From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10 September, 1864.

A CHILD BURNT TO DEATH

An inquest was held on Tuesday afternoon by the borough coroner, W. H. Payn, Esq., on the body of a child between three and four years of age named Michael Neale, whose parents, the father being a labourer, reside in Barwick's Alley, Charlton. The inquest was held at the "Angel Inn," Mr. Christie being sworn as foreman. The following was the evidence adduced, from which it would appear that the child was left alone a short time by its mother, while she went into the house of a neighbour, and that he must have approached too near the fire in her absence:-

Emily White: I live in Barwick's Alley, and am the wife of Thomas White, who is a labourer employed in the oil-mills. I knew the deceased child, who was the son of Simon Neal, also a labourer and a resident of Barwick's Alley. The age of the child was three years and four months. On Saturday evening I was outside my house, when I saw the mother of the deceased leave her house and go into that of Mrs. Sullivan, a neighbour, with a teapot in her hand. During the time she was talking to Mrs. Sullivan I heard the child cry. I called to the mother, who ran up the steps leading to her house, and I followed soon afterwards. I found that the child was on fire, and I saw the mother wrap some clothing around it, to put out the flames, which she succeeded in doing. She then went away, saying she was going to take the child to hospital. I saw the deceased again on Monday, when I took it an orange. It died on Monday night.

Catherine Neal: I am the wife of Simon Neal, and mother of the deceased. As soon as I was called by the last witness on Saturday afternoon, I went up the steps into my room, where I saw the child burning, his pinafore being on fire at the side. He screamed very much. I wrapped my gown around him, and extinguished the fire, after which I ran with him immediately to the hospital. On getting to the hospital I saw a woman. I do not remember what she said, except that the doctor was not within. The neighbour who accompanied me said that it was no use stopping there, and I then left the hospital in her company and took the child to Mr. Walter's. Mr. Walter was not at home, but his assistant applied flour to the burns. I took the child home, and afterwards got from Mr. Bourner, the relieving officer, an order for the attendance of the parish surgeon. Mr. Long, the surgeon, attended the child up to the time of his death, which occurred on Monday night. I went to the hospital twice after first taking the child there. The last time, late at night, I saw the house-surgeon, and told him that Mr. Long was in attendance on the child; but I desired him to come and see deceased. He declined because Mr. Long was in attendance.

Arthur Long, surgeon, residing and practising in Dover: About six o'clock on Saturday evening I received an order from the relieving officer to attend the deceased child, who, I was told had been burnt. I reached Barwick's Alley a little after seven. I found the burns had been dressed. I looked at the extent of the burns as well as I could without disturbing the dressings, and ordered that the deceased should be kept quiet. I saw the child again the next morning, and found that the persons attending it had dressed the burns in the meantime. I told the parents that from the nature of the injuries the child had sustained, it could not recover, and it died three hours afterwards. I attributed death to inflammation of the lung, caused by the serious nature of the burns.

Sarah Horn: I am a widow, and live in Barwick's Alley. I knew the deceased child. I went with Mrs. Neal to the Hospital. The woman belonging to the hospital said she would go and see whether the house surgeon was within. She soon returned and said he was not in the house. I then suggested that the child should be taken to Mr. Walter's, which was done.

The jury returned a verdict of "Accidental Death." It transpired, during the enquiry, that there had been current a rumour to the effect that the little sufferer had been refused admittance at the Hospital; but the gentleman of the jury expressed themselves fully satisfied, from the evidence, that there had been no grounds for such an impression.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10 September, 1864.

DISMISSAL OF A CONSTABLE FROM THE POLICE FORCE

Thomas Connors, a constable in the borough police-force, was charged with assisting Thomas Hunt, marine-store dealer, Charlton.

Complainant said that on the morning of the 7th inst., about one o'clock, he was at the "Angel Inn," Charlton. Defendant came there and had a glass of beer. He stood at the bar a minute or two, and in consequence of some "chaff," defendant offered to box complainant and another person who stood at the bar. They got to rather high words, and defendant then took him by the collar and bundled him out of the door. On getting outside defendant struck him several times.

Mary Stone, daughter of the landlady of the "Angel Inn," said she saw the defendant come into her house on the morning in question. He had a glass of beer. He stood at the bar, and shortly afterwards some disturbance occurred between him and complainant, when defendant took complainant by the collar and put him outside the door. She did not see what occurred afterwards.

This was the whole of the evidence, and Connors in his defence then said that he did put the complainant out of the door, but he denied assaulting him. He pleaded, in extenuation of his conduct, that complainant threatened to report him, as he was on duty at the time of entering the public-house.

The Mayor, after consulting for a few minutes with the other Justices, said the Bench had determined to dismiss defendant from the force.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 25 October, 1871.

UNPROVOKED ASSAULT

Vincent Davidson, a labourer in the employ of Mr. Crundall, was charged with assaulting a man named bean, another labourer, at the “Angel Inn,” on the previous Friday.

George Bean, the complainant, said that, on the previous Friday night, at about half-past seven, he went to the “Angel Inn.” The defendant was there, and they had some words. The defendant said he would knock his (the complainant’s) eye out, and struck him several times. He did not give him any provocation.

The defendant said he was rather the worse for drink when the assault took place. He was very sorry that he had struck the complainant.

The Magistrates fined him 2s. 6d., and the costs, 10s. which he paid.