DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, July, 2022.

Page Updated:- Thursday, 21 July, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1849

Foresters' Arms

Latest 1970

33 Shellons Street / 17 Copt Hall Place 1871Census

Folkestone

Forester's Arms date unknown

 

Southeastern Gazette 21 March 1854.

Wednesday, March 15th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey and S. Godden, Esqs.

Mary Ann Meadows, of the Foresters Arms, was fined 1s. and costs for a similar offence on the same day; the magistrates believing that she supposed her customers were travellers.

 

Southeastern Gazette 13 June 1854.

Local News.

The licence of the Foresters Arms was transferred from Mary Ann Meadows to Thomas Hall.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 21 August 1858. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Wednesday August 18th:- Before the Mayor, James Kelcey and Gilbert Kennicott esqs.

Peter McGowan was brought up on remand charged with obtaining money under false pretences from Henry Swain, landlord of the "Foresters Arms", Shellons Lane. Prisoner was undefended. From the evidence, it appeared the prisoner went to the house to lodge on the Saturday previous, representing himself as a Captain, of the Elizabeth and Ann, of Carlisle; he remained there until the following Monday morning, and borrowed money under the pretence of having a sum of money in the Folkestone Bank, at the same time showing Mr. Swain a cheque on the Folkestone Bank. Swain accompanied prisoner to the bank on the Monday morning, when he made an excuse and said his money had been sent to Dover in mistake. Swain then went with prisoner to the railway station, but missing the train they went into the "Swan" public house for refreshment, when the prisoner contrived to give Swain the slip. No more was seen of the prisoner until the following Wednesday morning, when Mr. Wells, of the "Star", at Newington, came to Folkestone in search of the so-called “Captain”, he having previously paid Wells a visit, staying for some days at his house, and managing to obtain from him the sum of £3, under the pretence of having money in the Ashford Bank. The two victims went in company to the "Black Bull", and there found prisoner trying on the same “artful dodge” with the landlord of that house. He was afterwards taken into custody, and remanded until this day. Prisoner had nothing to say in his defence, and was fully committed for trial at the next quarter sessions.

 

From communications since received by the superintendent of police, it appears the prisoner had been to Sheerness, and Boughton, where he obtained from various persons, sums of money in the whole amounting to about £10, by the same artful means; he had also been to Ashford and Canterbury, where he had not only obtained money, but in one instance a suit of clothes. From papers found on him it appeared prisoner had been a time-keeper on the Silloth Harbour and Dock Works, Carlisle, for a period of two years; he also had a contract in his possession for the purchase of a large quantity of oak timber from Mr. George Austen of Canterbury, together with a letter from that gentleman, accompanying a copy of the agreement for prisoner's signature.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 October 1858.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday 1st October:-

Peter McGowan, mariner, pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with obtaining by false pretences the sum of 2s., with intent to defraud William Henry Swain, at Folkestone, on 9th August 1858.

The case was commenced and gone into some extent, when the Recorder stopped it from there being no evidence to contradict a statement that the prisoner had made to Mr. Leith, the manager of the Folkestone Bank, that he (prisoner) had a sum of money in the London and County Bank. His Honour said the case could not go on, but the jury must acquit the prisoner. The Recorder discharged him with a caution. He was however immediately taken into custody and conveyed to Hythe to be examined on another charge of obtaining money from Charles Wells, landlord of the Star Inn, Newington.

 

Folkestone Express 22 August 1874.

Monday, August 17th: Before J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

There is the usual influx of mendicants during the season, and the police have considerable difficulty in clearing the town of them. Two men who gave names of John Cook and Manus Conway were charged with begging.

P.C. Keeler saw Cook go to Mr. Hart's and Mr. Tyson's and beg on Saturday, and Supt. Wilshere saw Conway go into the Prince Albert and Foresters' Arms public houses on Sunday, and followed him. Mr. Wilshere being in plain clothes, prisoner made the blunder of begging of him.

Prisoners were committed for 21 days hard labour each.

 

Southeastern Gazette 3 January 1876.

Local News.

It may be remembered that in October, 1874, a coastguardsman named Patrick Carraghty was killed by falling over the cliff at the Warren, not far from Steddy’s Hole. Deceased at the time was out shooting, but, strange to say, his gun could never be found, although the most rigorous search was made. On Tuesday last, Mr. J. Hartley, of the Foresters’ Inn, Foord Road, was near the spot, when he found the deceased’s gun. The barrel end was covered with chalk, leading to the supposition that it had lodged in the chalk during the fall of the poor fellow, and had since been brought down by the recent heavy snow.

 

Folkestone Express 18 September 1880.

Wednesday, September 15th: Before The Mayor and Captain Crowe.

Mr. Hartley, of the Foresters' Arms, obtained an occasional license to supply refreshments at Walton Farm, on the day of the shooting competition in connection with the Artillery Volunteers.

 

Folkestone Express 11 December 1886.

Saturday, December 4th: Before The Mayor, F. Boykett, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

An extension of one hour was granted to Mr. Jackson, of the Foresters' Arms on the occasion of a dinner on Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Express 1 August 1891.

Saturday, July 25th: Before Ald. Banks, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Matilda Lefevre, niece of the late Mr. Jackson, landlord of the Foresters' Arms, was given temporary authority to draw at the house.

 

Folkestone Express 8 August 1891.

Wednesday, August 5th: Before Captain carter and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The licence of the Foresters' Arms was transferred to Miss Lefevre.

 

Folkestone Express 3 December 1892.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness Esq., and Alderman Pledge.

Mr. Cook, of the Foresters Arms, applied for an extension of one hour on the occasion of the Prussian Hermits' dinner. The Magistrates refused the application.

 

Folkestone Express 16 June 1894.

Wednesday, June 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood and Dunk.

Mr. Cook, of the Foresters' Arms, was granted an occasional licence to sell at the Town Hall at the Foresters' Smoking Concert.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 October 1895.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday, before Mr. Fitness and Alderman Pledge, a young servant girl, aged fourteen years, was placed in the dock, charged with stealing money belonging to her master, Mr. Geo. William Cook, landlord of the Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street, on the 28th September.

Mrs. Cook was called, and stated that the prisoner had been in her husband's employ about four months. On the 18th ult. witness placed a china vase containing £5 in silver and two half sovereigns in her drawer, and moved it on the 20th to another drawer in which her husband kept his cash. On the first of October she missed some of the silver, and in consequence of her suspicions searched the prisoner's dress. She found in the pocket a quantity of nuts, fruit, and sweets, and also a purse containing 5s. 5½d. Witness went direct to the prisoner and asked her what money it was, and she answered “It's not your money. I've not stolen it from you”. Witness went again to the china vase and counted the money. There was £1 in silver missing. She returned to the girl, and questioned her further respecting the coin she had found in her pocket, when she remarked that it was her mother's money. Witness then went to the Albion Mews, where her mother resides, but she was out, and Mrs. Cook returned home, telling the girl that she had seen her mother, and that she had told her that the money did not belong to her. The reason for telling her that was to get at the truth, and the girl said “It was your money. I took it from the chest of drawers on Saturday”. Witness made her turn out her pockets, and found six bangles, a silk handkerchief, a pair of kid gloves, two combs and a shoe horn. Witness asked her if she bought them with her money, and she said “Yes”.

P.S. Lilley stated that he saw the prisoner at the Foresters' Arms on Tuesday afternoon. He gave her the usual caution, and told her the charge. Mrs. Cook, producing a small china vase, said “This is the ornament the money was taken from”. Prisoner said “I didn't take it out of that; I took it out of a little wooden bowl”. The officer said “Took what?”, and she replied “The money”. She said she took it last Wednesday, but didn't know how much, and the 5s. 5½d. in the purse was a part of it She also said she bought the gloves at Shaw's for 1s. 11d., and other articles at the 6½d. shop on Grace Hill.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. Her mother, who was in Court, said the girl was 14 years old last July, and asked that she might be sent to a reformatory.

Mrs. Cook asked the Bench to deal as leniently as possible with the prisoner. She was young, and she was sorry to have to bring her there. She had always been a very willing girl.

Mr. Fitness said the prisoner was almost too young to be placed in such a position, and he thought it was a desire for finery that had caused her to give way to temptation. They had decided to give her another chance, for they thought she was too young to be sent to prison. She would be discharged, to come up for judgement when called upon.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 October 1895.

Police Court Record.

On Wednesday, Janet Cox, aged 14, was charged with stealing £1 in silver, the property of her master, Mr. Cook, Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street.

Mrs. Cook said the prisoner had been her servant for about three months. On the 18th ult. witness placed £6 in a china vase, and put the vase into a drawer in her bedroom. £5 of the money was in silver. She moved it to another drawer on Monday last. Next day she examined the pocket of a dress in prisoner's bedroom, and found a purse containing 5s. 5½d. She then asked prisoner what she had in her pocket. Prisoner said “It is not your money. I have not stolen it from you”. Witness went to the drawer and counted the money. Finding that £1 in silver was missing, she asked prisoner if she had taken the money or not. Prisoner said her mother had given her the money to buy some coal with. Witness then went to see the mother, who was not at home. After returning she told the girl she had spoken to her mother, which was not a fact. Prisoner then said she had taken the money from the chest of drawers on Saturday. In her pocket witness found, besides the purse, six bangles, a pocket handkerchief, and a pair of kid gloves. In reply to witness, the prisoner said she had bought the articles with the money that was stolen.

P.S. Lilley deposed that from what the last witness's husband told him, he went to the Foresters' Arms. He saw the prisoner and warned her that what she said to him would be told to the Magistrates. Mrs. Cook showed him the vase from which the money was taken. Prisoner then said, in reply to the sergeant, that she took the money from a wooden bowl. She did not know how much, it was in silver. The money in the purse was some of that she had taken.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mrs. Cook asked the Bench to deal with her leniently, she had been a willing girl. She would not take the girl back into her service again.

In answer to the Magistrates, prisoner said she had passed the 3rd standard of the National Schools, Sandgate.

Mr. Banks, who was in the chair, said as the girl was so young they would give her another chance, and dismiss the case, the prisoner being bound over to come up for judgement when called upon.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 July 1898.

Local News.

We regret to have to record the death of Mr. George R. Cook, of the Foresters' Arms, Sutton Street, which occurred on Sunday. On the previous day he accompanied Mr. Fearon's beanfeast party to Tenterden. He was taken suddenly ill on Sunday morning, and although Dr. Thornton Gilbert did all in his power, he died in the afternoon from syncope.

 

Folkestone Herald 23 July 1898.

Felix.

His many friends will hear with more than ordinary regret of the sudden death of Mr. Cook, of the Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street. Deceased had been out for a little excursion into the country, and whilst driving from Ashford in the direction of Cranbrook he complained of feeling unwell. Subsequently he was brought on to Folkestone, and died at his home. Mr. Cook, I understand, suffered from heart affection. He had served his Queen and country in India, and the climate no doubt had told on his health. His death will be generally regretted, and Mrs. Cook has the deep sympathy of a large circle of friends.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 August 1898.

Wednesday, August 3rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.

Mrs. Cook was granted the transfer of the licence of the Foresters' Arms.

 

Folkestone Herald 6 August 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mrs. Cook, Foresters' Arms.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 6 August 1898.

Wednesday, August 3rd: Before J. Pledge, W.C. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs.

Transfer was sanctioned to Mrs. Cook, Foresters Arms.

 

Hythe Reporter 13 August 1898.

Folkestone Police Court.

At the sitting of the Bench of Magistrates last Wednesday, the following licence was transferred:

Mrs. Cook, widow of the late landlord, was granted temporary authority to sell at the Foresters Arms.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 September 1898.

Wednesday, September 14th: Before Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey.

Mrs. Cook was granted the transfer of the Foresters' Arms, formerly held by her late husband.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 September 1898.

Police Court Record.

On Wednesday transfer was granted to Mrs. Cook, Foresters' Arms.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 17 September 1898.

Wednesday, September 14th: Before Ald. Banks, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Transfer was made to Mrs. Cook, Foresters Arms.

 

Folkestone Express 22 April 1899.

Wednesday, April 19th: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Edgar Dalton, the landlord of the Foresters' Arms, was summoned for unlawfully opening his house for the sale of intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

P.C. Burniston said at midnight on the 14th inst. he was on duty in Shellons Street, and saw two men come up Grace Hill – William Price and Patrick Harrington – and as they passed the public bar door of the Foresters' Arms, Harrington knocked at the door. They walked about five yards up Shellons Street and stopped. The door was then unbolted and opened by defendant, who came out on to the pavement. Harrington called out to defendant “Is it alright?”, and he replied “Yes. Come on”. The two men then walked back to where defendant stood, and Harrington said “Is there any policeman about?” Defendant looked about, and said “No. Come on”. The three men then went into the bar. Shortly after, witness went to the door and listened, and heard a noise as if the till was pulled open. There was the chink of money, and then the till was pushed back again, and made a loud noise. There appeared to be a coin thrown on to the bar counter. Defendant said “Drink up. I'll let you out this way”. Witness went to the private bar door in Shellons Street, the door being unbolted, and he was seen through one of the glass panels, and the door was left. He then knocked at it. He was admitted by defendant, and when he got inside he heard a rumbling of feet, as if the men were trying to make their escape. He said to defendant “Where are those two men gone to on your premises?” He replied “Somewhere in there”. He looked round the public and private bars, and they were in a private room at the rear of the bar. There were two glasses standing on the bar counter, and they smelt of whisky very strongly. Not being able to see the men inside, he went to the back gate on Grace Hill, which he found locked, and on returning found the two men leaving the premises. He took their names and addresses, and told them he should report them, and they made no reply. He told defendant he should report him for keeping his house open during prohibited hours. He replied “I own that I served them. They had an Irish whiskey each, but they did not pay for it. It seems very hard for a young man like me to be reported. It will ruin me”. Witness then left the premises.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He was standing in the doorway of a private house opposite at the top. There was a light in the bar at the time, and he noticed a musical box open on the counter.

Mr. Haines, in defence, explained that defendant was cleaning out a musical box which had become jammed, and while engaged in this occupation the two men, whom defendant knew very well, knocked at the door and asked for a drink. Defendant said he could not sell them a drink, but he would give them one. The money that the constable said he heard chink was that taken from the musical box. Was it likely that for the sake of two whiskies the defendant would wantonly imperil his licence and his future?

Superintendent Reeve said that before taking over the licence the defendant produced an excellent testimonial to his predecessor.

The Bench considered the case proved and fined defendant £2 10s. and 9s. costs, or in default one month's hard labour. Being the first offence, they decided not to endorse the licence.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 April 1899.

Notes Of The Week.

We have often heard very funny defences raised on behalf of licence holders, when the latter have been proceeded against for selling intoxicants at prohibited hours. We do not refer to Folkestone, but rather to other towns, especially in the north. Nevertheless, we cannot recall to mind any more ludicrous defence than that which was set up in a local case on Wednesday morning. A policeman saw two men admitted into a public house at midnight, he heard the clink of money in the drawer and on the counter, he found two glasses which had recently contained ardent spirits, he saw the two men leave the premises, and he received the landlord's confession that the men had been admitted. These facts were pretty clear; but the defence was that the men had been treated by the landlord, and that the latter had been emptying a musical box of the coppers it had accumulated during the day. Whether the belated men enjoyed a tune to the accompaniment of their toddy is not specified in the evidence, but at all events, the case points a moral to licence holders, that when they are counting up the cash of their musical boxes after closing time, they would do well to exclude any passers-by who might be curious to enter. A mitigated penalty of £2 10s. and costs will suffice to vindicate the law.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday morning last an interesting licensing case was before the Magistrates at the Borough Police Court. The Bench consisted of Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Vaughan, and Stainer.

Mr. Edgar Dalton, landlord of the Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street, was summoned for opening his house during prohibited hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors. He pleaded Not Guilty. Superintendent Reeve conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, appeared for the defence.

P.C. Burniston deposed: At 12 o'clock, midnight, on the 14th inst., I was on duty in Shellons Street. I saw two men come up Grace Hill from the direction of Foord Road. They were William Price and Patrick Harrington. As they passed the public house, Harrington knocked at the door. The two men then walked about five yards up Shellons Street and stopped. The door was then unbolted and opened by the defendant, Dalton, who came out on the pavement. I recognised him. Harrington called out to Dalton “Is it all right?” Dalton replied “Yes, come on”. The two men then walked back to where Dalton stood, Harrington saying “Is there any policeman about?” Dalton looked about and said “No, come on”. The three men went into the bar, the door was closed and bolted again. I went to the door about two minutes afterwards. I listened and heard a noise as if the till pulled open, and then the chink of money. The till was then pushed back again. It made a loud noise, and I heard the chink of money on the bar counter. Dalton said “I will let you out this way”. I knew it was his voice. I went to the private bar door in Shellons treet. The door was being unbolted by someone from the inside before I knocked. I was seen through one of the glass panels of the door, and he left the door. I then knocked at it. I was admitted by Dalton. When I got inside, I heard the rumbling of feet as if the men were trying to make their escape. I said to Dalton “Where are those two men you have got on your premises?” He replied “Somewhere in there”. I looked round the public bar, private bar, and a private room in the rear of the bar, but could not see the men. There were two glasses upon the bar counter. I smelt them. They smelt of spirits. There was nothing in them, but they had recently contained spirits, whiskey, for they smelt strongly. Not being able to see the men inside, I left the bar and went to the back gate on Grace Hill. I then returned to the bar. I did not find anybody; the gate was locked. I saw the two men leaving the premises, just getting on the pavement. I took their names and addresses and told them I should report them for being on licensed premises at prohibited hours. They made no reply. I said to Dalton “I will report you for keeping your house open for the sale of intoxicating liquor”. He replied “I know I served them. They had an Irish whiskey each”. I said to him “I heard the chink of money on the bar counter”. He replied “They did not pay for it. It seems very hard for a poor man like me to be reported. It will ruin me”. I then left the premises.

Cross-examination by Mr. G.W. Haines: Where were you standing at this time? – At a private house opposite, in the doorway. I had business to attend to there.

You say you heard all this conversation? – Yes, sir.

Did you say you heard all of it? – Yes, sir.

They could not have said anything you could not hear? – No, sir.

When they came up and tapped at this door, was there a light there? – Yes, sir. A full light on the bar.

Did you notice any musical box arrangement? – There was a musical box standing on the counter.

Can you say whether it was open? – Yes, it was open.

Now, after this man had gone in, the light was still kept going? Just so. – Yes, sir.

Did the defendant, when you spoke to him about the men being there, mention anything about the musical box to you? – No, sir.

You say you heard the chink of money? – I heard what appeared to be that.

The defendant told you he did not charge these men for what they had? – He said so.

Mr. Haines, on the defendant's behalf, said the case was taken under Section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874, in which there were two offences, for selling liquors during prohibited hours or for keeping the house open for the sale of liquor. There was not the slightest doubt that had the police sufficient evidence to have brought the case within the section of selling liquors, the summonses would have been taken out under the section, or the first part of that section, but owing to the difficulty of proving a sale the summons was taken under the latter part of the section, and that was for keeping open the house. The offence, however, was for opening the house. (Mr. H.B. Bradley, the Clerk to the Justices, said that was altogether a different offence from keeping open.) Mr. Haines, continuing, said it was for the Bench to decide on the evidence whether or not within the meaning of the Act the defendant did open the place for the purpose of a sale. There had been many cases decided with regard to opening or keeping open, amongst which at one time was the question of giving to or treating one's friends. Having called the Bench's attention to two cases in point, Mr. Haines contended that there were cases in which there was a very fine line. The Bench would have to decide whether this man wantonly opened this house at midnight for the express purpose of selling two whiskies, and would prejudice the house, the licence, and his own future. The explanation he was instructed to give to this Court was one, in conjunction with the constable's evidence, which would, he thought, be taken to a certain extent to be not contradictory. He thought that when they heard that, they would see the defendant was worthy of credence, and his statement was not altogether an airy romance. The defendant had a musical box on the counter, and the door where the money portion is was opened. A customer could place a penny in and a tune was played. That night, as they heard, the light was burning in this bar at 12 o'clock. The defendant would have turned out his lights, but he was clearing the money out of the musical box, which had got jammed. The two men came up. They were known to him, but he did not know that they were intimate friends of the defendant. They knocked at the door. They asked him “We should like a drink”. He said “I can't sell you a drink, but I will give you a drink”. They went inside, the lights being left on. There was no attempt at turning out the lights. The money which had been taken out of this box was cleared off the counter and put in the till. That was the money or the sound of money to which the constable referred. The constable came in; it was not of course for the police to judge whether or not it was within the section. He submitted that the defendant had a right if he liked to give liquor to any of his friends, but he would have learnt his lesson, and know that he would have to satisfy the Bench that his intention was not a wilful one to open his house for that purpose. The defendant was a young man, inexperienced, and he might say this was the first house he had had. It was not many weeks since he had been granted the transfer of his licence. His character satisfied the Bench. He believed that the house in question had had a most exemplary character. The brewers, Messrs. Isherwood, were the last persons to have a tenant who would imperil their licence. The defendant might be ignorant altogether of the law. It was hedged in with technicality, and the defendant thought that if he chose to give the men a drink he could do so. This man had started life, and it was not to be believed that for the sake of two whiskies he would imperil his licence. This was not in a back street, but in the centre of the town. He submitted on the facts that the defendant did not intend to open his house for the sale of liquor. There was no proof that it was sold. He asked them to believe the defendant when he said he gave the liquor to these men. He asked that the licence should not be endorsed in any case. As to the two glasses, they might have been not previously cleared away.

Superintendent Reeve said the defendant produced to his predecessor excellent testimonials.

The Bench having consulted, the Chairman said: Edward Dalton, the case is proved satisfactorily to the Bench, and you have rendered yourself liable to a penalty of £10, and also endorsement of the licence. It being the first offence, the Magistrates are of opinion that, taking into consideration that the house has always been of good repute, they will be justified in mitigating it to one fourth.

Fined £2 10s., and 9s. costs, or one month's imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 22 April 1899.

Wednesday, April 19th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Edgar Dalton, landlord of the Foresters Arms, Shellons Street, was summoned for keeping his house open during prohibited hours on the 14th April. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty, and was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Police Constable Burniston said: About midnight on the 14th April I was on duty in Shellons Street, when I saw two men come up the Foord Road. The men were William Price and Patrick Harrington. As thep passed the Foresters Arms public house, Harrington knocked at the door. The two men then walked about five yards up Shellons Street, then stopped. The door was then unbolted and opened by the defendant's daughter, who came out on the pavement. Harrington called out to Dalton “Is it all right?”, and Dalton replied “Yes, come on”. The two men then walked back to where Dalton stood. Harrington asked if there were any policemen about, and Dalton replied “No, come on”. The three men then went into the bar. The door was closed and bolted again. Shortly afterwards I went to the door.

The Magistrates' Clerk: How long afterwards?

Police Constable Burniston: Two minutes, sir. I listened and heard a noise, as if the till was pulled open. There was the jink of money. The till was then pushed back again, and made a loud noise at the bar counter. Dalton said “Drink up. I will let you out this way”.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You heard someone say so.

Police Constable Burniston: I knew it was his voice. I heard the private door opened in Shellons Street. I could see through one of the glass windows. I then knocked. I was admitted by his daughter. When I came inside I heard the running of feet, as if there were men trying to make their escape. I said to Dalton “Where have those two men gone?” He replied “Somewhere in there”. I looked round the public and private bar, and into a private room at the rear of the bar, and could not see the men. There were two glasses standing on the bar counter. I smelt the glasses, and they smelt of spirits.

The Magistrates' Clerk: What spirits?

Police Constable Burniston: Whisky, sir. Afterwards I went to the entrance in Grace Hill, and saw the two men just leaving the premises. I took their names and addresses, and told them I should report them for being on licensed premises. They made no reply. I said to the daughter “I shall report you for keeping your house open for the sale of intoxicants”. The defendant replied “I own I have served them. They had an Irish whiskey each. They did not pay for it”. I said to him “I heard the clink of money on the bar counter”. He replied “They did not pay for it. It seems very hard for a young man like me to be reported. It will ruin me”. I then left the premises.

Mr. Haines proceeded with the cross-examination of the witness.

Where were you at this time? – I was in a private doorway over the way.

You say you heard this conversation. Do you say you heard all of it? – I heard all, sir.

When they came to the door, was there a light? – There was in the private bar.

Did you notice a musical box? – There was a musical box on the bar counter.

Was it open? – It was open.

And it was still kept going? – It was still kept going.

Did the defendant mention anything about the musical box? – No, sir, not to me.

You say you heard the clink of money? - Yes.

As if the till was being opened? – That is it.

There was the rattle of money inside? – Yes.

The defendant told you that he had not charged these men for what they had had? – He said so.

Mr. Haines then addressed the Court. He said: Gentlemen, on behalf of the defendant I have to make a few remarks on this case. In section 9 of the Licensing Act of 1894, there are two offences mentioned. One offence is selling intoxicating liquors on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and the other offence is for keeping the house open for the sale of those liquors. There is no doubt that the summons would have been taken out under the first part of the section for selling liquors during prohibited hours had it not been for the difficulty which is very often experienced in proving the sale. To avoid that difficulty that summons has been taken under the latter part of the section for keeping open his house.

The Magistrates' Clerk: That is the offence.

Mr. Haines: The offence is for opening the house.

The Magistrates' Clerk: That is a different offence than keeping open.

Chief Constable Reeve: There is a mistake on the charge sheet. The offence is for keeping open during prohibited hours.

Mr. Haines: Now, with regard to cases dealt with summarily, it is for the Bench to consider what is opening a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors. There have been many cases upon the point, and it will be for you to decide whether, within the meaning of this Act, the defendant did open his house for the purpose of sale. There have been many cases for opening or keeping open, and amongst other questions raised has been that of giving or treating practically one's friends. One case to which I wish to call your attention is that of Tennant v Cumberland. In that case Cumberland, a beer house keeper, was summoned for keeping open. The offence charged was that at two o'clock on Sunday morning the constable saw the beer house keeper and another man drinking ale in the house, and soon after the man came out. There was no proof of selling beer, and the Court of Queen's Bench held there was no evidence of keeping open.

The Magistrates' Clerk: That was a case of keeping open, not opening.

Mr. Haines: Of keeping open, but it is a matter for the Bench whether there is sufficient evidence of keeping open for the sale of drink. Although a man was on the premises, and the place was open, it was held that one man being there and drinking was not sufficient evidence to show that the defendant kept his house open for the purpose of selling liquors. And, further, there was the case of Jefferson v Richardson. In that case the alehouse keeper was charged with keeping open on a Sunday. The man was seen to come out at a side door, though the front door was shut. There was no evidence to support the charge that liquor had been sold during prohibited hours. I take it that there are no facts in the case now before you on which you can decide that the defendant wantonly opened his place at midnight (when he knew the police were about) for the purpose of selling two whiskies, and would prejudice the house, and his own future. This case is one in which you will say that the defendant is worthy of credibility. His statement is not altogether a tissue of rumours. I can undertake to say that he hda a musical box on his counter when the door was opened. I believe a customer can place a penny in the box, and a wheel goes round, and there is no doubt that the box got full of upper coins. On the occasion of the alleged offence a light was burning in the bar at twelve o'clock at night. What I understand is that defendant was cleaning the money out of the musical box. The two men who came in were known to him. I do not know they were intimate friends, but at all events they were friends, and they knocked at the door. They said “We should like a drink”. He said “I can't sell a drink, but I will give you a drink”, and they went inside. There were lights. With the lights all glaring the men went inside. The money was taken from the musical box and put in the till. The policemen came in very properly.. It is for the police to bring him here by summons, and for the defendant to show that he is not opening his house during prohibited hours for the express purpose of selling liquors. I put it to you there is no proof that liquor was sold. The defendant said “I gave it to them”. I submit that the defendant had a right to give liquors in the way he did. It is for you to say if the policeman has put a wrong construction upon the defendant's action, and that he has a right to come here to show that he has committed no offence against the law, that he has not wantonly outraged the law. The defendant is a young man, inexperienced I may say. The Foresters Arms is the first house that he has had, and I believe it is not many weeks since he was granted a transfer. I believe he had a high character, that he had testimonials to show that he was a fit and proper person to carry on and conduct this house, and I believe that this house before had an exemplary record. The brewers, Messrs. Isherwood, who own the house, are particular that their tenants should conduct it in accordance with the term of the law, and would be the last persons to have a tenant who would imperil their licence. This young man here (the defendant) may be ignorant of the law, which is edged round with technicalities. He may have said “If I can give these men a drink I will do so”. The police come between 11 and 12 o'clock at night and report him for keeping open. It is for you to say whether he wantonly offended. It is not to be believed that for two whiskies he would imperil his licence. Shellons Street is not an out-of-the-way street. It is not a back street entirely. He must have known that if he offended there would be no doubt about his being found out. I put it to you that he did not open his place for the sale of liquor after prohibited hours, and I ask you to say whether you believe that he gave liquor to the two men who had been referred to as entering the house. It is for you, looking to the character of the house, and the way in which it has been previously conducted, and to the owners, Messrs. Isherwood, to say whether you will cause the licence to be endorsed. It is in your power to have the licence endorsed, unless you decide in the defendant's favour, taking into consideration what I have to say. It is in your power to have the conviction endorsed upon the licence. Any suggestion from the Bench, Messrs. Isherwood would be willing to listen to, either with reference to the tenant, or anything else; but I do ask you that the licence, taking into consideration the circumstances I have referred to, shall not be endorsed. I can not say any more now than that the offence is for keeping open, and there is no evidence that the defendant kept open for the purposes of sale. With regard to there being two glasses on the counter, they may have been there to be cleared away. Glasses are not always cleared away at once. One would almost have thought that the defendant would have drunk with the two men himself under the circumstances. He has only just got his licence, and it is hardly likely that he would open his house for the sale of drink during prohibited hours. Injudicious he may have been. It is his own fault he has placed himself in the position he has, but wilfully go against the law I tell you he would not.

Chief Constable Reeve: Will you (the Bench) allow me to say that my predecessor informs me that the defendant brought with him excellent testimonials on applying for a licence?

The Chairman said, after consulting his brother Magistrates: This case is proved satisfactorily to the Bench, and you (the defendant) have rendered yourself liable to the penalty of £10, and also to endorsement of the licence. But this being your first offence the Magistrates are of opinion that, taking into consideration that the house has always been of good repute, they will make the penalty a fourth of £10, that is 50s., and 9s. costs, £2 19s. altogether, or one month's imprisonment. Also taking into consideration that this is a first offence, the Magistrates will not endorse the licence.

 

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 7 April, 1900. Price 1d.

TRADEGY AT FOLKESTONE. DEATH OF A BRIDEGROOM

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Thursday, relative to the death of George William Hanbury, who was married the previous Monday at Lewisham, and who met his death on Wednesday under peculiar circumstances. It appears that he visited the “Forester's Arms,” Shellons Street, and had a dispute with the landlord, Mr. Edgar Dalton, with respect to payment of some drinks. He threatened the landlord, and was, it is alleged, forcible ejected by the latter's father, the ex-police Superintendent of Maidstone. He fell down the steps and received injuries from which he shortly afterwards died at the Victoria Hospital.

Martha Hanbury, widow, said her husband left her on Wednesday morning between ten and eleven o'clock. He had not been in the habit of getting tipsy, and from what she heard he was not in drink at the time he was injured.

Robert William Gillingham, a smith, of 53 St. John's Street, said that on Wednesday he was in the bar at the “Forester's Arms,” Shellon Street, about a quarter past six in the afternoon. The deceased came in afterwards with a plasterer or bricklayer. Deceased had some beer, and appeared to him had quite enough. He called for a glass of beer for himself and one for the plasterer. He asked the landlord, Mr. Edgar Dalton, to have a glass also, at first he refused, saying he was going to have his tea. He drew the two glasses, and deceased then asked him again to have a glass, and he had one, the landlord asked the deceased for the money. Deceased asked him how much he owed, and the landlord said 6d. Deceased began to feel in his pocket for the money. He did not pay, but went outside for a few minutes. On his return the landlord said, “I want 6d, off you, sir.” Deceased said he paid before he went out. The landlord said he had not taken any money at all, and he came round to the front of the bar to where the deceased was standing. The deceased had made no disturbance – he was enjoying himself and talking about a soldier. The landlord went up to the deceased and said, “I want sixpence off you sir, please, for those drinks.” Deceased said, “You will get no 6d, off me.” He had an umbrella in his hand, and, holding it up, he threatened the landlord with it. The landlord did not threaten deceased at all. Mr. Dalton, the landlord's father, then came into the bar. He took hold of deceased, who was close to the door, and they had a struggle. Dalton was trying to get him outside, the deceased was trying to free himself. Directly afterwards deceased went rolling out into the street. Witness ran out of the other door and found the deceased lying on his back and someone (he believed it was the landlord) was trying to get him up.

The Coroner:- Did you tell my officer this morning that the deceased was in a fighting attitude and that the landlord took hold of him and threw him out of the door?

Witness:- Not the landlord; the father.

The Coroner:- If deceased had gone out face first he would not have hit the back of his head, would he?

Witness:- No.

The Coroner:- You can judge from the question I have put to the witness that he is not telling the same tale as he told my officer. You can very well judge from his answers that he is not telling the truth. Could he walk straight?

Witness:- he did not walk much in the bar.

The Foreman:- Before he was put out he requested to leave the bar by the landlord or the father?

Witness:- No. I never heard him asked to leave.

Mrs. Clara Harrison, of 152, Dover Road, said the landlord told her that morning that the deceased was not the worse for drink. He was merely excited about the soldiers, and he told him if he did not keep his temper he should put him out.

Thomas Archer, of 30, Pavilion Road, coachman to Dr. Chambers, said he was walking past the “Forester's Arms” and saw the deceased fall backwards on to the pavement. His arm hit witness's leg as he fell, and the back of his head went on to the pavement. His legs were on the doorstep. He fell from the top step. The landlord and his father came out of the half-door soon after. The landlord was close to the deceased on the top step when the man fell. Witness could not see who pushed him. The landlord's father was behind. Deceased fell just like a man falling down dead and never moved afterwards.

By Mr. Venor (a juror):- The landlord was the first one to come down the steps, and the landlord picked him up.

The Coroner:- That really confirms the statement Gillingham made to my officer this morning. Now he says it was the landlord's father – for what reason I don't know. Continuing the Coroner said there were six or seven persons said to have been in the bar at the time. The inquest happened so shortly after their information was given to them that as far as they hadn't been able to find any of them. It appeared to him that it was a case in which they ought to be found. Looking at what Gillingham said as to what took place, they would have to consider the conduct of the landlord's father in putting the man out, if he did put him out. To his mind it was a serious case, and one that required inquiry.

The jury agreed, and the enquiry was accordingly adjourned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 April 1899.

Editorial.

There are too many public houses in Folkestone. There is no denying the fact. Nor is there any denying that the subsequent competition between the publicans is demoralising both to themselves and the habitués of the bars in the town. Publicans have as much right to live as other people we know. Whether their trade is one which would be better annihilated or not is a question the whole country alone can decide. We know the teetotallers, who have been besieging Folkestone lately as relentlessly as the Goths besieged Rome, have a very decided opinion that the publican should be placed under the temperance heel. But the fall of Folkestone is not so near as was the fall of Rome on the occasion alluded to, and the hand of justice is lifted with a gesture which proclaims “Not yet. Let us be fair”. Now, we sympathise keenly with the good intentions of the temperance party, though we would that some men were able to see that they may possibly themselves be actuated by the most selfish instincts when labouring to prevent other men having a privilege they debar themselves, i.e., if privilege it be. In saying this much we are not backing away from our opening proposition, that Folkestone has too many public houses. There is such a condition of things as almost a whole side of one street being occupied by licensed houses, of which it may be said that rather than being in rivalry they are leaning against one another for support in the second stage of dilapidation. Nor do we retract one iota of our contention that the competition – if you will, rivalry or close association – of so many publicans is demoralising to themselves. The publican is not a whit less unfair in his dealing than the rival fishmonger, or the rival greengrocer, or the rival furniture-on-the-hire system tradesman, who uses his every allurement to get his neighbour's customers away, and, once got away, tries to “pluck the goose”. But just now public attention is more closely drawn to the publican than to any other class of tradesmen, and, if we read the indications aright, there is a disposition on the part of the police to weed out as many of the superfluous publicans as possible. We commend the movement, if it really has begun, and we believe the publicans who remain, if the weeding is successful, will benefit considerably. The strife for life among the publicans has probably led some of them to adopt methods which they may not find approved in the code of rules supplied to every licence holder by the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Whether the police, in their efforts to reduce a public evil and to benefit both publicans and residents, are adopting a commendable method of securing an eminently desirable end, is perhaps open to question. They have had a typical case in hand during last week and this week, in which they did not shine, and a Magisterial Bench, composed, with one exception, wholly of teetotallers, has given a decision which, while in the main it must instil a salutary lesson into the minds of the licensed holders, was not, we submit, wholly complimentary to the police. One Edgar Dalton, a young man to whom the Bench had granted a temporary licence for the Foresters' Arms Hotel – which, by the way, is not in the part of town infested with clusters of “pubs”, but in a part where, if a house is needed at all, this one is needed – was brought before the Bench charged with opening his house after hours. What he did was a thing done, not only in Folkestone but in most towns in the kingdom, with impunity. He is a young beginner as a landlord, and has the impression that every Englishman's house is his own castle. He opened his door to two friends, admitted them, and entertained them with a glass of whisky each, out of his own store. His impression, it was proved to him, was a delusion. No Englishman's house is his own castle, if he happens to be a publican. Dalton was fined fifty shillings, not for serving drink, not even for entertaining his friends, but for opening his door after eleven. The magisterial decision was virtually that the man who holds a licence for a public house must lock, bolt, and bar his door when the clock strikes eleven at night, and not open it again until six in the morning. We wish it to be understood that we are entirely in sympathy with the temperance party, and ready to support every movement they may make which shows the slightest chance of annihilating the demon of drunkenness. But this desirable triumph will never be achieved by unjust laws, unfairness between man and man, nor by a system of contemptible espionage. We say contemptible espionage advisedly, as what follows may justify it. Under cross-examination the constable Burniston, on whose evidence alone the case was proved, admitted that his conduct was this:- He saw two men coming up a hill in the direction of the Foresters' Arms. Thereupon he hid himself in a dark doorway, and watched. But the policeman who hides himself at midnight might, we venture to think, be proved an accessory to crime if he fell under the scathing cross-examination of criminal counsel of the calibre of Mr. G.F. Gill, Mr. Charles Matthews, or Mr. Horace Avery at the Old Bailey. A constable in sight is no doubt a preventative of crime, and his presence should be as much for the confidence of the night wayfarer as the instrument of terror to the would-be evil-doer. The police are instituted to prevent crime, not merely to secure convictions and gain promotion, and the only cases in which conduct such as that mentioned would be justified would be, we fancy, in circumstances where there was reason to believe there was continual evasion of the law or an evident plan to work serious evil or inflict personal injury. Under such circumstances no-one could but commend the course adopted. In this case, however, it was not so. Nothing could have been more manly than the action of the Chief Constable, after hearing this cross-examination, than rising and informing the Bench, before they gave their decision, that Mr. Dalton had the highest credentials and came to Folkestone with an unimpeachable character. The Magistrates, on Wednesday this week, showed their good sense, and did honour to themselves, as the holders of the seals of justice, in granting Mr. Dalton a full licence, without any endorsement recording his having been made a victim to an inadvertency. Constable Burniston was present at the last parade, when the Mayor, Alderman Salter, gave the force some good advice. The Mayor said: “The members of the police force had a great responsibility in the duties they had to perform, and needed much tact and patience to carry out those duties judiciously. In many cases they would find difficulties in their path, and cases upon which it was difficult for them to decide whether they ought or not to go to the length of bringing a misdemeanant before the magistrates. In many instances they would find a few kind words would work wonders, and in the case of persons who were found to have had too much to drink, with discretion and kindness they might make such an impression on the memory of the offender, by saving him from the disgrace of being dragged before the magistrates, as to be the instrument of future good conduct on his part”. Burniston heard these remarks. Let us recall them to his memory, and hope he will realise that the desire of every respectable person to see drunkenness decreased, and public houses fewer in Folkestone, will be met by following the Mayor's advice.

 

Folkestone Express 29 April 1899.

Saturday, April 22nd: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, J. Holden, J. Stainer, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

Patrick Harrington and William Price were summoned for being on licensed premises – the Foresters' Arms – during prohibited hours.

P.C. Burniston repeated the evidence he gave on Wednesday, when the landlord was fined for selling liquor during prohibited hours.

The defendants pleaded Guilty, and one of them told a very long story as to how and why they were there.

They were each fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

Wednesday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Col. Hamilton.

Mr. Dalton, who had temporary authority to sell at the Foresters' Arms, applied for a transfer of the licence.

It will be remembered that last week the applicant was fined for serving two men during prohibited hours.

Mr. G.W. Haines, who appeared for the applicant, made reference to the above, and pleaded on behalf of his client that he had offended through ignorance of the licensing laws, and it would be exceedingly hard to punish him further by refusing the transfer, which would mean that he would be absolutely barred from holding a licence in future. He was a young man of the highest possible character, and the experience he had had would be a warning to him to be extremely careful not to offend again. He had witnesses in Court who would speak as to his character, and the owners of the house, Messrs. Isherwood and Co., were so convinced of his suitability as a licence holder that one of the partners had come to give testimony on his behalf.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for Messrs. Isherwood, said he need not say to the Bench that their houses bore the very highest character, and they always insisted on their tenants obeying the law, and in the event of its being broken by an old tenant who they did not think ought to be forgiven, he had to leave. But in that instance, a member of the firm was present to give his testimony on behalf of the applicant, because they felt he had committed an indiscretion from ignorance, and it would not be right that his future should be damned by the refusal of the licence. They felt that he was a man who would obey the law in future, and that the punishment which had been inflicted upon him would have the effect, as Mr. Haines had said, of making him very careful in the future, and never to transgress again. Therefore they were willing to put their property in his hands to conduct the business and run the risk, feeling sure that he would not endanger their property by committing any offence which would entail the endorsement of the licence. The house bore an exceptionally good character, and until last week there had never been any complaint against it at all.

Superintendent Reeve said he had no objection to offer to the transfer, having regard to the result of the enquiries he had made as to the conduct of the house and the testimonials the applicant had produced.

The Chairman said the Bench had given the application the most careful consideration, and after what had been said as to the applicant's character, they would not object to the transfer.

The gentleman from the firm of brewers expressed his thanks to the Bench for the view they had taken of the matter.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 April 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

William Price, Beach Street, and Patrick Harrington, 3 Bouverie Mews, were charged with being in the Foresters' Arms during prohibited hours.

P.C. Burniston repeated his evidence given last week in the case against the landlord, when the latter was convicted.

One of the defendants said that on the night in question, Friday, 14th, he was at work on the Harbour until 20 to 12. Being thirsty and cold, on passing the Foresters' Arms, he knocked at the door. Hearing the bolt on the door go, he returned, and being a customer, asked for a drink, saying he was very cold. The landlord said that was more than he dare do, serve them with a drink, but “if I would come inside he would give me some”. Mr. Dalton was doing something to a musical box. He put coppers in the till and they drank their drinks. Mr. Dalton said “You can come out of this door”. When they got to the door they could see the policeman, and stood in the passage. They didn't want any bother. The policeman went round to the other door.

The other defendant agreed to this statement.

Fined 5s., and 9s. costs.

On Wednesday last Mr. Edgar Dalton applied for the transfer of the licence of the Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street.

Mr. G.W. Haines, who appeared in support of the application, said that it would be useless for him to ignore the fact that during the past week there was a conviction against the present applicant, who held a temporary licence, for opening his house for the sale of liquor at prohibited hours. Having regard that it was his first offence, the Bench inflicted only a mitigated penalty. The brewers, who always wished that the house should be conducted properly, would accept any suggestion as to the tenancy. The Bench did not then make any suggestion, but they did say that having regard to the previous conduct of the house they would not endorse the licence. Mr. Dalton on that put himself in the hands of the brewers, with whom he had been previously nine years, from whom he had an excellent character, and his testimonials were before the Bench when the temporary authority was granted, being of a very high order. He asked the Bench to take into consideration these facts, and that the brewers themselves, from what they knew of him, were perfectly content that the applicant should come before the Magistrates that day to ask for a transfer of the licence. The applicant was starting his career in this business, and the consequences to him would be most serious if they should refuse his application, because in the business he had elected to go into, if at any time he applied for a licence the result of their refusal would stop him obtaining it. He had been fined, although a mitigated penalty, and he had been punished. He asked the Bench to take into consideration the evidence they would hear as to the applicant's testimonials, the evidence of his employers, the brewers, that even they were quite content to consent to him as a tenant. The applicant had had a lesson, and he quite appreciated the consequences that would ensue should he break the laws.

Mr. J. Minter said he had been requested to appear on behalf of Messrs. Isherwood, the brewers and owners of this house. He perhaps need scarcely tell the Bench that Messrs. Isherwood had a very high character. They always insisted upon their tenants obeying the law. In this case the applicant had committed an indiscretion through ignorance, and they felt it would be, as far as they were concerned, a pity his future should be damned by the refusal of a transfer. They felt that they ought to assist in all cases in seeing that a tenant is a man who will obey the law. They felt that with the punishment which had been given to him he would never for the future break that law, and they thought from their knowledge of his character, which had been so good, and they had the utmost confidence in him, that he never would transgress again, and they were willing to put their property in his hands, running the risk if he did transgress of having the licence endorsed. They had that confidence, and were willing to run the risk. It was always their wish to act in accord with the Bench, to whom they were not in any way seeking to dictate. The applicant was starting in life. The brewers thought the lesson he had received, knowing what he was, his principles, his conduct all the years with them, would prevent him ever offending again, and convert him into a goo law-abiding holder of the licence. The house bore a very high record.

The Bench granted the application.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 29 April 1899.

Saturday, April 22nd: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lt. Col Westropp.

William Price, Beach Street, and Patrick Harrington, Bouverie Mews, were summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours on the 14th inst. Both defendants pleaded Guilty.

Police Constable Burniston gave similar evidence to that against the landlord, who was brought before the Court a few days previously. About midnight on Friday, the 14th, Burniston was on duty in Shellons Street, where the Foresters' Arms is situated, and saw the defendants admitted into the house, but could not see the defendants in the private bar or the public bar, but afterwards saw them coming out of a door leading to Grace Hill.

The defendants, one of whom was spokesman, said in effect that the landlord's statement that he gave them a drink, and did not sell them one, was true.

They were each fined 5s. and 9s. costs, in default 14 days' imprisonment.

Wednesday, April 26th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lt. Col. Hamilton.

Mr. Haines applied on behalf of Mr. Dalton, the landlord, for the transfer of the licence of the Foresters' Arms. He said: It would be useless for me to ignore the fact that there has recently been a conviction against the applicant for keeping the house open during prohibited hours. Although the Bench convicted the landlord, having regard to the fact that his was a first offence, they only inflicted a mitigated penalty. It is not for me now to go into the whole question, but may I say that the offence committed arose more from carelessness and ignorance than from intention to disobey the law. There was something else which I put to the Bench. It was that the brewers who held the house had always done their best to conduct it properly and would be glad to listen to any suggestions from the Bench. They hoped, therefore, that the licence would not be endorsed. Mr. Dalton himself put himself unreservedly into the hands of the brewers with whom he had been for nine years. His testimonials, which were put before the Bench when the licence was granted, were of a very high order. The brewers themselves are perfectly content that Mr. Dalton should come before you today to ask you for a transfer. Mr. Minter has been instructed by Messrs. Isherwood, who may have something to say as regards the view of the brewers. There can be no doubt that in the present landlord the house has a respectable tenant. Mr. Dalton was not a man of mere mushroom growth. He has put the savings of many years into the Foresters' Arms. He has started his career at that place, and the consequences to him will be most serious if you should, as it is in your own discretion, refuse his application, because if in any town of the kingdom he shall apply for a licence, the refusal today will at once stop him from obtaining it. That is most serious. He has been fined already in a mitigated penalty and punished. When a man has been before you, even charged with felony, I have seen merciful consideration shown by the Bench, and I ask you to take into consideration the special circumstances of the case, and the testimonials of his last employers. The brewers who hold the premises are prepared to accept him still as tenant, should you in your discretion grant him his licence. He has had a lesson. He quite appreciates the serious consequences that must ensue if he breaks the law, and I think that if you allow him the licence you will not have a more law abiding licensed victualler on your register. I put before you the proof of the services of the notice, and also the testimonials which I believe are here before the Bench.

Mr. J. Minter said: I am here to say a few words on behalf of Messrs. Isherwood, who are the owners of this house. I think I need hardly inform the Bench that Messrs. Isherwood's houses are always of the highest character, and that they insist upon their tenants obeying the law. But they feel in this case that the applicant has committed an indiscretion through ignorance, and they think it is a pity that his future should be damned by the refusal of the transfer. They feel that they ought to assist on all occasions in seeing that the tenant is a man who will obey the law, and they do feel that with the punishment that has been given to him, he will never for the future break that law, and they think from their knowledge of his character, which has been so eminently good – and they have the utmost confidence in him – that he will never transgress again, and they are willing to put the licence of this property in his hands, knowing the risk they run. They are willing to come here and give testimony in his favour, without in any way seeking to dictate to the Bench. They always wish to act in accord with the Bench, and to submit to any decision which the Bench may arrive at. But they do feel that this is an exceptional case, this young fellow having just started in his present business, and to condemn him for the remainder of his existence would not be just. They feel, as Mr. Haines has said, that if the Bench refuse to grant the transfer it will preclude this young man from making an application for a licence with success in the future. It would be a very hard course to interfere with his prospects for life for this one offence. They will find a new tenant if the Bench desire it, but otherwise they are willing that he should hold the licence. As I understand, the object of the Licensing Law, and the administration of it by the Bench, is that there should be respectable and responsible tenants who will obey the law. They say that the lesson he has received will be of such a character as to convert him into what the Bench desire, a good law abiding holder of a licence, a holder who will assist in carrying out the law.

Chief Constable Reeve remarked that he had no personal objection to the transfer applied for by Mr. Dalton.

The Bench, having taken all that had been said into consideration, granted the transfer.

 

Folkestone Express 16 September 1899.

Wednesday, September 13th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Mr. Dalton, of the Foresters' Arms, applied for permission to make a doorway into the garden at the rear of the house. The object was to afford means of ingress for cycles, &c. The Bench refused to grant the application.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday an application by the landlord of the Foresters' Arms for permission to make a doorway from Copthall Gardens to admit bicycles and mailcarts was refused.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 March 1900.

Inquest.

On Thursday evening a very serious and fatal occurrence was partly investigated by the Folkestone Coroner, who opened an inquiry into the death of George William Hanbury. The deceased, who was a native of Lewisham, and had only been married on Monday, was spending his honeymoon at Folkestone. On Wednesday night, it was stated, he had a dispute with Edgar Dalton, landlord of the Foresters Arms Hotel, as to the payment for drinks. The landlord's father, who was formerly Chief constable at Maidstone, interposed, and, it is alleged, threw Hanbury out of the hotel. The man fell down a flight of steps on to the back of his head and fractured his skull, dying a few hours later in the Victoria Hospital. The jury were puzzled as to whether the landlord's father, not being a licence holder, had the right to touch a customer, and whether death had resulted from a throw or a fall. The deceased's widow created a distressing scene.

The jury begged the Coroner to adjourn the case for a week, and to bring further witnesses before them, as they considered the case to be a very serious one. The inquiry was accordingly adjourned, it being understood that the parties immediately concerned, as well as the police, were desirous of securing legal assistance.

The inquest was opened at the Town Hall by Mr. Coroner Minter.

The first witness was the widow of deceased, who was greatly overcome by the catastrophe. She said she last saw her husband on Wednesday morning, between ten and eleven, when he went out. She did not know anything about his death, only from what she had heard.

The Coroner said that for his own information he would like to hear what that was.

Witness said she had been told that deceased was not drunk, but excited.

By the Coroner: He was never in the habit of getting intoxicated.

Clara Harrison said: I am the wife of Thomas Harrison, a postman, and reside at 152, Dover Road. I knew the deceased, who had lodged at my house with his wife since Monday last.

The jury retired to view the body, the Coroner suggesting that Mrs. Harrison should accompany them for the purpose of identification, as the ordeal would be very distressing for the widow. The jury viewed the body, and also visited the public house and the spot where the accident occurred.

Mrs. Harrison, continuing her evidence, said: Deceased was an engine driver, but was out of employment at the time of his death. He was married on Monday morning at Lewisham.

Robert William Gillingham said: I live at 63, St. John's Street, Folkestone, and am a smith. I was in the bar of the Foresters' Arms last evening about 6.15. I went in by the door with the steps, and deceased came in a few minutes afterwards by the same way with another man, unknown to me. Deceased had evidently had some beer.

Pressed by the Coroner as to whether deceased was drunk, witness stated that he appeared to have had quite enough, but the other man, who looked like a plasterer was “all right”.

Continuing, he said: When they came in, deceased called for a glass of beer for himself and one for the plasterer. He also asked the landlord to have one too. Mr. Dalton refused at first, saying he was just going to have some tea, but the deceased pressed him, and the landlord had a drink with him. Hanbury and the plasterer drank their beer, and at first deceased refused to pay. I heard the landlord ask him for the money – sixpence. Deceased then began to feel in his pockets. He did not pay then, but went outside and came back in a few minutes by the same door that he went out by. The landlord again asked for the money, when deceased said he had paid it before he went out. The landlord replied that he had not received the money. There was a barmaid in the bar at the time. The landlord then came round to where deceased was standing. Up to this time deceased had not created any disturbance, but when the landlord went up to the deceased and said “I want sixpence off you sir, please, for the drinks”, Hanbury said “You'll get no sixpence off me”. He had an umbrella in his hand, and, holding it up, threatened the landlord. Making as if to strike the landlord, he said “I'll see you ---- before I give you the sixpence”. The landlord did not threaten deceased. Mr. Dalton's father then came into the bar, where there were six or seven people at the time. Mr. Dalton senior opened the door by the steps, and, without saying anything, took hold of deceased by the waist. There was a struggle against the door, and the deceased went down the steps. I did not see the landlord do anything. I should say Henry Dalton (the father) was trying to get deceased outside, and that deceased was trying to free himself. Directly afterwards he went rolling out of the door into the street. When I went out he was lying on his back, and someone was trying to sit him up. I could not swear whether he went out of the door backwards or not. I saw a lot of blood coming from the back of his head.

The Coroner pressed the witness very hard to give some of the details leading up to the episode near the door.

The witness, whose evidence had become very contradictory, sheltered himself behind the plea that he was not paying much attention, that he had nothing to do with the occurrence, and was at the other end of the bar.

Mr. Minter said the witness was not bearing out the statement made that morning to his (the Coroner's) officer. He asked Gillingham whether he had been discussing the case with anyone since the previous morning. The witness admitted that he had been talking to the two Daltons outside the Court, but said he had not discussed the case.

Chief Constable Reeve put the following question through the Coroner: Did the deceased go out by himself on the first occasion? The witness replied that he did.

A juror: Was the deceased asked to leave the premises? – No. I never heard him requested to leave. Immediately the deceased was going to strike the landlord, the latter's father came in and took hold of him at once.

Thomas Archer said: I live at 30, Pavilion Road, and am a coachman to Dr. Chambers. I was walking by the Foresters' Arms yesterday afternoon about a quarter past six. As I cam round the corner I saw the deceased fall backwards on to his head on the pavement, with his legs on the steps. He fell from the top step. Soon afterwards the landlord and his father came out of the front door. Deceased never moved after he fell. I did not see what caused the fall.

By a juror: It was the landlord who picked the deceased up, not Henry Dalton.

At this stage the Coroner suggested that, in view of the seriousness of the inquiry, and there being other witnesses of the occurrence, an adjournment should be made.

The jury concurred, the foreman remarking that the jury were of opinion that full investigation was necessary.

The witnesses were bound over to appear at the adjourned inquest, which will take place at the Town Hall on Wednesday next at 3 p.m.

 

Folkestone Express 31 March 1900.

Inquest.

On Wednesday evening a sad fatality happened at the Foresters' Arms in Shellons Street. It appears that George William Hanbury, who was married at Lewisham on Monday, and came to Folkestone with his wife to spend the honeymoon, was in the bar of the Foresters' Arms and was thrust out by someone. He fell backwards down two or three steps, and his head striking the pavement his skull was fractured. As he was insensible he was removed to the Victoria Hospital, where he died during the night.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Thursday afternoon on the body of George William Hanbury, whose death occurred on the same day.

Martha Hanbury, the widow of the deceased, was the first witness called to identify the body, but she being much distressed, the Coroner asked if she was the only person who could identify, and was answered that Mrs. Harrison could.

The Coroner said, for his own satisfaction, he would like to ask one question: What time did your husband go away yesterday afternoon?

Mrs. Hanbury: He went out yesterday morning.

When did you last see him? – Between ten and eleven yesterday morning.

What time did this happen?

Supt. Reeve: About half past six last evening.

The Coroner (to the widow): You had not seen him then, and you can't say what condition he was in? – Only from what I have heard.

What was that, for my satisfaction? – He was not the worse for drink, but very excited.

Had he been in the habit of getting tipsy? – No, sir.

Clara Harrison, the wife of James Henry Harrison, of 152, Dover Road, a postman, said she knew the deceased, George William Hanbury, who had lodged at her house with his wife since Monday.

After having identified the body, the witness resumed: The deceased lived at 45, Pascoe Road, Lewisham. He had been an engine driver, but was out of employment. He was married on Monday morning at Lewisham.

Robert William Gillingham said: I live at 53, St. John's Street, and am a smith. Yesterday I was in the bar at the Foresters' Arms about a quarter to six in the afternoon. I entered the door with the steps. The deceased came in afterwards. I was standing up against the bar, and had called for a glass of beer. I had been there a few minutes when Hanbury came in by the same door. A plasterer or bricklayer came in with him, and they appeared to be together. I don't know the plasterer's name – he was about 30 or 33 and in working clothes. Deceased was very respectably dressed. Deceased had had some beer and appeared to me to have had quite enough. The plasterer was all right. Deceased called for a glass of beer for himself and one for the plasterer. He asked the landlord, Mr. Edgar Dalton, to have a glass also. At first he refused, saying he was going to have his tea. He drew the two glasses, and deceased then asked him again to have a glass and he had one. The deceased and the plasterer then drank their beer and the landlord drank his. The plasterer and deceased stood talking together – the landlord was waiting on other customers. Then I heard the landlord ask the deceased for the money. Deceased asked how much he owed and the landlord said “6d.”. Deceased began to feel in his pocket for the money. He did not pay, but went outside for a few minutes. I believe the plasterer went out before. Deceased came back a few minutes afterwards and went to the bar. The landlord said “I want 6d, off you, sir”. Deceased said he had paid before he went out. The landlord said he had not taken any money at all. The landlord was behind the bar and also the barmaid, I believe. I did not hear any more said. The landlord came round to the front of the bar to where deceased was standing. The deceased had made no disturbance – he was enjoying himself and talking about a soldier. The landlord went up to the deceased and said “I want 6d. off you, sir, please, for those drinks”. Deceased said “You will get no 6d. off me”. He had an umbrella in his hand, and holding it up, he threatened the landlord with it, and said “I'll see you ---- before I give you that 6d.”. The landlord did not threaten deceased at all. Mr. Dalton, the landlord's father, then came into the bar. There were six or seven people in the bar. I only knew them by sight. I have not been here long. I have seen two or three of them since. One is in Court now. I think they call him “Scotty”. When Mr. Dalton Sen. came into the bar deceased had still his umbrella up as if to strike. Mr. Dalton opened the door and took hold of deceased, who was close to the door. I could not say exactly how Dalton took hold of him, but I think round the waist, whether with one hand or both I cannot say. I did not see the landlord do anything. He was standing by. When Mr. Henry Dalton opened the door he did not say anything to the deceased. They were all together.

The Coroner: Now you told my officer what occurred. If you told the truth then, tell the truth now.

Witness: The deceased and Henry Dalton were struggling together. I did not hear anything said. I dd not see the landlord do anything. It was only Henry Dalton and deceased who were struggling together. Dalton was trying to get him outside and deceased was trying to free himself. Directly afterwards deceased went rolling out into the street. I could not say whether he went out backwards or forwards. Dalton was in the inner side, but I cannot say whether they were face to face. I ran out of the other door and found the deceased lying on his back, and someone (I believe it was the landlord) was trying to get him up. I cannot say whether he went out backwards or forwards. I was not close enough to the door to see.

The Coroner: I put a question to you. Where was the deceased – on his back or sitting up? – He was sitting on the steps.

Didn't you say he was lying on his back? – No.

Well, the jury will be able to judge.

Now, you recognise my officer, don't you? – Yes.

Did you tell him this morning that the deceased was in a fighting attitude and that the landlord took hold of him and threw him out of the door? – Not the landlord; the father.

Didn't you say it was the landlord? – I have heard since it was the father.

Have you seen them since? – Only outside just now.

Is it true that the landlord's father did push this man out? – They were struggling together against the door and the deceased went out of the door in an instant.

What caused the deceased to go out? – The struggling, I suppose.

I understand you to say the landlord's father was trying to get the deceased out? – Yes.

Are you aware the man's head was hurt? – I did not notice. I saw a great deal of blood about.

If he had gone out face first, he would not have hit the back of his head, would he? – No.

The Coroner: You can judge from the question I have put to the witness that he is not telling the same tale as he told my officer. However, I have asked him all these questions – is there anything you gentlemen would like me to put to him?

The Foreman: Are there two exits to the bar?

The Coroner: There is only that one. There is another door through which the father came in. You can very well judge from his answers that the man is not telling the truth.

The Foreman: I did not like to say that.

The Coroner: I say it.

Witness: As I was standing in the bar the man went rolling into the street.

Supt. Reeve: Did the deceased walk out by himself on the first occasion without assistance?

The Coroner (to witness): You say he went out by himself? – Yes, he went out by himself and came back by himself without any assistance from anyone.

The Coroner: Then there could not have been anything much the matter with him? – He was talkative.

Could he walk straight? – He did not walk much in the bar.

But he walked out of the bar and into the bar? – Yes.

And down the steps? – No, he went out of the other door.

Did he come in the other door? – The same was as he went out.

If this man was a stranger in the town, how did he know which way to go? – I don't know.

The urinal, as I understand, was at the other end. How did he know where to get to it? – I cannot say.

Did you hear him ask the way to the urinal? – No. I heard him say he was going out.

The Foreman: Before he was put out was he requested to leave by the landlord or the father? – No. I never heard him asked to leave.

Now, just tell me. Why did the landlord's father come into the bar if there was nothing going on? – I think he was in the bar, or close by the bar at the back.

Then he would hear what was taking place? – Yes.

Mrs. Harrison said: The landlord told me this morning that the deceased was not the worse for drink. He was only excited about soldiers, and he told him if he did not keep his temper he should put him out.

The Coroner (to witness): Now you heard him talking about soldiers? – Yes.

Why did the father come in and take hold of the man to put him out of the front door? – I don't know. It was nothing to do with me.

But you have your own judgement? – Immediately the father saw him going to strike the landlord he came in and took hold of him.

You said he did not strike? – He aimed at him as if to strike him.

Thomas Archer, of 30, Pavilion Road, coachman to Dr. Chambers, said: I was walking past the Foresters' Arms yesterday afternoon between a quarter and half past six on the same side as the inn. As I passed the corner I saw the deceased fall backwards on to the pavement. His arm hit my leg as he fell, and the back of his head went on to the pavement. His legs were on the doorstep. He fell from the top step. The landlord and his father came out of the half-door soon after. The landlord was close to the deceased on the top step when the man fell. I could not see who pushed him – I only saw him fall. The landlord's father was behind. Deceased fell just like a man falling down dead and never moved afterwards. I did not see Gillingham. I helped to get deceased on to the step. I did not hear the landlord say how it had happened. I did not hear a word spoken.

By Mr. Venner (a juror): The landlord was the first one to come down the steps, and the landlord picked him up.

The Coroner: That really confirms the statement Gillingham made to my officer this morning. Now he says it was the landlord's father – for what reason I don't know.

The Coroner at this point said: I don't know what you gentlemen may think at this stage of the case. There were six or seven persons said to have been in the bar at the time, and the inquest happens so shortly after our information was given to us that so far we haven't been able to find any of them. It appears to me that it is a case in which they ought to be found. You know, without prejudging it in any way at all, that there is the fact that this man is dead. The evidence of the last witness, who is a respectable man, and who has no motive for telling an untruth, tells you that in passing he saw this man come from the top step backwards on to the back of his head. The doctor will tell you presently there is a fracture at the back, and your own common sense tells you that a man does not do that of his own motion. Looking to what Gillingham said as to what took place, we shall have to consider the conduct of the landlord's father putting this man out, if he did put him out. I think the evidence of some of those people who were there should if possible be obtained. To my mind it is a serious case, and one that requires inquiry. If you are of that opinion we had better adjourn the jury now.

The Foreman said the jury were of the same opinion, that it was a most serious case and required the most strict inquiry, and it would be advisable to get some of those other witnesses.

The Coroner said he would adjourn to any day next week they might consider most convenient. He could give a certificate for burial.

The jury selected Wednesday afternoon next at three o'clock.

The inquiry was then adjourned.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 March 1900.

Inquest.

On Wednesday evening, about 6.30, a tragic event took place at the Foresters' Arms Inn, Grace Hill. A man named George Wm. Hanbury, of 45, Pastoe Road, Lewisham, formerly a railway engine driver but latterly out of employment, met his death under circumstances of peculiar sadness. He had only been married on the previous Monday morning at Lewisham, and he and his wife came down to Folkestone on their wedding trip, putting up at No. 152, Dover Road, the residence of James Hy. Harrison (postman) and his wife, Mrs. Clara Harrison. Hanbury went out between 10 and 11 on Wednesday morning, and she heard nothing of him until the same evening, when she discovered that he had fallen down the steps leading to the entrance of the Foresters' Arms, and that he was unconscious from the injuries he sustained. He was taken to the hospital, but never rallied, and died on Thursday morning.

The inquest was opened on Thursday last, at 2 p.m., by Mr. Coroner Minter, in the Magistrates' Room at the Town Hall, and after the body had been identified by Mrs. Clara Harrison, the evidence then available was taken. The body of the room, open to the public, was filled by a number of spectators. Mr. Chief Constable Reeve watched the case on behalf of the police authorities.

Mrs. Hanbury, the widowed bride, was in attendance, and was led into Court by the Coroner's Officer (Mr. Edwin Chadwick), supported by Mrs. Harrison, who kindly assisted the poor woman throughout the terrible ordeal which she had to undergo, though the learned Coroner did his very utmost to spare her any further anguish by accepting the evidence of the identification which Mrs. Harrison was able to give. By this means the Coroner was able to dispense with the attendance of the widow at the hospital to view the body.

After the widow had been sworn, the Coroner said: Mrs. Hanbury, I should like to ask you on this occasion when it was this affair took place?

Witness, sobbing: Last night, sir.

Mrs. Hanbury, I should like to ask you what time did your husband go out yesterday evening? – He went out in the morning. I last saw him between 10 and 11 yesterday morning.

And at what time did this happen? – About half past six, I hear.

You had not seen him? – No.

You cannot speak as to what condition he was in? – No, sir, only from what I have heard. I hear that he was a little excited, but not the worse for drink.

Had he been in the habit of getting tipsy? – No, sir.

The Coroner: We will dispense with this witness, if Mrs. Harrison can identify the body.

Mrs. Harrison: I can, sir.

Mrs. Harrison was then sworn, and deposed that she knew the deceased, who lodged at her house, 152, Dover Road. (At this stage the Coroner, jurors, and Mrs. Harrison drove over to the hospital and viewed the body. On their return Mrs. Harrison gave formal evidence of identification).

Robert William Gillingham, smith, living at 53, St. John's Street, was the next witness called, and he was examined as follows by the learned Coroner:-

Yesterday you were passing the Foresters' Arms? – Yes, sir.

You were in the bar, were you? – Yes, sir.

At what time? – I should think about a quarter past six in the afternoon.

Which door did you go in? – The one at the steps.

Was the deceased in there when you went in, or did he come in afterwards? – He came in afterwards.

Were you sitting down? – No, I was standing up against the bar.

You were having some beer? – Yes, sir, I called for a half of beer.

How long had you been in before the deceased came in? – A few minutes.

How did he come in? By the same door? – Yes, sir.

Was there anyone with him? – Yes, there was a plasterer or bricklayer, or something of that sort.

Did they come in together? – Yes.

As if they worked together? – Yes.

Do you know the plasterer's name? – No, sir.

Was he a young man or old? – I should say he was 30 or 33, but could not say.

Was he in his working dress? – No, sir, he was dressed respectably.

How do you make out, then, that he was a plasterer or bricklayer? – That was the companion, and he was in working clothes.

And from his clothes you judged what he was? – Yes, sir.

Was the deceased sober or not? – He had had some beer.

Was the man tipsy? – He appeared to have had quite enough.

He did? – Yes.

What about the plasterer? – He was all right.

When the came in, what took place? – Deceased called for a glass for each of them, and the landlord had one as well.

He asked the landlord, Edgar Dalton, to have a glass as well? – Yes, but Edgar Dalton refused it at first.

Yes? – The landlord refused because he said he was going to have his tea, but he was enticed, and after being asked again he had one. He drew himself a glass of stout, or something to that effect.

Yes. What took place then? – The man refused to pay at first.

Yes. Did the plasterer and he drink their beer? – Yes.

What were they doing? – The plasterer and he were talking together.

Did the landlord join in? – No. He was waiting on the other customers.

What did you hear next? – I heard the landlord ask him for the money.

Had the deceased and the plasterer gone out at all? – No, not just then. The plasterer went out and left the deceased in the bar.

Was that before or after the landlord asked deceased for his money? – I don't remember that.

Was the plasterer there when this man went somehow or other down the steps? – No, he had gone home.

What reply did the deceased make when he was asked for the money by the landlord? – He asked how much he owed.

What did the landlord say? – Sixpence.

Yes. What did the deceased say? – He began to feel in his pocket for the money. He never said he would not pay.

Yes? – He did not pay, not then, and went outside for a few minutes.

Did he say anything? – No, he did not say anything.

Had the plasterer gone then? – I don't remember, sir. I believe he went before, but I could not say exactly.

Did he say what he was going outside for when he did go? – For the convenience, I believe, sir.

Did he say so? When a man walks out of a house owing money, the landlord would have thought he was going away altogether? – He came back a few minutes afterwards.

Through the same door? – Yes.

Did he go to the bar? – Yes, sir, and the landlord asked him again for the money.

What did the landlord say to him? What were his words? – I want 6d. off you, sir.

Deceased said what? - I will pay you before I go out.

What did the landlord say? – He said he had not taken any money at all, and the deceased said “I have paid you”.

Yes. Then the landlord came round into the bar to the deceased. Deceased said “ I have paid you”, and the landlord said “I have never had the money”? – Yes.

The landlord came round by the door and got into the bar? – Yes.

Where was the deceased standing when you left the house? Near the door? – About half way. I should think he was between the bar and the door.

Up to this time, when you say the landlord said “I have had no money”, and he left the bar and came to the front, had deceased created any disturbance? – No, he simply enjoyed himself talking about the soldiers, but he was not creating a disturbance, not a great deal, I think.

Now, when the landlord came round, you say he went up to the deceased? – Yes.

What else did he say to him? – He said “I want 6d. off you, sir, if you please, for those drinks”.

Yes? – To which the deceased replied “You will get no 6d. off me”.

Yes? – Deceased had an umbrella in his hand and held it up and threatened the landlord.

In what way? By words or actions? – By the umbrella. He held it up as if to strike him.

Did he say anything? – I will see you b---- before I give you that 6d.

Was the landlord threatening him at all? – No.

Yes? - On which Mr. Dalton's father came up.

Where did he come from? – From the door by which the young man came out.

He came into the bar, did he? – Yes.

How many people were in the bar at this time? – I should say about six or seven.

Do you know any of them? – Only by sight.

Do you know where they live? – No, sir.

Have you been here long? – No, sir.

You would know them if you saw them again? – Two or three I know by sight. One is in Court now, and they call him “Scotty”.

Any others that you saw? – I believe there were two soldiers there.

Have you seen any of the others since? – I have only seen “Scotty” since.

Well, then, you say that Mr. Henry Dalton came into the bar. When he came into the bar had deceased then got his umbrella up? – Yes.

What took place? – Henry Dalton opened the front door, the door to the steps.

I see the front door is in two parts. Did he open only one part or the two? – Only one part where the steps are.

Yes? – He got hold of the deceased.

How did he get hold of him if deceased was at the bar and Henry Dalton at the front door? – Deceased was near the door.

He had left the counter, then, and come near the front door? – He was against the front door.

Did you see how he got hold of him? – He got hold of him somehow.

Where did Henry Dalton take hold of him? You told my officer this morning. Speak the truth now. – He took hold of him round the waist, I should think.

He took hold of deceased round the waist. With one hand or both? – I could not say (after hesitation) whether he held the door with one hand or not. The door was open.

I know it was, according to what you say. And what did the landlord do? – I don't think the landlord did anything. He was standing there.

That we know. Did Mr. Henry Dalton say anything? – No.

When he went to open the door, did he say anything to the deceased? – No.

Do you say that the landlord never pushed the deceased? – They were all three together. I could not say whether he did or not. I was standing back a little. There was a struggle against the door, and the deceased fell outside down the steps.

You will have to answer the question that I am putting to you. If you told my officer the truth this morning, tell it now. – There was a struggle between Henry Dalton and the deceased, and the last I saw he was on the pavement.

You say that Henry Dalton took hold of the deceased. Just now you said they were all three struggling together? – No, not all three.

It was in answer to my question whether the landlord did anything? – No, I don't think so.

You said they were all three struggling together? – No, sir, I didn't say that. I said Henry Dalton and deceased.

Henry Dalton took hold of the man round the waist? – Yes.

And had the door open? – Yes.

I asked you whether he and deceased said anything? - I did not hear anything.

I asked you did the landlord do anything? – No, sir, I never saw him.

Very well. Now, who were struggling together? – Henry Dalton and deceased.

What was Henry Dalton trying to do? – I should say he was trying to get him outside.

What was deceased trying to do? – To free himself.

He was trying to free himself from Henry Dalton? – Yes.

Well? – Well, directly afterwards the deceased went rolling out at the door.

Backwards or forwards? – I could not say. I could not see out of the door.

Did you see his body lying there? – I ran out the other door.

Did you find him lying on the floor on his head with one leg on the steps? – There were more people then, and someone was trying to sit him up.

Who was that? – I believe it was the landlord.

Now, what do you say? Did he go out backwards or forwards? – I would not answer that, sir.

Why would not you? – Because I was not close enough to the door to see it.

You say when you first got out he was on the pavement? – He was sitting on the steps and the landlord helping him up.

Do you mean to say you did not say he was on his back? I put the question to you, sir. Now, be careful. I put the question to you. When you got outside where was the man, on his face or his back, and you said he was on his back? – I said he was sitting on the steps and the landlord holding him up.

Did you say or not that the man was on his back when you first saw him? – No, sir, he was sitting on the steps.

Now, then, just attend. You recognise my officer, don't you, and he saw you this morning? – Yes, sir.

Did you see him take down what you said? – Yes.

Did you tell him the truth? – Yes, the same as I am telling you now.

You are not telling the same story. I ask you, didn't you tell the officer that deceased was in a fighting attitude towards the landlord, and that the landlord took hold of him and threw him out of the door? – No, sir, not the landlord, but the landlord's father. I did not say that.

What did you tell the officer, that the father threw deceased out into the road? – I heard that it was the father.

Have you been speaking to them since? – No, sir.

Have you seen either the landlord or his father at all? – Only outside, sir.

Have you been speaking to them? – Yes, sir.

About this case? – Yes.

Is it true now that the landlord's father did push this man out? – They were struggling together against the door, and deceased went out into the street in an instant.

And the landlord's father did not? – No.

What caused the deceased to go out? – By struggling together, I should think.

I understand you to say that the landlord's father was trying to get the deceased out? – Yes.

Are you aware that the man's head was hurt on the back? – I did not notice, but I saw a great deal of blood on the pavement.

If he had gone on his face first he would not have hit the back of his head? – No.

Did you see if the deceased, when he went out of the door, fell? – No, sir, I didn't notice.

You saw him go out? – Yes, sir.

And you won't tell the jury whether he went out face first or backwards? – I was too far away; I was standing in the far corner.

What for? – I was drinking my beer. I was not interfering with the affair at all.

I don't suppose you were. Very well. Now, gentlemen, you can judge from the questions I have been putting this witness is not telling the same tale as he told to my officer. Is there any question either of you gentlemen would like to be put?

A juror: Are there two exits to that particular bar? – The Coroner: No.

A juror: The witness said he went out another way. – The Coroner: That was the door at which the father came in.

Chief Constable: I should like to know if the deceased walked out on the first occasion and returned without assistance. – The Coroner (to witness): He went out by himself to relieve nature and came back again by himself without any assistance, so that there would not be much the matter with him? – Witness: He was very talkative.

Could he walk straight? – He did not walk about much in the bar. He walked out at the other door and not down the steps.

Did he come in at the other door? – The same way as he went out.

This man was a stranger in the town, and how did he know where to go? Did he ask? – He went to the urinal outside.

How did he know where to go to it? – I could not say, sir.

Foreman: I have been asked to put a question, whether, before the deceased was put out, he was requested by the landlord or his father to leave? – No, sir, I never heard it.

Coroner: Now, just tell me how did the landlord's father know there was anything going on? – I should think he was close by the bar at the back somewhere.

And could hear what was taking place? – I could not say that, sir.

When he came in by that door did he come up immediately to the deceased and take hold of him? – He was standing back just outside the bar, not near the steps. Immediately the deceased aimed to strike at the landlord the father came in at once and went up and took hold of him.

And you say he did not strike at him? – He aimed at him. He held his umbrella up as if to strike him.

Mrs. Harrison: The landlord told me this morning that the man was far from being the worse for drink, but he was excited abut soldiers, and the landlord said “If you don't keep your temper, I shall have to put you out”.

Thos. Archer's evidence.

What are you and where do you live? – At 30, Pavilion Road, and am coachman to Dr. Chambers.

Were you passing the Foresters' Arms yesterday afternoon? – Yes, sir, walking.

About what time? – Between a quarter and half past six.

In what direction were you going? – I was coming from Foord on the same side as the Foresters' Arms.

What did you see? – When I came to the corner I saw a man fall down the steps head first on to the path. He fell backwards, on the back of his head, on to the pavement.

And his legs were where? – On the steps.

And where did he fall from? – From the top step, sir.

And who did you see, up there, on the tops step? – The landlord and his father came out at the door soon afterwards. The half door was open.

Who was close to him when you saw him falling? – The landlord.

On the top step, was he? – Yes, sir, between the doors.

There would only be room for one man in that half door? – The man was on the ground then.

You say the landlord was standing in the half door when the man fell? – Yes, I only saw the man fall on the pavement, that is all. I saw no pushing.

You say the landlord's father was behind him? – Yes, sir.

Do you mean that the man, in falling from the top step, did not touch the intermediate steps? – Yes.

In falling, where were his arms? Up or down? – I did not take that particular notice. He fell like a man falling down dead and he never moved afterwards.

But you would not say what caused him to come out of the door in that way? – No, sir.

Did you see the last witness come? – No, sir, I never noticed him at all.

When the man fell down so close to you what did you do? – I helped to get him on the step. The landlord took him round the waist and helped to put him on the step.

Did you hear the landlord say anything about how it happened? – There was not a word spoken either by the man or the landlord.

No, the man was unconscious, poor fellow. Is there any question that either of you, gentlemen, would like to ask?

A juror: I should like to know whether he is talking of the landlord or the landlord's father. – The landlord. It was the landlord who picked him up. The landlord's father went into the bar for something.

The Coroner: I understand he went for some brandy. That really confirms the statement that Gillingham made to my officer this morning, though he has altered it now, for what motive remains to be seen.

Chief Constable: Gillingham says he believed it was the landlord who was trying to sit him up after he fell, and that is what this witness means.

The Coroner: I don't know what you gentlemen think at this stage. Six or seven persons were said to be in the bar at the time this happened, but information has come so recently that we have not been able to find them. It appears to me that this is a case in which they ought to be found. Without prejudging it in any way at all, there is the fact that this is a case where they ought to be found. Without prejudging it in any way at all, there is the fact that this man is dead, and there is the evidence of the last witness, who is a respectable man, that in passing he said he saw this man coming from the top step backwards and fall on the back of his head. The doctor will tell you presently that the deceased sustained a fracture at the back of the head, and our common sense tells us that a man does not do that of his own motion, and looking to what Gillingham says, it is a very grave question of the landlord's father, in putting this man out, if he did put him out, and the evidence of some of those who were there should, if possible, be obtained. To my mind, it is a serious case, and one that requires inquiry, and if you are of that opinion we had better adjourn the case now.

The Foreman: The jury are of the same opinion, sir, that the case requires the strictest inquiry, and that it is desirable, if possible, to get some of those other witnesses.

The Coroner: I can give the certificate for the burial today, and we can adjourn to some day next week which will be convenient to you all.

Adjourned to Wednesday next at 3 p.m. The witnesses, including the landlord and his father, were bound over in £40 to appear at the adjourned hearing.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 April 1900.

Inquest.

At the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Wednesday afternoon, the Borough Coroner (Mr. J. Minter) resumed the enquiry into the death of Wm. Geo. Hanbury, of Lewisham, which took place as the result of a fall outside the Foresters' Arms, Folkestone, last week. The deceased, it may be remembered, went to Folkestone on his honeymoon on March 26th. On the eveniong of the following Wednesday he was in the Foresters' Arms, where a difference arose between him and the landlord (Mr. Edgar Dalton) as to the payment for some drinks he had ordered. According to a witness, the deceased assumed a threatening attitude towards the landlord, when the latter's father, Mr. Henry Dalton, came into the bar and caught hold of him. The next thing that happened was that the deceased fell backwards down some steps at the entrance of the house, and sustained injuries from which he died at the Victoria Hospital the next morning. At the opening of the inquest the principal witness was a man named Gillingham, and his evidence not being considered conclusive, the Court demanded an exhaustive enquiry.

The adjourned enquiry opened at three o'clock, and the verdict was not given until 10 p.m. Great interest was taken in the matter, and feeling had run rather high during the previous few days. The Court was packed, and a crowd outside anxiously awaited the verdict, though the result, when it did come, was received without any demonstration.

Mr. Hall, solicitor, appeared to represent Mrs. Hanbury, and Mr. Haines was present in the interest of the Daltons, father and son.

The evidence previously given having been read over and confirmed, the Coroner produced a plan of the bar, and Gillingham pointed out the relative positions of the parties present, without, however, adding any material information.

Thos. Salmon, 14, Radnor Street, out-porter, was a new witness. Examined by the Coroner, he said: I was in the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday 28th between 6 and 7. I went up the steps by the front door to the public bar. There were two or three persons present, and the landlord and the deceased were arguing about “three twopennyworths”. The landlord said he wanted 6d., and the man said he had paid. Deceased, who was standing close to the division door, asked for another glass, but the landlord refused, and said “Pay for what you have had”. Deceased said “No, I've paid somebody”. The landlord asked him who he paid, and called the barmaid in. She denied that the deceased had paid her. The landlord then came round to the front of the bar. I was standing close against the door, about two feet from the counter. Deceased was close to me on the right. I had my back to the door, so had he. When the landlord came up to deceased and asked him when he was going to pay, the latter became very excited and raised his umbrella, as if to smash all the glasses on the counter, not, in my opinion, to strike the landlord then. I moved my glass in consequence. Then deceased held his umbrella like a bayonet, as if to strike the landlord. The landlord went back into the private bar and brought out the man whom I now identify as Henry Dalton. When they came in deceased was standing close against me. Edgar Dalton again asked him if he were going to pay, and he replied “No”. Henry Dalton thereupon opened the door with his right hand, and pushed deceased out with the other. I saw the man fall, and heard a thud. I went out by the side door and saw the landlord with the deceased, who was about two feet from the door where he was pushed out. He had no time to struggle; it was done in an instant. The landlord did not do anything, nor did he say anything before his father pushed the deceased out. Henry Dalton pushed deceased somewhere in the chest. I have not the slightest doubt that Henry Dalton pushed the deceased out of the door. The landlord went out first and picked deceased up. I went out of the other side door, and saw deceased on the steps, being assisted by the two Daltons. Deceased was standing quite quiet when Henry Dalton came in, and did nothing except to say “No, I do not mean to pay”. He had no time to use threats; the door was opened, and out he went. I can give no reason for his being put out, except his not paying. In my opinion he was not really drunk, though he had had quite enough.

By Mr. Hall: When I first went in the landlord and deceased were arguing. The argument was a rational one, “a little bit high in the voice”, but no bad language was used. The landlord told deceased he had had quite enough, and he would not let him have another glass until he had paid for what he had already. Henry Dalton did not ask the deceased to leave, but opened the door and pushed him out. Though his umbrella was raised he had not struck anybody.

By Mr. Haines: I do not suggest that the way deceased used the umbrella is the usual form of argument. The deceased went out with one push. He was standing within two feet of the door, and I saw him go straight out of the door. No other part of his body touched anything until his head struck the flags. I know the Foresters' Arms very well. I consider the steps the most dangerous in Folkestone whether a man has had a drink or not.

John Jones, 24, Dover Roar, a draper's assistant at Mr. Shaw's, said he was also at the Foresters' Arms about 6.30 last Wednesday evening, and when he went in he saw the deceased talking to Mr. Dalton, the landlord. He did not know what they were talking about, and picked up a paper to read. Then he saw the deceased lift his umbrella, as if to strike Mr. Dalton. Deceased then changed his umbrella into his left hand, and got up his fist to strike the landlord, but did not strike. Mr. Dalton senior next came round to the man, and took hold of him round the waist. They struggled, Henry Dalton took Hanbury to the door, and then seemed to release his hold. He (witness) did not see any more, being at the back of the door. After the man was put out Henry Dalton came back.

By the Coroner: I told your officer on Monday that I saw Dalton put deceased out.

The Coroner: Have you had any conversation with either of the Daltons since this affair? – Yes.

With whom? – With Edgar Dalton. I told him I saw the occurrence.

By Mr. Hall: I am in the habit of going into the Foresters' Arms about once a day. The conversation did not seem excited. I could not swear that deceased really offered to strike Henry Dalton either with the umbrella or his fist. I should think the struggle lasted two minutes. No-one interfered. I did not hear deceased make any observation.

Mr. Hall here severely questioned the witness, and told him he was telling untruths, palpable to the whole Court.

Continuing, witness said: Deceased tried to release himself from Mr. Dalton. It was simply a struggle from the point I mentioned to the door. I could not say who opened the door. I was not interested in the struggle. When Dalton got his arm round deceased's waist he pushed him to the door. I am sure I saw the occurrence. The deceased fell out face first. I did not see the fall, but I think he fell out that way. After the occurrence I went back to the house about nine o'clock. They were talking about the occurrence. I did not mention it then, as I did not wish to appear. Mr. Edgar Dalton sent for me on Saturday morning and said “Don't favour me or the man, but speak the truth”.

The Coroner: It's a pity you did not take his advice.

By Mr. Haines: I did not notice whether the door was open before the struggle commenced. Henry Dalton put both arms round the deceased. There were seven or eight people in the bar. They made no comments regarding the struggle. They all sat still, and no-one suggested that deceased was being handled roughly.

Ethel Caroline Smith, barmaid at the Foresters' Arms, said: I was behind the bar, serving, on the Wednesday in question. I was asked by Mr. Dalton whether the deceased had paid for his beer, and I replied “No”. I heard the matter being argued between the deceased and Mr. Dalton. I then went to attend to the private bar, and did not see anything of the occurrence.

William Brisley deposed: I live at 5, Bradstone Road, and am a bricklayer. On Wednesday last I went to the Foresters' Arms with the deceased, who called for a pint of ale for me and a glass of ale for himself, while the landlord had a glass of stout. The landlord refused at first, as he was just going to have his tea. I stood a few minutes talking, and then bade him good-day. I hear the landlord ask for 6d., and looking round to deceased I said “That is quite right”, and the money was placed on the counter. In my opinion deceased was just a little lively, but I do not say he was drunk.

By Mr. Hall: Deceased was well behaved while I remained there.

By Mr. Haines: The money was passed to the landlord, but I did not see him pick it up, my attention being called to a soldier who came into the bar. The money put down was in copper, but I could not say the amount.

Wm. Stokes, 69, Black Bull Road, tailor, who was also at the house at the time, was called, but as he said that, anticipating a row, he got out of the way, and did not actually see the occurrence, his evidence was relatively unimportant.

Henry Dalton was next called forward.

The Coroner cautioned him, and said he had a perfect right to decline to give evidence in view of what had been stated.

Dalton decided, however, after consultation with his solicitor, to be sworn. He said: I am a retired Superintendent of police. I was in the force nearly 26 years. I live at Maidstone but at present am staying at the Foresters' Arms. I was there on Wednesday, 28th March. Just after 6 in the evening I was in the private bar with several of the Maidstone football team. I heard some noise in the public bar, and my son came to me and said “Dad, I wish you would come round. I think I have got some trouble”. I went through to the public bar just afterwards, and heard my son say something about sending for the police. At the same time deceased got his umbrella up in his hand in a striking attitude. I went to the front door and opened the left-hand half door for the purpose of going out to get a policeman. Just as I did that, deceased changed the umbrella from his right to his left hand, and, with fist clenched, was in the act of striking my son. As soon as I saw him doing that I slipped in between them, and caught deceased round the arms just below the elbow, turning him round away from my son. When I did so his back was toward the open door. I let go of him, he took a step back, and fell out of the door backwards. My son and I went out immediately and picked him up. I got a pail of water and bathed his head, then got a conveyance and took him to the hospital. I did not speak to him when I went into the public bar. I did not know he had refused to pay the sixpence. I expected the trouble in the bar from the noise the man was making. He was shouting about some soldiers, and got very excited. All I heard was the loud talking. It is not true that there was a struggle. I had no intention of putting the man out. When I let go of him he would have been perfectly safe if he had stood still. It was in stepping back from me that he missed the step and fell out the door. I should not think the struggle lasted half a minute.

By Mr. Hall: When my son came to me he did not mention anything about the dispute, not could I hear what the man was saying. The witness who stated that I asked the man to pay is wrong. It is false. I do not suggest that the man raised his fist or umbrella more than once to my son. I seriously tell the jury that I did not open the door to put deceased out. The deceased resisted and I swung him round to my right. It did not occur to me the extreme danger of putting the man near the door. When I let go of him he was a good six inches inside the door sill, when he stepped back and fell. He would be stepping back to get away from me.

By Mr. Haines: If it had been my intention of putting the man out, I should have certainly opened both doors.

By a juror: There was no possibility of my preventing him falling – he was gone so quickly. There are two other doors by which he could have been put out.

Edgar Dalton, who was also cautioned and elected to give evidence, deposed: I am the landlord of the Foresters' Arms, and was behind the public bar on Wednesday, 28th, between the hours of six and seven. I supplied the deceased and a friend with some beer, and on the deceased's invitation I had a glass myself. The price together was sixpence, which deceased did not pay. He left the bar to go outside, and when he came back I asked him for the money. Before he went out he tendered me threepence halfpenny. When he came back I again asked him for the money, when he used bad language. He then got into conversation with two or three old soldiers, got very excited and used more bad language. I called him on one side and asked him to desist. He still continued, however, and talked very excitedly. I went to the private bar, where my father was, and said to him “Will you come round. I'm afraid I have got some trouble”. I then opened the little bar door, went into the public bar, and, going up to deceased, said “What are you going to do about that sixpence?” He said “You'll get no ---- sixpence off me, you little ----“. With that he up with his umbrella in a position which led me to think he was going to thrust me with it. I again spoke about his language, and said I should fetch a policeman. He replied “Where is the ---- policeman”. At the same time he released his umbrella, and raised his right fist clenched. The next I saw was father come round from the front door, catch hold of the man and swing him round. The only thing I saw after that was the man's left hand on the right hand side of the door as he fell backwards. I went out immediately, and the deceased was lying on the pavement on his back opposite the left hand door. I could not say what caused him to fall out. I went out immediately.

By Mr. Hall: When the deceased came in he was quite orderly and well behaved. He only had one glass at my place, and only drank a third of that. I should not think he was drunk. He did not get excited about the sixpence; it was the discussion with the soldiers. I heard the out-porter's evidence, and what he said about smashing the glasses, but as far as I remember the deceased only raised his umbrella once. The witness who said there was a struggle for two minutes is wrong. The other witness who said my father pushed the deceased out is also incorrect. I say that deceased fell out.

Dr. Foxbury, house surgeon at the Victoria Hospital, said the deceased was brought to the hospital at 20 minutes to seven. He was unconscious, and continued so. He died at seven o'clock the next morning (Thursday) from fracture of the skull. On examining him in the accident ward just after admission, witness found a contused star-shaped wound on the left side and back of the scalp, such as would be caused by the fall described. He had made a post mortem examination, and the cause of death was haemorrhage on the brain, caused by rupture of a vein following fracture.

Mr. Haines briefly addressed the jury on behalf of the two Daltons, and asked them to find that the death was the result of an accident. The accident, he said, was a lamentable one, and no-one was more sorry than the Daltons.

The Coroner said the jury would have to be guided by the evidence only, in spite of its discrepancies, which were only natural in an inquiry like that, as it was not likely that all the witnesses would be of the same opinion as to what they saw. The Coroner next went into the legal aspect of the case at great length, after which he re-read the evidence, except that of the youth John Jones, which the jury intimated they did not believe.

At 9.30 the jury retired to consider their verdict, the Coroner leaving them the following points:-

1. Did deceased fall without being actually pushed by anyone?

2. Did either of the Daltons push the deceased out of the door; if so, which; and was that degree of caution used that would be necessary to prevent accident arising from this mode of ejection?

3. Was the deceased drunk, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly?

At ten minutes to ten the jury returned into Court, when the foreman said their verdict was unanimous that deceased died from an accidental fall. They wished to express their deep sympathy with the widow, and recommended that the steps at this public house be immediately altered. They would also like to have the witness Jones cautioned, as they did not believe a word of his evidence.

Jones was called forward and severely censured by the Coroner, who said he did not know whether he was not neglecting his duty by not committing him for trial on the charge of perjury. He could go now, and think himself lucky.

 

Folkestone Express 7 April 1900.

Inquest.

The adjourned inquest on the body of George William Hanbury, aged 37, of Lewisham, who died in the Victoria Hospital from the effects of a fall outside the Foresters' Arms in Shellons Street, on Wednesday, March 28th, was resumed before the Coroner (Mr. J. Minter) on Wednesday.

The enquiry was held in the Council Chamber, and lasted from three o'clock in the afternoon till ten in the evening. The widow, who appeared to fell her position keenly, occupied a side table.

Mr. F. Hall watched the proceedings on behalf of the widow, while Mr. H. Dalton and Mr. E. Dalton were represented by Mr. G.W. Haines (the solicitor to the local Licensed Victuallers' Association).

The evidence given at the former hearing was read over.

A plan of the bar was produced, and the witness Gillingham pointed out to th Coroner where the deceased was when Henry Dalton caught hold of him. He was standing on the left hand side going out of the door. Witness indicated with a pen the exact spot, which was close inside the door. The door was in two pieces, and he believed that piece of the door which went back to where deceased was standing was that which Henry Dalton opened. Henry Dalton was standing close to the door, and the deceased was standing with his face to him. The landlord (Edgar Dalton) was standing between his father and deceased.

The Coroner: I can't exactly understand the position in which you have placed them. If Henry Dalton took hold of the door to pull it open and at the same time put his arm round deceased's waist, how could the landlord have stood between the two? – Deceased was standing more towards the window than the landlord. They were all three together, sir.

Which door did the landlord's father come from? – The same as the landlord. (Witness indicated the door on the plan).

Are you sure the father did not come through the other door? – Yes, he came through this one. I was standing close to the door through which he came. I cannot say whether the landlord had his face or back to me.

What were the three doing there? – Only having a little conversation. I only heard the landlord asking for his money. He was asking for sixpence.

What were they doing? – Nothing else, sir.

What did the landlord do? – I never saw him do anything at all.

In answer to Mr. Wheatley (a juror), witness said he perfectly understood the plan.

By Mr. Haines: The door could be opened without touching deceased.

Do I understand that when he used his hands to take hold of the door he also had hold of the door? – Yes.

A juror: If the landlord's father opened the door, how did he take hold of the deceased?

Mr. Haines: The witness states that he opened the door and got hold of the deceased at the same time. Then I take it the door was opened first? – Yes.

And at the time Henry Dalton came forward deceased was in a striking attitude? – Yes.

When Henry Dalton came forward it was the act of a second? – Yes.

Thomas Salmon, living at 14, Radnor Street, said: I am an out-porter in Castle Hill Avenue. I was in the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday, March 28th, between six and seven. I know the landlord. I did not know the father then. When I went in I went into the public bar by the front door up the steps. I saw two or three men that I see here. The landlord was behind the bar and in the restaurant side. I heard the landlord and the deceased arguing about three twopennyworths. I do not know of what. The landlord said he wanted sixpence, and the man said “No, he wouldn't pay – he had paid”. The landlord came into the bar where I was standing and the deceased came into the side where I was standing. Deceased had been standing close to the division door. He asked for another glass, and the landlord said “No, you have had quite enough – pay for what you've had”. He said he had paid somebody. The landlord asked him who he paid, and called the barmaid in and asked her if deceased had paid her. She said “No”. Then the landlord came to the front of the bar where I was standing. I was standing nearly opposite the door, about two feet from the counter. Deceased was standing close to me on my right hand side. I had my back to the door when the landlord came there, and he went up to the deceased. He asked him if he was going to pay. Deceased replied “No”, and turned very excitable and raised his umbrella as if to smash all the glasses on the counter. I went and took my pint up. He did not do anything then, but took his umbrella as if to strike the landlord. The landlord went back to the private bar and brought out a man (whom witness identified as the landlord's father, Mr. H. Dalton). When they came in deceased was standing close against me. The elder of the two asked him again if he was going to pay, and deceased replied “No”. The elder Dalton opened the door with one hand and pushed deceased out with the other. I saw the man fall and I heard a thud. I went out the side door.

How far was deceased from the door when Henry Dalton seized him? – Not very far - about two feet; I don't think it could be more.

Did Henry Dalton seize him at all? – No, sir.

Did the man struggle to prevent being turned out? – He had no time; it was done in an instant.

Where was the landlord standing? – He merely came out and stood close behind his father. He did nothing.

Did he say anything before his father pushed deceased out? – No.

Where did Henry Dalton push the deceased? – Somehow like this (putting his hand to his chest just below the neck).

Which hand did Henry Dalton open the door with? – I should say the right hand, and pushed him out with the left.

Which part of the door did he open? – The part on the right hand side as you go up the steps. (Witness here indicated by his actions how the fatality occurred)

Have you any doubt that he did push him out? – Not the slightest.

Whichever hand it was, you are certain that Henry Dalton pushed deceased out of the door and he fell backwards? – Yes.

When he pushed him out and he fell backwards, what did the landlord do? – Went out and picked him up. When I got outside they were both washing the blood off. The landlord went out first.

Now attend to me. When Henry Dalton came up and asked him whether he was going to pay, in what position was the umbrella? – He had it more by his side.

Was deceased doing anything at all when Henry Dalton came in and asked him whether he was going to pay? – He was doing nothing that I am aware of. It was done in half a minute.

When he said he would not pay, did he use any threat towards Henry Dalton? – He had no time.

Do I understand you that immediately he refused to pay Henry Dalton opened the door and pushed him out? – Yes, out he went.

Can you tell me why they put him out? Was it because he wouldn't pay? – I expect it was. He became excitable and would not pay.

You can give no reason for his being pushed out, except that he did not pay? – No.

In your opinion was deceased drunk or sober? – He was not what you would call really drunk, but still he had had quite enough.

Mr. Hall: When you first went in there you saw the landlord and the deceased arguing about three twopennyworths. The landlord said he wanted sixpence, and the deceased said he had paid? – Yes.

They were arguing in a quiet, rational sort of way – there was no bad language? – It was a rational argument, but a little bit high in the voice.

Deceased knew perfectly what he was talking about? – He said he had paid.

Deceased wanted another glass of beer, and the landlord said to him “You have had quite enough, and I shall not give you any more until you have paid for what you've had”? – Yes.

Now be careful. You said you thought he was going to smash all the glasses? – He raised his umbrella to do it.

Did he touch a glass at all? – Not one.

Did he say he would smash the glasses? – He did not say so. He raised his umbrella as if he was going to, and put it down. He did not strike the landlord.

Upon that Mr. Henry Dalton was brought in? – Yes. I did not see Mr. Henry Dalton before that particular evening.

Do you know where he had been? – I did not even know he was there.

Henry Dalton came into the bar where you were standing and asked the deceased to leave? – He asked him if he would pay the sixpence.

And he said “No”? – Yes.

Did he ask deceased to leave, or did he simply open the door and push him out? – He opened the door and pushed him out.

Mr. Haines: You don't suggest that the way deceased was using his umbrella was the usual form of argument?

The Coroner: That all depends whether he was an Englishman or a Frenchman.

Mr. Haines: With regard to the opening of the door. You say that it was all done in a second, the opening of the door and the pushing? – Yes.

Therefore, one push did it? – Yes.

Now, the deceased was no lightweight, was he? – He was a big, fine, smart man.

You stated he was standing two feet inside the door? – As far as I could see.

And you saw him go through the door? – Yes.

And it was done by a push? – Yes.

By Mr. Haines: His feet were lifted off the floor, and he touched nothing. When he was pushed it took his legs clear right over the door, and not a part of his body touched anything. There was nothing to obstruct my view. I saw the whole thing. It would be untrue if a witness said that Henry Dalton put his arms round his waist.

The Coroner: That witness qualified his statement today about Henry Dalton putting his arms round his waist.

By Mr. Haines: I know the house very well. I regard those steps as the most dangerous in Folkestone for any man that has had a drop of drink. There are two other doors in Shellons Street. I could enter the front door without turning sideways to get in. Henry Dalton's hand was not on the door when the man went out. When deceased was pushed he cleared the entrance to the doorway and went right out.

John Jones, living at 24, Dover Road, said: I am a junior in the drapery at Mr. Shaw's. I was in the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday last. I went in about half past six for a glass of ale. I went in through the front door up the steps. When I went in I saw deceased talking to Mr. Dalton (the landlord). I do not know what they were saying. I was standing on the Foord Road side. Mr. Dalton and deceased were in the middle. I picked up a paper, and after I had read a minute and had drunk a little of the ale, I saw the deceased take up his umbrella as if to strike Mr. Dalton. He then changed the umbrella to his left hand and put his fist up to strike. I did not see him do anything; he did not strike him. I did not see Mr. Edgar Dalton do anything. I did not notice him go out, as I was reading the paper. Then I saw Mr. Dalton senior come round to the man, but I did not hear what he said to him. He took hold of the deceased round the waist and they struggled. Mr. Henry Dalton took him to the door.

The Coroner: Well? – Witness hesitated.

The Coroner: What are you hesitating about? Why don't you tell your tale?

Witness: When he got him to the door he seemed to release his hold. I did not notice any more.

What became of the deceased? – I don't know; I could not see. I was at the back of the door when that happened.

When what happened? – When the man went out. (Laughter)

The Coroner: If I hear any such noise again in the Court I will have it cleared. We have got quite enough trouble with this witness.

After he had put him out? – I saw Mr. Henry Dalton come back.

Then you saw him put him out? – I saw him put him to the door.

Did you see my officer yesterday? – On Monday, sir.

Did you not tell him that you saw Mr. Henry Dalton push deceased out? – No. I told him I saw him take him to the door.

Did you tell my officer that you saw him put him out? – I saw him put him to the door.

Have you had any conversation with Edgar or Henry Dalton since this matter happened? – Yes, sir.

With which one? – Mr. Edgar Dalton.

Did he come to you or you go to him? – I went to the Foresters' Arms on Friday evening.

You went there to him? – Yes, I went into the Foresters' Arms on Friday evening for a glass of ale.

Did you tell Mr. Dalton you knew all about the case? – No, sir.

What did you tell him? – That I was in the bar at the time.

Then you saw it all? – I told him that I saw the man was not thrown down.

Do I understand that Henry Dalton put him to the door and left him on the floor of the room? – That I could not say.

Because you were behind the door. Then how could you tell Mr. Dalton that you knew? – I don't think he was put to the floor.

That is all you saw? – Yes.

By Mr. Hall: I am in the habit of going into the Foresters' Arms frequently. I am not exactly a friend of the landlord's, but a customer. I go there about once a day. When I went in the landlord and the deceased were talking together. I did not hear what they were talking about. There was nothing particular in their conversation to excite my attention. I did not notice that it was an excited or heated conversation. There was nothing out of the way. I was standing up against the bar reading a paper. I saw the deceased lift his umbrella up. I did not see him strike Dalton. I saw deceased clench his fist. I did not notice if he moved closer to Dalton when he did so. I did not notice Henry Dalton come out of the private bar. I did not take sufficient interest in the case to notice. I have been outside the Court during this inquiry. I heard some of the previous witness's evidence. I heard him say that Henry Dalton come in and asked deceased if he was going to pay and pushed him out in less than a minute.

Mr. Hall: Now you tell the Coroner and the jury that there was a struggle? – Yes. The struggle lasted about two minutes. I was right back at the end of the bar.

Mr. Hall: Do you swear that these people were struggling for two minutes? – So far as I could see.

The Coroner: The door was wide open – there was nothing to prevent you seeing.

Mr. Hall: You say the landlord did not interfere? – I did not see him. I did not hear deceased make any observation. Nor did I hear Mr. Henry Dalton make any observation during the struggle.

Will you swear that any struggle took place at all? – Yes, sir. I saw it.

I put it to you that Henry Dalton opened the door with one hand and pushed the deceased out. – I don't know. I did not see him open the door at all.

Don't say that. This is a serious matter. You have told too many stories. I put it to you that Henry Dalton opened the door with one hand and put the other hand on deceased and pushed him out. – No, sir.

Witness indicated on the plan where the struggle commenced about two feet from the counter and said it went on till the door was reached.

By Mr. Hall: Deceased was trying to release himself from Mr. Dalton. They simply struggled to the door – they did not go round and round. I do not know who opened the door.

Try and think. Now from your position you saw everything which happened up to this point. Now, who opened the door? – I could not say.

You won't say? – I don't know who opened the door.

Did deceased open the door? – I don't know who opened the door at all. I wasn't at all interested in the struggle. I had put my paper down and was watching it during the whole time. I saw Henry Dalton push deceased to the door. He had one of his arms round deceased's waist and pushed him to the door. Henry Dalton was behind him. Deceased had got his face to the door as far as I could see.

You saw the whole thing? – Witness (after hesitation): Yes.

You don't seem very certain about that. Are you sure you were not reading the paper? – I had put the paper down on the counter.

Now, you told the Coroner that when Henry Dalton got deceased to the door he seemed to release his hold on him. Is that true? – Yes.

You hesitate, you know. Is it true? – Yes, it is.

Then the struggle ceased? – Yes.

How did deceased go out of the door? – I think he fell out.

On his face or back? – He fell out with his face towards the Public Library.

Now you say you think he fell out? – Because I did not see his face.

Who opened the door? – I do not know.

Perhaps you will think. Who opened the door? – I don't know who opened the door.

Did Mr. Dalton send for you? – Yes, sir. He did.

The Coroner: You told me that he didn't.

Mr. Hall: Now, Mr. Dalton sent for you. When was that? – On Saturday morning.

The Coroner: Which Mr. Dalton? – Mr. Edgar Dalton, the landlord.

Mr. Hall: Of course you went? – Yes, sir.

That would be last Saturday? – Yes, sir.

Did Mr. Edgar Dalton say what he wanted to see you for? – Yes, sir.

About this? – Yes.

Did he ask you to help him? – No, sir.
What did he say? – He said “Don't favour me or the man. Speak the truth”.

The Coroner (sarcastically): You have taken his advice and spoken the truth.

Mr. Hall: When he told you to speak the truth, what did you say? – I said I should tell what I saw.

Did you say what you did see? – I told him I saw that the man was not thrown out of the door.

By Mr. Haines: There were seven or eight people in the bar. I did not hear them make any comment nor did anyone come up to assist. Everyone sat tight.

The Coroner: Let me caution you as to your answer. You have pointed out on the plan where you were, and it is very evident the half-door was open. We can see for ourselves that there was nothing to obstruct your view at all. Do you say deceased fell out or not? – No, sir, I do not.

Ethel Caroline Smith said: I am a barmaid at the Foresters' Arms, in the service of Mr. Edgar Dalton. I was behind the public bar serving on Wednesday, March 28th. I was called in by Mr. Dalton, who asked me if deceased had paid me for the beer. I replied “No”. I heard the matter being argued between the deceased and Mr. Dalton. I did not hear how they settled the affair because I went to attend to some customers in the private bar.

The Coroner: I think you saw the whole of it. – Oh, no.

Did you see the deceased pushed out? – No.

Then you saw nothing of it? – No.

William Brisley: I live at 5, Bradstone Road, and am a bricklayer. On Wednesday last, March 28th, I went to the Foresters' Arms with deceased and he called for a pint of ale for me and a glass of beer for himself, and he asked the landlord to have a drink. He refused at first, but afterwards had a glass of stout, which made the amount come to sixpence. I and the deceased stood talking for a few minutes by the bar. He claimed my acquaintance as having been on a job together. The landlord asked for payment. I looked round to deceased and said “That is quite right”, and the money was placed on the counter by deceased. He placed money on the counter – not sixpence. I did not observe what it was. When we got inside I found deceased had had something to drink. He was just a little lively. I won't say that he was drunk, but he had had quite sufficient.

By Mr. Hall: We met at the entrance. When I went out deceased was perfectly quiet. I saw nothing the matter with him. He seemed to be a well-behaved man, and he was well-behaved there.

By Mr. Haines: There were seven or eight people in the bar. I did not see whether deceased took the money up again. I did not see the landlord take it.

William stokes: I live at 69, Black Bull Road, and am a tailor. I was in the Foresters' Arms on March 28th, between six and seven, in the public bar. I heard a part of the argument over the sixpence that was owing. I hear the landlord ask the deceased for the “tanner” that he owed, but I could not catch what he said in reply. When the landlord came round to the other side of the bar where deceased was standing, deceased said he had paid the money. A few more words passed and the deceased put up his umbrella as if he was going to clear the place, but he did not strike anybody. The landlord fetched his father. While he was away I took up my beer and went into the far corner nearest Foord. I wanted to get out of his road because I thought there was going to be a row. The landlord asked him to leave the premises before he came round the counter if he would not pay him the sixpence, but I could not catch what deceased said. While I was in the corner I was talking to a soldier, and he said “That chap's out of the door, and he's fell”. I did not see the landlord come out or the landlord's father. I did not see the man go out, and I cannot say whether he fell out or was pushed out. I did not hear any struggle. I had my back towards the door.
In answer to Supt. reeves, witness said he could not tell what regiment this soldier belonged to or whether he was stationed on the Camp. He had on an infantry great coat.

Mr. Hall: Did the landlord ask deceased to leave? – I could not tell.

The Coroner: That is not of the slightest consequence. It does not matter whether the landlord asked him to leave or whether he did not.

Henry Dalton was then called, and the Coroner, addressing him, said: You are summoned here as a witness, but it is my duty to tell you that you are not bound to give evidence or be sworn because you have a perfect right to decline, inasmuch as one of the witnesses who have been examined here before us says that he saw you throw the man out of the door. You came into the room and threw him out of the door in a second down those steps. Under the circumstances I want to tell you that the jury might find an adverse verdict against you. Although they may not, it is my duty to caution you that anything you say may be given in evidence against you and that you are not bound to be sworn unless you like. You had better consult your solicitor and take his advice as to whether you shall give evidence or not.

The witness, after consulting a moment with Mr. Haines, said: Thank you, Mr. Coroner, I would much rather give evidence.

Having been sworn, he proceeded: I am the father of Edgar Dalton, the landlord of the Foresters' Arms. I am a retired Superintendent of Police. I was nearly 26 years in the police force. I do not live at the Foresters' Arms. I live in Maidstone, but at the present time I am staying at the Foresters' Arms. I was there on Wednesday, 28th March. Just after six in the evening I was in the private bar with several of the Maidstone football team, and whilst I was there I heard some noise in the public bar. My son came to me and he said “Dad, I wish you would come round. I think I have got some trouble”. I went through into the public bar just behind him. I might have been half a minute behind him. When I got into the bar I heard my son say something to the deceased about sending for the police. At the same time deceased got his umbrella up in his hand in a striking attitude. I then went to the front door and opened the half-door for the purpose of going to get a policeman. I opened the left hand half going to the door from the bar. Just as I opened the door deceased changed his umbrella from his right hand to his left, and raising his right fist, was in the act of striking my son. As so as I saw him doing that I stepped in between deceased and my son and caught hold of deceased by the arms. He was about a foot and a half from the counter. I caught deceased round the arms just above the elbows, turned him away from my son, and when he was turned round his back came opposite the door, which was open. I let go of him and he took a step back to get clear of me, I suppose, missed his step, and he fell out of the door backwards. I and my son both went out immediately, got a pail of water, bathed his head, got a conveyance, and took him to the hospital. That is all.

The Coroner: When you went from the private bar into the public bar, did you go to deceased and say “Are you going to pay this 6d.?” – I said nothing to him. I never spoke to him.

Did you know he had refused to pay sixpence? – I did not.

Did your son tell you what trouble he expected? – I expected trouble because of the noise he was making. My son did not tell me what it was.

What noise was he making? – He was shouting something about soldiers, but I could not hear what it was as I was two bars off. He had been talking about soldiers and got very excited.

When you saw him with the umbrella uplifted to strike, you had opened the left-hand door. What was that for? – For the purpose of going out to see if I could see a policeman.

You were prevented from going out by observing the striking attitude with the fists? – Yes. I stepped in between him and my son.

Is it true that when you seized hold of him and tried to get him out he tried to release himself? – No, sir. I had no intention of putting the man out.

When you left go of deceased, if he had stood still he would have been perfectly safe? – If he had stood still he would have been safe. In stepping back to get away from me he missed his step and fell out of the door.

One witness said you had a struggle which lasted two minutes. – I should not think it was half a minute.

The Coroner: I don't suppose the jury will pay much attention to what the young man said.

By Mr. Hall: When my son came to me he did not say what the trouble was. He did not say anything about the dispute. Deceased was talking something about soldiers.

One witness says that when you came out you asked deceased if he was going to pay. He said “No”, and you put him out. – That is false, sir.

Another man says you struggled with him two minutes. Is that false? – It is, sir. I should not think the whole affair lasted half a minute.

Did you ask the man to leave? – I never spoke to him. I stepped in between them to prevent him from striking my son.

You seriously tell the jury that it was your intention to go round the corner and find a policeman? – I do.

That you did not open the door with the intention of putting the man out – that you swear? – Yes, I do.

What was your object in turning the man round to the door? – To get him away from my son.

Are you a hot-tempered man? – I am not.

Quiet? – Yes. I can get a hundred witnesses from Maidstone to prove that.

Do you tell the jury that you left go of the man by the door and that he fell of his own accord? – If he had stood still where I left go of him he would not have fallen at all.

You were not pushing him? – I was not.

You had been pushing him? – I had not. I merely turned him round.

By Mr. Haines: The other half-door was bolted. If it had been my intention to turn the man out I certainly should have opened both doors. As a matter of fact there are two other exits into Shellons Street with wider doors.

By a juror: it was not possible to prevent the man from falling by catching hold of him. He was gone so quick.

Edgar Dalton, on being called, was cautioned by the Coroner, who told him that he was not bound to give evidence. One of the witnesses having said that the three were struggling together it was his duty to caution him that anything he said might be given in evidence against him. Witness said he would much rather give evidence. He said: I am the landlord of the Foresters' Arms. I was behind the public bar on Wednesday, 28th, between six and seven. I supplied deceased with some beer, and a friend of his, for which he did not pay. He left the bar to go to the urinal, and before doing so he offered 3½d. When he came back I again asked him for the sixpence. He used bad language and said he should not pay the money. The man got into conversation with one or two old soldiers, and getting very excited, used bad language. I told him he must not use such language, as I did not permit it in my bars. He still continued to use bad language and talked very excitedly, so I went into the private bar where my father was, and said to him “Would you mind coming round? I am afraid I have got some trouble”. I then opened the bar door and went into the public bar and went to deceased and said to him “What are you going to do about that sixpence?” He said “You'll get no ---- sixpence out of me, you little ----“. He put his umbrella in a position which led me to think he was going to thrust me with it. I again spoke to him about using bad language and told him I should send for a policeman, and he said “Where is the ---- policeman?” He raised his right hand and clenched his fist as if to strike me. The next I saw was father come from the front door, catch hold of the man and swing him round. The only thing I saw after that was the man's left hand on the left hand side of the door, and I saw him fall backwards out of the door. Holding on to the left-hand door twisted him round to the left. He laid on the pavement on his back opposite the left-hand door. The only thing I saw was father coming in between me and the deceased. I could not say what caused him to fall out.

Dr. Francis Fosberry, House Surgeon at the Victoria Hospital said: Deceased was brought to the Hospital by two men at ten minutes to seven on March 28th. He was unconscious, and continued so until the time of his death, which took place at seven a.m. on the following morning. Deceased was suffering from a fracture of the skull. On examining him just after admission I found a contused wound star-shaped on the left side and back of the skull such as would be caused by a fall as has been described. I made a post mortem examination, and the cause of deceased's death was haemorrhage, caused by the rupture of the vein immediately below the site of the fracture. This occurred thirteen hours after the accident and was the result of the injury caused by the fall.

It was now twenty minutes past eight, and the Coroner adjourned the Court for fifteen minutes.

On resuming, Mr. G.W. Haines addressed the jury on behalf of the Messrs. Dalton and submitted that the unfortunate occurrence was an accident pure and simple.

The Coroner, in summing up, pointed out that there were great contradictions and variations in the statements made by the different witnesses, but it was the experience of them all that in matters of that kind happening so suddenly and ending so fatally that there were generally very great discrepancies between the persons witnessing the affair. Some didn't see the whole of it; some forgot. They would therefore have to reconcile the differences so far as they could. The parties, if he might so term it, who were implicated were Henry and Edgar Dalton. Their evidence agreed, and contradicted in a very great measure the evidence of all the other witnesses, and they would have to say whether they believed those two witnesses, Edgar and Henry Dalton. The first thing they had to decide was the cause of death. There was not much difficulty, or any difficulty at all, in deciding as to the cause of death. As they had heard, death was due to haemorrhage on the brain, the result of injuries which deceased received from the fall from the front steps of the Foresters' Arms. Therefore there was no difficulty in their saying what was the cause of death. Then came the question which was the most important one they had to decide upon the evidence they had heard as to whether that fall from the door of the Foresters' Arms was an accidental fall, or was it caused by Henry Dalton pushing the deceased down the steps, as some of the witnesses had said. Various questions might arise upon that. The question would arise – supposing they came to the conclusion that Henry Dalton was really putting the man out because he had not paid or because he was noisy – was he justified in doing that or not? To begin with the landlord of a public house was justified in putting a customer out of his house if he was drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly using only such force as was necessary for the purpose. He might do it himself, or his servants, or his agents, or he might call in a police constable to assist in doing so. It was not necessary that he should order the deceased out of the house before doing that. In order to get a man fined and brought before the Magistrates it was necessary to order him to leave the house. If the man disobeyed the order he was not only liable to be put out by force but was also liable to be fined for refusing to quit the house when ordered to do so. All the witnesses except Henry Dalton and Edgar Dalton would have them believe that Henry Dalton was endeavouring to eject the deceased from the house and that the man resisted. They would have to determine whether they believed that statement or not, and if so they would have to say whether the condition which the Act of Parliament required would justify the landlord in ejecting the man, because if it was not, the landlord, or rather Henry Dalton, would be committing an illegal act in attempting to put him out, and he was not justified in putting him out, and the man fell in consequence of being pushed, it would be his duty to instruct them that it would be a case odf manslaughter against Henry Dalton. If a man was in a condition that they were justified in putting him out the question would arise whether more force was used than was necessary for the purpose of putting him out, and whether proper care and precaution was taken by Henry Dalton in putting him out as to prevent there being any probability of any injury being received by the man in consequence of being so put out. They had viewed the premises and they would all agree that the steps were a most dangerous place to be the entrance to a public house, seeing that a sober person in the ordinary way had to take great care and great caution to prevent himself from falling. Supposing they came to the conclusion that they were justified in putting him out of the house and if Henry Dalton was actually putting him out, then there would be the question if they were justified in putting him out whether proper care and caution had been used in pushing the man to such a dangerous place and giving him a violent push which would cause him to fall backwards down such dangerous steps. If they came to the conclusion that such care and such caution had not been shown on the part of Henry Dalton it would render him liable to a charge of manslaughter. The Coroner then reviewed the whole of the evidence at considerable length and brought the salient points to the notice of the jury. The witness Salmon interrupted his remarks, and as he paid no heed to the warning to desist he was ejected from the Court.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and returned after an absence of 15 minutes. They found that deceased met with an accidental death and added a rider that the steps at the Foresters' Arms should be altered immediately. They expressed their deepest sympathy with the widow and added that they had not taken the slightest notice of the evidence of the witness Jones.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 April 1900.

Editorial.

We report elsewhere in this issue the result of the inquest held by our Borough Coroner as to the lamentable death of the man Hanbury, cause by falling from the top of the steps leading into the Foresters' Arms from the pathway in Grace Hill. The great local excitement to which this case gave rise renders it highly expedient to remind licensed victuallers of the grave responsibilities attaching to them with regard to the ejecting of unruly customers. In the present case the jury have delivered a verdict the righteousness of which cannot be challenged. They have weighed the evidence in a judicial and impartial spirit, and their findings will have the complete assent of all who study the evidence with a dispassionate mind. The summing-up of the learned Coroner was a model of clearness, and we have never had a more concise and yet comprehensive exposition of the law than he placed before the jury. With a view, therefore, to giving the utmost publicity in our power to that instructive utterance, we present the full text to our readers. In addressing the jury at the close of the evidence the learned Coroner said “The landlord of a public house is justified in putting a customer out of his house if he is drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly, using only such force as is necessary for that purpose. He may do that by himself or his servants or his agents, and he may call in a police constable to help and assist him in doing so. It is not necessary that he should order the person out of the house before doing that, but if a man is to be brought before the Magistrates to be fined, it is necessary to order him to leave the house, and if a man disobeys the order he is not only liable to be put out by force, using such force as is necessary for the purpose, but he is also liable to be fined for refusing to leave the house after being ordered to do so. Now, upon the evidence of all the witnesses except Henry and Edgar Dalton, they would have you believe that Henry Dalton was endeavouring to eject this man from the house. That is their statement, that he was endeavouring to eject and that this man was resisting. Well, you will have to determine whether you believe that statement or not, and if so, you will have also to say whether he was in a condition which the Act of Parliament requires to justify the landlord in ejecting him, because if he was not in that condition, Henry Dalton would be committing an illegal act in attempting to put him out, and not justified, and thereby committing an illegal act, and if the man fell in consequence of being pushed, undoubtedly it would be a case of manslaughter against Henry Dalton. But if the man was in a condition that they were justified in putting him out, then the question would arise whether more force was used than was necessary for the purpose of putting him out, and whether proper care and precaution was taken by Henry Dalton in putting him out, so as to prevent there being any probability of any injury arising to the man in consequence of so being put out. Now, you have viewed the premises yourselves, and I think you are all agreed that the steps are most dangerous steps to be an entrance to a public house, and that even sober persons coming down them in the ordinary way would have to take great care and caution to prevent themselves from falling. Therefore, suppose you come to the conclusion that they were justified in putting him out of the house, and that Henry Dalton was actually putting him out of the house in the way some of the witnesses have described, you will have to say whether proper care and caution had been used by Henry Dalton in pushing a man on such dangerous steps as those steps and give him such a violent push as he was caused to fall. If you come to the conclusion that proper care and caution was not used, it would be an act of such carelessness that it would undoubtedly render him liable to a similar charge of manslaughter.”

After reading the evidence, the Coroner went on to say “Now, you have, as I have said, got to decide which of the witnesses' statements you believe. If you believe the statements of Henry Dalton and Edgar Dalton there cane be no question that it was a pure accident, although it lamentably ended in the death of this man. If, on the other hand, you disbelieve them entirely and believe the evidence of the other witnesses, one of whose depositions I have not read, because you intimated that you don't believe a word he said, but if you believe that this deceased was deliberately pushed out of the door by Henry Dalton, then of course arises the question was he justified in turning him out, because he could not be justified in pushing him down the steps in the manner in which the poor fellow fell. If you are of opinion that the man was violent, drunken, noisy, or disorderly, then Henry Dalton had a right to put him out, but using no more force than was necessary for the purpose, and taking care also to use proper precautions that no injury arose to the man in so putting him out, you will have to say was there any excessive violence in so doing, and looking at the dangerous position of the steps, which Henry Dalton must have known of, did he take proper precautions in so attempting to put this man out as to prevent any injury arising to him? If, on the other hand, you say that the man was not drunk, riotous, quarrelsome, or disorderly, then there will be no justification in putting him out, and if under such circumstances in putting him out death arose, Henry Dalton would undoubtedly be guilty of manslaughter.”


On the conclusion of this summing-up the coroner submitted for the finding of the jury the questions which appear in our ordinary report of the case, and the verdict resulted in the complete exoneration of both the landlord and his father, a decision which is just and righteous.

Inquest.

The adjourned inquest touching the death of George William Hanbury, reported in our last issue, was resumed at 3 o'clock in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, before Mr. Minter, the Borough Coroner. Mr. Frederic Hall, solicitor, attended on behalf of Mrs. Hanbury, the widow; and Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, was in attendance to watch the case on behalf of the Messrs. Dalton (landlord and his father).

Robert William Gillingham, re-called, further deposed: The deceased was standing in the bar on the left hand side looking outwards, close to the door. The left hand part of the door was open. Henry alton stood close to the door where it opened. I did not notice with which hand he opened the door. The deceased was standing face to Henry Dalton, when he took hold of him. The landlord, Edgar Dalton, was standing between the deceased and Henry Dalton. At the time Henry Dalton took hold of deceased round the waist they were all three together. The deceased was standing nearer the window than Edgar Dalton was. Both Edgar and Henry Dalton came into the bar through the same door. I was standing in the corner near the door through which they came into the public bar.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: The door could be opened without touching the deceased.

Thomas Salmon deposed: I live at 14, Radnor Street, and am an out porter in Castle Hill Avenue. I was in the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday, 28th ult., between six and seven. I went into the public bar by the front door up the steps. Edgar Dalton was behind the bar. Edgar Dalton and the deceased were arguing about three twopenn'oths. The deceased said “No” – he had paid. The deceased was standing close to the division door in the public bar. He asked for another glass and the landlord refused, and said “Pay for what you have had”. The deceased said that he had paid somebody. He called the barmaid in, and asked her if he had paid her. She said “No”. The landlord then came into the public bar. I was standing about two feet from the counter nearly opposite the front door. The deceased was close to my right hand side. I had my back to the door. Edgar Dalton came up to the deceased and said “Are you going to pay?” Deceased said “No” and raised his umbrella as if to smash the glasses. I moved my glass in consequence. (Laughter) He then raised his umbrella as if to strike the landlord. The landlord stepped back and went into the private bar through a doorway. He returned with Henry Dalton. When they came in, the deceased was standing close to me. Henry Dalton asked the deceased if he was going to pay. The deceased replied “No”. Henry Dalton opened the door with one hand and pushed the deceased out with the other. I saw the deceased fall and heard the thud. The deceased had not time to do anything; it was done in an instant. The deceased was about two feet from the door when Henry Dalton pushed him out. Edgar Dalton did not do anything. Henry Dalton placed his hand on the chest of deceased. He opened the left hand door as you go out. Henry Dalton opened the door with his right hand and pushed the deceased out with his left. Whichever hand was used, I am certain Henry Dalton pushed deceased out of the front door, and he fell backwards on the pavement. I saw the deceased on the steps being assisted by Edgar Dalton and Henry Dalton. At the time when asked if he was going to pay, the umbrella was more by his side. The deceased was not doing anything at the time Henry Dalton came in, and all he said was that he did not mean to pay. He used no threats. He had no time; out he went. I can give no reason for the deceased being pushed out, except that he would not pay. The deceased was not really drunk, but still he had had quite enough.

Cross-examined by Mr. F. Hall: The landlord and deceased were arguing. Dalton said he had not paid. Deceased said he had. It was a rational argument, but rather high in the voice. Edgar Dalton said that he had had quite enough, and he would not let the deceased have another glass until he paid for what he had had.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: The opening of the door and pushing out was done at once, one push. The deceased was a fine, smart man. The push sent the deceased off his legs. He did not put his arms round the deceased's waist. He reckoned that the steps were the most dangerous in Folkestone for anyone coming out of the house. Henry Dalton had not his hand on the door at all when he pushed the deceased out. The deceased went right out.

John Jones deposed: I live at 24, Dover Road, Folkestone, and am a draper's assistant. On Wednesday last I went into the Foresters' Arms about 6.30 for a glass of ale. I saw the deceased and heard him talking to Edgar Dalton. They were opposite the front door. I saw the deceased lift his umbrella as if to strike Mr. Dalton. He then changed his umbrella into his left hand and lifted up his fist as if to strike him, but he did not strike him. I saw Henry Dalton come round to the deceased. He took hold of him round the waist and they struggled. Henry Dalton took him to the door, and when he got deceased there he seemed to release his hold, to me. From where I was standing, behind the door, I could not see what became of the deceased. I saw him put the deceased to the door. I told the officer who summoned me that I saw Henry Dalton put deceased out of the door. I have had a conversation with Mr. Edgar Dalton since the 28th March. I went to the Foresters' Arms on Friday evening last.

By Mr. F. Hall: I am in the habit of going in the Foresters' Arms. I did not hear anything that was said between the landlord and the deceased. There was nothing in the conversation to call my attention. The struggle between Henry Dalton and the deceased lasted two minutes. The landlord did not interfere. I did not hear anyone say anything. The struggle first began opposite the front door, about two feet from the counter, and went on until they got to the door. The deceased resisted and tried to release himself. It was a struggle to the door. I cannot say who opened the door. I was watching the struggle. I saw Henry Dalton push the deceased to the door. The deceased had his face to the door when Henry Dalton pushed him. The deceased fell out of the door face first. I did not see the deceased fall out; I only thought so. I came back at nine o'clock to the Foresters' Arms, and I heard them talking about the accident. I did not say that I saw the occurrence. Mr. Edgar Dalton sent for me on Saturday morning and said he wanted me about this case. He said “Don't favour me or the man. Speak the truth”.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: I did not notice whether the front door was open when the struggle commenced. Henry Dalton had both arms round the deceased and pushed him. He was struggling to relieve himself. Henry Dalton was nearest the counter when he took hold of the deceased with both arms round the waist. The deceased was back to Dalton while being pushed to the door. Dalton pushed the deceased close to the front door steps.

Ethel Caroline Smith deposed: I am barmaid at the Foresters' Arms in the service of Mr. Edgar Dalton. I was behind the bar on Wednesday serving. I was called in by Mr. Dalton and asked whether the deceased had paid me for the beer. I replied “No”. I heard the matter being argued between deceased and Mr. Dalton. They were arguing about 6d. for drinks. I did not hear any more because I went to attend at the private bar. I did not hear how they settled. I saw nothing of it.

William Brisley deposed: I live at 5, Bradstone Road, Folkestone, and am a bricklayer. I went to the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday night with the deceased. He called for beer and ale for himself and me. The landlord had a glass, but he refused at first. He had it afterwards, and that made the amount come to 6d. We stood talking for a few minutes, and I shook hands with him. He claimed my acquaintance, but I said that he had the advantage of me. The landlord asked for the 6d. I said “That is quite right”. The deceased placed the money on the counter. I did not observe what money was placed on the counter. I drank my beer and left. The deceased had had quite sufficient, but he was just a little lively.

By Mr. F. Hall: The deceased was well behaved at the Foresters' Arms.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: There were several in the bar. I did not see the landlord take the money up.

William stokes deposed: I live at 69, Black Bull Road, and am a tailor. I was at the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday 28th, between six and seven in the public bar. I heard the part of the argument for 6d. He said that he had paid it. I could not catch what he said. Deceased raised his umbrella and went as if he was going to clear the whole place. The landlord fetched his father. I went to the right-hand corner of the bar, taking my glass. I thought that there was going to be a row about his not leaving the premises when asked to by the landlord when he was at the side door. I could not catch the words, but I heard the landlord ask him to leave – if he would not pay the sixpence. I was talking to a soldier, who said that the chap was out through the door. I heard no struggle, nor did I see the man go out of the door.

By Chief Constable Reeve: The soldier was a stranger to me. He had an infantry uniform, and was wearing a big coat.

Henry Dalton, after being cautioned, elected to give evidence. He deposed: I am the father of the landlord of the Foresters' Arms in Folkestone. I am a retired Superintendent of Police, and was in the police force nearly 26 years. I live at Maidstone, but am at present staying at the Foresters' Arms with my son. I was there just after six o'clock in the evening on the 28th March last. I was in the private bar with several of the Maidstone football team, and I heard some noise in the public bar. My son came to me and said “Dad, I wish you would come round into the public bar. I think I have got some trouble”. I went through into the public bar in about half a minute. I heard my son say to the deceased something about sending for the police. At the same time the deceased had got his umbrella up in his hand in a striking attitude. I then went to the front door and opened the left hand half, going to the door for the purpose of going for the police. Just as I opened the door, the deceased changed his umbrella from his right hand to his left, and raised his right hand with clenched fist. He was in the act of striking my son. I stepped in between them. They were a foot or a foot and a half from the counter. I caught the deceased round the arms and just above the elbow. When I took hold of deceased we were face to face. I turned him round to prevent him striking my son, and he came with his back to the open door. I let go of him, and he took a step backwards away from me, falling out of the open door backwards. My son and I went out and took him up, got a pail of water, got a fly, and took him to the hospital. I did not know that deceased had refused to pay 6d. My son did not tell me what trouble he expected. I thought it was in consequence of the noise deceased was making. He was talking very loudly. It is not true that I was trying to put the deceased out of the house when I had hold of the deceased. He would have been perfectly safe had he not stepped back and fallen out of the door. I should not think it took half a minute.

By Mr. F. Hall: I could not tell what the deceased was saying. I did not expect any trouble when I got in the public bar. I never said a word to deceased. I did not open the door to put the deceased out. When I got hold of the deceased I turned him round towards the open door. I swung deceased round to the right. He struggled. It did not strike me there was any danger. I am not a hot-tempered man. I did not push the deceased; I swung him round. He was six inches inside the door when I left hold of him. I cannot say why he wanted to get away from me.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: The other half of the front door was bolted. If I had intended to put the deceased out, I should have opened both doors. There are two other doors out of which the deceased could have been put.

By the jury: There was no possibility of my catching hold of the man to prevent his falling; he was gone so quickly.

Edgar Dalton elected to give evidence, and deposed: I am landlord of the Foresters' Arms in Folkestone. I was behind the public bar on Wednesday, 28th March, between six and seven in the afternoon. I supplied the deceased with some beer, and a friend. On the deceased's invitation I had a glass. Deceased did not pay the sixpence. When he came from the convenience I again asked for sixpence. He used bad language and said he should not pay. The deceased was talking to two or three soldiers, and got very excited. He used bad language, and I cautioned him, but he continued. I went to the private bar, where my father was, and said “Would you mind coming round. I'm afraid I have some trouble”. I then went into the bar and said to the deceased “What are you going to do about the sixpence?” He replied “You will get no sixpence off me”. I told him about using bad language, and that I should fetch a policeman. He said “Where is the policeman?” He raised his umbrella, and lifted his right hand clenched as if to strike me. The next I saw was that father came from the front door to get hold of deceased and swung him round. I saw the deceased fall backwards out of the door. The deceased's left hand was on the left half-door, which swung him to the left on his falling, because he lay on the pavement on his back opposite the left hand door. I cannot say what caused the deceased to fall out of the door.

By Mr. F. Hall: The deceased was orderly and well behaved when he came in. He was not drunk when he came. His excitement was caused, I believe, by talking about soldiers, not about the sixpence. I did not see the deceased raise his umbrella twice. I went to my father because te deceased was abusive and refused to pay for his drinks. It is not true that deceased and my father struggled for two minutes. There was a slight struggle between my father and the deceased. I believe my father had let go of the deceased before he fell out the door. He was not pushed out.

Dr. Francis Clifford Fosbery deposed: I am house surgeon at the Victoria Hospital. The deceased was brought to the hospital by two men at ten minutes to seven last Wednesday evening, the 28th. He continued unconscious until the time of his death, which took place at seven the following morning. I found the deceased suffering from a fractured skull. There was a contused wound, star shaped, on the left side and back of the scalp, such as would be caused by the fall described. I made a post mortem examination, and the cause of death was haemorrhage on to the brain from a rupture of a vein immediately below.

After a short adjournment, Mr. Haines addressed the jury at 8.30, dwelling chiefly upon the conflicting statements made by the witnesses, and assuring them that no-one regretted the fatal accident more sincerely than did the landlord and his father.

The Coroner, having summed up the points of law, and also having analysed the evidence, left three questions to the jury:-

1) Did the deceased accidentally fall without being pushed by any person?

2) Did either of the Daltons, or both, or which of them, push deceased out of the door of the Foresters' Arms, and if so, was more force used in ejecting the deceased than was required for the purpose; and was such degree of caution used as to make it improbable that no danger or injury would arise from such ejection?

3) Was the deceased drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly?

The jury retired at 9.30, and returned into Court at 9.50. They returned as their unanimous belief the verdict that deceased accidentally fell without being pushed by anyone. The foreman intimated that his colleagues were of opinion that the steps ought to be immediately altered, and also conveyed to the widow the sympathy of the jurors.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 July 1900.

Saturday, July 21st: Before Messrs. Pledge, Vaughan, and Stainer.

Mr. Charles Austin applied to the Bench for the transfer of the Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street, from Mr. Edgar Dalton.

The usual testimonials were forthcoming, and the Bench granted the application.

 

Folkestone Express 4 August 1900.

Wednesday, August 1st: Before Capt. Carter, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Alfred J. Austen was granted a transfer of licence for the Foresters' Arms.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 August 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday, the licence of the Foresters' Arms was transferred from Mr. Edgar Dalton to Mr. Albert James Austin.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 January 1905.

Gossip.

If licensed victuallers generally would follow the example of Mr. Austin (landlord of the Foresters Arms Hotel), the debt at the Victoria Hospital would soon be wiped out. On Friday, Mr. Austin forwarded a cheque for £3 18s. to the hospital, the result mainly of Sunday morning collections, the £3 18s. representing a quarter's subscriptions. In 15 months the Foresters Arms customers have sent through host Austin over £10 10s. to the hospital.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 January 1906.

Local News.

It has been truly said that “More evil is wrought by want of thought than is for want of heart”. This truism cannot be applied to our old friend, the kind hearted host of the Foresters Arms, Mr. A.J. Austen, who since his advent to Folkestone has always made a praiseworthy effort to assist the funds of the Victoria Hospital, an effort which, if followed by other licensed victuallers, would soon completely wipe off the debt on the hospital, which today is a stigma upon a large town like Folkestone. That an institution which in the course of a year alleviates so much pain and suffering should have an adverse balance is a disgrace to a town of 30,000 inhabitants. Would we had a few more Mr. Austens working so energetically in such a grand cause.

We have before described the modus operandi adopted at the Foresters Arms, but with the hope of such a fine example bearing fruit with the licensed victuallers and traders in the town, another brief description will not be amiss. Every Sunday morning Mr. and Mrs. Austen hand round the Victoria Hospital box among the customers, who now look upon the Sunday morning contribution as a fixed institution.

It is now two years since the Sunday morning collection was commenced at the Foresters Arms in 1904. The collection for the year amounted to £8. In June of 1905, for the first six months of the year, the average was beaten with a total of £5 5s., and on Monday, January 1st, when the box was opened for the second half of the year concluded, all past collections were eclipsed. The grand total reached £7 13s. 6d., being £3 13s. 6d. increase upon the corresponding period last year, and making a total for 1905 of £12 18s. 6d. The opening of the box was looked forward to with much pleasure, not to say excitement, by the customers at host Austen's. Early in New Year's morning a guessing list was opened, and those who had contributed during the year were entitled, on payment of another penny to the new box, to make a guess at the total in the box, the nearest to be awarded a prize by the host. To prove the exceptional interest taken, we have only to say that the guessing pence amounted to 8s., with which to start upon the New Year's collection box. Again we say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And we invite other local licensed victuallers to follow the course of Mr. Austen, which, if persistently followed by the trade, would relieve the Governors of the Victoria Hospital of much anxiety.

One concluding word. The collecting box at the Foresters Arms is not forced upon anyone; if at the regular hour on Sunday it is not handed round one or other of the regulars will soon make a call for it, or voluntarily hand his contribution over the bar. We sincerely hope that before the conclusion of 1906 Mr. Austen will not only maintain his fine average, but be the cause of many successful imitators.

We must also not forget to mention the efficient service rendered by Mr. Austen's able lieutenant, Mr. W.L. Cook, the well known farrier, who on Sunday mornings regularly takes charge of the collecting box from 12.30 to 1.30.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 January 1907.

Felix.

Mr. and Mrs. Austen, who so well conduct the Foresters Arms, follow a little hobby, and this takes the form of reminding one and all of their customers of their duty to the Victoria Hospital. I understand this worthy pair have just opened their box, with the result that the noble institution on the north side of Radnor Park has benefitted to the extent of £6 7s. 8d. in six months, making a total of £12 16s. 8d. for the year. In a period of three years Mr. and Mrs. Austed have collected for the Hospital no less than £35 16s. 8d. This is greatly to the credit of themselves and their customers, and is an example that might be imitated in more pretentious establishments. The Victoria Hospital has many friends, but none more constant than the Host and Hostess of the old hostelry at the bottom of Shellons Street.

 

Folkestone Express 5 October 1912.

Local News.

At the police court on Wednesday the following transfer of licences was sanctioned by the Magistrates: Foresters Arms, Shellons Street, from Mr. Albert Jas. Austin to Mr. Charles Parker Ovenden.

 

Folkestone Herald 5 October 1912.

Wednesday, October 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

The Bench granted the temporary transfer of licence as follows: Foresters Arms, from Mr. Austin to Mr. Chas. Ovenden.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 October 1912.

Wednesday, October 2nd: Before Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Swoffer, and Linton.

The following licence was transferred upon change of tenants: Foresters Arms, Shellons Street, from Albert James Austin to Charles Parkes Ovenden.

 

Folkestone Express 16 April 1927.

Local News.

Considerable damage was done at the furniture store occupied Mr. G. Balderson, furniture dealer, Grace Hill, during Monday night or early on Tuesday morning by the collapse of a wall.

The store, which was filled with furniture of various kinds, adjoins the Foresters Arms, and it was the outer wall which collapsed. The wall, which is of stone, and is about 12 inches thick, caved in for about half the length of the store, giving way from just below the roof, and the stonework, and many tons of earth from the garden of the Foresters Arms fell upon some of the furniture, which was completely broken or very badly damaged. A surveyor who visited the spot on Tuesday on behalf of the owners, gave it as his opinion that the land in the garden slipped, and the weight caused the wall to give way. Amongst the earth carried into the store was a small tree, which was practically under the roof of the building, when it was opened on Tuesday. It is estimated that the weight from the whole of the garden, from the Copthall Steps to the building itself, was 3,000 tons, and this was pressing on to the wall, which could not withstand such a tremendous weight.

The slip of earth is most probably due to the recent very heavy rainfall.

Mr. Balderson was in the store himself on Monday night at ten o'clock, when everything appeared to be all right, and the wall was apparently as intact as it had always been.

 

Folkestone Express 3 October 1931.

Local News.

The licence of the Foresters Arms, Shellons Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. C. Ovenden to Mrs. Elers on Tuesday at the Folkestone Police Court.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 October 1931.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order to Mrs. Elers, who is taking over the Foresters Arms, Shellons Street, from Mr. C. Ovenden.

 

Folkestone Express 31 October 1931.

Obituary.

It is with very deep regret that we have to announce the death of Mr. Charles Parks Ovenden, who until a month ago was a well-known licensed victualler. He had been in failing health for some time, and retiring from his business he went to reside at 29, Joyes Road, Folkestone, where he died on Wednesday.

Mr. Ovenden, who was 59 years of age, was the third son of the late Mr. Stephen Parks Ovenden, a highly respected Folkestone resident. He was for a number of years a solicitor's clerk in the office of the late Mr. Harrison, the Town Clerk of Folkestone. For 20 years he was a member of the Parish Church Choir. In his younger days he was a keen football player, and for some years he was the goalkeeper of the Folkestone Football Club when they were an amateur side and played on the Park Farm ground, other members of the team including Messrs. Sidey, Billy Harris, and J.S. Clark.

The deceased leaves a widow and two sons, and with them and his brother and sisters the deepest sympathy will be felt in their sad bereavement.

The Funeral will take place on Monday at the Folkestone Cemetery at Hawkinge at 2.20 in the afternoon.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 October 1931.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death of Mr. Charles Parks Ovenden on Wednesday at his residence, 29, Joyes Road.

The deceased, who was until quite recently the licensee of the Foresters Arms, was 59 years of age and had been in poor health for some time.

He was the third son of the late Mr. Stephen Parks Ovenden and for a number of years was an assistant in the Town Clerk's Office. For twenty years he was a member of the choir at the Parish Church, and in his youth played for the Folkestone Football Club as goalkeeper.

The deceased leaves a widow and two sons.

The funeral will take place on Monday afternoon at the Folkestone Cemetery at Hawkinge.

 

Folkestone Express 19 February 1938.

Local News.

On Friday the Folkestone Magistrates granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of the licence of the Foresters Arms from Mrs. Ellers to Mr. A. Creasey, formerly licensee at the Anchor Inn, Littlebourne. Mrs Ellers stated that she was taking another house in another district.

 

Folkestone Express 12 March 1938.

Local News.

At the adjourned general licensing sessions on Wednesday, at the Folkestone Police Court, the magistrates agreed to the transfer of the licence of the Forester’s Arms, Grace Hill, from Mrs. Ellers to Mr. A. Creasey, a protection order having been previously obtained.

 

Folkestone Express 23 September 1939.

Lighting Regulations.

There was a further batch of fifteen summonses at the Court on Tuesday, when the magistrates on the Bench were Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J W. Stainer, Miss G. Broome Giles and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

William Creasey, the Forester’s Arms, Shellons Street, was fined 10/-.

P.C. Alexander said at 12.40 a.m. on the 14th September he was on duty and saw a light in a first floor window of the Forester’s Arms. It was a small window 4ft. by 6ft. He entered the back garden and saw a further window 4ft. by 5ft. covered by a thin blue curtain. He tried to call the occupiers of the house, but was unable to rouse them. The light then went out.

P.C. Barrett said at 9.05 a.m. on the 14th September he interviewed defendant. He said he had been in bed for some minutes when he was awakened by the youngster. His wife fixed him up and the light was turned out. He did not hear the bell. Defendant said he had a 15 watt bulb in the room, and the window was covered by two curtains.

 

Folkestone Express 1 June 1940.

Inquest.

The great danger of “loose talk” was evident at a Folkestone inquest on Tuesday when Mr. B.H. Bonniface, the Folkestone Coroner, conducted an inquiry into the tragic circumstances of the death of Mr. Charles Baker, a retired marine store dealer, who, together with his wife, resided with Mr. W.H. Creasy, his son-in-law, the licensee of the Forester’s Arms, Shellons Street. The deceased, who was 64 years of age, had not been in very good health for two years, and had been rather depressed since the beginning of the war.

From the evidence at the inquest it was clear that on Monday he went out for a walk on the Leas, where he met someone. The conversation turned to the war, and the person with whom he was talking said England had lost the war. This apparently so upset him, and it had such an effect upon him that only a very few hours afterwards he was found dead, hanging by a rope, suspended from a water pipe in the bathroom.

Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Emma Baker, the deceased’s wife, said her husband’s health had not been good lately, and he had been attended by Dr. Claxton for some time. During the last two months he had been very worried about the war. He went out the previous day and was talking to someone on the Leas, with the result that it got on his mind that they had lost the war.

The Coroner: Do you mean that he seemed to be worried by what people had been saying to him?

Mrs. Baker: I do definitely. Proceeding, she said her husband had never threatened to take his life. He was the last man she would have thought would have done such a thing. Her husband did not eat his normal lunch, but just picked about and left it. During the afternoon a friend came in and she asked her to have some tea. Later she went into the bathroom and found a chair in the middle of the room. She was about to close the window when she cast her eye round and first saw her husband’s feet in the bath. She then saw her husband in a sitting position over the bath. She rushed out into the garden to fetch her son-in-law, returning with him to the bathroom. She then noticed a rope round her husband’s neck and that it was fastened to a water pipe over the bath. She helped to take her husband down. They telephoned for the Police and doctor. Her husband was depressed during the last war. He was definitely worse on Monday.

Mr. W.H. Creasy, the licensee of the Forester’s Arms, Shellons Street, said the deceased and Mrs. Baker had been living with him since August, 1931. The deceased was his father-in-law. During the past two years he had not been at all himself, and during the past week he had been worse, sitting about, taking no notice of things, and apparently thinking. He had worried about the war. When he (witness) was sitting having his lunch the deceased told him someone had been talking to him about the war. The deceased was pessimistic about the war. About five o’clock when in the garden he heard two screams, and he rushed into the house. Mrs. Baker said “Quick. Father is in the bathroom”. He rushed upstairs and saw that the deceased was sprawling in the bath, his heels being two-thirds of the bath up, and his buttocks, which were not resting on the bath, were practically on a level with it. A rope, suspended from the water pipe, was round his neck. He undid the knot as quick as he could, having no knife, and got the deceased down. The police and Dr. Claxton arrived. The deceased had not, to his knowledge, threatened to take his life. The chair was by the side of the bath, having been moved from its usual position. It looked as if he must have stood on the chair to have tied the rope to the pipe, for he (witness) had to stand on it to untie the knot.

Dr. E. E. Claxton, of Manor Road, said he had attended the deceased for about two years, and for the last six months had been going to see him each week. He had been suffering from chrome bronchitis and cardiac failure. He had got to know him very well. He always used to discuss the war with him (witness) and asked him what he thought of it. He always tried to give him an optimistic slant to it, and the deceased looked at it differently. He was undoubtedly a man to whom one could put the better side of things rather than the darker.

The Coroner: Might it considerably affect him if anyone had said to him that England had lost the war?

Witness: Yes. It would disturb him intensely. Witness, continuing, said he was called to the house at half-past five the previous day. He was lying on the floor, and the policeman was giving artificial respiration. Breathing had ceased and life was extinct. There was a mark on his neck suggesting strangulation. The face was suffused, bluey in colour. The cause of death was asphyxia, due to hanging.

The Coroner: His condition was such that when a foolish, or rather a wicked, person said such things as we have heard it would be liable to upset his mental balance.

Dr. Claxton: Yes.

“It does seem a very great pity”, the Coroner said in announcing his verdict, “that people should make such remarks as those we have heard, remarks which all particularly should not make at these times. Rather serious remarks were made to the deceased, which would unfortunately affect a man in the condition such as the deceased was on the previous day. I have no doubt that those people he had been talking to had, instead of putting forward a conversation that would have impressed him in a different way, had spoken in such a way that it had upset him. I find that the deceased died from hanging, and that the balance of his mind at the time he did it was temporarily disturbed”.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 June 1940.

Inquest.

Alarmist statements on the war were said at an inquest at the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon to have been responsible for the death of Mr. Charles Baker, a retired marine store dealer of the Forester’s Arms, Shellons Street, who was found hanged the previous afternoon.

The Coroner, returning a verdict that the deceased hanged himself whilst the balance of-his mind was temporarily disturbed, said “I have no doubt that if those people he had been talking to had, instead of having an alarmist conversation, had a conversation of a rather happier type, the deceased would not have done what he did”.

Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Emma Baker, wife of the deceased, said her husband’s health had not been good lately and he had been attended by Dr. E.E. Claxton for some time He was 64 years of age. During the last two months he had been very worried with regard to the war.

The Coroner: When you say he had been worried principally about the war, what do you mean?

Witness: Yesterday he went out before lunch. When he came back he said he had been talking on the Leas to somebody and the idea played on his mind that we had lost the war.

Do you mean he seemed to be worried by what people had been saying to him? -Yes, definitely.

Has he at any time threatened to take his life? - Never. He is the last man I should ever have thought would have done such a thing.

Continuing, witness said she talked to her husband after lunch and then interviewed a visitor regarding a young evacuee. Later she went upstairs to dress. She went into the bathroom where she saw a chair in the middle of the room. She went to close the window and on glancing round saw her husband’s feet m the bath; he was in an upright sitting position. She went out to fetch her son-in-law and went back to the bathroom with him. She then noticed there was a rope round her husband's neck, fastened to a water pipe over the bath. Her son-in-law untied the rope and took her husband down. Her husband was depressed about the last war. Yesterday he seemed more depressed than ever.

William Edwin Creasey, licensee of the Forester’s Arms, said he was Mr. Baker’s son-in-law. The deceased had been living with them for about nine years. His health had not been good for the last two years and he had not been himself. He used to sit about taking no notice of anything but thinking deeply. Yesterday he was more depressed than ever. He told witness that someone on the Leas had been talking to him about the war. He said they had told him that the Germans had rubber boats and could land thousands of men in England. For some time he had been very pessimistic about this country’s chances of winning the war. About 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon witness heard two screams, one apparently from his mother-in-law and another from his wife. He rushed indoors and his mother said “Quick, father is in the bath”. He rushed upstairs and found his father-in- law sprawled in the bath. A rope suspended from the water pipe was round his neck. Witness unfastened the knot as quickly as possible and attempted to revive the deceased. A chair, usually by the wash hand basin, was beside the bath.

The water pipe was about eight feet six inches from the floor. The deceased must therefore have got on something to tie the rope round the pipe.

Dr. E.E. Claxton of Manor Road, Folkestone, said he had attended Mr. Baker for about two and a half years. During the last six months he had been going to see deceased each week. He had been suffering from chronic bronchitis and cardiac failure. Witness had got to know the deceased very well; they always used to discuss the news. Mr. Baker used to ask him what he thought of it and he used to try to give an optimistic slant to it. “He always took what one said very seriously and you could either leave him very cheerful or very despondent”, witness added.

Coroner: I take it he was the sort of man one should always put the brighter side to, never the darker.

Witness: Undoubtedly.

So he would be considerably affected by someone who might tell him we had lost the war and the Germans were going to land thousands here in rubber boats? - It would distress him intensely. It would also cloud his judgment.

Continuing, witness said he was called to deceased’s house yesterday at about 5.30 p.m. Mr. Baker was lying on the floor and a policeman was applying artificial respiration. Mr. Baker was already dead. There was a mark on his neck suggesting strangulation. The face was also suffused. The cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. Referring again to the conversation which deceased had had in the morning, Dr. Claxton said "If a wicked person said such things he would take it to heart and would not be clear in his judgment”.

The Coroner: It would be liable to upset his mental balance?

Witness: Absolutely.

The Coroner said it seemed a very great pity that people should make such remarks when they were particularly asked not to make them and there was no occasion that they should be made. He returned a verdict as stated.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 April 1943.

Local News.

At Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday music licences for radio installations were granted in respect of the Foresters’ Arms and the Star and Garter.

Alderman R.G. Wood presided with Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mr. P. Fuller and Mr. P.V. Gurr.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 February 1964.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Transfer of licence was granted for the following application: Foresters Arms, from Mr. W.E. Creasey to Mr. Alfred W. Hammond

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 24 June 1983.

Advertising Feature.

Anyone walking into the Red Cow pub in Foord Road after a few months' absence could be forgiven for wondering if they were in the right place For what before Christmas was a basic spit 'n' sawdust local has been transformed into an attractive and elegant hostelry set to compete with some of the smartest places in town. The original public and saloon bars have been knocked into one and a special eating area has been set aside. In fact the whole pub has been modernised and improved, but with the installation of false beams and the carefully selected decor, the atmosphere is very much one of bygone days.

Landlord and landlady Geoff and Joan Biggs are delighted as are their regulars and an ever increasing number of new customers. But for them the virtual overnight transformation of the Red Cow marks the end of a long, long wait. Fourteen years ago the couple, who have been in the licensed trade since 1938, ran the old Foresters Arms in Shellons Street, Folkestone. It was a thriving business, regularly packed and serving umpteen lunches every day. But their success was short-lived. A compulsory purchase order forced them to move and they took over the Red Cow with high hopes of improving it. They made repeated requests to the brewery but it was 13 years before they got the go-ahead for their new-look pub. “People have to pay a lot of money for drinks these days. It is only right that they get something a little bit special in return”, says Geoff.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 September 1983.

Local News.

A pub landlord has died after a lifetime in the licensed trade. Mr. Geoffrey Biggs, landlord at the Red Cow in Folkestone's Foord Road, died in the early hours of last Thursday, apparently from a heart attack. His death at the age of 63 came as a shock to his wife Joan, son Stephen, daughter Vicky and many friends. He had been a publican in the town for nearly 20 years. Mr. Biggs had been landlord at the Red Cow for 15 years. Before taking over he was at the Foresters Arms in Shellons Street, Folkestone. He and his wife have wanted to improve the Red Cow since they first moved there and in June their dreams came true when modernisation work was completed. Well-known in the town, Mr. Biggs was heavily involved in the darts leagues. A funeral service takes place today at Hawkinge.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

MEADOWS Mary Anne 1850s Bastions

HALL Thomas c1857-58 Melville's 1858Bastions

Last pub licensee had SWAIN William H 1858-71 (age 53 in 1871Census) Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1862Bastions

Last pub licensee had HARTLEY John 1871-83 Post Office Directory 1874Post Office Directory 1882Bastions

Last pub licensee had JACKSON Harry 1883-91 Post Office Directory 1891Bastions

LE FEVRE Matilda 1891-92 Bastions

Last pub licensee had COOK George Ruben 1892-98 Kelly's 1899Bastions

COOK Amelia 1898-99 Bastions

DALTON Edgar 1899-1900 Bastions

AUSTEN Albert J 1900-12 Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Bastions

Last pub licensee had OVERTON Charles P 1912-31 Post Office Directory 1913Post Office Directory 1922Bastions

ELERS Mrs Kate L 1931-38 Kelly's 1934Post Office Directory 1938Bastions

ELERS Kate 1931-38 Bastions

CREASY William 1938-41 Bastions

CREASY Gladys 1941-46 Bastions

CREASY William 1946-64 Bastions

HAMMOND Alfred W 1964

CREASY Philip 1964-69 Bastions

BIGGS Geoffrey 1969-70 Next pub licensee had Bastions

 

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room