Elephant and Castle

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 16 March, 1850. Price 5d.

CORONER'S INQUEST

On Monday afternoon at four o'clock, an inquest was held at the "Elephant and Castle," Charlton Road, before G. T. Thompson, Esq., Coroner for the Borough, on the body of Edward Elgar, aged 20 years, who died on Saturday from injuries sustained in falling from a scaffold in Norman Street. On the assembly of the jury, Mr. John Garnett was chosen as foreman, and they, having been sworn in they proceeded to view the body, and on their return the following witnesses were examined.

William Bourne, plasterer, residing in Dover - I knew the deceased, who was also a plasterer, and a fellow apprentice of mine. He was of the age of 20 years and a few months. On Friday last, about 20 minutes or half-past 1, as I was walking across Norman Street, I saw deceased upon a permanent scaffold, walking towards some steps which were placed on the scaffold. He mounted the steps, and when he had got about three stales up they canted sideways, and he fell to the rough earth below. I instantly ran and, supported him on my knee till a medical man, Mr. Williams, came, by whose direction deceased was put upon a board, and carried home. A boy was on the scaffold with deceased, but stood about 20 feet from the steps. I judged the deceased fell about 22 feet, he was not carrying any load at the time. The steps were nearly new and about 2 feet wide in the spread at the bottom. I have often worked on them myself. I examined the scaffold of the accident, and found it substantial. I can only account for the steps canting on the support on that they were too perpendicular, and spread out as deceased ascended.

James Kennett, plasterer's boy - I was at work with deceased on scaffold in question on Friday last. The steps that fell with deceased had been set by himself in the morning, and had not been touched till he used them, the cord was quite tight at the bottom. I cannot account for the steps falling; they went over head foremost. I was about 14 feet from deceased when he fell. The scaffold was five boards wide, and the steps might be passed without moving them. Deceased was fluting - finishing his work.

George Edward Williams, surgeon, practising in Dover. On Friday last, between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon, I was called to see the deceased, and found him in Norman Street, supported by the witness Bourn. Seeing that one of his feet was inverted, shewing that he had a fractured thigh, I had him removed home, where I attended him, and removed his clothes to ascertain the nature of the injuries he had sustained. Upon examination I discovered a compound fracture of the thigh; a slight concussion of the brain at first presented, but he soon recovered from it after his removal home. After giving the necessary direction, I went home for the required preparations, and, returning, set the fracture, during which the deceased made no complaint, although the operation must have been very painful. He did complain of great pains in his neck, and after setting the fractured thigh I examined the neck, but found no inequality of the vertebrae. I then left him very comfortable, telling his father that the thigh was but a secondary consideration, as there was some pressure on the spinal cord, but that in the expiration of 36 hours, a more decided opinion would be given. On visiting him in the morning of Saturday I noticed that he was partially paralyzed, and from the symptoms presented I anticipated very unfavourable results. In the course of Saturday afternoon I was sent for in haste, and on getting there, which I did in a few minutes, I found deceased had expired. I attributed his death to the fracture of one of the cervical vertebrae, and which my muscular exertion, such as vomiting, had been displaced, and, pressing upon the spinal cord, instantly destroyed life. I attach the broken vertebrae to the deceased fall.

Verdict - That deceased met with his death accidentally from falling from a scaffold on which he was at work.

From the Dover Telegraph, 3 January 1863.

Dover quarter sessions.

The general quarter sessions of the peace for this borough were opened that 10 o'clock on Monday morning, before W. H. Bodkin, Esq, the recorder.

Passing counterfeit coin.

Mary Ann Elizabeth Harmer, aged 28, (the wife of Jebez Harmer) and Elizabeth Mepham, aged 30, (wife of William Mepham) pleading "Not Guilty" of knowingly uttering one counterfeit crown and one half crown piece, on the 13th November, with intent to defraud. Mr. Poland conducted the prosecution. The case was fully reported in these columns during the preliminary examination of the prisoners.

The evidence of Mrs. Ann Elizabeth Kemp, of the "Ale Shades," Snargate Street; Steven Lushington Crosier, shopman to Mr. Barnard, Miss Mary Stone, of the "Angel," Charlton; Mrs. Suzanna Dowle, of the "Elephant and Castle," Charlton; Miss Ann Munday, the daughter of a baker in High Street; Mrs. Mary Ann Clark, of the "London Tavern," marketplace; proved the passing of several counterfeit pieces at their respective establishments. The circumstances which led to the arrest of the prisoners on their return from Folkestone &c. were deposed to by the police sergeants Geddes and Bayley, and constables Ash and Smith.

Mr. Charles Woodruff, silversmith, Snargate Street (on account of the illness of Mr. Bacon,) proved the worthlessness of the eight coins produced.

Being called on for their defences, the prisoner Harmer stated that she has received some money from one of her brothers, an account of a sum to which she was entitled on the death of her mother on the third July last; she changed a sovereign at one of the stations as she was returning to Dover from London, for a cup of coffee, and the silver given to her consisted principally of half crowns and two shilling pieces; on the Saturday her husband gave her 15s, in half crown pieces, and two of her lodgers also paid her for their living either in two shillings or half crowns. She had previously borrowed some money off Mrs. Mepham, and just before they went out on the 13th November, she repaid her with this money. It was impossible to say where she had got the money from.

Mrs. Mepham said she had lent Mrs. Hammer a number of things to raise the money on; the money handed back to her (as Mrs. Harmah had said) accounted for her possession of the bad coin. The half srown that rolled from her at the railway station, when police constable Smith apprehended them on their return from Folkestone, slipped through a hole in her pocket.

Mrs. Batler (of Dolphin Court) was called to prove that she had had monetary transactions with her neighbour, Mrs. Harmer, and never found her at all wrong with money matters.

The Recorder in summing up, remarked that the first thing for the jury to determine was whether the two prisoners were acting concert with each other, and with one common intent and desire to defraud — it would not signify which of the prisoners, under these circumstances, issued the coin in question. Every person was liable to utter a counterfeit that might have been passed upon them either by design or accident, but where a person of tolerably good character passed a single counterfeit coin, it was somewhat different to a person going from house to house on the same day and continuing to pass bad money. Referring to the evidence, the learned Recorder dwelt upon the circumstance that, when searched at the station-house, a considerable quantity of good money was found upon the prisoners, but no single instance had been brought forward, although the goods they had purchased were for the most part of trifling amount, that a single piece of sterling coin had been tendered in payment — it was always a bad half-crown or a bad five-shilling piece. If, however (as the learned counsel for the prosecution had very properly stated) the jury was of opinion that the prisoners were not aware that they were phasing counterfeit coin, that doubt ought to stand in their favour.

With slight deliberation the jury returned a verdict of "guilty" against both prisoners.

Superintendent Coram produced a large quantity of spurious coin which had been forwarded to him by various tradesmen, who had taken it in their shops about the same date as that mentioned in the indictment. Nothing was known of the prisoners; Mrs. Harmer was the wife of a man who had taken his trial in connexion with the watch robbery in Sussex.

Recorder:- I recollect the circumstances.

Mrs. Harmer:- Oh! sir; I hope you will have mercy upon us for the sake of our children!

Mrs. Mepham also pleaded her small family.

Recorder:- What mercy had you upon the tradesmen's children?

Alter some further information from the Superintendent, the Recorder proceeded to pass sentence. He said this was a most extraordinary case and there was a deal of mystery in it. Generally speaking these offences were committed by persons who were well known to the authorities of the Mint; but here the prisoners were living with their husbands, and were therefore the more dangerous.

Mrs. Mepham:- Mrs. Harmer called, and asked me to go out with her!

Recorder:- It is no use attempting to impose upon us here with a plausible statement; but, as there is some little appearance of decency about you, and it may reasonably be supposed you are not accustomed to pursue the imposition for which you have been tried, and may probably have been imposed upon by others, the sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months.