hotel, said he had been at the hotel since February of last year. He knew the prisoner, and he remembered his going away for a holiday about October 15^th. He was gone five days. While he was away the postman brought two registered letters, one for Mrs. Ensink and one for Trice, and he signed the receipts for them. He identified the receipts (produced).

Albert Edward Cottrell said he knew Trice. He was in the saloon bar of the Rendezvous Hotel one morning when Mrs. Ensink was in the bar. She handed Trice a letter, who opened it and took out some bank notes and put them into his pocket. Trice handed him the letter. It was not signed. It said “Enclosed banknotes to the value of £90”. The letter was not signed. He did not see any address. He gave it back to Trice and never saw it again. At the time Trice owed him between £5 and £6. Trice gave him a £5 note, and he took 50s. out of it, and gave him back the change. Ensink was supposed to be on the Continent.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not see “Go and fetch “R”” in the letter. He did not burn the letter.

William Lawrence Chilvers, a telephone clerk at an hotel, said he had known Trice about twelve months. On October 18^th he went to London with Ensink, Trice, and a valet from the Metropole, named Wagner. In London they met a man he knew by the name of Charlie. They went into various public houses. Trice gave him a sealed envelope, which he left at the Rendezvous. Witness got a new hat, which was paid for by Ensink, who bought four hats altogether.

Mr. Woodthorpe, assistant at Messrs. Hawes and Son, pawnbrokers, Cranbourne Street, Leicester Square, said the ring produced was pawned at his premises on October 18^th by a man named Charles Hanson for £35. He knew Hanson, and heard he was a waiter. He had done business with him three or four times before. He showed the ring to Lady D`Oyly, who identified it as hers.

In reply to the Recorder, witness said Hanson gave his address as 230, Newport Street, Leicester Square. He had not looked to see if the previous transactions with Hanson were in the same name and the same place. He could not tell him the most recent transactions with Hanson prior to 18^th October.

William James Rule, Clerk at the General Post Office, Folkestone, said he produced two receipts for two registered postal packets, from the office, Amsterdam, dated October 26^th, 1911, addressed Mrs. Ensink, Rendezvous Hotel, and F. Trice, Rendezvous Hotel, and each of which bore the signature of Golder; a request for a money order at Folkestone, despatching by telegram £2, payable at Manchester, and signed Louis Ensink to Ned (Edward) Davies, Swan Hotel, Fountain Street; a telegram dated 26^th October from Amsterdam, addressed to Ensink; and a telegram of the same date addressed to Ensink, Dam Hotel, Amsterdam, and which was to the effect “Received letters safely. Have written. Lily”.

Elizabeth Whittaker, of 35, Clarence Street, Broughton, Salford; Edward Tattersall, 61, Durham Street, Salford; and Emma Whittaker, 27 Tully Street, Broughton, gave evidence as to Ensink being in Manchester on the day after Trice`s arrest and inquiring after him, in both the names of Davies and Trice.

Mr. Reeves, the Chief Constable, said about 10.30 on the morning of November 18^th he had a conversation with Ensink. He said to him “I am making inquiries and trying to trace a quantity of jewellery stolen from a house in Sandgate Road last month. A man named Trice is in custody charged with stealing it. In consequence of statements he has made I must warn you that anything you shall say I shall use in evidence against you should a criminal charge be preferred against you respecting it. Have you now or had recently in your possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or do you know anything about any other jewellery trice has disposed of?” Ensink said “No, sir”. He then said to prisoner “I shall arrest you and you will be charged with receiving, on or about 20^th October, from Edward Trice, well-knowing it to have been stolen, a diamond bracelet, and on that charge you will be detained in custody”. He replied “I do not know anything about it”. He was then taken into the police office, searched and locked up.

In reply to Mr. Wetton, Mr. Reeve said he sent across to the hotel for the prisoner three times on Thursday and three times on Friday. On Friday morning he sent word across to him that he (the Chief Constable) would like to see him at ten o`clock the following morning. He did not come, so he sent one of his men across and told him to see that Ensink came. He then came across to his office. When he sent for him on Thursday morning they told him Ensink was in bed, and all the time he was away.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

The prisoner was then placed in the witness box and gave evidence. He said his name was Gerard John Anton Ensink (31), and he had been in England 15 years, and had lived in Folkestone for the last nine years. He was employed at the Pavilion Hotel for four and a half to five years, first as second head waiter, and then as lounge waiter. He took the Rendezvous Hotel in 1907, and had had a licence granted ever since. From first to last he had always borne a good name. He had known rice about eight years. He took him into his employment in 1908 and he remained with him for eighteen months. He always found him honest and straightforward, and entrusted him with money to take to the bank, sometimes large amounts. Trice left his employment in 1909, and witness had continued to be friendly with him. Trice was then employed at the Harbour Hotel as barman, and then as liftman at the Pavilion Hotel. Trice was frequently at the Rendezvous Hotel in October of last year. He had two rings on his fingers. Witness had no idea the rings were stolen property. He never heard of the goings-on at Greenbank. He remembered Trice showing him a bracelet. He did not take particular notice of it, and he did not think it was a stolen bracelet. On the 11^th October witness was going to the Brewers` Exhibition at London by the Wednesday excursion. On the railway station he met Wagner, Trice and Chilvers. He had not pre-arranged to meet the two latter. When they got to London, Trice and Chilvers asked him where he was going. He said he was meeting Charlie. They subsequently went to the Devonshire public house, Picadilly, and had a game of billiards, and then Trice asked the landlord the value of the ring. They met “Fat Charlie” outside the Artists` Club, and he showed Trice where the pawnshop was. Witness then went to have a shave. He had no idea the ring was stolen. He did not know Trice was going to pawn the ring. He did not know anything about the envelope which Chilvers left at the hotel till he found it the next morning. He went to Amsterdam in October for his holidays. He might have told Trice he was going. Trice came in at eight o`clock on Monday, and said he heard he (witness) was going to Amsterdam. He said that was quite right. Trice then went out to have a drink, and a little while after he came back and brought a bracelet with him. He had seen the bracelet two or three weeks before. Trice asked him whether he would mind selling it for him. Witness asked him whether it was his to sell, and Trice said “Yes”. He asked him how much he wanted for it. Trice said “£100”. Witness asked him what was the lowest he would take. Trice said he would take £90. Trice gave him the bracelet and he sent Trice eighteen £5 notes. He did not mention in the letter “Go and get “R””, meaning the ring. On the Wednesday, he heard the property was stolen, and he went to find Trice and learn the truth of the rumour. When he got to Manchester he found that Trice was arrested. When questioned by the Chief Constable he felt a bit nervous, and in saying he knew nothing about it he was not telling the truth. He was sorry now that he had said that.

Mr. Wardley, cross-examining: Tell me, first of all, when you made up your mind for the first time to tell the story you have told today?

Prisoner: I have not made up the story.

Mr. Wardley repeated the question, but Mr. Wetton objected to it, when the Recorder said it was a fair question to ask.

Mr. Wardley again asked him the question, and the prisoner replied that he decided on the next Monday after the first trial to tell the story.

Mr. Wardley: Having made up your mind on the previous Monday to tell the story you have today, why did you not tell it at the Police Court on the second occasion?

Prisoner: I did not have the chance.

But you reserved your defence? Your solicitor knew on that day that you were going to say that Trice brought you a bracelet and asked you to sell it for him? – Yes.

Did you instruct your solicitor to see that that question was put to Trice in cross-examination? – No.

You know as a matter of fact it was not put to Trice by your counsel? – No.

Further cross-examined, Ensink said that some of Trice`s story was true and some not. Trice must have earned 25s. or 30s. a week when employed by him. It surprised him the first two or three days that Trice wore the rings.

Mr. Wardley: Then you got over the shock? (Laughter)

Ensink: It was not a shock.

Did you ask him where he got them? – I had no business to do so.

The Recorder: Did you ask him where he got them? – No.

The Recorder: Did you ask him where he got the bracelet? – He said it was his.

The Recorder: Did you ask him? – No.

The Recorder: Why not? – The man might feel insulted if I did.

In reply to Mr. Wardley, the prisoner said he was not in the habit of buying valuable things from waiters and billiard markers. That was the first time he had done so and was quite a new event in his life. He had no nervousness about it at all. He did not think it at all strange that a young man in Trice`s position should have a bracelet like that, for he had got some good friends. He had never seen a young man in that position in life with such a bracelet before. It did not occur to him at all strange that he should take it Holland instead of London. It was well known that Holland was a better market for diamonds. He knew Hatton Garden was occupied by diamond merchants, including Dutch merchants.

Mr. Wardley: Do you know how to get rid of things?

Ensink: Yes.

Is it tru that you said to Trice “You can`t do it without your father?” – Not a word of it.

You thought that Trice was willing to take £90 for the bracelet if you could not get more? – No. I said “If I can`t get £100, what will you take?”. He said the lowest he would take was £90.

Did you tell him you could only get £90? – He did not ask me.

Then that is a lie of his? – Yes.

How was it you got this £183 and you only sent him £90? – Business is business. He asked me £90 for it and I gave it to him.

Is that usually the way you treat your friends when you sell anything for them? Do you regard it as an honest transaction? You are not ashamed of it? – No.

Did you tell him you had some difficulty in getting the banknotes? – I got them all in one place.

Is that an invention of Trice`s? – It must be.

Then this honest, straightforward young man has told us lies? – He must have gone wrong all at once.

You did not think he had gone wrong when he had all this valuable jewellery? – No.

Who first told you about the jewellery being stolen? – I think it was Cottrell.

Will you swear it was? – It was either Cottrell or John Wyllie.

Replying to further questions by Mr. Wardley, prisoner said he had not spoken of Cottrell as one of the boys. He never knew who the “boys” were. Referring to the ring incident, he had no need to introduce Trice to “Fat Charlie” because he knew him previously. He did not know Trice was going to pawn a ring when they went up to London together. Trice first mentioned the subject by saying he wanted to know where a pawnshop was, as he wanted to pawn something. He (Ensink) wanted to see “Fat Charlie” to take him to the Brewers` Exhibition. All four of them walked abreast in Little Newport Street. He did not hear any conversation between Trice and “Fat Charlie”. It was not true that “Fat Charlie” went to the pawnbrokers while Chilvers went to do some business, and he (Ensink) went to have a shave. Nothing was said in his presence about a white sapphire. The pawn ticket for the ring was sent to him from Manchester. He sent it back to the same address a few days after he got the money. The pawn ticket was sent as security for the loan of £5, for which Trice wired. He did not send Trice £5, but £2. He had not heard anything about the pawning of the ring then.

Mr. Wardley: You remember when you were before the Magistrates you made a statement when called upon to produce that letter. You said that you had not had a letter. That was untrue.

Ensink: Yes.

Mr. Wardley: I give you one more chance. How much do you know about the pawning of the ring in London before you got the pawn ticket from Manchester? – I was told after the occasion; after I had shaved.

Who told you? – Trice.

Did you not know he had pawned the ring when you were in the public house, and also when you bought the hats? – I knew he had pawned something.

Were not the hats purchased because of the successful pawning of the ring? – I wanted a new hat; Chilvers wanted one, and we tossed for them.

Have you ever tossed for hats before? – I won one as a bet once, but I never tossed for any before.

This completed the evidence.

Mr. Wardley then addressed the jury, and in the course of his remarks said he thought they would agree with him that Trice`s statement bore the impress and the indelible stamp of truth. He suggested to them that Trice had fallen into temptation. On the other hand, they had an experienced man of the world, asking them to believe the incredible story that the young man asked him to dispose of the jewellery. He suggested to them, however, that the arrangements were made by the older man. He submitted that Ensink was the mastermind of the whole matter.

Mr. Wetton spoke at some length in his address to the jury, and he argued that Ensink had been the dupe of Trice, because his client thought Trice was an extremely honest man. He suggested that there was no evidence at all that Ensink knew that the bracelet or the ring was stolen, and that Ensink, in selling the bracelet, was doing an innocent business deal.

The Recorder, in the course of a lengthy summing up, said Mr. Wetton had made a powerful appeal to the jury on the prisoner`s behalf. He asked them and warned them that they were not to act wholly and solely upon the evidence of Trice. If there had been no corroborative evidence he would have withdrawn the case from them. They had to consider the case in the light of the corroborative evidence. He supposed they had not the slightest shadow of doubt that those articles were stolen. The man Trice said he stole the articles and he took them in a fit of temptation, and he disposed of them because he had had a market in which he could dispose of them and in which the prisoner at the bar assisted. They had to consider the position and the relationship of these two people to each other. Trice was found bringing from time to time jewellery to the hotel, and one would have thought Ensink would have said “Where on earth did you get this jewellery? You have only been getting 25s. a week”, and would not have had anything to do with it. He, however, did not adopt that course. The Recorder then went through the evidence as to the ring incident, which Ensink denied, and said although it was true he went to London he did not participate in the pawning. The Crown, he said, did not so much rely on that portion of the case. Mr. Lewis Coward then touched upon the evidence regarding the bracelet, and continuing, he said did the jury think it was the act of an honest man to have taken that jewellery without any inquiry at all, knowing the position the man Trice held. The Recorder commented upon the fact that Ensink advised Trice to get away, and also sent him £2 on a pawn ticket for a ring, so it appeared perfectly clear that he was assisting Trice to get away. He also referred to the fact that Ensink went to Manchester, and inquired for Trice under his assumed name. In conclusion, he dealt with the Chief Constable`s evidence fully and said Ensink denied all knowledge of the jewellery. Obviously Ensink now said what he told the Chief Constable was a lie. He had endeavoured to put before them the salient facts in connection with the case, and he told them not to act solely on the evidence of the informer or the accomplice. Happily in that country they did not rely on such evidence, but required corroborative evidence. Mr. Wetton had said that was an innocent business deal. It was certainly a most unfortunate thing for Ensink that he should have made those answers to the Chief Constable he did.

The jury, after a very brief consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty against Ensink of receiving the two articles well-knowing them to have been stolen.

The Chief Constable, in reply to the Recorder, said there was nothing known against Ensink.

Mr. Wetton asked that his client should be dealt with under the First Offenders` Act. He further said if the Recorder felt inclined to postpone sentence to the next Sessions Ensink would try to make reparation.

The Recorder: He has been waiting his trial long enough now.

Trice was then placed in the dock with Ensink.

Mr. Rooth said Trice had pleaded Guilty to the charge of stealing the diamond rings and diamond bracelet, and nothing else. And though unfortunately Lady D`Oyly had lost apparently a number of other articles of jewellery, it was not suggested that any other articles had even been seen in his possession or ever been traced to his possession. Apart from taking them to London and back, Trice apparently succumbed to the temptation, but he had endeavoured to show his contrition for his deed. He had endeavoured to render every assistance to the police. They practically knew Trice`s history. He was 23 years of age, and had served since July 9^th, 1903, in various capacities, and in each case had given satisfaction to those who employed him, and had conducted himself with honesty and respectability. Ensink was a man who could have put Trice right when he was inclined to go wrong, but instead of that he assisted, in fact, he did more, he tempted him to go wrong. Lady D`Oyly had recommended Trice to the Recorder`s merciful consideration, and the prosecution desired him to deal with him leniently. He was the son of very respectable people, and efforts had been made to send him into another country where perhaps he might have another opportunity of reclaiming the name which he had so nearly forfeited. He knew he was appealing to no heart of stone when he appealed to the Recorder.

Lady D`Oyly said she agreed with what Mr. Rooth had said, and that she felt the temptation was put in Trice`s way by others.

The Chief Constable said in reply to Mr. Rooth that he had known Trice for some years, and he knew up to a few months ago he bore a good character. A few months ago, however, he got led into gambling.

Mr. G.P. McKernan, Trice`s stepfather, a postman, said for the nine years he had had charge of the boy he had found him honest, upright and straightforward until lately, when he got into bad company.

The Recorder (to Mr. Reeve): Where was this gambling? At the Rendezvous?

The Chief Constable: Yes, sir.

Mr. F.T. Hall, of Parson`s Library, gave Trice a good character.

Mr. McKernan said he was anxious to send the boy to another country. Efforts had been made to get him out under the Church Army, but if those failed he was going to get him out. He would undertake that he would get him out of the country in a fortnight.

Mr. Easton, the Police Court Missioner, said that case had been brought to his notice by a lady and gentleman, and the stepfather and mother of Trice. A lady wrote to the Social Department of the Church Army and he went up and interviewed the head. He thought it was clear there would be a difficulty in getting Trice out under the circumstances. He was safe in saying that the Canadian Government were very slow to accept any doubtful cases – in cases in which there had been a conviction. It had been suggested to him – it was not his (Mr. Easton`s) suggestion – that if Trice went into a home for a period to be tested, there might be a possibility of getting him out.

The Recorder: He might go out privately to friends.

Mr. Easton: Yes.

Mr. McKernan said he could arrange to send him out to friends at Montreal. The lad had left everything to his arrangement and agreed to whatever plans he made.

Ensink, when called upon, had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon him.

The Recorder said the jury had found him Guilty of receiving the jewellery. In that verdict he entirely concurred. In addition to having committed the crime of which he stood charged, he thought fit to commit perjury in the witness box. An appeal had been made by his counsel to treat him as a first offender. He was a man of years. It was perfectly clear if he had not been the person to offer to enable Trice to dispose of those goods they would never have been stolen. He took into consideration the fact that he had been awaiting his trial for some time. He seriously questioned whether he ought not to send him to penal servitude. He, however, ordered him to be detained in hard labour for one year and six calendar months.

Trice said he had handed in a statement and he hoped the Recorder would read it. He was very sorry for what he had done. He felt the degradation he had brought on his people, and felt a disgrace to them and to the town in which he was born. He only hoped they would give him one more chance to make some recompense to his people for what he had done.

The Recorder said he read every word of the statement, painful though it had been for him to read it. The Court could accede to the appeal made to him. He thought that was a case where the prisoner had been led away by others, and he felt, although the responsibility was great, having regard to the great value of the jewels, he ought to accede to the appeal. He trusted the prisoner would hold his head as an honest man. He must bind him over to be of good behaviour for one year. In the meantime the arrangements would be made for him (the prisoner) to be sent abroad. He thought it best in Trice`s own interests that that should take place.

With regard to the ring, the Recorder made an order for its restitution to Lady D`Oyly forthwith.

Folkestone Herald 10-2-1912

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 7^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

The Chief Constable presented his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said it seemed to be very satisfactory that there had been no proceedings against any licence holder during the past two years, and that the number of cases of drunkenness was, he thought, the smallest this century. One little disquieting fact was the number of females charged with drunkenness. Out of 85 persons so charged at the Folkestone Police Court, 31 were females. It seemed rather a pity. Mr. Ward added that before the Chief Constable had given his report it had been intended to instruct him to oppose the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel on the ground of redundancy. However, as the case stood, it would be deferred until the adjourned licensing sessions. The Chairman said that all the other licences would be renewed.

Local News

The sensational jewel stealing case was heard at the Folkestone Borough Quarter Sessions on Monday, before the learned Recorder (Mr. J.C. Lewis Coward, K.C.). The result was that Ensink, formerly landlord of the Rendezvous Hotel, was convicted of receiving the diamond bracelet and sentenced to eighteen months` hard labour. Trice, who pleaded Guilty to stealing the diamond bracelet and a single stone diamond ring, and in whose behalf Lady D`Oyly asked for lenience, was merely bound over in his own recognisances to be of good behaviour for twelve months.

The Recorder, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said there were two cases which were a little out of the ordinary. There was a charge against Edwin George Trice, a young man, of stealing a large quantity of jewellery. But the most material matters which would come before them for their consideration would be in reference to the charge of stealing a crescent diamond bracelet of the value of some £350, and a gold diamond ring, of the value of some £200. There was also a bill of indictment charging Gerard John Anton Ensink, aged 34, with receiving the diamond bracelet, which was the property of Lady D`Oyly, who was one of the respected residents of this town, who, on the 1<sup>st</sup> September last, left her house in the sole charge of a servant of the name of Dalton. Into the betrayal of trust on the part of that servant, and the extraordinary conduct of the parties during the month of September in the house, it was not in his province to enter, nor did he think it necessary or possible at any stage to be necessary to enter. But Trice, when charged, admitted before the Magistrates that he did steal two of the articles he (the Recorder) had referred to more particularly, namely, the diamond bracelet and the gold diamond ring. Not Trice, apparently, had been a barman for about 18 months from Michaelmas, 1908, in the service of Ensink, and had left Ensink`s employment. According to the evidence, Ensink was aware that he was out of employment, and Trice apparently frequented the house at which Ensink was a licensed victualler. It appeared that on the 18^th October last, at the suggestion of Ensink, Trice went to London with Ensink with this valuable diamond ring, worth £200, and at Ensink`s suggestion the ring was pledged to a pawnbroker in the neighbourhood of Leicester Square for the sum of £35. Ensink received as a present a new hat from Trice. A few days after that, this valuable diamond crescent bracelet, which had been previously to the 21^st October taken by Trice and shown to Ensink at the public house, was taken again to the public house by Trice. After some conversation Ensink said he was going to Holland in a few days, and that he would dispose of it. He asked Trice how much he wanted for it, and Trice replied that he wanted £100. Trice gave Ensink the bracelet in the Rendezvous bar. Ensink appeared to have immediately gone off to Amsterdam with the bracelet, and there he sold it to a man of the name of Linnekamp for the sum of 2,200 florins. A florin being worth, he believed, about 1s. 8d., he received the sum of £180 for it. Linnekamp was a diamond polisher, a respectable man so far as it appeared from the depositions. Of that £180 Ensink sent over £90, half the proceeds, in £5 Bank of England notes, to Trice, and apparently retained the remainder for himself. All the Grand Jury had got to do was to see if a prima facie case existed against Ensink of receiving this property, and disposing of it, well-knowing it to have been stolen. He would read to them the evidence of what took place when Ensink was charged with receiving this valuable diamond bracelet. He was sent for by the Chief Constable, who asked him whether he had in his possession, or had recently had in his possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or did he know anything about any other jewellery that Trice had disposed of. Ensink said “No”. The Chief Constable then said that he would arrest him and that he would be charged with receiving, on or about the 20^th October, from Edwin George Trice, a diamond bracelet, well-knowing the same to have been stolen. Ensink replied “I do not know anything about it”.

Edwin George Trice, aged 23, described as a lift attendant, was first put into the dock to answer an indictment charging him with feloniously stealing from the dwelling house of Lady Amy Agnes D`Oyly one crescent diamond bracelet, one gold ring set with diamond, one gold ring set with three diamonds, one gold ring set with five diamonds, and one gold mohair bracelet, value £645, the property of Lady D`Oyly.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to stealing the bracelet and the single stone diamond ring, but not the other articles.

Gerard John Anton Ensink, 34, described as a licensed victualler, was then indicted for feloniously receiving of Edwin George Trice one crescent diamond bracelet, value £350, the property of Lady D`Oyly, well-knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen.

The accused pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Wardley appeared for the prosecution, Mr. H.G. Rooth (instructed by Mr. V.D. De Wet) for Trice, and Mr. Ernest Wetton (instructed by Mr. Myers) for Ensink.

Mr. Rooth drew attention to the fact that Trice had pleaded Guilty, and suggested that it would be desirable to sentence Trice before any other matter was dealt with. He said it was the practice of the Criminal Court to do so. It was said that there would then be nothing to fear and nothing to hope for in the way of favour.

The Recorder said he would not sentence Trice until he had had the facts before him in connection with the case of Ensink. They were very much mixed up in the case, and it seemed to him in all the circumstances desirable to postpone sentence. That was the view he had formed, and he had very carefully considered it.

Mr. Wardley left the matter entirely to the learned Recorder`s discretion.

The Recorder: I will not sentence Trice until I have got all the facts.

Mr. Wardley, in his opening speech, said in the fashionable quarter of Folkestone there were some houses known as Westbourne Gardens, and in one, known as Greenbank, Sir Warren Hastings D`Oyly and Lady D`Oyly resided. In December, 1910, Mrs. Agnes Dalton was taken into their service, and in July, 1911, a Minnie Laws was employed, and remained for one month. The latter left on the 20^th August, and on the following day Minnie Laws, who had made a friend of Mrs. Dalton, came back to the house, and remained as Mrs. Dalton`s guest, unknown to Lady D`Oyly, for a considerable time. In these establishments, he pointed out, the ladies knew very little of what took place downstairs. On the 1^st September Lady D`Oyly left Folkestone, for a change, and was away until the 15<sup>th</sup> November. During that time the establishment was left in the charge of Mrs. Dalton, and she had Minnie Laws there. On the 20<sup>th</sup> September Mrs. Dalton was introduced to a man named Trice. He was an attendant by occupation, but was out of work. He had also been a billiard marker, and a page boy at the Pavilion Hotel, and at the time the prisoner Ensink was a lounge waiter there. A man named Bittner, otherwise known as “Fat Charlie”, they would hear later, also took part in the story. During the time Lady D`Oyly was away Trice visited the house, and slept there a good many times, there being plenty of room. While he was there Mrs. Dalton foolishly disclosed at a table chat that upstairs in a wardrobe in one of Lady D`Oyly`s rooms there was a quantity of valuable jewellery. In the case of a man being out of work, and knowing that the house was not protected, this was a dangerous piece of information, and a temptation, and to that temptation Trice fell. On the 22^nd or 23^rd October they found the part of real story began. On the 2^nd October Mrs. Dalton herself left and went to Colchester. From Colchester she telegraphed a sum of 8s. to Trice, asking Trice to sleep at the house. Continuing, counsel referred to the occasion when Trice first took the jewellery from the wardrobe in a handkerchief and went to London with the girl Laws, and also to the occasion when Ensink became aware that Trice had a quantity of jewellery which he was wishing to dispose of. Amongst the things was a diamond bracelet with a number of diamonds, about 11 or 12. Ensink appeared to have inquired whether the diamonds were white sapphires, but he was assured that they were diamonds. Ensink told Trice he thought he could get rid of the bracelet, as he had friends in Holland who were diamond polishers. On the 18^th October Trice, Chilvers and Cottrell went to London, and there Bittner and Ensink had a conversation. Bittner came to Trice, and asked him to let him have a look at it, meaning a valuable diamond ring which Trice had got. Bittner (Fat Charlie) went into a pawnbrokers and disposed of the ring for £35. This was one of the rings out of the wardrobe. Later Trice received a registered letter from Holland, in which was enclosed £90 in £5 Bank of England notes. This was sent to the Rendezvous Hotel, and was handed to Trice by Mrs. Ensink. He was going to call evidence to show that Ensink had sold the bracelet for £183. Another interesting item was that when Trice went to Manchester, Ensink telegraphed him £2, this being on the 14^th November. On the 15^th November Trice was arrested.

Lady Amy Agnes D`Oyly, wife of Sir Warren Hastings D`Oyly, Bart., stated that on the 1^st September she left Greenbank in the charge of the cook and housekeeper, Mrs. Dalton. She had been with her for some eight or nine months. She had a girl named Minnie Laws during the months of July and August. Witness did not engage her herself. She knew nothing whatever about her coming back after she had been paid her wages. When witness left Folkestone she left a quantity of jewellery in the wardrobe in her bedroom. She had a diamond bracelet there when she left on the 1^st September, and that bracelet was in the case produced. She also had in the same place a gold ring set with one diamond, one set with three diamonds, one set with five diamonds, and two gold mohair bracelets. When she returned on the 15^th November she missed the diamond bracelet and the single stone diamond ring, the ring with three diamonds, and the ring set with five diamonds. The case was empty. The bracelet she valued at between £300 and £350, the single stone diamond ring within £200, and the other rings at about £30 and £50. She saw the single stone diamond ring at a pawnbroker`s  shop in Leicester Square, where she identified it.

Mr. Wetton inquired how Lady D`Oyly valued the ring at £200. – That is what I have reason to believe it is worth.

Mr. Wetton alluded to the fact that only £35 was lent on the ring, and a witness said it was not worth more than £60 at full value. About that you do not agree? – No.

Mr. Wetton next pointed out to Lady D`Oyly that she told Mr. Reeve she valued the crescent bracelet at £200.

Witness said she was always under the impression she said £300. She could not tell the value of jewellery. She had more of a sentimental value for it.

After another question had been put by Mr. Wetton the Recorder asked Lady D`Oyly whether the ring had a flaw in it.

Lady D`Oyly: I was given to understand so from the one who gave it to me.

Geo. Edwin Trice stated that he was bu occupation a lift attendant, but had not been in employment since last Michaelmas. Rior to that he was a billiard marker, a barman and a page boy at the Pavilion Hotel, where Ensink was a lounge waiter. It was there that his acquaintance ripened into friendship, and that lasted after he left the Pavilion. He met Ensink at the Rendezvous Hotel, and became intimate with him there, visiting the hotel pretty frequently. He knew Mrs. Dalton; he first made her acquaintance in the Rendezvous Hotel some time in September.

In answer to the Recorder, witness stated that after leaving the Pavilion Hotel he was employed at the Rendezvous Hotel as barman and billiard marker from about September, 1907, to June, 1909. He was also two years at the Harbour Hotel as barman. He saw Ensink, and kept up the friendly acquaintance.

In reply to Mr. Wardley, witness stated that Minnie Laws introduced him to Mrs. Dalton. He had known Minnie Laws ever since he had left school. When he was introduced to Mrs. Dalton he visited the house called Greenbank. That was in September. While there he learnt from conversation of the existence of a quantity of jewellery. It was in a wardrobe in her ladyship`s bedroom. He saw something of the jewellery before Mrs. Dalton left for her holiday. She showed him one morning a quantity of jewellery in the bedroom. It was not in the wardrobe. He remembered Mrs. Dalton going away, and the next morning after she went he (witness) went to the bedroom, and found some jewellery there. Mrs. Dalton left on the 2<sup>nd</sup> October, and he went to the jewellery on the 3<sup>rd</sup>. He took all the jewellery out of both cupboards, put it in a handkerchief, and took it to London. Before that he had a conversation with Minnie Laws; she was in the room at the time he took it, and she saw the jewellery in his possession. Laws went with him to London. He remained in London that night, and returned with Laws the next day to Folkestone. He never thought what he was doing at the time. He intended in the first place to dispose of the things, but to whom he did not know, and he abandoned that intention. He replaced the jewellery in the wardrobe with the exception of the two rings he was wearing. He retained them all the time. They were two single stone rings. He had never seen the three stone diamond ring or the five stone diamond ring. He had a conversation with Ensink with reference to the jewellery after Mrs. Dalton went away. It might have been some two weeks after his return from London, in the Rendezvous Hotel. Chilvers referred to the single stone diamond ring in Ensink`s presence. Chilvers had two tickets for America, but he wished to dispose of them for £5, as his parents did not wish him to go. Chilvers showed Ensink the ring, and Ensink said he knew a man in London who would buy it. It had previously been suggested that they should pawn the ring. Chilvers and Ensink both joined in the conversation, and talked about the possibility of disposing of the ring. Ensink said a man named Chapman, of the Devonshire Arms, Picadilly, might buy it. They did not go to London that night. The bracelet was not referred to on that occasion. He went to London the next day. Chilvers went with him, and at the station they met Ensink by accident. They all went to London together. When they got to London they went to find the man named “Fat Charlie”. On the station at Folkestone, prior to this, they had spoken about the ring. Chilvers suggested that they should get a taxi, and drive to a certain shop, but he did not think Ensink heard that. When they met Ensink, Chilvers said something to Ensink, and Ensink said he would like to have the ring. He tried it on, but it was too small for him. He then said that “Fat Charlie” would pawn it. Witness knew “Fat Charlie” before that. He met him at the Rendezvous. “Fat Charlie” was at one time a waiter at the Metropole Hotel. His name was Bittner. He did not know that Ensink knew they were going to London that day. They went to the Artists` Club, in Little Newport Street. Ensink went in, and witness remained outside. They afterwards went to the Devonshire Arms, Picadilly, and Ensink and Chilvers played billiards. Witness saw Mr. Chapman, the proprietor, and Ensink found “Fat Charlie” in Newport Street. Ensink and “Fat Charlie” walked a few paces in front of Chilvers and witness. Up to that time witness had said nothing about the ring. They walked a few yards, and “Fat Charlie” turned round, and said “Show me it”. Witness knew what he meant, and gave him the ring. “Fat Charlie” said “You are sure this is not a white sapphire?” Witness said “I am sure it is a diamond”. “Fat Charlie” said he would get into trouble if he tried to pawn it and it was a white sapphire. “Fat Charlie” then took the ring and went round the corner, and witness followed him. No-one went into the shop with “Fat Charlie”. Ensink was close by. “Fat Charlie” asked how much he wanted for the ring. Chilvers answered “£40”. After he came out “Fat Charlie” said he would not go through it again for a “fiver”. They walked to the Hippodrome, and “Fat Charlie” gave him six five pound notes, £4 10s., and some silver. Witness gave “Fat Charlie” £2 10s. for pawning the ring. He seemed dissatisfied, and asked for £5. Witness then gave him another 10s. They then went to the White Star Line offices, and Chilvers went in there. Some hats were afterwards bought with the money. Four bowler hats were bought. Ensink had one, witness had one, Chilvers had one, and “Fat Charlie” had one. Ensink bought the hats. He had the money in the inside pocket of his waistcoat. Ensink was keeping the money for safety. Ensink gave him back £4 then, and handed some notes to Chilvers to take back to the Rendezvous Hotel. Chilvers suggested buying the hats. Witness afterwards got the bulk of the money on going back to the Rendezvous Hotel the next morning. He was handed the money by Ensink, who had taken care of it for him. The other diamond ring witness had taken Ensink wore the day they were in London. Witness asked for it back the next day. There was an engraving in it. Ensink was going to buy it for £5, but as witness knew there was an engraving in it, it was not sold. Witness replaced it in the wardrobe. With regard to the bracelet, that subject was raised in the Rendezvous Hotel. Ensink asked him where the bracelet was. Witness did not know how he knew about that. Ensink asked him where the diamond bracelet was. Witness told him it was at Greenbank. Ensink said “I am going to Holland tomorrow, and I will dispose of it for you if you like”. He told Ensink that “Fat Charlie” was going to dispose of the rest of the jewellery, and Ensink said “All right”. Witness afterwards told Ensink he could have it, and he fetched it and gave it to Ensink, who asked him how much he wanted for it. Witness said “£100”. Ensink said “All right”. He had not seen the bracelet since. He identified the case produced as the one in which the bracelet was placed. He made no arrangement with Ensink then as to how he was to get the £100. That was on Monday. He received a registered letter with £90 in £5 Bank of England notes at the Rendezvous Hotel, and that was handed to him by Mrs. Ensink. Cottrell was also present. He signed no receipt for it. There was a letter accompanying it. He handed it to Cottrell to read, and he (witness) never saw it afterwards. The same evening he asked Cottrell where it was. He had just thrown a piece of paper on the fire, and he said “There it is”. In the letter Ensink said £90 was all he could get for the bracelet, and he could give any costs to Mrs. Ensink. Ensink told him to go to London, get the ring out of pawn, and send it to him there (meaning Holland). He referred to the ring that had been pawned by “Fat Charlie”. He said it must be there before Friday. The letter was dated from Amsterdam. He did not notice the date of the letter, but the signature was that of “Louis”, by which name he knew Ensink. Witness did not hand Mrs. Ensink any money. Cottrell then accompanied him to the Tontine Street Post Office, and he wrote acknowledging the letter, and told Ensink he would not trouble about the ring. Cottrell afterwards read the letter, and witness posted it.

In answer to the Recorder, Trice said he saw Ensink at the Rendezvous Hotel on the Thursday, Friday, or Saturday evening following his return from London.

In reply to Mr. Wardley, witness stated that Ensink asked him if he received it all right. He (Trice) said “Yes”. Ensink said he need not worry about changing the £5 notes, as he (Ensink) went all over the place to change Dutch money into English. Ensink did not say what he got for the bracelet, or about paying anything to Mrs. Ensink. That was all that took place on that occasion. Witness spoke to Ensink with regard to the jewellery at Greenbank, and told Ensink there was more up there, which Ensink knew, but he did not think anything came of that.

In answer to the Recorder, witness stated that on one occasion he saw Ensink outside Mr. Brett`s, the hosiers. Ensink said the boys were kicking up a row because they had not had enough money, meaning Cottrell, Chilvers, John Wyllie, etc. Ensink said “I should get away if I were you”. Witness then went to the Rendezvous Hotel, and saw the others there, but they said nothing to him. Witness also saw another man named Moser. Ensink said he had heard about the jewellery. Witness saw Moser, called him on one side, and gave him £1 to keep his mouth shut. Witness intended to go to America with a friend of his who had come from America to get married. Ensink knew he was going. He told him he was going on the previous evening. He wrote to Ensink about ten days after he went to Manchester, from the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street. He wrore saying he had not enough money to go to America, and asked him to lend him £5 on the ticket (enclosed) for the ring. Ensink had previously said he would give him £5 for the ticket. He wrote to Ensink in the name of Ted Davis. Ensink wired him £2 the next day; that was the day before his arrest. Witness also stayed at 27, Tully Street, where Mrs. Whittaker lived. He heard nothing more before he was arrested the next day.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wetton, witness stated that he was 23 years of age. He was a Folkestone boy, and up to the time this charge was brought against him had always borne a good character in the town. He had known Ensink some six or seven years. He was employed at the Pavilion Hotel as page boy when Ensink was lounge waiter. Ensink always found him honest and straightforward in all his dealings. He left the Pavilion Hotel, and Ensink left also, taking the Rendezvous Hotel about four years ago. Witness was employed there as barman from 1907 to 1909. Ensink trusted him to go to the bank for change, and trusted him with the charge of the bar; he trusted him implicitly. He fell out of employment in the early part of last year. Mrs. Dalton invited him there as her guest, and he was quite prepared to go. He went in and out of all the rooms with the girl Laws; he made himself thoroughly at home. The jewellery he took to London he brought back of his own accord. Laws told him not to take the jewellery in the first place, but notwithstanding that he took it with her to London. He did it more than anything else to frighten her. He admitted that in the first instance he intended to dispose of it. He went with Chilvers and John Wyllie on the second occasion, some ten days later. He got over his fear. He only went to London twice with the jewellery. They saw Ensink at the Folkestone Railway Station on the 18^th November. Ensink said he was going to the Brewers` Exhibition. Ensink said he would like the ring himself. He suggested going to Mr. Chapman, and that he would buy the ring. Witness did not suggest anything against Mr. Chapman, and did not think he was a man who would buy stolen property. He was a very respectable licensed victualler. Ensink went to the Agricultural Hall and saw the Exhibition. That was on a Wednesday. They went up by a half-day excursion. They returned to Folkestone by the 9 o`clock excursion back. On the occasions they went up by train they never made any reference to Greenbank. He did not ask Ensink for £90 for the bracelet. He asked for £100. Cottrell destroyed the letter received from Ensink. Cottrell had said that he had not done so, but Cottrell had also said he never received £11. Cottrell was not speaking the truth. He (witness) did not tell Ensink he would be satisfied with £90.

In reply to Mr. Wardley, witness stated that when he went to London with the girl Laws he did not see Ensink on the night of his return. It was on the occasion of the second journey to London, when he came back earlier, that he saw Ensink at the Rendezvous Hotel. He reported to Ensink the result of the day`s efforts. Ensink asked him how he got on, and witness said “No business”. Ensink, in reply, said “You can`t do anything without your father”. When he told Mr. Wetton that nothing was mentioned of Greenbank just previously, he referred to the occasions of the journeys to London, but reference was made on other occasions. Of that he was quite sure.

J.J. Liinekamp, through an interpreter, said he was a cafe keeper and diamond polisher at Amsterdam. On a Tuesday some weeks ago two men came into his shop. They looked very much like brothers. He thought that the prisoner in the dock was the one who sold the diamond bracelet to him. At first witness offered to buy the bracelet for 2,000 florins. After some discussion the men said they would sell the bracelet for 2,200 florins (£180), and witness eventually bought it for that sum. He paid the money the next day in two thousand florin notes and two hundred florin notes. Witness later polished the diamonds up, and sold it for 3,000 florins, which would be equivalent to about £250.

Thomas James Golder said he was a billiard marker at the Rendezvous Hotel. He had been there for about eleven months. He remembered that Ensink went away for a holiday last year on about the 15^th October. He was gone for about five days. Witness remembered that during his absence two registered letters arrived at the Rendezvous. One was addressed to Mrs. Ensink and the other was addressed to Trice. Witness signed for both of the letters.

Albert Edward Cottrell said that he was a tobacconist and confectioner, and lived in Camden terrace, Cheriton. He was a customer at the Rendezvous Hotel, and was acquainted with Trice. He was in the saloon bar one morning at about half past eleven. Mrs. Ensink was in the bar at the time. Witness saw her hand Trice a letter. He stood aside to open it, read it, took some bank notes out of the envelope, and put them in his pocket. Witness saw the letter, which was not signed. It said “Enclosed find bank notes to the value of £90”. Witness did not think that there was anything else in it. Trice said “Give me back the letter; I want that”, and witness did so. He saw no more of the letter. He saw no address on the letter. At that time Trice owed him some £5 or £6, and he gave witness a £5 Bank of England note, out of which he took fifty shillings, and gave him the change. Witness had heard casually that Ensink was away on the Continent at the time.

Cross-examined: Witness did not see the words “Go and fetch “R”. Anyone who said that those words were there would not be speaking the truth. He did not burn the letter, and if Trice said he did he would not be speaking the truth.

William Lawrence Chilvers, of Kent Road, Cheriton, said that he was a telephone clerk. He had known Trice for about twelve months. He knew that Ensink went on the Continent. Witness was with Trice, Ensink, and a valet from the Metropole Hotel named Wagner on the occasion of the trip to London. They met a man in London whom they knew at Folkestone by the name of “Charlie”. Witness saw that Trice had a single stone diamond ring on his finger in the morning. They went to various public houses together, but witness did not see “Charlie” leave at all, and heard no conversation regarding the jewellery. Trice gave him a sealed envelope, which he asked him to leave in the Rendezvous, in the bar. Before he came home they all went to Dunn`s, in the Strand, and tossed as to who should pay for four new hats. Ensink lost, and paid for the four.

Arthur Woodthorpe, manager to Messrs. Hawes and Sons, pawnbrokers, of Cranbourne Street, said the diamond ring produced in Court was pawned on the premises on the 18^th October by a man giving the name of Charles Hanson, for a sum of £35. Witness believed that he knew Hanson by name, but he was not aware of his occupation. Witness heard that he was a waiter, and knew that he was a German. He had done business with them before. Witness gave £35 on the ring. He showed it to Lady D`Oyly.

Cross-examined: The ring was not worth more than £60.

Questioned by the Recorder: The man Hanson gave the address of 30, Newport Street, Leicester Square. Witness could not tell whether the previous transactions had had had with this person were of the same address. He did not remember the nature of his transaction with this man immediately previous to this.

William James Rule, clerk at the General Post Office, produced two receipts for registered postal packets, dated 26^th October, 1911. The office of posting was in both cases at Amsterdam, one being addressed to Mrs. Ensink, and one to E. Trice, and both to the Rendezvous Hotel. He also produced a document proving that a sum of £2 was wired to Manchester to “Ned Edward Davis”, being sent from “Louis Ensink, at the Rendezvous Hotel”. He also produced a copy of a telegram sent from Amsterdam, delivered at the Rendezvous Hotel, and also one addrseesd to “Ensink, Amsterdam” on the same day. The former telegram was addressed to Mrs. Ensink, and asked whether the letters had arrived, and the reply from Mrs. Ensink stated that the letters had arrived safely.

Elizabeth Whittaker, of Broughton, Salford, said that she was recently engaged as a waitress at the Swan Hotel, Fountain Street, Manchseter, kept by her sister-in-law. On about the 5^th of November last she was introduced to Trice at the Swan Hotel. He told her that his name was Davies, and his Christian name was Ted. Whilst he was there he received a telegram addressed to “Edward Davies”.

Edward Tattersall said that he lived at Salford, and was a bookmaker`s clerk. On the 16^th November he was in the bar of the Swan Hotel, Manchester, when he saw the prisoner Ensink come into the hotel. He asked for “Teddy”. Mrs. Parker said she did not know him at first, but then said that he was at a house in Tully Street. Witness accompanied Ensink there in a taxi. They went inside and he again asked for Teddy, but Mrs. Whittaker replied “You are too late. They have got him”. Ensink then went into the kitchen, and witness remained in the shop.

Emma Whittaker, of Tully Street, Broughton, said that Trice came to her house with her son John on the 4^th November. Her son was going to America soon after that. Witness remembered that Trice was arrested on the 15^th November, and she remembered Ensink coming into the shop. She asked him whether he was a detective, and he replied “No, I am a friend of his”.

The Recorder remarked that all the witnesses from the North had given their evidence very well.

The Chief Constable of Folkestone (Mr. Harry Reeve) was the next witness. He said that at bout twenty minutes past ten on the morning of the 18^th November he had a conversation with the prisoner Ensink. Witness said to him “I am making inquiries and trying to trace a quantity of jewellery stolen from a house in the Sandgate Road last month. A man named Trice is in custody charged with stealing it, and in consequence of a statement he has made, I must warn you that anything you say I shall use in evidence against you should a criminal charge be made against you respecting it. Have you now or had recently in your possession a pawn ticket for a ring pledged in London for £35, or do you know anything about any other jewellery that Trice has disposed of?” He replied “No, sir”. Witness then said that he would arrest Ensink and charge him with receiving, on or about the 20^th October, from Edwin Trice, well-knowing it to have been stolen, a diamond bracelet. He replied “I do not know anything about it”. He was then taken to the Police Office and detained.

In cross-examination it was elicited that witness sent a number of times for Ensink before he would come. He sent for him on the Thursday, and it was said that he was not up, and all the time he was away. At last, on the Saturday morning, witness sent one of his men with instructions to make him come. Ensink then came.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Ensink was the only witness for the defence. Having been sworn, he said that he was 31 years of age, and had been in England for about fifteen years. For the last nine years he had lived at Folkestone. He was employed in the Pavilion Hotel as lounge waiter for four or five years. He took the Rendezvous public house in October of 1907. From first to last he had always borne a good character in the town, and had never been charged with anything before. He had known Trice for about eight years. He had been employed as page boy at the Pavilion Hotel whilst witness was lounge waiter, and he took Trice into his employment in 1908. He had always found him to be honest and straightforward, and entrusted him nearly every month with considerable sums of money to take to the bank. Trice left his employment in 1909, and witness had since then been on friendly terms with him. He used to frequent witness`s public house. In October of last year, for about a fortnight or three weeks, he saw Trice with two rings on his finger, but from first to last he had no idea that the rings were stolen property. He had never known of the goings-on at Greenbank. He stated emphatically that he had no idea from first to last that they were stolen property. He remembered Trice showing him a bracelet with about eleven stones in it. Witness looked at it, but did not take particular notice at the time. He did not think it was stolen property. With regard to the visit to London on Wednesday, October 18<sup>th</sup>, witness stated that he was going to the Brewers` Exhibition, as he had had four tickets sent to him. He went up by the Wednesday afternoon excursion. He met a man named Wagner, Mr. Straughan, the landlord of the Gun Tavern, Trice, and Chilvers on the station platform. He had not arranged previously to meet Trice and Chilvers on the platform on that day. He gave two tickets away to Mr. Straughan. When they arrived at Charing Cross Trice inquired where witness was going to, and he replied that he was going to meet “Charlie” and take him to the Brewers` Exhibition. They went to the Artists` Club, but found that “Fat Charlie” was not there, so they went and had a drink at the Devonshire Arms. Trice remained talking to the landlord, and witness went and had a game of billiards. After a little while Trice came up. He showed the landlord the ring, and the landlord said it would be worth about £30. They then left the Devonshire Arms and met “Fat Charlie” just outside the Artists` Club. Trice said he had a little business to do, and that he wanted to find a pawnshop. Witness said that “Charlie” would show him where a pawnshop was. Witness did not know that Trice was going to dispose of the ring, so he could have no idea that it was stolen property. Witness then left the others, and went and had a shave. They afterwards met again, and he went to the Brewers` Exhibition. Before going there they tossed up, and witness lost and had to pay for four new hats. He did not know about the envelope being given to Chilvers. Trice went with them to the Brewers` Exhibition, and they came back to Folkestone by the excursion train. With regard to the visit to Amsterdam during October, Ensink stated that he went there for his holidays. Before he went Trice came in and inquired whether he was going to Holland. Witness replied that he was, and Trice left. After a little while he came back once more, and took the bracelet from the envelope, asking witness if he would mind selling it for him. Witness asked “Is it yours to sell?”, and he replied in the affirmative. Witness asked him how much he wanted for it, and he replied that he wanted one hundred pounds. Witness said “It is a lot of money. What price will you take less?” He then said the lowest he would take was £90. Witness thought that anything he sold it for over £90 he would have for profit. Witness sold the bracelet in Amsterdam, and sent over £90 in eighteen £5 notes to Trice. He never said anything in that letter about getting “R” out of pawn. Ensink explained his visit to Manchester by saying that he had heard the property was stolen, and went straight to find Trice to ascertain whether the rumour was true. When he arrived there he found that Trice had been arrested. The reason why he told Mr. Reeve that he did not know anything about the bracelet was because he felt nervous. It was a lie, and he felt sorry now that he had said it.

Ensink was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr. Wardley. Prisoner said he first made up hs mind to tell this story to the Magistrates on the Monday after he first appeared at the Police Court. He had not seen anyone to advise him in the interval. On that day he told his solicitor what he had just told to the Recorder. His solicitor knew that he was going to say that Trice brought him the bracelet and asked him if he could sell it for him. Witness did not instruct his solicitor to see that that question was put in cross-examination on the occasion of the adjourned hearing before the Magistrates. He would not say that all Trice had said was untrue. Some of it was true and some not. Whilst he was in witness`s employ Trice was paid from 25s. to 30s. per week and slept in. Witness was surprised to see him wearing the rings for the first few days, but he got over the surprise. He did not ask Trice where he got the rings, nor did ne ask him wher he got the bracelet.

The Recorder: Why not?

Ensink said something to the effect that he might have been insulted. He went on to say he was not in the habit of buying valuable things or taking valuable things from waiters and billiard markers. This was the first. He had no nervousness in doing it. He took the bracelet assuming it to belong to Trice. He did not think it strange that a young man in his position should have such a bracelet, but he had not seen a young man in his position with such an article before. Holland was a well known market for diamonds. Witness knew Hatton Garden, and was aware that it was largely frequented by merchants, diamond merchants, and even Dutch diamond merchants. He did not know any of them there. Witness went straight to this man in Amsterdam, and asked whether he would buy it. What Trice said after the visit to London, “You cannot get on without your father” was not true. Witness did not remember even seeing him, and Trice did not tell him what had taken place in London. He never told him what happened on the occasion of the second journey. With reference to the bracelet transaction, Trice asked for £90, and he got it. Business was business. Witness regarded it as an honest transaction at the time, and he did still. Witness did not tell Trice that he had had any difficulty in getting the banknotes.

Cross-examined as to Trice`s truthfulness and honesty, Ensink said he must have gone wrong all at once. Witness did not think he had gone wrong when he saw that he had this valuable jewellery in his possession. He thought it was Cottrell who told him that it had been stolen. Witness never used the term “boys”, and that matter was apparently an invention on the part of Trice. Witness did not discuss the question of a visit to London with Trice the day before he went to London. He did not know that Trice wanted to pawn the ring. He asked wher a pawnshop was, and witness said that “Fat Charlie” would show him where there was one. He wished to take “Fat Charlie” to the Brewers` Exhibition. Witness was not aware of any conversation between “Charlie” and Trice regarding the ring. Before he went to get a shave, not a word had been said about this ring. He saw “Charlie” take Trice in the direction of the pawnshop without a word being said with regard to it. Here was nothing said about “white sapphire”. Trice had sent the pawn ticket to witness from Manchester, asking for a loan of £5 on it, and witness sent him £2. At that time he had not heard that this property was stolen. When he received the pawn ticket he knew that it was for the ring that Trice had pawned. When before the Magistrates he was called upon to produce that letter. He said that he had not got it, but this was a lie. Witness was told by Trice as they were coming home from London that he had pawned the ring. The hats were not bought because of the successful pawning of the ring.

Mr. Wardley, addressing the jury on behalf of the prosecution, described Ensink`s story as being most incredible.

Mr. Wetton, for the defence, submitted that Ensink had been the dupe of Trice, and pointed out that because of this charge against him he had been substantially ruined in the town. He maintained that the case for the prosecution had not been made out, that there was a grave doubt in the case, and that the benefit of that doubt should be given to Ensink.

The Recorder, in summing up, said it was open to the jury to find Ensink guilty on the first count of stealing, or on the second count for receiving, or acquit him altogether of both charges. If Trice had been the only witness for the prosecution, he should have requested them to acquit the prisoner, but he warned them that they were not to act wholly and solely on the evidence given by Trice. But if they found – as he ventured to think they did find – that there was corroborative evidence in the most important particulars of Trice`s evidence, they ought not to discard Trice`s evidence, but consider it in the light of the corroborative evidence that they had had before them. If they were satisfied that these articles were stolen, and if they were satisfied that they were in the possession of this man, then, of course, the question of the evidence of guilty knowledge on his part became all-important. One of the most important matters in connection with guilty knowledge in all these cases was whether the man, when he was asked about it, denied their having been in his possession. Unquestionably they had got to ask themselves what was the conduct of Ensink when he was sent for by the Chief Constable in reference to this charge.

After a few minutes deliberation, the jury returned a decision of “Guilty of receiving”.

Mr. Wetton appealed for a mitigation of sentence, asking that Ensink should be treated as a first offender. He pointed out that accused had already had over two months in prison, and also that he had borne a good character up to the present.

The Recorder said he would take the fact that Ensink had been in prison for over two months into consideration.

Mr. Rooth now spoke on his client`s behalf. He said Trice had pleaded Guilty, as they knew, to the charge of stealing a diamond ring and diamond bracelet, and nothing else. Lady Hastings D`Oyly had, unfortunately lost a number of other articles of jewellery. It was not suggested that any other articles had been seen in the possession of Trice, nor was it suggested that any other of these articles, with the exception of these two to which he had pleaded Guilty, had been traced to his possession. That was a statement that he made originally, and a statement that he made immediately upon his arrest. He had since then made a very full confession, which had been taken down in writing, and he had also given evidence before the Magistrates in the Court below, and again there that day. From first to last he had persisted in the story that he knew of only the two articles to the theft of which he had pleaded Guilty. Now that was probably true, because it was obvious, after having read the account of the hospitalities of Mrs. Dalton, that there were many other persons who could have taken these articles if they had wanted. He did not wish to lay the blame upon anyone, but he did wish to say that in the peculiar circumstances of this case there were many opportunities given to many other persons besides the man who was before them of taking away this jewellery. He apparently succumbed to this temptation. He had endeavoured to show his contrition, and had endeavoured, apparently, to render every assistance he could to the police. He had made a very complete confession – a confession that was not altogether in his own favour – and therefore would be probably accepted as a true one. He was glad to say that Lady Hastings D`Oyly had respectfully recommended Trice to the Recorder`s merciful consideration, and she was now in the precincts of the Court to come into the box to say that. The prosecution desired that they should deal with this man leniently. He had been practically three months waiting his trial. He was the son of very respectable people. His stepfather was in the Court, and desired to give evidence as to his character. During the time he had been awaiting his trial efforts had been made to send him to another country, to take him away from any further temptations in the town. He was a young man on the threshold of his manhood, with the world before him. If he was sent to gaol, God only knew what effect it would have on him. If he was sent abroad, one knew at all events that he would have an opportunity, if he would avail himself of it, of starting afresh, and wiping out this hideous background.

Lady D`Oyly entered the box, and said that she quite agreed with what counsel had said regarding Trice. She thought that the temptation was put in his way.

The Chief Constable said that he had known Trice for some years. He bore out what the learned Counsel had said that up to a few months ago he bore an admirable character. He was satisfied that a few months ago he got led into gambling, but up to that time he bore a very good character.

Mr. George Peter McKernan, a postman, and the stepfather of Trice, said that during the nine years he had been in his charge of the boy he had never – until lately – found one better for honesty and straightforwardness. Lately he had got into bad company.

The Recorder asked the Chief Constable whether this gambling he had referred to went on at the Rendezvous.

The Chief Constable: Yes.

Mr. F. Hall, of Messrs. F.J. Parsons, Sandgate Road, said that Trice was in the employ of the firm from September, 1905, to May, 1906, and he found him to be a most respectable young fellow.

Mr. McKernan said it was their intention to send the lad to Canada, to Montreal. He guaranteed that the lad would be out of the country in a fortnight.

It appeared that an attempt was to be made to get Trice out of the country through the medium of the Church Army.

Mr. Easton said that he had interviewed the head of the Social Department of the Church Army in reference to Trice. He thought that there would be some difficulty in getting him out at the present time under the circumstances. The Canadian government were very loth to accept doubtful cases in which there had been a conviction. It had been suggested that he might go into a home for a little while to be tested, and then he might be got out. Of course, he could go out privately to friends, without going under the name of the Society.

Mr. McKernan said he could guarantee getting Trice out within a fortnight.

The Recorder, addressing Ensink, said that after a most patient trial, in which everything had been done for him that could possibly be done by his counsel, the jury had found him Guilty of receiving this jewellery well-knowing it to have been stolen, and in that verdict he entirely concurred. In addition to having committed a crime with which he had been charged, and of which the jury had found him Guilty, he thought fit to go and commit perjury in that witness box. An appeal had been made by his counsel that he should be treated as a first offender. But he was a man described in the calendar as being 34 years of age, although he swore that he was 31. Well, taking him at 31, he was nearly ten years older than Trice. It was perfectly clear that if he (Ensink) had not been present to enable him to dispose of these things they would not have been stolen. He took into consideration the fact that he had been awaiting his trial for 2½ months. He had gravely considered whether he should send him to penal servitude, but the sentence of the Court was that he be detained for one year and six months with hard labour.

In his final statement, Trice said he was very sorry indeed for what he had done. He could not express his sorrow for what he had done. He felt the degradation he had brought his people to, and he felt that he was a disgrace to them and to the town. He only hoped that they would give him one more chance to make some recompense for the trouble he had been.

The Recorder said Trice had pleaded Guilty to felony. He had read over his statement, painful though it had been to him to read it. He felt that the Court could accede to the appeal that had been made to him. He thought it was a case where Trice had been led away by others, and he felt that, although the responsibility was great, having regard to the great value of these jewels that he had taken, he ought, considering the fact that Lady D`Oyly had appealed for mercy for him, and the efforts that had been made to enable him to lead an honest life again, to accede to the appeal his counsel had made. Accordingly he would yield to them, and he trusted that Trice would hold up his head again as an honest man. He would bind him over in the sum of £20 to be of good behaviour for one year, during which time he would be under the supervision of the Probation Officer. He trusted that the arrangements would be completed for sending him abroad. He felt that that would be the best in his own interests.

 

Photo from Folkestone Herald

Southeastern Gazette 13-2-1912

Local News

At Folkestone Quarter Sessions on Monday, Edwin George Trice pleaded guilty to stealing a gold bracelet valued at £350 and a diamond ring valued at £100, the property of Lady D’Oyly, wife of Sir Warren Hastings D’Oyly, of Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, Folkestone. Prisoner was put back for sentence.

Gerard John Anton Ensink, late proprietor of ihe Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, was then indicted for feloniously receiving the bracelet referred to. Prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Prosecuting counsel, in opening the case, said evidence would be called from Amsterdam to prove that prisoner received considerably more for the bracelet than the sum he stated, viz., £90.

Lady D’Oyly was called and repeated the evidence she gave before the Magistrates.

Edwin George Trice, the previous prisoner, said he first met Ensink at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, where he was a lounge waiter and witness a page boy. When Ensink took the Rendezvous Hotel witness was employed by him as barman and billiard marker. Witness repeated mainly the evidence given before the Magistrates, and detailed bow a man named Chilvers and himself went to London to pawn the ring.

A cafe keeper and diamond polisher of Amsterdam said that on a certain Tuesday two men came into his establishment, and one of them, whom he believed was the prisoner, showed him a diamond bracelet. He bought the bracelet for 2,200 Dutch florins, and paid over the money the following week. He polished up the bracelet and sold it for 3,000 florins.

Ensinkk was sentenced to 18 months’ hard labour.

With regard to Trice, Lady D’Oyly and others expressed a hope that the Recorder might see his way to treat him mercifully. Trice was bound over for one year in his own recognisances.

 

Folkestone Daily News 6-3-1912

Wednesday, March 6^th: Before Justices Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Boyd, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Linton.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held at the police court this morning. All licences were confirmed excepting that of the Rendezvous Hotel.

The Chief Constable opposed the renewal of the licence as the house had been badly conducted, and it was also opposed on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Rutley Mowll applied for the renewal of the licence, and asked that the objection on the ground of misconduct be withdrawn and only the question of redundancy be proceeded with.

The Chief Constable agreed to that proposal, and recited the usual evidence as to the number licensed houses, &c., in given areas.

After hearing Mr. Rutley Mowll, the Bench decided to refer the matter to the Canterbury Quarter Sessions Compensation Committee. 

 

Folkestone Express 9-3-1912

Local News

The adjourned licensing sessions for the borough of Folkestone were held at the police court on Wednesday morning. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., Major Leggett, and Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton. Only one licence had been deferred – that of the Rendezvous Hotel.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared to formally apply for the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel. It might perhaps be convenient if he mentioned at the outset that there were two notices of opposition which had been served, both bearing the name of the Chief Constable. The first one was by the direction of the Magistrates, and objected to the renewal of the licence on the ground of redundancy. The other notice, which he was glad to see was not by the Magistrates` direction, was on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted. Those two notices involved two entirely different methods of procedure. If the Magistrates decided to hear the case on the notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct, then presuming they were to consider the case proved, and if there were misconduct such as to disentitle the licensee to the renewal of his licence, then their refusal would mean that the licence was gone without any compensation, and it would be for the persons interested in the licence to appeal to the East Kent Quarter Sessions. But if they decided to proceed only upon the other notice – the one with regard to redundancy – then it would simply be a question of referring the licence to the compensation authority. He did not know whether it would be convenient for him to throw out the suggestion, but it did seem extremely difficult to consider the refusal of the licence on the ground of ill-conduct, because up to the present moment there had not even been a summons against the late licensee in respect of his conduct on the premises. They all knew he had been convicted of a very serious charge, which in itself had nothing whatever to do with the conduct of the premises. He suggested, for the consideration of the Bench, whether it was not a case where the Chief Constable might very properly not press his objection on the ground of ill-conduct, and leave the matter to be dealt with on the other ground, viz., of redundancy.

The Chief Constable said he fully intended asking the Bench to allow him to abandon the first notice of objection – that was the one referring to misconduct – and allow him to proceed on the second notice.

The Chairman said they agreed to the first notice being withdrawn. It was simply a question of redundancy.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he put in a plan, and on that he had marked the congested area, which embraced all the old portion of the borough. Within that area there were 866 houses, with a population of 4,330 persons approximately. Within the area there were 31 on licences – 27 full licences and four beer licences. There were also seven other licences, making a total of 38 premises, and giving a proportion of one licence to every 113, or one on licence to every 139 persons. For the borough at large they had 120 premises licensed for the sale of drink, giving a proportion of one to every 279 persons. Out of those there were 81 on licences – 74 full licences and seven beerhouses – giving one on licence to every 413 persons. That was according to the Census of last year, when the population of the borough was returned at 33,495. Within the congested area there were also three registered clubs for the sale of drink, with a total membership of 1,826. During the past year there were 85 charges of drunkenness dealt with in the borough, and out of that number 33 arose in that congested area. The house in question was situated at the top of High Street, next door to the Rose Hotel, and was an old on licence. The present licensee was James Algernon Hobson, who obtained the transfer of the licence on the 17^th January of this year. The registered owners were Flint and Co. Ltd., of Canterbury, and the rateable value of the house was £88. It had a frontage to High Street of 27ft. 7in. There were three entrances to the house from the street, and no back yard or backway. Having detailed the accommodation of the premises, the Chief Constable said within a radius of 150 yds. there were ten other on licensed houses. As he said before, the premises were next door to the Rose Hotel, the rateable value of which was £116. The late tenant, Ensink, obtained the transfer of the licence on the 4^th December, 1907, and was the eighth tenant in less that eleven years. Prior to Ensink`s tenancy and since the trade of the house had been, in his opinion, small, but during the tenancy of Ensink it undoubtedly considerably increased. And that he attributed in a very great measure to the fact that it was made the headquarters of the Geneva Association, a society of foreign waiters, and the house was greatly frequented by foreign waiters. Ensink was a foreigner, and formerly a waiter. Since the tenancy of the new tenant the Geneva Association had left the house, and the trade appeared to be very small. During the latter part of the late landlord`s tenancy the conduct of the house was not satisfactory. For some few months prior to Ensink`s arrest the house was not, in his opinion, conducted in a satisfactory manner, being the resort of gamblers. The licence, in his opinion, was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, and if the house was closed ample accommodation would remain in the adjoining houses to meet the legitimate needs of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Mowll: Was the man Ensink ever proceeded against for the misconduct on his licensed premises?

The Chief Constable: No, sir.

Detective Officer Johnson said in the course of his duties he frequently visited the Rendezvous Hotel, and in consequence of instructions he received at the end of last summer, he and P.C. Butcher frequently visited the house. The class of customers were gambling and betting men and foreigners. It was not a house used by many residents of the neighbourhood, and if the licence was taken away he considered there would be sufficient accommodation in the other houses in the neighbourhood.

P.C. Butcher said he had heard the evidence of Det. Johnson, and he corroborated it as regards the customers who used the premises. One man whom he knew to be a professional gambler frequented the house last summer.

Mr. Mowll briefly addressed the Magistrates, in whose hands he said he left the matter. It was a ver sad case (laughter), and he hoped the compensation authority would be very kind to them.

The Magistrates provisionally renewed the licence, which they referred to the compensation authority.

Folkestone Herald 9-3-1912

Wednesday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The Rendezvous

Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, said he appeared to formally apply for the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel. It might, perhaps, be convenient if he mentioned at the outset that two notices of opposition had been served. The first one was by direction of the Bench themselves, objecting to the renewal of the licence of the hotel on the grounds of redundancy. The other notice, which he was glad to say was not issued by the direction of the Bench, objected on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted. These two notices involved two entirely different methods of procedure. If they decided to hear the case on the ground of misconduct, then, presuming that the Bench considered the case proved, and there had been misconduct such as did not entitle the licensee to a renewal of the licence, their refusal would mean that the licence was discontinued without any compensation, and that would leave the applicants a legal remedy of applying to the Quarter Sessions. If they were disposed to proceed only with the other notice, the one with regard to redundancy, it would be merely a case of referring the licence to the compensation authority. He did not know whether it would be convenient for him to throw out a suggestion, but it did seem to him to be extremely difficult to consider the refusal of the licence on the ground of ill-conduct, because up to the present moment there had not been a summons against the late licensee in respect to his conduct of the premises as licensed premises. They all knew that he had been convicted on a very serious charge, which in itself had nothing whatever to do with the conduct of the premises, and could not be a ground for the refusal of the licence. He would suggest that it would be a case where the Superintendent of the Police might not press his objection on the ground of ill-conduct, but leave the matter to be dealt with on the other ground. There was no possible question of the present landlord`s character. There were other persons interested in the case, namely, Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury. It would be very hard indeed upon them to contemplate the refusal of the licence without any compensation upon the suggestion of misconduct, which they had had no possible opportunity of even investigating.

The Chief Constable said he fully intended to ask the Bench that morning to allow him to abandon the first notice, that was that referring to misconduct, and allow him to proceed with the case on the second notice, which the Bench instructed him to serve on the licensee. He thought this would meet the objection of Mr. Mowll.

The Chairman said the Bench agreed to the first notice being withdrawn.

The Chief Constable put in a copy of the notice and a plan of the town, on which he had marked out the congested area, which embraced the older portion of the borough. Within this area there were 866 houses, with a population of 4,330 persons approximately, and there were 31 on licences (27 full licences and 4 beer licences), together with seven other licences, making a total of 38 premises within the area licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor. This gave a proportion of one licence to every 113 persons, or one on licence to every 139 persons. In the borough at large there were 120 premises licensed for the sale of drink, giving a proportion of one licence to every 279 persons. Out of these licences there were 81 on licences (74 full licences and 7 beerhouses), giving a proportion of one on licence to every 413 persons. This was according to the census of last year, when the population of the borough was given as 33, 495. There were also three registered clubs for the sale of drink, with a total membership of 1,826. During the year there had been 85 charges of drunkenness dealt with in the borough, and out of that number 33 were arrested in the area marked on the plan. The house in question was situated in High Street, at the top, next door to the Rose Hotel. The present licence was an old licence, within the meaning of the Act of 1910, and the present licensee Jas. Algernon Hobson, who obtained the register of the licence on 17^th January last. The registered owners were Flint and Co., of Canterbury, and the rateable value of the house was £88. It had a frontage on High Street of 27ft. 7ins. There were three entrances, but no back door. The accommodation for the public consisted of a front bar, which was divided into two compartments by a partition nearly 7ft. high. One compartment was 13ft. 9ins. by 8ft. 11ins., and the other 10ft. by 6ft. 7ins., which compartment also had an entrance from the street. There was also a saloon bar about 25ft. 8ins. by 18ft. 5 ins., and a billiard room 26ft. by 17ft. This and the saloon bar was reached by an entrance from the front street and the lobby, which also led up to the first floor. On the first floor in the front there was a grill room, which was made about a year ago by throwing two rooms into one. At the back of the first floor there was a living room, kitchen, and scullery. There was also another floor on which there were bedrooms. Within the radius of 150 yards there were ten other licensed houses. Next door was the Rose Hotel, the rateable value of which was £118; there was the Guildhall Tavern, 75 yards away, with a rateable value of £120; also the Prince Albert, 81 yards away, with a rateable value of £64. The late tenant, Mr. Ensink, obtained possession on December 4^th, 1907, and was the eighth tenant in less than 11 years.

The Chairman asked whether the Chief Constable was going to give the names of the other houses.

Mr. Mowll said that he would not require them.

The Chairman said the Bench would like to have them for the purpose of differentiation.

The Chief Constable said the other houses were the Earl Grey, a little way down High Street, 90 yards away, with a rateable value of only £32; the Isle of Cyprus, on The Bayle, 77 yards away, with a rateable value of £28 10s.; the Globe Hotel, also on The Bayle, 120 yards away, with a rateable value of £40; the George Inn, in George Lane, 71 yards away, rateable value £40; Queen`s Hotel and Bodega, 137 yards away, rateable value £680; and the East Kent Arms, 149 yards away, rateable value £80. All these houses had bars for the use of the public, and some of them were very large ones. The trade at the Rendezvous prior to Ensink`s tenancy had been, in witness`s opinion, small, but the trade during the tenancy of Ensink had undoubtedly increased – witness would say considerably. Of course, it was very difficult for an outsider to tell the exact trade of a house, but there was certainly an increase during the tenancy of Ensink. This was in a great measure due to the fact that it was made the headquarters of the Geneva Association, a society formed by foreign waiters. “A friendly society or something of that kind” Mr. Reeve added. This house was then greatly frequented by foreign waiters. Ensink himself was a foreigner, and had been a waiter. And was undoubtedly well-known among his class in the town. But the Geneva Association had ceased to have their headquarters at the hotel, and the trade appeared to be very small. During the latter part of the late landlord`s tenancy the conduct of the house had not been satisfactory, and on November 18^th last witness arrested him on a charge of receiving stolen property, on which charge he was convicted at the Quarter Sessions on February 5^th, and sentenced to 18 months` hard labour. For some months prior to his arrest the house was not, in witness`s opinion, conducted in a satisfactory manner altogether, and it came to witness`s knowledge that it became the resort of ----

Here Mr. Mowll interrupted, and objected to Mr. Reeve going further. He thought there was ample evidence to differentiate.

The Chairman said he thought the Bench must allow it.

Continuing, the Chief Constable said it had come to his knowledge that the house was the resort of gamblers. The licence, in his opinion, was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, and if the house were closed there would be ample accommodation in the adjoining houses for the legitimate needs of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Mowll: Was the man Ensink ever proceeded against for misconduct of his licensed premises?

The Chief Constable: No, sir.

Detective Officer Johnson deposed that in the course of his duties he had frequently visited the hotel. In consequence of instructions he received last summer P.C. Butcher and he visited the house. The class of customers consisted of gambling and betting men known to witness and foreign waiters. It was not a house used by many residents of the neighbourhood. If the licence were taken away, witness considered there would be sufficient accommodation.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, witness added that none of the class of customer he had mentioned used the house now.

P.C. Butcher corroborated Detective Officer Johnson`s statements, and further added that one man, named John Taylor, known to witness as a professional gambler, frequented the house towards the end of last summer.

Mr. Mowll said he thought the Superintendent of the Police had done a great deal in withdrawing the charge of misconduct. He simply wished to leave the matter to the hands of the compensation authorities, hoping they would compensate Messrs. Flint and Co. as they deserved.

The Magistrates` Clerk: You do not contest the opposition of redundancy then?

Mr. Mowll: I have not said so.

The Bench referred the matter to the compensation authorities.

Folkestone Express 3-8-1912

Local News

Among the jewels stolen from the residence of Sir Warren Hastings and Lady D`Oyly, Greenbank, Westbourne Gardens, during last autumn, was a diamond bracelet, which, it was stated at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions in February, had not been traced. However, since then the efforts made to find the valuable jewellery have proved successful. It is now in the possession of a Chinaman in Rangoon, and proceedings have been commenced there by Sir. W.H. D`Oyly to recover it from the man who purchased it. The matter will be engaging the attention of the Court in that place in a short time, and there is very little doubt that Lady D`Oyly will before long have regained possession of the bracelet, which she highly prized.

It will be remembered that the diamond polisher from Amsterdam who gave evidence when the case was before the Recorder, stated that he bought it from one of the men implicated in the case for 2,200 guilders or florins, which are equivalent to about £183 in English money.

Folkestone Herald 3-8-1912

Local News

With reference to the theft of Lady D`Oyly`s jewels from Greenbank, Sandgate Road, last year, it is now stated that the valuable bracelet, which was sold to a diamond merchant in Amsterdam for 2,200 florins (about £180), is now in the possession of a man in Rangoon, by whom it has been purchased. Sir Hastings and Lady D`Oyly have instituted proceedings for the recovery of the property.

When the case came before the Recorder the jewel was not in England, and not subject to British law. It is stated that in Rangoon there is a law in existence under which the property can be restored to its rightful owner.

Folkestone Herald 10-8-1912

East Kent Licensing

The principal meeting of the East Kent Compensation Authority was held at Canterbury, Lord Harris presiding. There were 19 houses scheduled, in respect of 12 of which no opposition was offered by the owners to the licences being referred for compensation. Amongst these was the Rendezvous, High Street, Folkestone.

Southeastern Gazette 13-8-1912

Local News

A meeting of the East Kent Licensing Compensation Authority was held at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on Wednesday, under the Chairmanship of the Right. Hon. Lord Harris.

No objection was raised to the abandonment of the following licence, which was accordingly refused: Rendezvous, High Street, Folkestone (James Algernon Hobson).

Folkestone Express 17-8-1912

Local News

A meeting of the East Kent Licensing Compensation Authority was held at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on Wednesday, under the chairmanship of the Right Hon. Lord Harris.

No objection was raised to the abandonment of the following licence, which was accordingly refused: Rendezvous, High Street, Folkestone (James Algernon Hobson).

Folkestone Herald 12-10-1912

East Kent Licensing

The supplemental meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at Canterbury on Wednesday, Lord Harris presiding. The only house scheduled for compensation from the borough of Folkestone was the Rendezvous, High Street, and the parties were in agreement with regard to the award of the valuer (Mr. H.M. Cobb) at £700 (£600 to owners, Messrs. Flint and Co., Canterbury, and £100 to the tenant , Mr. J.A. Hobson).

Folkestone Daily News 14-10-1912

Local News

The Rendezvous Hotel is to be closed. The order was made by the East Kent Licensing Committee at Canterbury, and the compensation to be paid is £700. The premises will be transformed into shops. It is rumoured that either Plummer Roddis or Liptons will open there.

Folkestone Express 18-1-1913

Local News

The Rendezvous Hotel

Messrs. Banks and Son announce that they will offer the building and also the furniture and fixtures of the above hotel for sale by auction.

Folkestone Express 1-2-1913

Auction Advertisement

The Rendezvous Hotel, 1, High Street, Folkestone

Banks and Son will sell by auction on Tuesday, 11^th February, 1913, all the useful furniture, fixtures and utensils-in-trade of a modern and up-to-date hotel.

Comprising a full size billiard table by Burroughs and Watts with all accessories, circular mahogany counter with revolving screens, two first class beer engines (6 pull and 2 pull), handsome bar cabinet, National cash register, glass urns with brackets, gun metal beer and spirit measures, expensive gas fittings, lounge seats upholstered in velvet, marble top drinking tables, eight baize covered card tables, quantity bentwwod chairs, pianoforte by Collard and Collard, walnut sideboard with mirror back, the nearly new steel grill, 6 ft. marble top serving table, suite of walnut furniture in green velvet, two mahogany knee hole secretaire writing desks, antique frame easy chair, walnut davenport, gilt frame and other over mantels, brass rail iron French bedsteads, good bedding, mahogany marble top washstands, chests of drawers, quantity linoleum, carpets, pictures, plated goods, cutlery, earthenware, glass, mangle, and the usual kitchen and culinary effects.

On view Monday, the day previous to sale, from 10 to 4 o`clock.

Sale to commence at 11 o`clock sharp.

Catalogues may be had of the Auctioneers, 85, Sandgate Road, Folkestone.