Folkestone Express 28 August 1869.

Spirit License (Fresh Application).

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman. J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Arthur Andrews applied for a spirit license for the Guildhall Hotel.

Mr. Creery, of Ashford, supported the application, and addressed the Bench. He said from his experience in licensing matters it appeared to him that the magistrates required three things before granting a new license; 1st, that the man who applies is a respectable man, and a man who can be trusted. 2nd, that the premises are proper for the purposes for which they are meant to be used, and 3rd, that the license asked for is requisite. He then proceeded to show the Magistrates that these three propositions ought to meet their approval in this case, and put in a requisition signed by 380 respectable inhabitants in support of the application.

Mr. Minter opposed on behalf of Mr. W. Medhurst and Mr. George Taylor, and while admitting the two first propositions of Mr. Creery, he contended on the third point that the license was not requisite, as the accommodation afforded by the other houses in the neighbourhood was quite sufficient.

The Court was then cleared. When re-opened the Chairman said that the Magistrates had come to the unanimous decision that no more licenses should be granted, but in exceptional cases, as they were of opinion that too many licensed houses already exist. The application would be refused.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1870.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Kennicott, J. Tolputt, A.M. Leith and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

The Guildhall Hotel: This was an application for a spirit license to this house, which adjoins the Town Hall. Mr. Creery supported the application, and Mr. J. Minter opposed on behalf of Mr. W. Medhurst and Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Creery, in introducing the case, said that the Magistrates' decision in the two cases decided by them encouraged him in the hope that the same liberal spirit would be extended to all applicants for new licenses, except in those cases where there existed strong grounds of objection. Although the ground of this application was sufficiently strong, he would proceed to explain the case to them. He (Mr. Creery) had the honour to act as Clerk to a large Bench of Magistrates, and he always found that the justices required to be satisfied that the applicant was a person to be trusted, and was a respectable man. They might not be so well acquainted with Mr. Arthur Andrews, but they were acquainted with his father, who was a respectable contractor and builder residing in their midst for very many years, and he had a memorial to produce, which was signed by upwards of 300 individuals, giving a most satisfactory evidence of the respectability of the applicant, who had occupied this house upwards of two years, and no complaint of any description had ever been made. He was just the proper person to be entrusted with the sale of spirits; he already had beer and wine licenses. If the Bench was anxious to ascertain whether the premises were properly fitted up for the purpose, he would explain that this house was constructed for a refreshment bar, and not intended for people to go in and sit down. But the most important point was whether the license for the sale of spirits was necessary and required. He would remind the Bench of the large increase of buildings in Folkestone; the hall in which they were assembled was also new, and thousands, he might say, who attended the hall every week found this house a great convenience. Although there had been a great increase in the population there had been no corresponding increase in accommodation for the public for the past 40 or 50 years. Every other business had increased, and some who had made fortunes in them may be sitting on the Bench. Was this grant required? He could produce 300 witnesses to say it was; not personally, as that would take up too much time, but by memorial, (The learned gentleman here produced a memorial several yards long) which was signed by 19 tradesmen of the immediate neighbourhood, 29 licensed victuallers, and 293 of the inhabitants and visitors of Folkestone. It read “We, the undersigned inhabitants of Folkestone, beg to submit the necessity for more Public House accommodation near the Town Hall, and ask you to grant a license to Mr. Arthur Andrews, a respectable tradesman, who two years ago opened this house”. The memorial, after speaking of the increase in visitors, proceeded “The fact that there was only one public house in the immediate neighbourhood would be sufficient reason to induce the Magistrates to grant a license, the house being conducted in a highly respectable manner”. Mr. Creery then enumerated the other houses accessible from the Guildhall; The King's Arms, kept by Mr. Medhurst, a very respectable and old inhabitant of Folkestone, and a person, he was sure, who would not willingly inflict injury on neighbours not so well off as himself. He hoped the Magistrates would accede to the request of the 338 persons who asked them to grant a license.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed on behalf of Mr. Medhurst, of the King's Arms, and Mr. Taylor, the landlord of the Lugger, to oppose the present application, which was the renewal of one made last year, and in his opinion the applicant had a weaker case than before. No circumstances had changed since the first application was made, and when the Magistrates determined it was not necessary or requisite to grant the license. The memorial on the previous occasion was more respectably, if not more numerously, signed. He had inspected the present signatures and the inspection would give rise to this remark, that they were for the most part perfectly useless. The statement that there was only one other house in the neighbourhood was untrue, as they had the Lugger, the Rose, Mr. Lukey's all close at hand. The persons that signed must either not read the memorial or be signing to an untrue statement, and the probability was the signatures were utterly worthless, as they could not know what the memorial contained. On inspection it would be found that some who signed lived at Canterbury, Shorncliffe Camp, Sandgate and Swingfield Minnis; was the accommodation really necessary or required by such people? He contended there was nothing in the circumstances different from the previous year. Mr. Andrews, they all knew as a highly respectable man, but that was not the only thing required, and he would ask the Magistrates to say the same at that meeting as they had said before.

The Magistrates decided to hear the other applications before deciding.

The Bench decided on not granting the above application.

Folkestone Express 22 October 1870.

At the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the Eastern Division of the county, held at St. Augustine's Session House, Canterbury, on Tuesday last, Mr. Biron, on behalf of Mr. Andrews, applied to the Court to reverse the decision of the justices of Folkestone in an application for a wine and spirit license for the Guildhall Hotel, next to the Town Hall, Folkestone. The hotel was represented as having a splendidly fitted refreshment bar – a trade that the applicant especially “went into” – having every convenience and accommodation for 70 to 80 persons at one time, and in fact being a place where marble and plate glass abound. Witnesses on both sides were examined, and Mr. Barrow having addressed the Court in maintenance of the magisterial decision, contending that already there were nine licensed houses within 286 yards of the Guildhall. The Court granted the license, ordering the decision of the Folkestone Magistrates to be quashed.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1873.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clarke Esq.

The licensing committee met at ten o'clock for the purpose of taking into consideration the question of making any alteration in the hours for opening and closing public houses. Shortly after eleven o'clock the licensed victuallers present were called into Court, where the Clerk said the Bench would hear anything with reference to the alteration of the hours for the opening and closing.

Mr. Andrews, in reply to the Clerk, said he had filed a petition in liquidation and that the trustee would apply for a renewal of the license to the Guildhall Hotel.

The matter was left over until the adjourned meeting on the 30th September.

Folkestone Express 4 October 1873.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Guildhall Hotel.

Tuesday, September 30th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. Wilks, of Hythe, applied for a transfer of the license of the Guildhall Hotel from Henry Andrews to his brother, Arthur Andrews. It having been shown that the premises were let to Arthur, the application was granted.

Note: No mention of Henry Andrews in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 11 October 1873.

At the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Monday last, before Mr. Registrar Callaway, Arthur Andrews, innkeeper, Folkestone, a bankrupt, came up for his adjourned public examination.

Mr. R. W. Flint appeared to oppose on behalf of the trustee; Mr. Kelcey, from the offices of Messrs. Hallett and Co., Ashford, for the bankrupt.

The bankrupt was cross-examined at length by Mr. Flint as to what had become of certain portions of his estate. It was eliceited that the bankrupt had accepted bills for his father – he did not know how many. Bankrupt denied he informed any of his creditors of being about to become bankrupt, but afterwards admitted that he told Messrs. Leney, brewers, of Dover, and that he had since paid to Mr. Hall, their traveller, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to £31 1s. It was also elicited that his profits amounted to £200 a year. Mr. Flint strongly opposed bankrupt being allowed to pass his examination, and asked for further accounts.

The learned Registrar ordered the bankrupt to furnish a goods, cash, and deficiency account for the three months prior to his bankruptcy, and adjourned the sitting to the 15th inst.

Folkestone Express 18 October 1873.

The Bankruptcy Court, Canterbury.

October 16th, 1873.

Arthur Andrews, of Folkestone, came up for his final examination, and after a long hearing the Registrar made an order that he should pass. At the previous examination the bankrupt stated that he had accepted bills for his father, but this appeared to be incorrect, and what he meant was that while he was carrying on the house for his father had had accepted bills in his own name in the ordinary transactions of business.

Folkestone Express 30 May 1874.

Advertisement Extract.

To Brewers, Capitalists, Photographers and Others.

Messrs. Andrews and Son beg to offer for public auction at the West Cliff Hotel, Folkestone, on Friday the 19th June, 1874, at seven o'clock in the evening, the following desirable residences, in three lots:

Lot 3: A Free Fully Licensed Public House, known as the Guildhall Hotel, situate next the Town Hall, Folkestone, having a most extensive and lucrative bar trade, and being of great importance in the neighbourhood.

The House contains good dry wine and beer cellars, kitchen, scullery and W.C. A large and splendidly fitted Bar, with Bottle and Jug Department.

Also 9 rooms suitable for sitting and bedrooms, and 2 W.C.s, the workshop in the rear with back entrance and use of pump with good water.

This Lot leased from Earl Radnor for 99 years from the 24th June, 1844, and the annual ground rent will be £2 5s.

Further particulars and conditions of sale may be obtained on application to the auctioneers, Hythe, at the West Cliff Hotel, Folkestone, or to George Wilks Esq.,

Solicitor,

Hythe.

Folkestone Express 9 January 1875.

Monday, January 4th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Jane Pellitt, general servant, out of place, was charged with having obtained by false pretences sixpennyworth of oranges, a quart of chestnuts and a pound of lump sugar, value 1s. 2½d., from Mr. Spinks, grocer. Guildhall Street, on the 24th ultimo.

William Court, apprentice to prosecutor, knew the prisoner, who had been in the habit of purchasing goods at his employer's for Mr. Andrews of the Guildhall Tavern. On the afternoon of the 24th prisoner was served by witness with sixpennyworth of oranges, a quart of chestnuts and a pound of lump sugar. Witness asked, after he had served her, who the goods were for, and she said for Mr. Andrews. Did not then know that she had left Mr. Andrews' service; had he known this, should not have served her. The goods were worth 1s. 2½d.

Arthur Andrews, of the Guildhall Tavern, said prisoner left his service about the beginning of December. Did not authorise the prisoner to get them.

The witness Court, re-called, said when he asked who the goods were for she had not taken them off the counter. Witness had weighed and measured the goods.

A nice point arose as to whether the prisoner obtained the goods under a false pretence, as she was served before being asked for her employer's name. Eventually she was remanded till Wednesday.

Wednesday, January 6th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Dr. Bateman, J. Kelcey, R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Jane Pellitt was charged on remand of having obtained certain groceries by false pretences from J.B. Spinks, Guildhall Street, on the 24th ultimo. The depositions taken on Monday having been read over, a consultation took place between the members of the Bench. Prisoner was cautioned, and said she didn't wish to say anything, only that she was guilty.

Prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, Mr. Andrews being bound over to prosecute. He objected to do so, but was told that as he had taken out the summons he must do so.

Folkestone Express 30 January 1875.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday, January 28th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Jane Pellett, 16, domestic servant, imperfectly educated, was indicted for having obtained by false pretences 1¼ lbs. of cheese, 2 lbs. of prunes, and 2 ozs. of candied peel, value 1s. 8½d., the property of George Daniels, on the 19th and 23rd December.

A second count charged her with obtaining by false pretences 12 oranges, 1 quart of chestnuts and 1 lb. lump sugar, value 1s 2½d., the property of James Reeves Spinks, on the 24th December.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and in reply to the Recorder said she had no witnesses to speak to her character.

Superintendent Wilshere stated, in answer to the Recorder, that he had received information of 12 or 13 similar charges against prisoner, who had been identified in several cases.

Mr. Edward Simmons, the Governor of the Dover Gaol, said prisoner had been well behaved when in gaol, and appeared to feel her position acutely. If she continued to conduct herself aright during her term of imprisonment he hoped, with the help of the Chaplain, to get her some employment after it's expiry.

The Recorder said taking into consideration prisoner's youth he should sentence her to a light term. She would be sentenced to two calendar months' imprisonment for the false pretences to Mr. Spinks, and two similar sentences in each of the other cases of fraud upon Mr. Daniels, making in all six months' imprisonment.

Southeastern Gazette 10 May 1875.

Local News/

At the Police Court a few days since Robert Acton Beresford, a tramp, was oharged with begging in Sandgate Road.

Prisoner went into the King’s Arms and Guildhall Tavern, and told people that he was a cashiered military officer.

Mr. Boarer, before whom prisoner was charged, asked the ex-captain if they did not know each other, to which prisoner replied that he was not aware of it.

He begged to be allowed to leave the town, saying he had a family at Brighton.

He was told that he would be at perfect liberty to go away after he had received the public hospitality for fourteen days, during which period he would be kept to hard labour for the benefit of his health.

The “gallant captain,” who seemed indignant at the degradation he was doomed to undergo, was then removed.

Folkestone Chronicle 15 June 1878.

Notice.

Mr. THOMAS HARVEY.

GUILDHALL HOTEL, FOLKESTONE.

All persons having any claim upon Mr. Harvey are requested to send full particulars thereof to me, the undersigned, on or before the 20th day of June instant, and all persons having any property belonging to Mr. Harvey will forthwith deliver the same to Mrs. Harvey, at the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone.

Dated 13th day of June, 1878.

WORSFOLD MOWLL.

Solicitor, Dover.

Folkestone Express 11 January 1879.

Thursday, January 9th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., and Captain Fletcher.

Ann Clarke, charged with being drunk and disorderly in Sandgate Road on Wednesday, pleaded Guilty. Superintendent Wilshere said the prisoner was turned out of the Guildhall Tavern, and was afterwards quarrelling with a man in the street.

She was fined 1s., and 3s. 6d. costs, which she paid.

Folkestone Express 8 March 1879.

Monday, March 3rd: Before Alderman Hoad, R.W. Boarer, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Minnie Smith appeared to a charge of being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening.

P.C. Ovenden said he saw the prisoner lying in the gutter in the centre of a crowd of persons, opposite the Guildhall Tavern. He raised her up and advised her to go home. She refused to do so and swore at him, and was taken into custody.

Superintendent Wilshere said the prisoner had been up on similar charges six times previously. The last time was in '76, and since then she had been very orderly.

The Magistrates dismissed the prisoner with a caution.

Folkestone Express 4 August 1883.

Saturday, July 28th: Before J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Holden, and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs., and General Armstrong C.B.

James Edward Hoad was charged with maliciously throwing a stone and breaking a window in the house of the Mayor. Defendant is the landlord of the Guildhall Tavern. Mr. Minter prosecuted. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.Mr. Minter said the prosecution was instituted under the Malicious Damage to Property Act, and he proceeded to detail the circumstances of the case. The defendant was an innkeeper at the Guildhall Tavern, adjoining the Town Hall. The offence, he thought the Bench would say when they had heard the evidence, was one of a very dastardly character, and one which if proved, as no doubt it would be, would call for exceptional punishment. On the 14th of July, at midnight, Mr. Sherwood's window was broken under the circumstances they would have in evidence, by a stone. That stone, they said, was thrown by the defendant from the roof of his house, for the purpose of maliciously injuring Mr. Sherwood's property. The would wonder why the defendant should be guilty of such a dastardly act towards the Mayor. The motive that he should suggest was gathered from the defendant's own words. He seemed to have taken it into his head that Mr. Sherwood supported the Salvation Army in Folkestone. Whether or not that interfered with his particular business, he (Mr. Minter) did not know, but he should prove in evidence that defendant was heard to call the Mayor a scamp. At that moment he was not in a position to put in vertain anonymous letters which had been received by the Mayor, therefore he would not further refer to them at that stage. Having detailed the facts of the case given in the evidence, he said he should ask the Bench to say that no person, other than the person that the witness Grimes said broke the window, could have done it, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, although the evidence was presumptive, presumptive evidence was sometimes the very best evidence, and he should ask the Bench to convict the defendant on the ground that no other person could have got access to the premises without the defendant's knowledge.

He called Mr. John Sherwood, who said: I am Mayor of the borough, and live at No. 5, Sandgate Road. On Saturday, the 14th July, the windows over my offices were perfect. On Sunday morning I found one of the panes broken. The value of the window is about £1. I know the defendant as landlord of the house opposite. I can see the roof of his house from my dining room on the first floor. There is a skylight in the roof, and a parapet wall in front.

P.C. James Delaney said: I was on duty t 12 o'clock at night on Saturday the 14th July. I was standing opposite Mr. Dunsford's, talking to Mr. Loftus Banks. Whilst talking I heard a stone go against something. The sound came from Mr. Sherwood's house. I gave some direction to Mr. Banks, and then ran to Guildhall Street into the new building. I blew my whistle for assistance. I entered the building in Guildhall Street, and came out into Sandgate Road. I then went and stood under the porch of the Town Hall, where I found P.C. Smith. Whilst standing there I heard a stone come. In my judgement it came from the direction of Guildhall Street. I went through the passage across the market, and entered the passage leading to Mr. Hoad's backway. There was a dog barking. Mr Hoad lifted the window up and said “What's the matter?” I said “Nothing, I am only going my usual rounds”. I then returned to the front of the Town Hall.

Cross-examined: He was dressed as though he was going to bed or getting up. The window is entirely in the rear of the premises. My light was thrown on to the window, and it made the dog bark, and caused Mr. Hoad to throw up the window. From where I stood first I had a view of defendant's house. I saw no-one on the roof. It was a light night. I did not hear any glass smashed, but heard some stones strike against the building. The window could be struck by a stone coming from several directions. I am not prepared to swear that the first stone came from any particular direction. When I heard the second stone I was standing under the Town Hall porch. The second stone I heard fall into the road. I cannot say it struck the building. I can swer it came from the direction of the Guildhall by the direction the stone took when it fell on the road. The stone was picked up in my presence. I did not see it fall. I am prepared to swear that was the stone thrown. There was no other in the road. The stone travelled towards Mr. Sherwood's front door. The window broken was the farther one.

Re-examined: I can swear there was no-one in Sandgate Road, Church Street, or Guildhall Street. Thinking it came from behind defendant's house, I went round.

William Grimes said: I am an assistant to Mr. Sherwood. I sleep in the room over the dining room. From my bedroom I can see the Town Hall and three or four other houses. I can see the roof of the Guildhall Tavern. On Saturday night at eleven o'clock I went to my bedroom. The household generally had retired to rest. I sat down and read for about three quarters of an hour, then washed, turned out the gas, and got into bed. As I laid down I heard something come up against the outside of the house. I immediately jumped out of bed, lifted one of the Venetian blinds and looked out. My line of sight was towards the Guildhall Tavern. I saw a light in the skylight in the roof of the Guildhall Tavern, and saw a head over the parapet. I watched it for about five minutes. Then I saw the body rise up, and I saw his arm raise and move in the action of throwing. I heard a thud against the house. The window being plate glass it would only make a thud. The man was between me and the light of the skylight. I could not distinguish his features. I should not like to say the man was of the size of the defendant. I do not know the depth of the parapet. I saw him go into the skylight. The adjoining houses have no skylights. The light disappeared. I continued at the window. It was about five minutes past twelve when the second thud came. I afterwards saw a person come to the window of the Guildhall Tavern. It was a little more than a minute after the light disappeared in the skylight. The person placed his face to the window and was looking at the policemen below. I cannot identify the person.

Cross-examined: I did not re-light the gas after I put it out. I am not able to distinguish the figure of the person whom I saw on the parapet, or the person who came to the window. I cannot identify either person in any way whatever. I cannot say which arm of the figure moved.

Re-examined: I saw the man at the window several times during 10 minutes.

P.C. Dawson said: On the 17th July I went to defendant's house at 20 minutes past eight in the morning. I went again at 7.20, and on the 19th I asked defendant if he let beds. He said “I don't let beds, but I can recommend you to the Shakespeare Inn”. There was a soldier there on the 19th. The soldier and I talked together.

Mr. Bannon objected to the conversation being given in evidence.

Examination continued: Hoad said “It is only the Mayor, the scamp. Don't think anything of that. If he put his foot on them he should get rid of them at once”.

Cross-examined: There had been some previous discussion about the Salvation Army. The defendant said some man had been locked up for stealing the flag. I took it that “putting his foot down” had reference to the Salvation Army.

P.C. Smith said he heard a whistle blown and went to the front of the Town Hall. He heard a stone strike Mr. Sherwood's building. He thought the stone came from the back of Guildhall Street. He had frequently used the house, and Hoad was the only man he had seen there.

Mr. Bannon addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant, urging that he was perfectly innocent of the offence charged against him.

The Bench retired to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman said the magistrates were unanimously of opinion that the offence was proved. The defendant was liable to two months' hard labour, but they had decided to deal leniently with the matter. Defendant must pay 20s., the damage, £3 fine, and 15s. 6d. costs, or in default go to prison for one month with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 1 August 1885.

Wednesday, July 29th: Before W.J. Jeffreason, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Mr. Bannon applied on behalf of Mr. Hoad, of the Guildhall Tavern for a licence to sell refreshments at the Conservative Fete at Morehall on Bank Holiday. Granted.

Mr. Quested also applied for a licence to sell outside the grounds, in a field adjoining, but the Bench refused permission.

Folkestone Express 10 December 1887.

Thursday, December 8th: Before Captain Carter, J. Fitness and E.R. Ward Esq.

Two privates of the King's Royal Rifles, one named Thomas Whittington, and the other Grover, were charged with burglary at the Guildhall Tavern, and stealing the articles named in the depositions given below.

John Edward Hoad said: I am landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, 4, Guildhall Street. On the night of Tuesday I was in the bar till about a quarter past twelve. Before leaving I left the fanlights open about six inches at the top, suspended by a cord and chain. I went into the bar about eight o'clock on Wednesday morning. I examined the bar and found the fanlight cord and chain broken. The fanlight is 3 ft. 6 ins. long and 19 ins. deep. I noticed marks on the glass and on the ledge of the door as if feet had been placed on the ledges. I missed from the till, which was not locked, 7s. 6d. in silver, 2s. 6d. in English coppers, 5s. worth of French coppers from a shelf, and four boxes of cigars from a shelf close to the ceiling. I value the cigars at 32s. I missed two or three bottles of spirits, one brandy and the other rum, value 6s.

Thomas William Hogben, barman to Mr. Hoad, said: I left the house on Tuesday night between ten minutes and a quarter past eleven. The fanlight over the door nearest the Town Hall was about 6 in. down. I went to work about half past six on Wednesday morning. I went to the front bar and noticed that the fanlight over the door nearest the Town Hall was closed, and the chain and cord was broken. When I took hold of the string, the fanlight fell down. I noticed a stool standing near the door. I saw Mr. Hoad about eight and told him about the fanlights. I had previously noticed that the till was open, and that it was empty.

Corporal Charles Dearlove, of the King's Royal Rifles, said: About 10 minutes past twelve on Wednesday I saw the two prisoners at the canteen on Shorncliffe Camp. They were in the bar, and from there they went to the taproom. I stood about four yards from them. They produced some coin from their pockets. Whittington had an old fashioned halfpenny or some other coin. That produced is the same. Twenty minutes after a provost corporal came round with the information that a house had been broken into. I went to the taproom and asked Grover if he had any old coins to make away with. He said he had, and pulled from his pocket a lot of silver and English and French halfpence. I could not judge how much. I asked him if he had any old silver coins to put on my watch chain. He said he had at home. I ordered him to be confined. At the Guardroom he was searched by Sergt. Ledge. Some silver coin, foreign coin and English coppers were found on him. I afterwards had Whittington confined to the Guardroom and searched. Some coin and an old halfpenny were found on him. I made no charge against them, but I told the Sergt. Major and we went and searched the men's kits. In Whittington's kit we found a bottle of brandy, and a bag of money with a name on it. In his valise we found two boxes of cigars, and on a shelf over the bed a third box. Those produced are the same. In Grover's kit we found nothing.

Grover said he had no foreign silver in his possession.

Sergt. Thomas Lodge, K.R.R., said: At a quarter past one on Wednesday, Grover was brought to me in the Guardroom. I searched him in the corporal's presence. I found in his pocket 4s. 3d. in English coins, and 1s. 10 d. in foreign coins. I told him he would be charged with being concerned in a burglary at Folkestone. He replied “I know nothing about it. I wasn't out of the barracks, and can prove where I got the coins from”. Shortly after Corpl. Dearlove brought in Whittington, and I searched him. I found 8s. 6d. in silver, and 9½d. in copper, among the latter being the old halfpenny. I told Whittington he would be charged on suspicion of being concerned in a robbery at Folkestone on the previous night.

Sergt. Major Job Hounsell, K.R.R., said: In consequence of a communication made to me by Corp. Dearlove I went with him to the room which prisoners occupied. I searched their kits. I Whittington's kit we found a bottle of brandy with J.E. Hoad's name on, and three boxes of cigars, and in the bed a sock containing copper coins, a piece of candle, and a small paper bag with Mr. Hoad's name on it. I did not count the money till the Sergeant of the police came. In Grover's kit I found nothing relating to the robbery. At the Guardroom I asked Whittington where he got the brandy, cigars, and foreign coins from. He said he bought them off a “civi”, meaning a civilian. I told him I should report it to the police. I asked Grover when he got the coins taken from him, and he replied that he bought them off Private Whittington. Whittington made no reply to that. Police Sergt. Harman came to the Camp about four the same afternoon, and the prisoners were given into his custody. The property found in Whittington's bed and kit was handed over to him. The prisoners were present at tattoo at ten o'clock on Tuesday night. Corp. Coleman certified that they were present in the room. It is quite possible for a man to leave barracks after tattoo and be absent till six the next morning without being missed. Prisoners were on parade at half past seven on Wednesday morning. The Corporal slept in the same room.

Police Sergt. Harman said: I went to the Camp and received the prisoner into custody, and also the property now produced. I charged the prisoners with breaking and entering the Guildhall Tavern, Folkestone, between the hours of twelve and six that morning, and stealing 7s. 6d. in silver, 2s. 6d. in English bronze, 5s. in French bronze, 1s. 6d. in old English copper coins, two bottles of spirits and three boxes of cigars. Whittington said “I know nothing about it. I was in my hut at the time”. Grover replied “I bought 14d. of French coppers off Whittington this morning. I gave him 6d. and a pot of porter for them. I have plenty of witnesses to prove that”, and called out several names to the Sergeant Major to produce as witnesses. He also said “A few days ago I bought eight pennyworth of French bronze from Private Callaghan, and gave 4d. for them”. I had Callaghan produced, made the enquiry, and found that was correct. I brought the prisoners to the police station, and when near the end of the lines Whittington said “That is where I got them from, round behind there, from a man I have often seen when I have been on pass”.

Supt. Taylor said: I read the charge to the prisoners. Whittington made a statement, which I took down. This was to the effect that he found the articles in a latrine. Grover said “The Sergeant has got all I want to say”.

Corporal Alfred Joseph Colman said he was corporal in charge of the room in which the prisoner slept, and was present at tattoo on Tuesday night – 10 o'clock. Both prisoners were there, and in bed. Lights were put out at a quarter past ten. He saw them next morning at half past six in bed. The room was in darkness during the night. The door of the room was not locked at night time. He saw Grover buying some coins off Whittington about half past eight on Wednesday morning. Grover gave Whittington 6d. for some French coins.

Mr. Hoad was re-called, and said he could not recognise either of the prisoners. Among the coins he missed there were some Indian ones.

The depositions being read over and signed, the prisoner Grover was dismissed, there being no evidence against him.

Whittington made a statement to the effect that he went to the latrine about half past five in the morning, and there found all the articles and money.

The Bench decided to commit this prisoner for trial at the next assizes.

Folkestone Express 11 August 1888.

Inquest.

On Tuesday afternoon an inquest was held by the Borough Coroner at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on the body of James Edward Hoad, late landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, Guildhall Street, who died on Monday morning.

James Kennett Boorn, Town Sergeant, identified the body. He said he last saw deceased alive on Saturday week, when he called at the Town Hall. He seemed then to be in a pretty good state of health. He had a cut on his left eye, and told witness that he missed his footing at the bottom steps of the stairs, and fell with his head through the glass. He said he thought he was on the last step, but there were two. He complained of his head, and said he could not go into the bar with his head cut, so he went to have a chat with witness.

Eleanor Hoad, widow of deceased, said he was 39 years of age. On Sunday week he had a fall. Witness was lying in bed in the back room above the bar with a child who was ill when she heard him fall. Before he fell he had been for a doctor to attend his child. Dr. Eastes attended about one o'clock, she thought. It was some time after Dr. Eastes had gone that she heard a crash of glass downstairs. She looked over the banisters, but saw nothing. She called out, but got no answer, and she went back to bed again. When deceased left her she thought he went to bed. She did not pursue her enquiries, as she thought it was merely a glass knocked down. She was nervous about the child, and did not go down. Next morning about half past eight she went into the bedroom where deceased slept. He was lying on the bed, dressed, and smothered in blood. He told her that he missed his footing and fell down the stairs, and through the glass of the door at the foot of the stairs. He had a cut on the eyebrow, and two smaller ones above. He got up and bathed his face. After he had bathed his face he laid on the sofa in the drawing room. Next day he went to a chemist's and had his head strapped up. At eleven o'clock one evening about three days before his death she found him in a sort of fainting fit and sent for Dr. Eastes. He was slightly delirious, and she had two men to attend to him.

Dr. Thomas Eastes said the deceased called him early on Sunday morning, July 29th, to attend his child. He went immediately and saw the child in the presence of deceased and his wife. He was called to see deceased on Thursday night, the 2nd of August. He seemed to have fainted, and he found he had three wounds on his forehead, and erysipelas in those wounds, which was spreading over the forehead, and he was delirious. He attended him from that time until his death, which took place early on Monday morning, the 6th inst. The cause of death was exhaustion from delirium tremens, and erysipelas supervening in the wounds. The child was suffering from rheumatism, but deceased did not wish to see him. He was not sober when he called witness to attend his child. The real cause of the erysipelas was strapping the wounds up. The fainting fit was no doubt the commencement of a severe illness.

A brother of deceased asked Dr. Eastes if deceased had been attended by a physician at first, whether he would not have been saved.

Dr. Eastes replied that he could not say. Some cases did badly from the first. Deceased always avoided him when he went into the house. It was certainly by his own free will that he did not see him. Deceased's general state of health no doubt accelerated his death. Had he been in better health, the probability was that erysipelas would not have ensued.

In reply to a question by a juror, the Coroner said that no doctor had a right to give a certificate of death when it followed upon injuries received by falling.

Frederick Henry Darley, watchmaker, said he was sent for by Mr. Hoad on Thursday or Friday at midday. He went, and found deceased in the back room on the ground floor. He said “See what an eye I've got. I have sent for some leeches as I want to get the colour out. I want you to hold the glass until the leeches bite”. He put on three leeches. He told witness how the fall occurred. On Saturday afternoon Mrs. Hoad sent for him. She told him her husband was very strange and they could not keep him in bed. He went up into his bedroom, and found deceased sitting on his bed. Only Mrs. Hoad was with him. He induced him to get into bed, and then went away, telling Mrs. Hoad he would return as soon as his business was closed. He went again at half past nine, but did not see deceased. At half past eleven Mrs. Hoad sent for him again. He was then very excited and he told her he would more than one man to take care of him. Two other men were obtained, and witness stayed until six o'clock next morning. He went again at ten o'clock, and remained with deceased until the time of his death, excepting about two hours. Deceased died at a little past three on Monday morning. At ten o'clock on Sunday night he had a sleeping draught, and about twelve he became insensible. He knew deceased had been drinking hard for several weeks, and he remonstrated with him about it, and he promised to give it up.

Thomas Hogben, a barman who was in the employ of the deceased, said deceased told him how the wound on his face was caused. A day or two after he said he thought he should go to Goodliffe's, and witness advised him to do so. He saw deceased on Wednesday morning, and he then had his eye strapped up. He saw him again on Thursday morning. He then said he was queer and should go to bed. On Friday morning deceased sent for him. He went to his bedroom, and deceased gave him some instructions about the beer. On Friday night he saw him again, and by his direction did several acts of business, paying rates and so on. He saw him again on Saturday morning, and again on Saturday night. On Sunday night he saw deceased again, and he was then very delirious. Deceased had been drinking very hard for a month past.

The Coroner said there had been so many absurd reports about that he thought it was necessary to take the evidence at considerable length. But there was no doubt that the deceased's death was caused by his own folly and imprudence in drinking to excess, and by his own neglect. He could have gone himself to a doctor, but did not have surgical attention until his wife sent for Dr. Eastes.

The deceased's brother said all the relations were refused who went to see him.

Dr. Eastes said he gave strict orders that no-one was to be allowed to see deceased, and Mr. Darley said he carried out the doctor's orders. No-one was admitted except those who were in attendance upon him.

The jury returned a verdict that death was caused by exhaustion through delirium tremens and erysipelas.

Folkestone Express 13 February 1892.>

Saturday, February 6th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the Town Hall, on the occasion of a fancy dress ball on the 11th February. Granted.

Folkestone Express 13 August 1892.

Monday, August 8th: Before Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, and J. Fitness Esq.

Edward Anwyl, William Davis, and William Bruce, privates in the West Surrey Regiment, three smart looking soldiers, were charged with being concerned with others, not in custody, with assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliam and another.

Charles Guilliam said he was a Dutch waiter. On Saturday evening from ten o'clock till a quarter to eleven he was in the Guildhall Vaults with John Winfelder and others, drinking together. They were in a bar at the back of the house. They left and returned to the house, entering another bar. There were some soldiers there, and witness “stood treat” and remained with them in the bar about ten minutes. They left together and went to the East Kent Arms just before closing time, and he and his friend treated the soldiers again. There were four or five of them. They left at closing time and went up Sandgate Road as far as Christ Church Road, where they stood talking for a time. Some of his friends left him there and he remained with Winfelder and some soldiers – altogether there were 14 or 15 soldiers – and they wanted some more to drink. He thought they said they could get it at the canteen. He and Winfelder accompanied them along Shorncliffe Road. He could not say he was quite sober – he was a little the worse for drink, but remembered clearly what took place. He walked down arm-in-arm with one of the soldiers, and after he had gone some distance he missed his friend and looked back to see what had become of him, but could not see him. About six or seven soldiers were with him then. A soldier in Scotch uniform came running up to him. Just at that moment one of the other soldiers got hold of his watch chain. He was wearing a gold double-cased keyless watch and a gold Albert chain with twisted links. He requested the soldier to let go, but he would not. He said he had better give it to him till he went back – it was not safe to wear it in the company he was in. He requested the soldier again to leave off, and pushed him away. He called “Help” to the other soldiers. They were close behind, and came running up. The Scotch soldier put his hand inside of his waistcoat, and must have stolen his silk handkerchief and pocket book. He also said “You had better walk on. Your friend will be with you in a minute”. They had a struggle for a minute, the soldiers got hold of his arms, he got free, and ran away towards the town. He missed his watch and chain, pocket book, letter case, a silk handkerchief, his stick and hat. He shouted to his friend, and after a time saw him coming out of a field. He was very excited, had his tie unfastened, no collar on, and his clothes were dirty. He told witness what had happened, and they went together to the police station. On Sunday morning they went with Sergeant Swift to Shorncliffe Camp. A number of men were paraded before them, but they could not identify the men who had assaulted him. He saw the stick produced at the Camp – it was the one he had on Saturday night. He saw no more of his property. The value of the watch and chain was £13. He could not identify any of the prisoners as those who assaulted him.

John Winfelder, also a foreign waiter, said when he was in Shroncliffe Road one of the soldiers he was with tried to get his hand into his trousers pocket. Four or five others came up and knocked him down in a cornfield They held him down by the arms and legs, and took everything he had about him – about 15s. or 20s. in money, a silver watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe and a stick. He cried out for help, and they threatened to kill him. He was not sure as to the men. He also lost a cuff. The man Anwyl was one of the two who walked with him arm-in-arm. He was not sure whether he was one of the men who pushed him in the field, but he supposed he was there. They left him after they had taken everything. He called for Guilliam, who came along a few minutes after, and they went together to the police station. On Sunday they went to the Camp, and witness picked Anwyl out. He identified the stick produced as his property. His watch and chain were worth about £1. He was not quite sober.

By Anwyl: You were not one of the men I saw in the East Kent Arms.

In reply to the Court, he said he first saw Anwyl in Christ Church Road.

Anwyl said it was correct that he was one of the soldiers who walked with witness up Shorncliffe Road.

William Child, a private in the West Surrey Regiment, said he saw the two stick produced, one in the possession of Davis, at 6.30 on Sunday morning. He asked witness the value of the Malacca cane. He said he exchanged his regimental cane for them. Bruce brought the acacia stick and asked what it was worth. He took it from behind his cot.

William Stanley, caretaker of the Recreation Room, Provisional Battalion, said he lent Davis and Bruce 1s. 6d. on the two sticks, and subsequently handed them to the colour sergeant.

Thomas Roblon, colour sergeant in the West Surrey Regiment, said he heard of the robbery about 10.30 on Sunday morning, and received the stick from the last witness. The three prisoners slept in the same barrack room.

Sergeant Swift said the robbery was reported to him at 1.30 on Sunday morning. The men had been drinking and were not sober. Neither of them had a hat on, and they were excited. He went to a field in Shorncliffe Road, near Leigh House. He found a Glengarry cap of the West Surrey Regiment, and a linen cuff. When the men were arrested Bruce said “I have got myself into this through selling that stick”. Davis had on him 6s. 10½d., and the others about 18d. each.

Supt Taylor asked for a remand till Saturday, and it was granted.

Folkestone Express 20 August 1892.

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

William Brice, Edward Anwyl, and William Davis were charged on remand with assaulting and robbing two waiters.

Frederick Harris, a lance corporal in the West Surrey Regiment, was called, and said he was on duty with the quarter guard on Saturday night and saw the three prisoners go into Camp together at three minutes past twelve. They went up to the guard. No other soldiers were with them. They passed the guard and went into quarters.

All three prisoners made long statements of their proceedings on the night in question. Brice denied all connection with the matter or that he was in the company of the other prisoners, and appealed to the Bench to ask them the question.

Anwyl said he left the hut early in the morning of Sunday and found the walking stick.

Davis said he exchanged his regimental cane with a Scotch soldier for the stick in order that the latter might pass the guard, and next morning pawned it for 1s. 6d.

The prisoners were committed for trial at the Sessions.

Folkestone Express 22 October 1892.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 17th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Edward Anwyl, William Bruce, and William Davis were indicted for stealing from the person of John Winfelder a watch and chain, a cigarette case, a pipe, a stick, and 15s. in money.

There was another charge of stealing from the person of Charles Guilliams, but this was dealt with separately.

Mr. Matthews prosecuted. Mr. Tassel defended Anwyl, and Mr. Bowles, by direction of the Recorder, defended Bruce and Davis.

John Winfelder, one of the prosecutors, said he was a waiter. On the 6th August (Saturday night) he was with Guilliams in the East Kent Arms. There were some soldiers there, and they left at closing time and walked up the Shorncliffe Road. When they left they had some conversation with the soldiers. They were talking “some nonsense”, and asked witness to have another drink. He said he did not mind, and they went off to get another drink. Guilliams was in front. Witness was behind with two soldiers. One was a Scotch Guard, and the other a “red”. The Scotch soldier tried to get his hand in witness's pocket, and afterwards ran to Guilliams, and some other soldiers came up from behind, knocked him down, and robbed him of his watch, stick, money, cigarette case and handkerchief. He called out twice to Guilliams for help. He identified Anwyl as the man who was walking with him with one of the Scotch soldiers, but was not sure he was in the field. None of the soldiers stayed in the road. When he met Guilliams they both went to the police station together. Next day they went together to the Camp, and he identified Anwyl, picking him out from about 30 men. He was not drunk when the offence was committed, but he had been drinking.

By Mr. Tassell: I was not drunk and not sober. I know quite well what I did. We left the West Cliff about ten o'clock. We went first to the Guildhall and had a drink, and stayed there some time. At a quarter to eleven I and Guilliams went out and went in again. We did not then stand drinks to the soldiers. Then we went to the East Kent Arms. I can swear I was not drunk, but not just as sober as I am now. The place where the robbery took place was about ten minutes' walk from the West Cliff Hotel. I did not say before the Magistrates that I saw Anwyl in the field. I said I supposed so. (The evidence was read, in which he said “I saw him in the field when I was down”.) I did not say that. The nonsense we were talking was about soldiers. I cannot remember anything Anwyl did. I could not identify any of the Scotch soldiers. Anwyl was not in the Guildhall Vaults with us.

By Mr. Bowles: Neither Bruce nor Davis were in the Guildhall with us. We stood drinks to several soldiers in the East Kent Arms. I did not see Bruce or Davis there. I identified Anwyl as being with me when walking down Shorncliffe Road, but did not see him in the field, nor do I identify Bruce or Davis as having been in the field.

By The Recorder: Anwyl was with me when the Scotch soldier tried to put his hand in my pocket. I only said to him “Leave off!”. Anwyl did not do anything.

Charles Guilliams was called, and Mr. Matthews asked the Recorder whether he should examine him.

The Recorder did not see anything material in his evidence affecting the case of Winfelder, except that he bore out a part of the statements.

Witness was then sworn, and corroborated up to a certain point Winfelder's evidence. Winfelder, he said, was very excited and very dirty after he came out of the field.

By Mr. Tassell: I went with Winfelder in his “little round”. I was not quite sober. I have not been able to identify any single soldier.

Wm. Childs, private in the West Surrey Regiment, said he went on the 8th August to a room, when Davis was in the barracks. Davis showed him the stick produced and asked him the value of it, and he told him it was worth 18d. or 2s. He said he exchanged his regimental stick for it.

By Mr. Bowles: After he asked him the value of the stick he laid it down by the side of his bed.

Wm. Stanley, caretaker of the recreation room of the Provisional Battalion, said on the 8th August he saw Davis at eight o'clock in the morning. He asked him to lend him 18d. on the stick till next day. He said it was his own stick that he had given him in exchange.

By Mr. Bowles: It is not an uncommon thing to lend money just before pay day.

Sergeant Swift said the prosecutors were very excited, and under the influence of drink, when they went to the police station on the 8th of August. He went with them to a field in Shorncliffe Road, and there found a Glengarry cap, a cuff, and some links. The same morning they all went to the Camp together, and Winfelder picked out Anwyl, who was charged with robbing Winfelder. He replied “I never laid a finger on him”. When Davis was charged with being concerned in the assault and robbery he made no reply. Bruce and Anwyl were searched. They only had 1s. 6½d. and 1s. 8d. on them.

By Mr. Bowles: Bruce and Davis were not identified. Sergeant Roblow told me they were in the guardroom.

Frederick Harris, lance corporal in the West Surrey Regiment, said the three prisoners entered the Camp together at three minutes past twelve on the 8th August.

By Mr. Tassell: They all arrived about the same time. They were due in at twelve.

By Mr. Bowles: There may have been 20 others come in at the same time.

Prisoners' statements were put in and read.

Mr. Matthews contended that the jury would consider that the men were guilty at any rate of taking part in the robbery.

The Recorder asked what the evidence against Bruce was.

Mr. Matthews said they were out together.

Mr. Bowles emphasised the Recorder's view.

Mr. Price, a juryman, asked if the cap found in the field could be identified as belonging to either of the prisoners.

The Colour Sergeant was re-called, and said he did not know who the cap belonged to. A man might have two or three. There was no number on the cap, which had been cut down. They had tried to find out who it belonged to, and could not. No Glengarry caps were missing among the men in the guardroom.

Mr. Price: Did the three men return with their caps on?

Harris was re-called, and said they did.

Mr. Tassell said he was extremely obliged to the jury for the manner in which they had brought out the facts of the cap. He then addressed the jury on behalf of Anwyl, and said if it had not been for the fact that he was picked out by Winfelder there would not have been a scrap of evidence against him, and he urged that it was a mistake altogether, and there was no value whatever in the identification. He also referred to the fact that Winfelder, two hours and a half after the public houses were shut up was still, according to Sergeant Swift's evidence, under the influence of drink. He remembered very little, except the identification, which was quite valueless. Even if he did see him, his evidence did not connect Anwyl in any way into the robbery, and from the very first moment he had told one consistent story.

Mr. Bowles addressed the jury on behalf of Bruce, first contending there was no evidence against him. In dealing with the charge against Davis and his dealing with the stick, he urged that his explanation was a very reasonable one, namely that he exchanged his regimental cane for it.

The Recorder said of course one was not inclined to have very much sympathy with people like the prosecutors, going about on a Saturday night spending their wages in public houses. But still the jury had a duty to perform. He scanned the evidence, and said in regard to Anwyl he had lost nothing at the hands of his counsel, and that he had been defended in a manner worthy of the best traditions of the bar, and he congratulated him on the able defence he had made. The evidence against Bruce, he said, was very slight indeed, but in the case of Davis, he said there was evidence of a very important nature. The possession of articles recently stolen had been held to be strong evidence of a guilty knowledge, and Davis was found within a few hours of the stick being stolen trying to dispose of it, and when charged by Swift with stealing a watch and chain, and a walking stick, he made no reply. It was undoubtedly a deplorable state of things that two men in a state of semi-drunkenness should be set upon by soldiers in such a manner, but it was for the jury to say whether either of the men were guilty of stealing or receiving the property stolen.

George Willes, Lieutenant of the 3rd Royal Berkshire Regiment, said Bruce bore a good character in the regiment.

The jury asked to be allowed to retire, and the Recorder was about to adjourn the Court for half an hour, when the jury consulted in the box for a moment, and gave a verdict of Not Guilty.

The Recorder thought the other indictment ought to be proceeded with.

After the adjournment the prisoners were indicted for assaulting and robbing Charles Guilliams. Mr. Mavro-Jain prosecuted, and Mr. Tassell and Mr. Bowles defended the prisoners as in the first case.

Charles Guilliams gave evidence. He said he was out of employment, and lived at 112, Stanford Street, London.

The evidence was practically the same as in the first case.

At the close of the case, the prosecuting counsel said the evidence against Anwyl was very slight. Against Bruce it was stronger, because he was found dealing with a stolen stick, and it was held that that constituted at any rate a knowledge that it was stolen property.

Mr. Tassell submitted that there was no evidence against Anwyl at all, but the Recorder declined to withdraw the case from the jury. Mr. Tassell then said it was especially hard that Anwyl should have to undergo a second trial, when there was absolutely no evidence against him whatever. He had told a simple, straightforward tale, which one jury believed, and acquitted him, and he asked that jury to do the same.

Mr. Bowles contended there was not a single bit of evidence against Davis, and, as regarded Bruce and the stick, the story he told as to finding it was perfectly probable. It might be a foolish thing to do, but it was not an act that ought to convict him of being connected with the robbery.

The Recorder then summed up. He said the evidence as to Anwyl and Davis was of a flimsy character, and he thought that those two should be acquitted. But because one jury acquitted Bruce, it was not to say that another should do so. There was evidence against him of a very cogent nature. Judges had said, and he had said over and over again that when people were found in possession of goods recently stolen, it was stong evidence that they either stole them, or knew them to be stolen, and in such a case the onus was shifted – it was for him to show that he came by them honestly. He summed up strongly against Bruce, chiefly on the ground of the inconsistency of the statements he made. He added further, that if people picked up property and dealt with it it was as much larceny as anything else.

The jury retired, and on their return into Court gave a verdict of acquittal in the case of all three prisoners.

Folkestone Express 26 November 1892.

Wednesday, November 23rd: Before The Mayor, Captain Carter, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, J. Fitness, E. Ward, and J. Holden Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence until twelve o'clock for the carnival dinner to be held on Monday at Maestrani's Restaurant. Granted until eleven o'clock, Mr. Holden remarking that eleven o'clock was late enough for a Mayor's Dinner, and it was late enough for a carnival.

Folkestone Express 3 December 1892.

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

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the Tradesmen's Dinner at Maestrani's Restaurant, from six until eleven next Tuesday. Granted.

Folkestone Express 3 June 1893.

Wednesday, May 31st: Before The Mayor, W. Wightwick and C. Pursey Esqs.

Mr. James Tunbridge renewed his application for an occasional licence for the Yeomanry smoking concert, which was granted, until ten o'clock.

Folkestone Express 7 December 1895.

Saturday, November 30th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell spirits at Mr. Maestrani's Restaurant on the occasion of the Carnival Dinner on Tuesday.

Folkestone Express 18 January 1896.

Monday, January 13th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence to sell at the Central Cafe Restaurant on Wednesday. Granted.

Folkestone Express 29 February 1896.

Saturday, February 22nd: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, S. Penfold and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence to sell at Maestrani's Central Restaurant on the occasion of the Tradesmen's Dinner.

Folkestone Express 30 May 1896.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before The Mayor, C.J. Pursey, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, and J. Brooke Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge applied for an occasional licence for the smoking concert at the Town Hall on Thursday. Granted.

Folkestone Express 27 February 1897.

Saturday, February 20th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Spurgen, and J. Holden and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to supply liquors at Maestrani's Restaurant on the occasion of the Foresters' Dinner.

Folkestone Express 17 June 1899.

Wednesday, June 14th: Before J. Hoad, W. Wightwick, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.,

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell at the cricket field on Saturday.

Folkestone Express 19 July 1899.

Wednesday, July 12th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, and W. Medhurst Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell liquors at a cricket match.

Folkestone Express 29 July 1899.

Wednesday, July 26th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge, Col. Hamilton, and C.J. Pursey Esq.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence to sell on the cricket field during cricket week.

Folkestone Express 9 September 1899.

Saturday, September 2nd: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell at a cricket match.

Folkestone Express 26 May 1900.

Wednesday, May 23rdth: Before J. Hoad, G. Spurgen, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted an occasional licence to sell at the Town hall on the occasion of the Yeomanry Ball.

Folkestone Express 23 June 1900.

Saturday, June 16th: Before J. Pledge and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. J. Tunbridge was granted a temporary licence to sell spirits at the match between Folkestone and Hythe cricket match on the Plain.

Folkestone Express 1 June 1901.

Saturday, May 25th: Before Col. Penfold, Alderman J. Pledge, Colonel Westropp, and T.J. Vaughan, G. Peden, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. Tunbridge was granted an occasional licence for a cricket match on the Plain on Monday.

Folkestone Express 8 June 1901.

Friday, May 31st: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Mr. Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was granted occasional licences for cricket matches on Saturday and Wednesday on the Sandgate Plain.

Folkestone Express 27 July 1901.

Monday, July 22nd: Before Aldermen J. Banks and W. Salter, Col. Hamilton, and W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Arthur Owen, an excursionist, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly on Saturday afternoon.

P.C. Sharpe said about 3.40 p.m. on Saturday he was called to eject the prisoner from the Guildhall Tavern. He did so, and as the prisoner continued his disorderly behaviour and made use of most disgusting language he was obliged to arrest him.

The prisoner said he was an excursionist, and had a glass too much.

He was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days. The Chairman said when an excursionist drank too much he lost himself and his character.

Folkestone Express 8 March 1902.

Monday, March 3rd: Before Aldermen J. Banks and W. Salter, and W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Pte. James Smith, of the Royal Fusiliers, Shorncliffe Camp, was charged with stealing a glass tumbler from the Guildhall Vaults on Sunday evening.

P.C. James Ashby said at 9.40 p.m. on Sunday he was on duty in front of the Town Hall, when he saw prisoner cross from the Guildhall Vaults to get on to the Cheriton omnibus. As he was going up the steps he noticed he had a glass in his hand partly covered with the sleeve of his tunic. Witness went to him and said “What have you done with that glass?”, and at the same time it rolled on to the floor, and to the edge of the top of the bus. When asked to give account of the glass, he said “No; what's it about?” He was taken to the police station and charged with stealing it from the Guildhall Vaults.

Ames Tunbridge, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said the glass produced was similar to those used in the house. He had lost four glasses since Friday. He valued it at 5d.

P.C. Ashby was re-called, and said the glass was damp with beer.

Mr. Wightwick: That beer might come from many places. – Oh, yes.

The Chairman said the Bench did not consider the evidence sufficient to convict the prisoner, and he told him he had had a narrow escape. They therefore dismissed him.

Folkestone Express 15 March 1902.

Wednesday, March 12th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Jeffrey was granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the Guildhall Vaults.

Folkestone Express 26 April 1902/

Wednesday, April 23rd: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and W. Wightwick, W.C. Carpenter, G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. Dudley Jeffrey was granted a transfer of the Guildhall Vaults.

Folkestone Express 16 August 1902.

Saturday, August 9th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

Paul Latsher was charged with wilful damage, assault, and being drunk and disorderly, and George Washington Camp with assault and drunkenness. Both men are Canadians.

P.C. Taylor said on Friday evening, about five o'clock, he was on duty close to the Town Hall, when he saw the prisoners drunk and fighting. He requested them to go away, and as they refused, he took them into custody.

Dudley Jeffrey, landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, said the prisoners came into his house about 4.30 p.m., but he refused to serve them because they were drunk, and were using vile language. He attempted to put them out, but they came in again. Latsher punched him, and drew a knife, remarking that he “would give him a foot of steel”. Witness got them out after a struggle, when Latsher broke the glass door, valued at about £2.

Latsher denied ever having a knife, and Camp said they had had a bet, and the landlord put them out. He asked to be allowed to get his money. This was refused by the proprietor, who said he would put two black eyes on him. They were served with two glasses.

The Chairman said he was sorry to see Canadians disgracing themselves in such a manner. Latsher would be fined £3 1s. for the three charges and the damages, and Camp 14s.

The money was paid.

Notes By The Way.

Two Canadians who got into trouble through having too much to drink on Friday night were before the Magistrates on Saturday. One of them had the misfortune to break a square of glass in a bar door, and he was ordered to pay the damage. Altogether the penalties amounted to upwards of £3, and as the defendants had no money, the Magistrates and the Magistrates' Clerk were in a Coronation mood and, as I am informed, they did not like the idea of sending loyal Canadians to prison, so they had a “whip round”, and paid the fines, costs and penalties which they had imposed. When the men, who seemed to be very respectable fellows, get back to Canada they will entertain very grateful recollections of Messrs. Penfold, Carpenter, Vaughan and Bradley, who certainly did on this occasion temper justice with mercy.

Folkestone Express 27 June 1903.

Friday, June 19th: Before Colonel Penfold, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, G. Peden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults was temporarily transferred from Mr. Jeffrey to Mr. James Filmer, late of Canterbury.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Alderman Vaughan.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults was transferred from Dudley Jeffrey to James Filmer.

Folkestone Express 24 October 1903.

Monday, October 19th: Before Aldermen Banks and Salter, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Leo Bartholomew Noonan, who appeared to feel his position in the dock very keenly, pleaded Guilty to a charge of being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Bourne stated that he was on duty outside the Town Hall at 8.30 the previous evening, when he saw prisoner, who was drunk, trying to force his way into the saloon bar of the Guildhall Vaults. When prevented from entering by the landlord, prisoner used obscene language and refused to go away when requested by witness; consequently he was compelled to take him into custody.

Prisoner, who told the Bench that he was heartily ashamed of his conduct, was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 26 December 1903.

Monday, December 21st: Before W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Arthur Blake, Ernest McKay and Albert Chas. Lewis were brought up on remand, charged with being concerned together in obtaining, by means of false pretences, £2 1s. 6d. from Stephen Collard.

Mr. Haines appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. Minter for Lewis.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said that he did not intend to offer any evidence against the prisoner Lewis, and asked for his discharge.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for Lewis, and, of course, he had no business to complain of the charge being brought against him, but, nevertheless, he wanted to point out that a respectable man was arrested in his own bed at midnight, locked up and brought before the Magistrates, and afterwards discharged without an apology.

The Clerk: There is no evidence against him.

Mr. Minter: Then he had no business to be arrested. Those responsible will be called upon to answer it.

Mr. Wightwick: I must say that I didn't think there was the slightest evidence against him.

Lewis was then discharged, and the case against the other two prisoners proceeded with.

The evidence of the prosecutor, given at the previous hearing, was to the effect that on Thursday last he was in the Guildhall Vaults. Whilst there the two prisoners came in and called for drinks. He entered into conversation with them, and they all had drinks together. About half past three prosecutor said he must be off as he had a little account to pay at the Gas Works. The prisoner McKay thereupon remarked “You need not trouble about that. Here's the collector (pointing to Blake)”. He took £2 1s. 6d. out of his pocket and Blake took it, saying he would send the receipt in the morning as he didn't have the book with him.

Blake: is it a fact that you were intoxicated?

Prosecutor: No.

How many drinks do you think you had in the house? – Five or six.

You say that you handed me the money? – Yes.

Prisoner: Well, I don't know anything about it.

Fanny Filmer, wife of the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, stated that on Thursday last she remembered the prosecutor being in the bar with the prisoners. They were in conversation together, and subsequently prosecutor asked for a pen and ink. One of the prisoners, when the articles were brought, said he didn't require them, as the receipt would be sent in the morning. All three were perfectly sober or else they would not have been served with drink.

By Blake: How many were in the bar at the time? – Three or four besides you.

Mr. Page, collector for the Folkestone Gas Company, said the prosecutor was indebted to the Company for £2 1s. 6d., which amount was still owing. Neither of the prisoners had been in the employ of the company, and they were not authorised to receive any money.

P.S. Dunstan gave evidence as follows:- From information received I went in search of the prisoners, and on Friday I saw them in the Dover Road. I told them that they answered the description of two men who, in company with a third man, obtained £2 1s. 6d. by means of a trick from Stephen Collard, whilst in the bar at the Guildhall Vaults. Blake said “I know nothing about any money”. While on the way to the station he said “I have some money, but I don't know who, and I shall have to rectify it”. He further said “Never mind. I shall have to go through it. There, though. Never mind”.

Blake went into the witness box, and on his oath said: I am a collector and assistant superintendent for the Irish Provident Association, and came to Folkestone last Thursday week. McKay, being one of our sub-agents, had done business with Mr. Filmer regarding plate glass insurance, and that accounted for my being in the house. I called at the house on this occasion to collect a premium off Miss Newman, a barmaid in Mr. Filmer's employ. Whilst there the prosecutor asked me and four or five others who were in the bar to have a drink and cigars. I paid for some, and my friend for others, but the majority were settled for by prosecutor; I should say about eight or nine. There was a phonograph in the bar and it was playing most of the time we were there. The prosecutor seemed to enjoy it and commenced to dance in the bar. I stayed there until 4.30, and no mention was made of any Gas Company, nor did I receive any money.

Mr. Haines: Then you admit that what the police officer stated was correct? – No. I deny it partly. I may have mentioned something about some money I should have to make up, but it was to do with the insurance.

Blake called the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults (James Filmer) as a witness. He stated that he saw no money handed to him (the prisoner) because he was in the billiard room. The prosecutor was a little jolly, but nothing out of the way.

Mr. Wightwick: What do you mean?

Witness: Well, the phonograph was going, and he wanted to jump about, but I stopped it.

Blake: Is it correct that you have a policy with our company? – Yes.

Was the prosecutor sober? – I should say that he was sober. I saw nothing the matter with him.

McKay's statement on oath was as follows:- I was formerly agent for the Irish Provident Association. My superintendent came down from London with Mr. Blake and explained to me that as business was very quiet Mr. Blake was going to take my book over. I have two good references with the company, and a bond. The superintendent looked over the books and everything was settled.

The Clerk: Get on with the facts connected with the case and to what happened in the Guildhall Vaults.

McKay: Well, I went to the Guildhall Vaults with Mr. Blake and another gentleman – Mr. Lewis – and we had several drinks together. When we were in the company of prosecutor he started to talk about different things, and I heard him say something about gas. I visited the convenience, and when I came back Blake had gone, and I, with Lewis, had a drink with the prosecutor. As to any money being passed, I know nothing about it. I am innocent, and I think it is very hard after being in Folkestone five years.

Mr. Wightwick, addressing the prisoners, said it was a case for a jury to decide, and therefore they would be committed to take their trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Each prisoner was offered bail in a sum of £25, and a further sum of £25.

Folkestone Express 9 January 1904.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday, January 1st: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Arthur Blake (28), agent, and Ernest McKay (31), agent, pleaded Not Guilty to an indictment against them of “unlawfully and knowingly obtaining, by false pretences, of and from Stephen Collard, the sum of £2 1s. 6d., the monies of the said Stephen Collard, on the 17th December, 1903, at Folkestone”.

Mr. Matthew appeared for the prosecution, and McKay was defended by Mr. Weigall, barrister. Blake was not legally represented.

Counsel for the prosecution, in opening the case, dwelt upon the facts elicited at the Police Court (and which were fully reported in our columns a week or so ago). It will be remembered that the two prisoners went into the Guildhall Tavern, where they met the prosecutor. All three entered into conversation, and prosecutor stood several drinks. After remaining in the house for close upon two hours and a half, the prisoners were informed by the prosecutor that he had a gas bill to pay, whereupon McKay said “You need not trouble about going to the Gas Works. Here is the collector (pointing to Blake)”. The amount of the bill - £2 1s. 6d. – was then paid to Blake, and the prisoners promised to send the receipt in the morning. After the transaction both Blake and McKay left the house.

Evidence to this effect was given by the prosecutor (Stephen Collard), who said he was perfectly sober at the time.

The Recorder: Why did you give this money to Blake?

Prosecutor: Because he represented himself to be the collector of the Gas Company.

Prisoner Blake: You say you were not intoxicated in that house? – No.

Why did you commence to dance and sing? – I did not do so.

How much money do you think you gave to the concertina man? – Two shillings.

Mr. Weigall: You have told us that you are not in any employment now?

Prosecutor: No.

You were employed at the Harbour as a flagman, I believe? – Yes.

When did you leave? – About two months ago.

Was that after a visit to Dover? – No.

Why did you leave? – Because I was absent without leave.

Where had you been? – To Chatham.

It was a sudden disappearance, I believe? – Oh, no. Not at all.

Did your family know you were there? – My son knew.

Did your family go to the police? – They might have done.

You have lost your memory? – No, not at all.

Then why do you suppose that your family went to the police station to make inquiries about you? – I don't know.

They must have thought it was rather a sudden and eccentric disappearance? – I don't know.

Did the police eventually find you? – No.

Did they bring you back? – No.

The Recorder: Did they find you, or did you find yourself? – I found myself.

Without having lost yourself? (Laughter) – I never lost myself.

Mr. Wiegall: You suffer from a little mental aberration, I believe? – Yes.

Do you know what it is? – No. (Loud laughter)

In further cross-examination, prosecutor said that he knew perfectly well what transpired. He was quite collected.

James Filmer, landlord of the Guildhall Tavern, Mrs. Filmer, Walter S. Page (collector to the Gas Company), and P.S. Dunster were also called to bear out the evidence that they gave when the prisoners were first charged.

In cross-examination Mr. and Mrs. Filmer both said they did not see the money handed to Blake.

Addressing the petty jury, Blake made a long statement, in which he emphatically denied that he took any money from the prosecutor, or that he was represented to be the collector of the Gas Co. If collector was mentioned it must have been in connection with his business as an agent of the Irish Provident Association.

McKay elected to give evidence on oath, stating that Blake came to Folkestone to take over his book, as business had been slack of late. The prosecutor was absolutely drunk and danced about, and the landlord told him to be careful, or else he would knock the gas stove over. He did not introduce Blake as the collector of the Gas Company – he told Collard that he was the collector of the Irish Provident. Something was said about gas, but he did not know what.

Albert Charles Lewis, a pianoforte tuner, residing in Canterbury Road, said he was in company with the two prisoners in the Guildhall Tavern. The prosecutor seemed a “little lively”, but he was not drunk. Blake left the house before witness, who went in a cab with McKay to the Black Bull. Witness was the worse for drink, and was away sick and bad when the job happened.

George Kirby, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, deposed that McKay was in his employ nine months as billiard marker, and he was very honest indeed.

Mr. Weigall, on behalf of McKay, delivered a forcible address to the jury, asking them to remember that they were dealing with a man of proved good character. Reviewing the evidence, counsel urged that the statement of the prosecutor was not to be relied upon, because of defects in his memory. He appealed to them to say that the evidence was not sufficient to convict.

Mr. Matthew also addressed the jury, who brought in a verdict of Guilty after a few minutes' consultation.

Chief Constable Reeve reported that Blake, who belonged to London, was, in 1896, at the Central Criminal Court, indicted on a charge of burglary, and bound over; whilst in 1899, on a charge of housebreaking, he was sentenced to 21 calendar months, with hard labour.

The Recorder: Where is this Association that employs these housebreakers?

Supt. Reeve: I don't know anything about it. I have never heard the name before.

Blake: The London office is in Chancery Lane. I have been in regular employment since I was released from prison. When I was appointed I had to find two referees as a bond. Before this I was employed at the London Docks – first as an extra hand for eighteen months, and then a similar term as a regular hand, but owing to slackness of work I had to go.

Blake handed to the Recorder a letter testifying as to his character while employed at the London Docks.

Much to the amusement of those in Court, McKay said he was a single man, but hoped to be married next month.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said: The jury have found you Guilty of conspiring to defraud this man Collard, and it is a verdict I entirely agree with. I much regret to find men standing before me who are described, and there is no reason to doubt it, as men of good education, well-instructed, and in a position apparently of agents responsible to an insurance company of repute. In the sentence I am going to pass, I intend to shut my eyes to the previous convictions of Blake, because I believe that he has tried to earn an honest living since he was released on the last occasion, inasmuch as there is a certificate from the Docks to the effect that he left with a good character. I must point out that men, even when they are the worse for liquor, must be protected against men such as you are. As for you, McKay, I am afraid your matrimonial engagement will have to be slightly deferred. Each of you will be imprisoned with hard labour for three calendar months.

Folkestone Express 16 April 1904.

Wednesday, April 13th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Westropp, G.I. Swoffer and J. Stainer Esqs.

The Magistrates agreed to slight alterations at the Guildhall Tavern being made.

Folkestone Express 19 November 1904.

Tuesday, November 15th: Before W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer Esqs.

Teresa Maestrani and Louis Maestrani, restaurant proprietors, were summoned in four instances for selling wines, spirits, and beer without a licence at their restaurant at 26, Guildhall Street, on August 14th. Mr. J.H. Shaw, barrister, of the solicitors' department, Somerset House, prosecuted, and Mr. Minter defended.

Mr. Shaw, having given details of the offences alleged, called the following evidence:

James John Hayward, an officer of Inland Revenue, said on August 14th, in company with Mr. Bate, he went to the Guildhall Restaurant. They went in at seven minutes past eight in the evening. Mr. Louis Maestrani held a refreshment house licence for it. There was a wine list similar to the one produced on the tables in the restaurant. Witness ordered supper, and at 8.20 witness called the waiter and ordered a small bottle of St. Julien. The price on the wine list was 2s. The waiter asked for the money and witness gave him a sovereign. He left the premises and returned at 8.26 and said he could not get St. Julien, but asked if a bottle of Bordeaux would do. Witness replied “Yes”. The waiter had it with him, and said it was 1s. 6d., and gave witness 18s. 6d. change. At 8.37 Mr. Bate ordered one liqueur of brandy and an Allsopp's lager beer. The waiter said the brandy was 6d. and the beer 3d. Mr. Bate gave the waiter 2s. At 8.41 the waiter returned and served them with the lager and the brandy, giving Mr. Bate 1s. 3d. change. They paid for their supper and left at 8.45. On August 16th Mr. Bate and himself went to the restaurant at 7.53 in the evening. At 7.55 witness ordered two black coffees and two liqueur brandies, giving the waiter 1s. for brandy. He left the premises, and at one minute past eight he returned and served them with the liqueur. He gave them no change. After that he kept observation outside, and afterwards saw Mr. Cope enter the house, keeping observation until he came out again.

Percy Hart Bate, another Inland Revenue Officer, corroborated the former witness's evidence.

Alfred William Cope, another officer, said on August 14th he was with Mr. Davies outside the Guildhall Restaurant keeping observations from the time the last witnesses entered until they left. At 8.21 witness saw a waiter leave the restaurant. He followed him and went to the Guildhall Vaults. There he was served with a small bottle of Bordeaux, and the proprietor said to him “It is tenpence to you”. The waiter placed a sovereign on the counter and received change, and a check till on the counter showed 10d. The waiter returned to the restaurant with the wine. At 8.37 a waiter and a boy left the restaurant. Witness followed them. The boy went into the public house, and the waiter went to Maestrani's licensed premises in Sandgate Road. Witness followed him in and heard him speak to a man behind the counter, and he received from the man a bottle wrapped in paper. He returned to the restaurant with the bottle. He did not see him pay any money. Witness also saw the boy join the waiter and go in with him. The boy was carrying a glass which appeared to contain brandy. On the 16th August he again watched the restaurant with Mr. Davies. At 7.56 in the evening, witness had previously seen the two officers go into the restaurant, a waiter went to the Guildhall Vaults. Witness followed, and the waiter obtained brandy in a tumbler, placed 1s. on the counter, and received two pennies change. He returned to the restaurant with the brandy, Mr. Davies following the waiter into the restaurant. In consequence of directions from Mr. Davies he went into the restaurant after the other two had left. He saw a tumbler containing brandy on a shelf behind the counter. He asked for a coffee and brandy. The waiter went to the tumbler containing the brandy, filled the liqueur glass, and served it to witness. As the waiter served the brandy, a customer asked the waiter if he could have brandy. He gave the waiter some money, and the waiter poured the brandy from the tumbler into the liqueur glass. On the 29th August he went with Mr. Davies and saw the landlord of the public house and Mr. Louis Maestrani.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not hear what the waiter said when he went to the Sandgate Road restaurant. It appeared to be a bottle he received.

Re-examined, he said he did not lose sight of the waiter.

James Blake Davies, Inspector of the Inland Revenue Preventive Department, corroborated Mr. Cope's statement. He said when the waiter returned with what appeared to be a bottle, he followed him into the restaurant and went to the counter and asked for a sponge cake. He stood there and saw the waiter take the wrapper from the bottle and place it on the counter. It was a small bottle of Allsopp's lager beer. The boy who went in with the waiter handed a tumbler containing a liquid the colour of brandy, and pulled the till out and put a copper in. The waiter placed the beer on the tray, and poured out a portion of the brandy into a liqueur glass and placed it on the tray, and took it across to a table at which Messrs. Bate and Hayward sat. Witness then left, and shortly afterwards came out. On August 16th he also made observations with Mr. Cope. At 7.56 he saw the waiter go towards the Guildhall Vaults. On his return witness followed him into the restaurant. He had in his hand a tumbler containing what appeared to be brandy. He pulled the till out, threw two penny pieces into it, took down two liqueur glasses, and filled each from the tumbler, leaving in the tumbler about half, and placed the tumbler on the shelf behind him, and placed the two liqueur glasses on a tray and went across to Messrs. Bate and Hayward. Witness went out and gave certain directions to Mr. Cope, and remained on observation. Immediately Bate and Hayward left, he and Mr. Cope entered. From that time until Mr. Cope came out no-one left or entered the restaurant. On August 29th he went to the Guildhall Vaults and saw Mr. Filmer, who made a statement which witness took down. On August 30th he went to Mr. Louis Maestrani's private residence. Witness told him who he was, and in consequence of complaints received certain steps had been taken, and officers had visited his premises and made purchases of beer, spirits, and wine. Witness also told him he had seen a Mr. Filmer and obtained the following statement from him: I charge over the counter 1s. for Bordeaux, but 10d. to the restaurant. I should be satisfied with a profit of 3d. or 4d. per bottle. If 10d. worth of brandy, I should say that it was cognac, according to the quantity obtained”. Mr. Maestrani then said “I am in partnership with my mother in the businesses at Sandgate Road, Guildhall Street, and South Street. As to Guildhall Street, if intoxicants were ordered, money would be asked for in advance, and the beer would be fetched from Mr. Filmer's, next to the tobacconist's, except on the Sunday; the waiter would fetch beer and wine also from Mr. Filmer”. Witness then said “I will put it to you a waiter went from Guildhall Street to Sandgate Road and brought back lager for a customer at Guildhall Street”. He replied “Well, I am aware that would be wrong”. Witness asked him which business he particularly attended, and defendant replied “I am generally at Guildhall Street”. Witness then said “I will put it to you that wine has been brought from Mr. Filmer's to customers at Guildhall Street, and the customers charged much more for it than was paid at Mr. Filmer's”. He replied “ I make a little profit. Perhaps he charges 10d. for a bottle of medoc, and I would charge 1s. or else we should not get any profit”. Witness asked him what his practice was with regard to liqueur brandies, and he said “If two liqueurs of brandy were ordered, we would pay 10d. for it and charge 1s. We would sell the whole of the brandy to the customers and charge 1s. We do not keep liqueur glasses. We should not sell the brandy in the timblers”. Witness then told him tenpennyworth of brandy had been purchased, and that he knew three liqueur glasses charged at 6d. had been secured from that. Witness showed him the wine list which was obtained from the restaurant, and he replied “We have an arrangement with Mr. Hammerton, but we have not had a settlement yet. Our arrangement was made about three months ago”. Then witness pointed to champagne shown on the list, and he replied “We would charge 11s. a bottle, and pay Mr. Hammerton 7s. 6d. for it. We should get a profit of 1s. 6d. on a 2s. bottle of wine. That is, we should charge 3s. 6d. for it by our arrangement with Mr. Hammerton”. Witness told him if he would go down to Guildhall Restaurant, perhaps he would be able to show him liqueur glasses. He accompanied him, and witness pointed out the liqueur glasses behind the counter on a shelf. Afterwards witness saw the other defendant and read over the statements to her. Mrs. Maestrani's daughter was present and she said she was part proprietor of the shops, and that her husband was manager over them. She also said that they had applied for licences nine times. Mrs. Maestrani said “I cannot say anything”.

Edward Pinnex, and officer of the Inland Revenue stationed at Dover, said he produced his entry book and survey book. There was no excise licence to sell intoxicating liquors at 26, Guildhall Street, although there was a refreshment house licence, which was in the name of Louis Maestrani. Neither of the defendants had made an entry in those books.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the defendants, said the summonses were most unfairly worded because they simply said that wine, spirits, and beer were sold in the Borough of Folkestone. He thought he might fairly say that the summons was insufficient. On account of their vagueness he thought they ought to be dismissed. They would remember that the learned gentleman who appeared for the Inland Revenue said it was a joint offence. What was the evidence which showed that it was a joint offence? There was not one single bit of evidence against Mrs. Maestrani. The evidence of Mr. Pinnex showed that the refreshment house licence was held by Mr. Louis Maestrani, not by Mrs. Teresa Maestrani. There was no proof whatever, with the exception of Mr. Louis Maestrani's statement that Mrs. Teresa Maestrani was connected with the restaurant. However, in his opinion, that statement was not legal evidence. The person who was responsible was the man who held the licence. That being so, they were entitled to have the summons against both defendants dismissed.

Mr. Shaw submitted that no evidence had been called to disprove the fact that Mrs. Maestrani was not in partnership.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were of opinion that the summons was not vague, and that there was sufficient evidence to show that Mrs. Maestrani was in partnership with her son.

Mr. Minter thereupon submitted that there was no evidence to show that the liquid was either wine, spirit or beer, because none of the witnesses stated that they had drank the liquid.

The Chairman said the Bench had considered the cases, and had come to the conclusion that they were proved in every case. Although the penalty was in two of the cases £50, and £20 each in the other two cases, yet the Magistrates had decided to make it as light as possible. Each defendant would be fined 20s. and costs in each case.

Mr. Shaw applied for special costs as the witnesses had all come from London.

Mr. Minter said they could only plead for mercy.

The Chairman said the Court fees were 9s. in each case, which totalled up to £3 12s. Therefore they did not feel justified in allowing any further costs.

The same defendants were summoned for two similar offences in respect to the restaurant 2 and 4 South Street.

Mr. Shaw said the cases were similar to those the Magistrates had heard. The restaurant was licensed as a refreshment house in the name of Mrs. Teresa Maestrani.

Mr. Hayward said on August 15th he and Mr. Bate went into the restaurant in South Street. They went in at ten minutes past twelve. They ordered dinner and he asked for a wine list, and the waiter produced a written one. Witness ordered a large bottle of St. Julien at 12.25. The price on the list was 4s. The waiter asked for the money, and witness gave him half a sovereign, and he returned at 12.33 with the bottle of wine, handing witness 6s. change. At 12.45 Mr. Bate ordered two liqueur brandies and gave the waiter 1s. At 12.49 the brandies were served. Witness consumed one of the brandies and part of the wine.

Mr. Bate, who accompanied the last witness, corroborated what he said.

Mr. Cope said that he was with Mr. Davies keeping observation outside the restaurant. At 12.29 witness saw a waiter leave the restaurant. Witness followed him to the South Foreland public house. He received a bottle of St. Julien and placed a half sovereign on the counter and received 8s. change. The waiter took the wine into the restaurant. At 12.46 the same waiter left the restaurant and went to the public house and asked for eight pennyworth of brandy. He received it and took it to the shop. He accompanied Mr. Davies when he saw Mr. Maestrani and Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Davies said on August 15th he kept observation on the restaurant. On August 29th he went to the South Foreland and saw Mr. Jordan and took a statement from him. Mr Jordan said “I have an arrangement with Mr. Carlo Maestrani. I supply them with a small Bass at 2½d. and they charge 3d. A large Bass I charge 4d. and they 6d. They get a penny a pint out of each beer transaction. I should charge Maestrani 2s. for a bottle of medoc or St. Julien, and to the public 4s. If they came to me for eight pennyworth of brandy I should serve them from the tap”. When asked about the wine list, Mr. Maestrani said he was not sure whether they had one at South Street. They did not make any profit on any of the wine, but the merchant would allow them twopence or threepence, which would depend upon what was ordered. Defendant said his mother and sister attended to that shop, and he was in partnership with them.

Mr. Pinnex said there was no entry of an excise licence to sell intoxicating liquors on the premises.

Mr. Minter said the case was a little different to the others. There was no evidence against Louis Maestrani beyond his statement that he was in partnership. Broadly, there was no evidence to show that the wine and brandy had been sold on the premises.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were of opinion that the cases were on all fours with the previous cases, and they would inflict the same penalty, 20s. fine in each case, and Court fees.

The Court then adjourned for lunch.

Folkestone Express 7 January 1905.

Monday, January 2nd: Before J. Stainer Esq., Lieut. Col. Westropp, and G.I. Swoffer Esq.

Albert Wilkinson, a sailor, and Fidele Hart, of the 2nd Dragoons, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street, and Hart was further charged with resisting the police in the execution of their duty. Hart pleaded Guilty to both charges, and Mr. Minter, who appeared for Wilkinson, pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Boughton said at 10.10 on Saturday evening he was on duty in Rendezvous Street, where he saw the two prisoners drunk and shouting at the top of their voices. He then followed them to the Guildhall Tavern, and drew the landlord's attention to their condition. Witness left the house, and was shortly after called by the landlord to eject the prisoners, who refused to leave the premises. Witness having got them out, requested them several times to go away quietly, but they refused. Witness then took Wilkinson into custody, and Hart jumped upon witness's back and tried to release Wilkinson. With the assistance of P.C.s Sharp and Simpson witness took them both into custody.

Hart said he was very sorry; he did not know what he was doing.

Mr. Minter said Wilkinson was sorry and he (Mr. Minter) hoped the Bench would take a lenient view of the case.

Prisoners were each fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs for drunkenness, or in default seven days', and Hart was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days', for resisting the police.

Folkestone Express 8 September 1906.

Monday, September 3rd: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

Henry Murray Taylor, a respectably dressed young man of good appearance, was placed in the dock, charged with obtaining credit by fraud, and also with larceny.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was arrested on a warrant in London for obtaining credit by false pretences, but, from other enquiries made, they had found that he had stolen a quantity of jewellery from the London and Paris Hotel. He, therefore, offered no evidence in the charge of false pretences, and would only deal with the charge of theft.

Mr. G.B. Gray, the proprietor of the London and Paris Hotel, said on August 22nd the prisoner came to his place and asked for accommodation. He said he wished to stay at the hotel until the Thursday morning, when his father and mother were coming. Witness knew the prisoner's father and mother very well. He took him into the hotel, and on the first night, owing to the hotel being so full, he slept in prosecutor's bedroom. On the following night, until the 26th, he occupied another bedroom on another floor. On the 27th he left without paying his bill. On Wednesday, August 29th, prosecutor went to his own bedroom and made a search. From a drawer of the dressing table he missed one lady's five stone diamond ring, one three stone diamond ring, one gold watch chain with pendant attached, one gent's sapphire and diamond pin, and a gent's signet ring, value about £32. He last saw the jewellery safe on August 20th. Prisoner only slept in his bedroom once. The pin, chain, pendant, and ring produced he identified as part of the missing property.

James Filmer, the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, Guildhall Street, said the prisoner on August 24th came to his house and said he had been to the races and was broke. He also asked him to lend him 5s., and handed to witness the lady's gold chain. Afterwards he asked him if he would take care of a diamond ring, because he had been drinking and might lose it. He also asked how much he owed witness, and he told him 2s. Prisoner then asked him to let him have another 3s., and make it 10s., saying he would let him have it, as he was sending for it from his father. About half past ten on the following day he came to the house again, and asked him to let him have another £1. Witness declined. And told him he was not a money lender. Prisoner then said he had no money, and asked him to let him have a shilling or two. Witness gave him 2s. 6d. On Saturday last Detective Sergeant Burniston called upon him, and he handed him the diamond pin produced. He was also present when the Detective Sergeant searched Taylor and found on him the pendant and ring.

The Chief Constable said that was all the evidence he could offer that morning. It was necessary to make further enquiries with a view to recovering the missing property, therefore he asked for a remand for a few days.

The prisoner was therefore remanded until Friday.

Folkestone Express 15 September 1906.

Friday, September 7th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Hugh Murray Taylor, a respectably dressed young fellow, was charged on remand with stealing a quantity of jewellery, valued at £32, the property of George B. Gray, of the London and Paris Hotel.

The evidence of Mr. Gray and Mr. Filmer, given at the previous hearing on Monday, was read over.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said on Friday, August 31st, he received a warrant for the prisoner's arrest on another charge. He proceeded to London, and at 8.00 a.m. the following day he found the prisoner in bed at No. 12, Torrington Square. He read the warrant to him and told him he was a police sergeant. Prisoner replied “I am very sorry this has happened. I know I told Gray a lie, and I hope this can be settled”. He took him into custody, and afterwards to Tottenham Court Road police station, where he was detained. Later he brought him to Folkestone police station, where he was formally charged with obtaining credit from George Gray, of the London and Paris Hotel, by false pretences. He made no reply. He searched the prisoner, and found in his possession 8d. in money, some papers relating to horse racing, and also the paper on which was written in pencil “28 August 06, Guildhall Vaults, Folkestone. You owe me 12s. 6d., for which I have a diamond crusted scarf pin and a gold watch chain, to be forfeited by September 1st, 1906. Signed C. Filmer and H. Harvey”. In consequence of that paper he called on Filmer, who handed him the diamond scarf pin and also the gold watch chain produced. After they had been identified by Mr. Gray, he said to prisoner “You will be further charged with stealing between the 22nd and 26th August, from a bedroom at the London and Paris Hotel, a five stone diamond ring, a three stone diamond ring, a signet ring, a gold Albert chain and pendant, and a diamond scarf pin”. He cautioned the prisoner, who said “I admit taking the whole of the articles, except the three stone diamond ring. I pawned one ring in London for £9. You will find the other ring and gold pendant in the urinal of the Guildhall Vaults”. Witness went there, and in the presence of Filmer he found the articles on the top of the cistern. They were also identified by Gray. On Monday he proceeded to London, accompanied by Gray, and went to Davison Bros., pawnbrokers, 59, Cheapside, where he was shown the five stone diamond ring, which was identified by Mr. Gray as his property.

Walter John Morris, assistant in the employ of Davison Bros., said the prisoner, to the best of his belief, pledged the ring. Prisoner came to the shop the first time on August 27th, when he left the ring produced. Prisoner then asked for £8 on it, so he lent it to him. He gave the name of H. Harvey, of 76, Gower Street, and witness handed him a ticket. Prisoner again came on August 29th, and asked for a further loan of £1 on the ring, and he lent it to him. The man gave him the ticket he received on the Monday, and witness handed him the duplicate of the ticket produced.

Mr. Gray, re-called, identified the ring produced by Mr. Morris as his property.

Prisoner said he called at Mr. Gray's on Wednesday about half past five, and he told him he could sleep up in his room. They stayed up until the early hours of the morning, having some refreshment, and then went off to bed. He half undressed, and he saw the drawer in his room was a little open. As he waited for Mr. Gray to come up he had a look in the drawer and took the things mentioned except the three stone ring. He put them in his pocket. He got into bed and woke up about half past seven in the morning, and looked round for Mr. Gray and he found he had not slept there all night. He, therefore, thought he was in the wrong room. He put on his things and went downstairs, and Mr. Gray told him he had not been up to bed. He had a little refreshment, and put his hand in his pocket and found the jewellery. He did not know what to do with it, so he hid them all at first. He asked Mr. Filmer, as he had not got any money, and he lent him what he wanted, and he (the prisoner) asked him to keep them as security. Of course he pawned the five stone ring. If he had been sober he would not have done such a thing.

The prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, bail being offered, himself in £50, and two sureties of £25 each.

Folkestone Express 13 October 1906.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 8th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

Hugh Murray Taylor, 22, described as a stationer, was charged with stealing a five stone diamond ring, a three stone diamond ring, a gold signet ring, a gold Albert chain, a gold tassel, and a diamond and sapphire scarf pin, to the value of £32, the property of George Barclay Gray, of the London and Paris hotel, on August 23rd. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Matthew, on behalf of the prosecution, said the prisoner seemed to have taken a room at the hotel on August 23rd. In the room he occupied there were various valuable articles of jewellery. Taylor seemed to have opened the drawer and to have taken them out, and afterwards left the hotel without paying his bill. The things were not missed for a few days, and when the prisoner was apprehended, it appeared he had handed one of the rings to a man named Filmer, the landlord of the Guildhall Vaults, who lent him 12/6 on it, because the man represented he had lost his money at the races. He had also hidden some of the jewellery on the same premises, and others he pledged with a pawnbroker in London.

Prisoner handed in a statement to the Recorder, in which he said he went to Folkestone races on August 22nd. He went to the hotel, and Mr. Gray told him he could have a room. Four or five of them sat up drinking, and when he went to bed he was the worse for drink. He took the jewellery out of a drawer and put it in his pocket. He, however, did not touch the three stone diamond ring. Next morning he found the jewellery in his pocket when he got downstairs, and he did not know what to do with it. He hid some of it, and pawned some of it. He would not have done it if he had been sober. It was the first time he had been locked up. He had promised his mother and father he would turn over a new leaf. He was going abroad in order to get an honest living. He would do nothing wrong again.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner's father was a very respectable man living in London, and kept a boarding house in Torrington Square. He had given prisoner a good education, and his parents had done everything the possibly could to keep him right. Witness had learnt from the Metropolitan Police that he had been denied his own home, and that his parents would not have anything to do with him He was the associate of betting men, prostitutes, and bullies. He had been a great nuisance to his parents. A few nights before his arrest, prisoner had broken in and robbed his father's own house, and the property stolen had been found in pledge in London.

Prisoner said he was very sorry for what he had done.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said he had received a letter from his father, who asked him to deal as leniently as he could with him, and arrangements would be made to send him to Canada. Those arrangements could be made while he was in prison, and in the meantime he would be imprisoned with hard labour for three calendar months.

The pawnbroker's assistant asked if the ring was to be paid for before it was returned to the owner.

The Recorder said there were no grounds for blaming the pawnbroker in that case, and he should leave the matter to be arranged by the two parties.

Folkestone Express 8 December 1906.

Monday, December 3rd: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggett, T. Ames, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Sarah Tindall, evidently a respectable young woman, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Saturday night near the Town Hall. She pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Rew said he was on duty outside the Town Hall on Saturday night at five minutes past eleven, when he was called to the Guildhall Vaults by the landlord. On going inside he saw the prisoner, who was screaming at the top of her voice. Her friends took her outside, and when near the Queen's Hotel she fell on her back and could not get up again. He then took her to the police station.

Prisoner said she was very sorry and hoped it would not occur again.

The Chief Constable said the young woman lived at Hythe. She assured him, and he believed her, that she went to the house and had only two glasses of stout, and she thought something was done to her drink.

The young woman informed the Magistrates that she was in the house with her sister, while the constable who gave evidence said there were several soldiers round her in the house.

The Chairman (to prisoner): You will have to pay 2s. 6d. fine and 4s. 6d. costs. For goodness sake keep out of public houses. If you had not gone into one, you would have not had this trouble.

Folkestone Express 6 July 1907.

Wednesday, July 3rd: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and T. Ames Esq.

William John McElroy was charged with being drunk and disorderly. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Sales stated that the prisoner was in the Guildhall Vaults and was drunk. He had his coat and hat off, and refused to leave the premises when requested by the barman. Witness ejected him and was obliged to take him into custody.

McElroy was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 23 November 1907.

Monday, November 18th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

A smart-looking private in the 20th Hussars, named Charles Brian, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Saturday afternoon. He pleaded Guilty to the offence.

P.C. Leonard Johnson was on Saturday, shortly after noon, in front of the Town Hall, when he saw Brian, who was very drunk, go into the Guildhall Vaults. He therefore followed, and heard the prisoner refused drink and told to leave. He assisted the barmaid to get the soldier outside, and when in the street Brian kept catching hold of his coat sleeves. He refused to go away quietly, so the constable had to take him into custody.

Prisoner had nothing to say, and an officer from the regiment informed the Bench that the man had been in the regiment six years, and had gained two good conduct stripes.

The Chief Constable said on Sunday morning Brian complained of being ill, so Dr. Bateman was sent for, and he certified that the man was suffering from the effects of an alcoholic bout.

The Bench inflicted a fine of 5s., and ordered defendant also to pay 7s. 6d. doctor's fees, and 4s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 7 December 1907.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

An application was made for a slight alteration at the Guildhall Vaults, and permission was granted.

Folkestone Express 2 May 1908.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Arthur James Hogben pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly the previous evening.

P.C. Kettle said at 8.45 p.m. he was on duty in front of the Town Hall, when he saw the prisoner, who came from the urinal and went into the Guildhall Vaults. Witness, seeing prisoner's condition, advised them not to serve him. Prisoner came out, and witness advised him to go away. Hogben refused to go and became abusive, and a crowd of people beginning to gather, witness took him into custody.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner had not been there for several years.

The Bench imposed a fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'. Time was allowed for payment.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1908.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. Filmer, of the Guildhall Vaults made an application to be allowed to keep an electric gun on the premises. There was no game of chance attached to it, and the rifles had been allowed in many towns and cities in place of the cigar automatic machines. Permission was granted.

Folkestone Express 5 February 1910.

Monday, January 31st: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton, and Major Legget.

A young man named Sidney Alfred Smith, married and living at Folkestone, was charged with indecently assaulting Ellen Staple on Saturday evening. The court was cleared and the case was heard in camera.

Ellen Staple said she was the wife of Edward Staple, an engine fitter, and lived at 7, Garden Road. On Saturday evening, about 11.30, she was in Bradstone Road. She was returning home alone. She was near the Viaduct, when she saw the prisoner walking towards her. As he was passing he said “Goodnight”. Witness answered “Goodnight” and looked round to see who it was. Prisoner was a stranger to her. As she looked round, prisoner also looked round, and then turned and followed her. She continued to walk on. Prisoner overtook her near the Corporation gate, just through the Viaduct, and caught hold of her by the shoulder. He said something to her, and she replied “It would pay you better to go about your business. I am a married woman”. The prisoner then dragged her across the road towards Kent Road, in the direction of the passage which runs at the rear of Bradstone Avenue. Witness resisted him, and said she was not going along there. Finding he was getting the better of her, she screamed and told prisoner if he did not let her go she would give him in charge. Prisoner then put his hand over her mouth and she bit his hand, which caused him to remove it. Prisoner then said that if she screamed he would choke her, and he placed some soft substance in her mouth. He was carrying a bag under his arm. Prisoner and witness at that time were in the passage at the rear of the second house in Bradstone Avenue. Witness screamed “Murder” and “Police”, and prisoner then pushed the soft substance further into her mouth. He then indecently assaulted her. Someone called from one of the windows of the houses in Bradstone Avenue “What's the matter over there?” and prisoner ran away in the direction of Foord Road. Witness walked to the top of the passage, where she met P.C. Waters. She made a complaint to him as to what had happened. P.C. Butler was at the corner of Kent Road and Foord Road, and witness went across to him and said “Have you seen a tall man about?” Prisoner immediately came from the direction of the Viaduct, in Foord Road, and said “I'm the tall man you're looking for”. Witness then gave him into custody. Witness had been in the town with her husband shopping, and met two young women who worked in the same laundry. She left her husband at 8.30 in High Street, and from that time until ten minutes to eleven she was in company with the two women. She left them in South Street, and then went to look for her husband, but she did not find him. The affair with the prisoner lasted about ten minutes. Nobody passed during that time.

Cross-examined by prisoner, witness said she did not see him in the Brewery Tap in the early part of the evening, and she did not ask him to treat her. She did not see him outside of his house in Bradstone Road and ask him for a shilling.

P.C. Waters said at about 11.30 on Saturday evening he was in bed at his lodgings, 5, Bradstone Avenue, when he heard screaming and shouting coming from the passage at the rear of Bradstone Avenue. He got up and opened the back window and shouted out “What's the matter out there?” He then heard footsteps running away up the passage into Kent Road. He also heard a woman's voice say “Oh, won't someone come to help me?” Witness partly dressed and ran down into the passage, and as he did so he tripped over the sack produced. He saw the last witness at the top of the passage. She was very excited and bleeding from the lips. She told him a man had dragged her up the passage and had assaulted her. Witness asked her if she knew the man, and she replied “No”. He asked her in what direction he had gone, and she replied “Out in the Foord Road”. Witness accompanied her to the Foord Road end of Kent Road, where they met P.C. Butler at the corner of Kent Road. The last witness ran across the road and asked Butler if he had seen a tall man run along that way. Almost immediately, just across Foord Road, prisoner came up to them and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. Mrs. Staple said “That's the man”, and P.C. Butler then took him into custody on the charge of indecently assaulting Staple. Prisoner made no reply. On the way to the police station prisoner said he gave the prosecutrix a shilling to go up the passage with him. He further said he had been in the Guildhall Vaults with her during the evening, and also in the Honest Lawyer public house.

P.C. Butler corroborated. He gave evidence of finding the bag, and spoke of seeing marks of a struggle in the passage in Kent Road. In reply to the charge at the police station, prisoner said he went out with his bag to get some coals. Witness noticed prisoner's clothing was disarranged, and that he had a slight cut on the knuckle of his right hand, which was covered with blood. Prosecutrix and prisoner both appeared to be perfectly sober.

The Chairman advised Smith to reserve his defence, which he did.

Prisoner asked for bail, as he had a wife and three little children. He was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail was allowed, himself in £20 and one surety in £20, or two in £10.

The Chairman commended P.C. Waters on his prompt action in the matter.

Folkestone Express 9 April 1910.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, April 2nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Sidney Alfred Smith, 23, a labourer, was charged with indecently assaulting Ellen Staple on January 20th. He pleaded Guilty to a charge of common assault.

Mr. Dickens prosecuted, and Mr. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) defended.

Mr. Dickens said no doubt the Recorder had read the depositions, and he was going to suggest that owing to the various circumstances, as well as certain information above suspicion, which the Chief Constable had received from other persons, that the man and woman were seen talking quietly together before the assault, it would be advisable for him not now to press the charge of indecency against the man, for he felt it would be practically impossible under the circumstances to obtain a conviction. The prisoner, however, did assault the woman in such a way that she bit his hand enough to make it bleed. He would be satisfied with the plea that the prisoner had made, and take a verdict of Guilty of the common assault.

Mr. Pitman said, having regard to what Mr. Dickens had said, and also to certain circumstances which had impressed themselves very much on his mind, it would have resulted in a verdict which would amount to guilty of a common assault. Mr. Dickens was satisfied that the additional information the defence could bring forward could not be doubted for one moment, and that the two were seen talking together and walking quietly along to the place into which the woman alleged she was dragged could not be doubted. The case he was instructed to put forward was entirely consistent with the story told by independent witnesses, and that the suggestion of indecency came not from the man, but from the woman, he being a married man, living with his wife quite close to the spot. The prisoner absolutely denied the suggestion that he put anything into her mouth, but he pushed her away with the sack which he was carrying. He would like to point out that Smith had been four or five weeks in prison, he not being bailed out until March 7th, and he should ask the Recorder, having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, and the undoubted unreliability of the woman's story, to take a lenient course. The woman, according to his instructions, made a demand for money, and threatened to cry if he did not accede to his request. He then lost his temper.

The Recorder said at the Police Court the prisoner said he reserved his defence.

Mr. Pitman said the prisoner outlined his defence in cross-examining the witnesses, and he was beginning to make a statement, when, at the Magistrates' suggestion, he reserved his defence.

The Recorder, addressing Smith, said he had heard what both counsel had said, and he had already formed his own opinion. He did not think it desirable to go into details. The less said about the case the better. He advised him to be careful in the future. He would be bound over to be of good behaviour for six months.

Folkestone Express 6 August 1910.

Tuesday, August 2nd: Before Aldermen Penfold, Spurgen, and Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Frank George Lee, who was fined for drunkenness by the Bench on Saturday, pleaded Guilty to a similar charge.

P.C. Cox said at 9.30 the previous evening he saw the prisoner very drunk in Guildhall Street. Lee was reeling about the pavement, and when he went into the Guildhall Vaults he was turned out. As he was incapable of taking care of himself, witness took him into custody.

Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour in default.

Folkestone Express 19 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 16th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Spurgen, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

Edward Stapley was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street the previous evening. He was further charged with assaulting P.C. Bourne. He denied both charges.

P.C. Bourne said at five minutes past seven he saw the prisoner in Guildhall Street, near the Town Hall, rolling from one side of the path to the other. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, and witness heard the barmaid refuse to serve him. She ordered him to leave, but he said he would not go until he had a drink. Witness also told him to get outside. When in the street Stapley commenced to shout, and said he would have some drink from somewhere. As he would not be quiet, witness took him into custody, when prisoner became very violent and struck him a severe blow on the right eye. With the assistance of P.C. Pittock he handcuffed him and brought him to the police station. On the way Stapley kicked and struggled a great deal. Witness, previous to the prisoner going into the Shakespeare Hotel, followed him into the Guildhall Vaults and told the barmaid not to serve him.

P.C. Pittock said he saw P.C. Bourne follow the prisoner into the Shakespeare, and saw both of them come out. He then saw the prisoner strike Bourne in the eye. Witness went to the other constable's assistance, and when they took him into custody he struggled violently.

P.S. Sharpe said when Stapley was brought into the police station he was drunk and very violent.

Prisoner denied being drunk and assaulting the constable.

Inspt. Swift said there were eight convictions against the prisoner, but only two for being drunk and disorderly, the last being four years ago.

A fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs was imposed for being drunk and disorderly, or seven days' hard labour in default; and for the assault a fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or a further seven days'.

Prisoner said he had no money, so the Magistrates ordered him below, the Chairman stating that the sentences would run consecutively.

Folkestone Express 20 May 1911.

Wednesday, May 17th: Before W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Mr. Camburn produced plans on behalf of Mr. Filmer for the alteration of the front of the Guildhall Vaults. He explained the alterations to the Magistrates, and stated that they wished to carry out the work before the Coronation.

The Justices sanctioned the alteration.

Folkestone Express 19 October 1912.

Tuesday, October 15th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, R.G. Wood Esq., Captain Chamier, and Colonel Owen.

John William Minter was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Saturday night. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Bourne said at five minutes to eight on Saturday evening he saw the defendant in front of the Town Hall. He was drunk, and shouting and swearing. He refused to go away, so he took him into custody.

Witness, in reply to the defendant, said he (Minter) did not say he was not drunk. He gave him every chance to go home.

P.S. Sales said when the prisoner was brought in he was drunk and most abusive.

Mr. Filmer, the licence holder of the Guildhall Vaults, called by the defendant, said he heard bad language in the bar and on going there he saw it was the defendant who was using the bad language He had to call the police constable in to eject him because he was disorderly. He would not say that Minter was drunk, although he might have been worse outside owing to his being excited.

Isabel Hambel, the barmaid, said she refused to serve the man as he was disorderly in the bar the previous Saturday.

In reply to the defendant, witness said she did not serve him. He might have taken someone else's off the counter. He had had sufficient drink.

Defendant said he was sorry. He meant to go home, and he should have gone, had not the constable taken him to the bottom. He had a good bed to go to, and he did not want their hard bed. (Laughter)

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were twelve convictions against the prisoner, eight of which were for drunkenness. The last was four years ago, however.

Defendant said he had been trying to keep himself straight. He had no work at the present time, and he was trying to get a living by selling fish.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 7s. costs, the defendant being allowed until Saturday to pay.

Folkestone Express 9 August 1913.

Friday, August 1st: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Col. Owen.

An application was made by Mr. G.W. Haines for the temporary transfer of the Guildhall Vaults from Mr. Filmer to Mr. A.M.R. Jacobs, late head waiter at the Hotel Metropole. Granted.

Folkestone Express 23 August 1913.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred, temporary authority having been sanctioned previously by the Magistrates: The Guildhall Vaults, from Mr. Filmer to Mr. A.R. Jacobs.

Folkestone Express 2 May 1914.

Monday, April 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq. and Colonel Owen.

Robert Higgins was charged with begging in Guildhall Street on Saturday night. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Butcher said at 9.30 on Saturday evening he was in Guildhall Street when he saw the prisoner begging from customers at public houses and soldiers in the street. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, where he begged in the bar, and also went into the Guildhall Vaults, where he did the same thing. He (witness) went up to him and told him he should arrest him for begging. On being searched 11½d. in bronze and two insurance cards were found upon him.

Prisoner, who spoke with a strong Scotch accent, said he only begged from soldiers who were countrymen of his own. One of them gave him sixpence. He was a fitter by trade, but he was 51 years of age and could not get any work as he was too old. He came to London to get a job in the East India Docks, but his eyesight failed him. He had done no work since last November.

The insurance cards, which were for sickness and unemployment, showed that prisoner last worked in November.

The prisoner, on promising to leave the town, he explaining that he would make his way north again, was discharged by the Magistrates.

From the Dover Express, Friday, 23 October, 1914

GERMAN PUBLICAN AT FOLKESTONE

THREATS TO WRECK HOUSE.

On Sunday night a disturbance, which appeared likely to develop into a serious matter occurred in the "Guildhall Hotel," Folkestone. The licensee of the house, Mr. Jacob, is a German, who, however, has been a naturalised British for eight years, and a dispute arose. Threats were made to wreck the place, but, by the persuasion of the Military and Civil police, this was prevented. On the following morning Mr. Jacob made an application for the licence to be temporarily transferred to Mr. W. H. Vicary, Messrs. Mackeson's manager at Folkestone, who explained that the application was made because of the present circumstances of the war. The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said he thought it was desirable that the transfer should be made, and explained that the conduct of the house had been satisfactory. The Magistrates agreed to the temporary transfer.

Folkestone Express 24 October 1914.

Local News.

On Sunday evening considerable feeling against Mr. Jacob, the landlord of the Guildhall Hotel, was shown by a number of his customers, principally soldiers, and at one time matters appeared likely to culminate in damage being done. The efforts of the civil and military police, however, calmed the spirits of those who were most bitter against the landlord, who is a German naturalised British subject.

On Monday morning Mr. Jacob appeared before the Magistrates and asked for a temporary transfer of the licence to Mr. W.H. Vicary.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the outgoing tenant was a German naturalised British subject, and owing to a strong feeling at the present moment against all Germans amongst a certain class of people, it was desirable that some other person should take over the management of the house at once. Mr. Vicary, a very respectable man, was willing to take charge of the premises at once.

The Clerk (Mr. Andrew): You consider it is urgently necessary that there should be a change, and on that account you think the ordinary notice of the application should be waived.

The Chief Constable: Yes.

The Clerk explained to the Magistrates that according to the law a protection order should not be granted unless seven days previous notice had been given. In cases of urgency they could waive that notice.

Lieut. Col. Fynmore: You recommend it?

The Chief Constable: Yes, under the special circumstances.

Mr. Vicary said it was the intention of the owners to find another competent tenant at the most convenient moment. He was manager at the branch office of Messrs. Mackeson, in Tontine Street.

The Chief Constable said it was certain there would be a suitable tenant as soon as possible.

Mr. Jacob said he had been tenant of the house since August 1st, and had been a resident in Folkestone for 16 years. He had been a naturalised British subject between seven and eight years. He thought it was desirable that he should give up the licence under the present circumstances. He would, however, like to say that there was nothing against the conduct of the house.

The Chief Constable said there was nothing against the conduct of the house.

The Chairman (Lieut. Col. Fynmore) said the Bench granted the temporary transfer.

Mr. Vicary said, on behalf of the owners of the house, he wished to say they had every confidence in Mr. Jacob and his conduct of the house. The change was through the unfortunate circumstances of the present time, and owing to the public feeling inflamed by the papers and other things. They were very sorry indeed that they had to have a change in the tenants.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 28 November 1914.

Wednesday, November 25th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines made a similar application on behalf of Mr. Vicary, of the Guildhall Hotel. He stated that they had a tenant in view.

Temporary permission was granted until the next transfer sessions.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 16 January 1915.

Wednesday, January 13th: Before Lieut. Col.Fynmore, J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, W.G. Harrison and G. Boyd Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

A protection order in respect of the Guildhall Hotel for Mr. Cousins, of Ashford, was applied for and granted.

Folkestone Express 13 February 1915.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Owen, R.J. Linton, W.J. Harrison, J. Stainer, and R.G. Wood Esqs.

The licence of the Guildhall Vaults, which was temporarily transferred to Mr. George B. Cozens, was confirmed.

Folkestone Express 8 January 1916.

Local News.

On Monday Henry Keeling was charged with purchasing a bottle of whisky for a soldier, contrary to the Regulations.

Corpl. Knighton, of the Military Foot Police, said at 2 o'clock on Saturday he was in Guildhall Street when he saw the prisoner with a private soldier, who was in uniform. He noticed that the soldier was carrying a bottle in the right hand pocket of his overcoat. The prisoner tapped the pocket and said “Yes, it's all right. It won't be noticed”. Witness communicated with P.C. Allen, and the soldier and prisoner were stopped. Witness took the bottle from the soldier's pocket and found it contained whisky.

P.C. Allen said he saw the prisoner in Guildhall Street, and remarked to him “You have just given a soldier a bottle of whisky”. He replied “Yes, I have. I hope I have not done anything wrong”. He then said “There goes the soldier to whom I gave it”. At the police station, in reply to the charge, he said “I bought it from Pursey's Store in Tontine Street between one and two today”.

The accused said he happened to be in company with the soldier, and had a drink or two with him. He asked him to get him a bottle of whisky, which he did, thinking there was no harm in it whatever. He had not been before the Bench before, and he hoped the Magistrates would deal leniently with him. He had two sons fighting for their country out at the Front. He was a native of the town, where pretty well everyone knew him.

The Chairman (Mr. E.T. Ward) said bearing in mind the prisoner's good character, he would be sentenced only to two months' hard labour, but he must have known perfectly well it was not right to buy the whisky, and it was a practice which must be stopped.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1916.

Local News.

Yesterday (Thursday) the Magistrates, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J.J. Giles and H.C. Kirke Esqs., heard a case under the “No treating” Order, when George Cozens, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was summoned for allowing his employee to supply intoxicating liquor to a person not having paid for it. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Sergt. G.T. Taylor, M.P., said about a quarter past seven he was in the billiard room of the Hotel when he saw five men playing snooker pool. At the close of the game the loser paid for the use of the table, and the second or third loser paid for a round of drinks. Pte. Stanley was the man who gave the order for six drinks – four crème de menthe and two mild ales. The order was given to the billiard marker, who brought the drinks and placed them together. Pte. Stanley tendered a 10/- note for the drinks.

Mr. Haines at this stage pleaded Guilty. He said the billiard marker had no authority to obtain drinks for people, or to fetch them into the billiard room. The man certainly fetched the drinks, and apparently paid for them out of his own pocket. The man thought that peppermint was non-intoxicant, and therefore was able to serve it. The defendant had had notices placed in the Hotel stating that everyone had to pay for their own drinks.

A fine of £2 was imposed.

Pte. W.J. Stanley was fined 10/- for paying for the drinks. He admitted the offence.

Folkestone Express 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, H. Kirke, and J.J. Giles Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. H. Reeve read his annual report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are within your jurisdiction 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz; Full licences 71, Beer on 7. Beer off 5, Beer and spirit dealers 15, Grocers etc., off 7, Confectioners, wine, on 3. Chemists, wine, off 6, Total 115. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons. This is the same number of licensed premises as were in existence last year.

At the adjourned licensing meeting, held on 6th March last, the licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the principal meeting of that Committee held at Canterbury on 21st June, the renewal of the licence was refused. The question as to the amount of compensation to be paid was referred to the Inland Revenue Authorities, and has not at present been determined, consequently a provisional renewal of the licence will be applied for. During the past year five of the licences have been transferred.

For the year ended 31st December last 55 persons (28 males and 27 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 32 were convicted and 23 discharged without conviction. Of the persons proceeded against 17 were residents of the Borough, 9 members of the Naval and Military Forces, 13 persons of no fixed abode and 16 residents of other districts. In the preceding year 174 persons (109 males and 65 females) were proceeded against, of whom 129 were convicted and 45 discharged.

Proceedings have been taken during the year against 14 of the licence holders for various offences, 7 of whom were convicted and 7 dismissed. The following are the cases in which convictions have been recorded, viz; 9th March, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel was fined £1 for a breach of the “No Treating” Order; 24th March, the licensee of the Mechanics Arms Inn was fined £1 for allowing a child under 14 years to be in the bar of his licensed premises; 23rd June, the licensee of the Chequers Inn was fined £1 for dispatching intoxicating liquor from his licensed premises without a licence; 30th June, the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores was fined £1 for dispatching intoxicating liquor from his licensed premises without the same having been previously paid for; 30th June, the licensee of 27 Rendezvous Street (off licence) was fined £1 for a similar offence; 1st December, the licensee of the London and Paris Hotel was fined £5 for a breach of the No Treating Order; 1st December, the licensee of the Pavilion Shades was fined £5 for a similar offence.

Nine clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 7 for music only, and 1 for public billiard playing.

The Order of the Liquor Control Board which came into operation on 10th January last year, restricting the hours of sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to 4½ hours each weekday and 4 hours on Sunday remains in force, and in my opinion is mainly the cause of the decrease in the cases of drunkenness recorded.

Under Regulation 10 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, Orders have been made by the Competent Military Authority, and are still in force, closing 3 of the licensed houses to all members of H.M. Forces. The houses are the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, and the True Briton, Harbour Street.

The Chairman said with regard to the report the number of convictions was very satisfactory. Mr. Reeve said in his opinion that was due to the restricted hours. He (Mr. Ward) was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans – seven – which was a greater number than he remembered in any year. There was no doubt that publicans were faced with very great difficulties with so many restrictions placed upon them. He urged upon them the necessity of being very careful not to serve any wounded soldiers, or any soldiers waiting embarkation. There were very heavy penalties laid down for offences of such a nature – imprisonment for six weeks or £100 fine. He hoped all of them would be very careful. All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the seven against which convictions had been recorded, but those seven licences would be granted until the adjourned sessions in a month's time.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said with regard to the premises licensed for music and dancing the Magistrates had made new regulations. In future no structural alterations should be made in the licensed premises, and no alterations should be made in the stage, gangways, passageway or exits without the previous approval of the justices, and such gangways should be kept free from chairs or other obstruction during the hours of public entertainment, and all performances should be of an unobjectionable character, and good order and decent behaviour should be kept and maintained on the premises during the hours of licence.

Folkestone Express 10 March 1917.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Folkestone adjourned licensing sessions were held on Wednesday, Mr. E.T. Ward presiding on the Bench, when the licences of the Guildhall, the Mechanics Arms, the London and Paris Hotel, the Chequers, the Pavilion Shades, the Morehall Wine Stores, and Finn's Store, Rendezvous Street, were renewed.

Folkestone Express 27 September 1924.

Tuesday, September 23rd: Before Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and W.R. Boughton, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

John Palmer, a farmer of West Hythe, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday. He pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Pittock said at 9.35 p.m. on Saturday he went into the Guildhall public house, in consequence of what he had heard. He there saw the defendant, who was drunk. He made a communication to the landlord, and Palmer went out of the house, where he was joined by six other men. They all went into the East Kent Arms, so he followed them. He told Palmer that he had had enough to drink, and that he had better get out of the house. He went outside the house, and struggled when others tried to get him away by a bus. He eventually took him into custody, and at the police station he charged him with being drunk and disorderly. At Palmer's own request a doctor was called in and examined him. The doctor issued a certificate stating that the prisoner was suffering from the effects of alcohol.

The Clerk said the certificate was given by Dr. C. Barrett.

Defendant said he was very sorry. He had been to Canterbury all day. He there bought a horse, and he had the misfortune for the animal to drop down dead. That rather upset him, so he had one or two drops of whisky. He had not been used to drink. If the Magistrates would overlook that case he would give them his promise that he would not drink anything again.

Mr. Beesley (the Chief Constable) said there were 42 previous convictions for various offences, including drunkenness, obscene language, and assaulting the police.

The Magistrates fined the defendant £2, and when he asked for time in which to pay, the Clerk said the money could be paid out of the £16 which was in the defendant's possession when taken into custody.

Folkestone Express 13 March 1926.

Obituary.

We regret to have to announce the death of Mr. James Tunbridge, of Laudec Villa, 74, Radnor Park Road, and which took place in the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday morning. He was 76 years of age, and had enjoyed good health until about a month ago. The deepest sympathy, we are sure, will be extended to the members of the family, who are left to mourn a very great loss. He leaves a widow, three sons and a. daughter, nine grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

Ever a fine personality, the late Mr. Tunbridge was characterised by his extreme geniality and goodwill. He was a typical old English gentleman, who had won the highest esteem of those whom he came in contact. He was ever ready to help those in distress, and some of his staunch advice proved invaluable. His kindly nature had won the admiration of his fellow men. He celebrated his golden wedding on Christmas Day, 1921, the marriage taking place at the Holy Trinity Church, Dover, on Christmas morning, 1871. He was born at Alkham, the village midwav between Folkestone and Dover, and was a son of the late Mr. Thomas Tunbridge. He was a brother of the late Mr. Tilden Tunbridge. He was a carpenter, and was employed on the South Eastern Railway for twelve years. He was one of the first to commence the work on the projected Channel Tunnel. He assisted in the building of Shorncliffe Station and was foreman-in-charge of Cheriton Arch Station, which, at the present time is known as the Central Station. He became the proprietor of the Castle Inn, Foord, and subsequently resided at the Guildhall Vaults, the Railway Bell, and the Fountain Hotel, Seabrook. He retired from business in 1917. He was the chairman of the Licensed Victuallers Society on three occasions, and was the chairman of the Licensed Victuallers’ Mineral Water Co. for six years. He was exceedingly fond of bowls, and was a member of the Hythe Bowling Club. He was quite content and happy when “trundling the woods’.” He was, in his time, an excellent shot, and was probably one of the best shots in the neighbourhood. He was greatly devoted to shooting, and with! his canine friend and a gun and cartridges, would make his way to the woods, where he spent many happy hours. He loved a game of billiards, and was known to be a very good welder of the cue, and was a rather formidable exponent of the game. He came to Folkestone 47 years ago. He was a member of the Brotherhood of the Cheerful Sparrows, and also of the Folkestone Club.

The funeral took place yesterday (Thursday), at the Folkestone Cemetery, when the Vicar of St. John’s Church (the Rev. J. B. Cowell) officiated at the Church and at the graveside in the Folkestone Cemetery.

Folkestone Express 15 May 1926.

Saturday, May 8th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer Alderman C E. Mumford, Mr. A. Stace, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Col. Broome-Giles.

Corpl. Joseph James Newall, of the 1st Royal Warwickshire Regiment, was charged with wilfully breaking a hurricane lamp in Beach Street on Friday night, the property of the Corporation, and of the value of 2s. Prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Joseph Barrett, casual dock porter, employed by the Southern Railway Company, said he was in Beach Street on Friday night, at 9.40, and saw three soldiers, two privates and an N.C.O. As the soldiers got in line with him lie heard the remark “We will go on strike.'’ A hurricane lamp on a caution board was struck, and the glass broke. The N.C.O. struck the lamp with his cane. He reported the matter to P.C. Simpson, and the soldier was then running in the direction of Tontine Street. P.C. Simpson blew his whistle, and gave chase. Later he identified en the prisoner at the police station.

P.C. Simpson said that when lie gave led chase he missed prisoner at Harbour Street. He returned to Beach Street, and took the other two soldiers to the police station for enquiries. Later he saw defendant in the custody of Sergt. Hollands. Prisoner was paraded with other men, and in fairness to himself was allowed to wear a private’s jacket. He was identified by the last witness, and when charged made no reply.

Sergt. Holiands said he last saw prisoner at the London and Paris Hotel, and from what he was told he went up the Bayle steps, and saw defendant come from a passage at the rear of the houses. He stopped him outside the Globe Inn, and said “Where did you come from, Tommy?” He replied “I have just left my young lady in that passage”. He noticed he was out of breath, and his face was flushed. He said to him “You look like the soldier I am looking for. You come back with me, and we will find your young lady”. Prisoner indicated the place where he thought she went in, and he made enquiries but failed to find any young lady who knew prisoner.

Prisoner said he left barracks at 7-3O p.m., and came into the town. He had two drinks in the Guildhall, left there, and went to the Brewery Tap, and had about four drinks there. He came out about 9-16, and made his way down to the harbour. He went into another place. There was a girl sitting there, and, as soldiers did, he gave her the “glad-eye”. He got into conversation with her, and had a couple of drinks. It wanted about two minutes to 9.30, and he asked her if she would go for a walk round, and she said “Yes”. She took him round some steps, and he started to talk to her, and arranged things for the following night and left her. He came up the passage way, and when he had gone about fifty yards the Sergt. caught hold of him. He (prisoner) refused to go at first, and asked why he had taken him. Sergeant Hollands went to one house only, and asked if the daughter had been out with a soldier. The woman said "No”. A civilian went running up, and said he had seen a girl go down the other steps. They took him to the Station and they started to argue so he said he would make a complaint. He could not say much, because there was six speaking to him, and he kept his mouth closed He was not with the other soldiers.

An officer said prisoner’s military character was good. He had had about lour years service. He was made Lance-Corporal in 1923, and promoted to full Corporal in March, 1925. There was nothing against him at all.

The Chairman said they considered the case proved, and he would be fined 5s., 2s. the costs of the damage, and 2s. 6d. witness’ costs (9s 6d). They thanked Mr. Barrett for the trouble he had taken, and the very nice way he had given his evidence.

Folkestone Express 20 December 1930.

Local News.

At half past eight on Sunday morning the Folkestone Fire Brigade received a call by messenger to the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, the licensee of which is Mrs. E. Cozens. The fire, which was due to defective building construction, was centred in the sitting room on the first floor and the bar on the ground floor, and caused considerable damage amounting to approximately £100. Seven firemen arrived on the large motor tender at the first call, and later the motor ambulance brought three more men. There was a good water supply, and the fire was quickly in hand with the aid of hose and chemicals. The extent of the fire included the floor boards and joists, the ceiling and decoration of the sitting room, and damage to the bar by smoke and water. Further damage was also done to the adjoining premises of No. 6, Guildhall Street, where smoke and water went through the party wall where the ends of the floor joists were damaged by the fire.

Folkestone Express 4 April 1931.

Local News.

On Tuesday at the Folkestone Police Court a protection order was granted to Mr. R. Rivers, of Wolverhampton, to sell at the Guildhall Hotel, the outgoing licensee being Mrs. Cozens.

Folkestone Express 7 January 1933.

Wednesday, January 4th: Before Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Mr. W. Smith.

A transfer of the licence of the Guildhall from Mr. Rivers to Mr. Anderson was granted.

Folkestone Express 28 October 1933.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday (Thursday), before The Mayor in the chair, Eric Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was charged with suffering his premises to be used for the purpose of betting. Charles Goddard was charged with assisting of the management, James Suggett was charged with resorting to the premises for the purpose of betting, and William Robinson was charged with using the premises. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for Mr. Anderson.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said it was proposed that summonses should be issued in respect of the alleged offences.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he was not prepared to go on with the case that day. The defendants were entitled to summonses. He was not represented that morning. The Town Clerk intended to take the prosecution. He asked for a formal adjournment until next week.

The Magistrates' Clerk said a warrant was issued to search the Guildhall Hotel, and the premises were so searched, and as a result those charges were brought.

The Magistrates decided that the summonses should be issued against the defendants, and fixed the hearing for Friday next.

Folkestone Express 11 November 1933.

Local News.

On Friday the Folkestone Magistrates for several hours heard evidence in a case which followed a raid by the police, in which Eric Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was one of the defendants, and was fined £5 and £2 costs. Three other men were also before the Bench, and pleaded Guilty to betting offences on the licensed premises, fines being inflicted upon two of these defendants, and the third being bound over.

The case came before Alderman A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens,, and Mr. W. Hollands.

The Magistrates first heard summonses against the three men.

Charles James Goddard, a barman employed by Mr. Anderson, was summoned that he on October 12th and divers other dates when assisting in the conduct of the business of the Guildhall Hotel, used the same for the purposes of betting with persons resorting thereto.

William Worthington Robinson, a newsvendor, was summoned that he on the same date and other dates, being a person using the Guildhall Hotel, unlawfully used the same for betting with persons resorting thereto.

James Frederick Suggett was summoned for resorting to the premises for the purposes of betting.

The three defendants elected to be tried by the Magistrates and pleaded Guilty.

Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, who prosecuted, in opening the case, said the Act under which the summonses had been issued was the Betting Act of 1853, and pointed out that the penalty was one not exceeding £100 and such costs that the Justices might deem reasonable. He added that observations were kept on the hotel, and it was found that betting was taking place there.

Mr. William Hind, of 19, Linden Crescent, Folkestone, a labourer, said on the 12th October last he received certain instructions, and went into the Guildhall Hotel, into the public bar. The barman, Goddard, was there. Several men came in at 1.30 p.m. One of them said “Am I too late? Has he been in yet?” The barman replied “No, I don't think so”. At that moment a newsvendor, Robinson, whom he knew by sight, walked to one corner of the bar, and produced some slips and some money from a leather bag which he had under his jacket. He placed them on the counter. He saw one of the men sitting in the bar hand something to Robinson, who placed it down on the left side, where the bag was, and operated something. The man said “What about Roi de Paris?” which he understood to be a horse's name. Robinson took some money from a bag and placed it on the counter. Goddard examined the slips and placed them under the bar on his side of the counter. The customers handed Robinson slips. During the time Robinson was there, Goddard was there all the time. On that day he (witness) also made a bet, which was on the slip (produced), and which was sixpence each way on “Flying Coot”. Goddard wrote it out and initialled it. He made that bet when everybody else had finished. On the following day he again visited the house at twelve noon, when Goddard was again present, and a young woman. Robinson entered the bar with midday “Standards”, placed them on the bar and left. Goddard said, as he went out, “I will see you later”. He (witness) left the bar at 12.15. He went back again at 1.15. Goddard and two customers were in the bar. They were discussing a horse, “Dering Do”, which was running at Gatwick at 2.30 p.m. that day. Goddard had a pencil and paper, and one of the customers placed a 2s. piece on the counter. Goddard wrote down “A shilling each way, “Dering Do”” and placed the slip and the money under the counter on his side of the bar. Robinson came into the bar on the opposite side of the partition at 1.40. He heard Goddard in conversation with him, and also saw Robinson, by means of a mirror at the back of the bar. Robinson produced some slips and placed them on the counter. Goddard produced some slips from under the counter, and Robinson, after examining and checking them, placed them in the bag which he carried on his left side.

Goddard said he never kept the slips under the counter. He placed them in his pocket.

Witness said he may have put the slips in his pocket when he bent down. The counter was very high.

P.C. Marsh, K.C.C., said he went to the Guildhall Hotel on the 24th October at 12.30 p.m. in plain clothes. Nobody was in there, but Goddard was behind the bar. While he was there, at 12.35 p.m., a man entered the saloon bar, and said “Has Pompey been in?” The barman replied “No”. The man passed something to the barman, who placed it under the public bar counter, and said “It is there”. He did not see what it was. He noticed, however, there was a glass containing slips near the cash register. About 12.40 the barman left the bar, taking the contents of the glass with him. The glass in which the papers were was in full view of anyone who entered the bar. He (witness) left the bar at 1.15. He returned at 1.30, and there were then six male customers in the bar, including the man whom he heard described as Pompey, and whom he now knew as Robinson. At 1.55 p.m. the barman and the defendant Robinson commenced conversation about football. Following that, the barman took a printed sheet from his pocket and placed it on the counter. The defendant Robinson took from his pocket what appeared to be football coupons, and placed them on the counter. The barman selected one or two, and placed them in his pocket. He then took from his pocket slips of paper, and put them in the sheet placed on the counter, wrapped them up in the paper, and handed them to Robinson. As Robinson then left the premises he said “I expect I shall get a few more tomorrow”. He (witness) left the premises about 2.10 p.m. On the following day he again went to the house at 12.40 p.m. At 12.50 he saw the barman leave the premises from the front saloon bar door, and he again returned at 1 p.m. During his absence two male customers entered, but they left almost immediately. About 1.05 p.m. the barman, who had returned, left the bar with a bottle and brush in his hand, and proceeded to apply the contents to the frame of the public bar window. At 1.15 a young man entered the public bar and was quickly followed by the defendant Goddard. After some conversation, the young man handed the barman what appeared to be betting slips. The young man then left the premises. Goddard then seated himself on a seat near witness, produced those slips which he still held in his hand, unfolded them, and he saw they contained money. The barman checked them, and put them into his pocket again. He then went outside and continued his work there. At 1.40 p.m. the defendant Suggett entered the bar and called for a drink, which was served by the barman. He said to the barman “Has Pompey been in yet?” The barman replied “No, he won't be in for a bit yet”. Suggett then passed a slip of paper to the barman, who unfolded it, looked at it and put it into his pocket. The barman then took a bit of paper from the shelf behind him, put it on the counter, took from his right hand pocket what appeared to be betting slips, and put them on the counter. He made a list of amounts of money on that piece of paper which he had taken from the shelf and transferred the slips to the left hand pocket. He then placed the list back on the shelf. At 1.50 p.m. the defendant Robinson entered the bar, closely followed by the Chief Inspector and other officers. Chief Inspector Pittock declared himself as a police officer, and, pointing to witness, said “This man is a police officer also”.

Chief Inspector Pittock said on the 17th October he received a warrant under the Betting Act to search the premises of the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street. At 1.50 p.m. on the 25th October he was keeping observation, and he saw the defendant Robinson enter the public bar of the Guildhall Hotel. He followed him in immediately behind, and the defendant Goddard was behind the bar. He (witness) said “We are police officers, and I hold a warrant to search these premises under the Betting Act”. He pointed to P.C. Marsh and said “This is a police officer too”. He said to Robinson “You will be arrested and charged with using these premises for the purposes of betting”. He made no reply, and was taken to the police station by Inspector Hollands. P.C. Marsh pointed to Suggett and said “This man has handed a slip over the bar while I have been here”, and pointing to the barman, Goddard, said “He has got some slips in his left hand jacket pocket”. P.C. Butcher was behind the counter with Goddard, and he instructed him to search him, and he saw him produce from the jacket pocket a small packet which he placed on the bar counter. P.C. Marsh reached behind the bar and took a slip of paper from the shelf, which he handed to him. He inspected it and brought it to the police station.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said that was the list the Bench had already had.

Proceeding, witness said that Goddard and Robinson were brought to the police station, and later he formally charged them under the Betting Act, cautioned them, and neither made any reply. Since then he had examined the slips and found they related to horses running in races at Newmarket that day.

The Chairman: Any winners?

Witness: One, sir. (Laughter)

How many officers were there? – Five, sir.

Including yourself? – Yes, sir.

Is this public bar immediately in front here? – Yes, sir.

Did you go into any other bar? – Yes, sir, every bar.

Did you search people? – Yes, I did, everybody.

P.C. Butcher said on the 25th October he accompanied the last witness and other officers into the Guildhall Hotel. He saw the defendant Goddard there, and on the instructions of the Inspector he searched him. In Goddard's left hand outside jacket pocket he found nine betting slips (produced). Each slip was wrapped round money representing the value on the slip. There was 27s. in cash. From Goddard's left hand waistcoat pocket he took one betting slip and one shilling in cash. Each slip related to horses running in a race called The Cambridgeshire at Newmarket on the 25th October. From Goddard's breast pocket he took three betting slips with which there was no money, and also one football coupon. In the kitchen at the top of the hotel, in a recipe book, he found three betting slips. They related to racing prior to the 25th October.

The Chairman: How do you know that fact? Do you know all about racing?

Witness: No, I do not know all about racing, but I examined a current newspaper to see if the horses related to those running that day, and they were not.

You do not know what they referred to? – Not definitely, sir.

The Clerk: Do you know as a matter of fact whether they are horses which have run in races previously?

Witness: Yes, sir.

That is from your own knowledge and ordinary newspaper reading? – Yes, sir.

Inspector Hollands said he took the defendant Robinson to the police station. He was wearing on his left side under his jacket a bag containing threepence in coppers. In his left hand jacket pocket he had a bag, which had a clasp fitted with a watch. When the clasp was closed the watch was stopped, and it could not be unlocked other than by means of a key. It was called a “tick-tack”. He object of the bag was that bets and slips were collected and placed in the bag, and when it was closed it stopped the watch at the same time, and it showed that all the bets and slips were placed there before the time on the watch.

The Town Clerk: That is, of course, for the protection of the bookmaker?

Witness: Yes, sir.

Proceeding, witness said there were nineteen slips (produced) in the bag, and they were all for horses running that day. In Robinson's inside breast pocket were the papers (produced) relating to a form of football betting.

The Chairman (examining the slips): I can't find a winner here.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley): There is only one, sir.

Witness, continuing, said he took some more slips from the defendant's left hand pocket. Altogether, defendant had in his possession £2 8s. 2½d. As he produced the money, defendant said some of it was for newspapers which he had sold and the other was for betting. He left defendant at the police station in custody and returned to the Guildhall Hotel, and remained there until the police officers had left. Defendant Suggett then accompanied him to the police station.

The Magistrates retired.

The Chairman, when they returned, said the Bench had decided to convict in those cases. With regard to the defendant Suggett, who was charged with resorting there, he would be bound over conditionally that he did not frequent betting houses in future. With regard to the other two defendants, the Bench would give their decision after they had heard the case against Eric Anderson.

The licensee of the Guildhall, Eric Anderson, was then summoned that on the 12th October, and on divers other days since that date, being the holder of a Justices' licence, unlawfully suffered his premises to be used in contravention of the Betting Act. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for the defence, and pleaded Not. Guilty.

The Town Clerk, addressing the Bench, said that in order to prove that case, he had first of all to prove that betting had taken place in that house, and it would be necessary for the evidence which they had just heard to be re-called. That case would prove some slight difficulty to the Magistrates in this way; that he had no evidence at all that the landlord knew anything at all about that betting going on. He would have to submit to them that lack of knowledge did not entitle him to be acquitted, and he would call their attention to a number of cases which had been decided on the point. He thought there had only been one case in comparatively recent years, in 1913, and he could not find any case in the High Court on that Section since that time, and all the decisions to which references would be made by Mr. Bonniface or himself were made some considerable time ago, and indeed before the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, was passed. He would submit to them that it was not necessary to prove actual knowledge of the betting taking place on the part of the licensed persons. In other words, although he knew nothing whatever of what was going on, the prosecution were entitled to a conviction. If the licensee was to get off merely by saying that he did not know what was going on, there would scarcely be a conviction at all.

Mr. Bonniface said he would agree to the witnesses being re-called without repeating the evidence given by them in the previous case.

Hird, cross-examined, said he was in the public bar at the time in question. The bar itself was semi-circular, the right wall being practically next to the police station. If a person was near either of the partitions they could not be seen by the licensee in any way, if he were in another part of the building or in the next bar. The newsvendor came in and walked to the corner of the bar which would be out of sight from the licensee.

Mr. Bonniface: And you agree, I think, that it was very possible that the barman, when he put those slips down, as you said, under the bar, possibly put them in his pocket? You agreed in reply to him?

Witness: When he bent down, he placed the slips and paper and money down that way.

And they may have been placed in his pocket, as you told him yourself in answer to his question? – They may have been put down in his pocket and they may have been put under the counter.

The Town Clerk: You did not see the licensee at all, did you?

Witness: No, sir.

At any time? – No, sir.

P.C. Marsh then went in the box and said the evidence he had given in the case against the other defendants was correct.

Mr. Bonniface: Do you agree it is possible for the man and the bookmaker to be in this bar and for the licensee not to be able to see them at all?

Witness: If the licensee was on the ground floor, he must see them.

Would you swear that he must see them if he was on the ground floor in the next bar? – Not in the position I saw them in, sir.

Was the bookmaker then right opposite the door side, inside the door which opens to the street? – No, sir.

Well, which part of the bar was he in? – He was in the saloon bar, sir.

Who was serving them? – The barman.

Do you mean in the first bar that enters from Guildhall Street? – No, sir. It is possible for one man to serve customers in either bar.

The licensee was not in the saloon bar? – I did not see him.

What was the length of time that you were there, the longest time that you were there on any one occasion? – About an hour at the longest time, sir.

Without going out at all? - Without going out at all.

When the barman passed the slips across back to the bookmaker, he wrapped them up so that nobody could see? – Yes, I took it that was the object, sir, and also so that they would be in one parcel.

Now, on the 25th, when you went at 12.40 p.m., you say there was a barmaid behind the bar? – Yes, sir.

And while the barmaid was there, there was nothing of which you could complain, while she was behind the bar? – That is so.

Nothing whatever happened until the barman went behind? – That is so, sir.

The Town clerk: Did you on any occasion on which you went into this house see the landlord at all?

Witness: Not on any occasion, sir.

Chief Inspector Pittock, formally confirming the evidence he gave in the case, said after he went into the Guildhall Hotel, he sent for the landlord, who came from the lounge bar at the rear of the premises on the same floor.

The Chairman: Does it open into the saloon bar?

Witness: By a door, yes, sir.

The Town Clerk: But not into the public bar?

Witness: No, sir.

Proceeding, witness said he formally charged Anderson. Who said “The first I know about it” and “That is news to me”. It was repeated two or three times. He searched a number of persons on the premises.

The Chairman: Is it usual to search people in this way?

Witness: yes, sir. I was authorised by the warrant to search all persons I found there.

Mr. Bonniface: Although you searched the persons in the saloon bar and in the lounge bar, you found no evidence whatever of betting?

Witness: No, sir.

And the piece of paper referred to; if the licensee came along and saw it in the glass, there is nothing to show that there is anything to do with betting in that, is there? – No, sir.

The Town Clerk: If the licensee saw that slip of paper, do you think he would be likely to know what it meant?

Witness: I do, sir.

P.S. Butcher said he searched the chef, the waiter employed at the hotel, and also assisted in searching the lounge bar.

Inspector Hollands also confirmed the evidence he gave in the previous case.

Mr. Bonniface, addressing the Bench, submitted that so far as the licensee was concerned, on the evidence that the Town Clerk had placed before them, there was no case to answer. The Town Clerk quite clearly told them that he had no evidence at all that the landlord knew. It was true that the Town Clerk had not to go so far as to show that the landlord knew, but they had to be satisfied that the landlord did not exercise such reasonable care as he should have done in the circumstances in conducting the licensed house, and it was for the Town Clerk to prove that to them. In other words, the onus did not move. The section did not say that the licensee knowingly allowed that to go on, but the Court had held that there must be some evidence before them that the licensee knew of what was going on, some evidence from which they could infer he did. They had no evidence that the licensee's wife, who was on the premises assisting, knew what was going on. When the raid was made, there was not one single particle of betting material upon anybody but the barman and the bookmaker's runner, until they went to the chef's private quarters, and there was found in an old recipe book of the chef two betting slips for some time back. They were asked to say that the licensee must have known, because the chef had in his private quarters in his recipe book an old betting slip. If the licensee was going to be convicted on such evidence as that, then it came to this, that the licensee would be convicted upon nothing at all.

The Town Clerk submitted to the Bench that Goddard was in charge of the bar, and if he was there – and they had heard the evidence that he was actually taking part in the betting itself – that was instructive knowledge to the licensee. It might be an unfortunate thing that a licensee had to be convicted if he did not know what was going on, but it was his submission that it was his business to see what was going on.

The Clerk, after the Bench had retired to consider the question of law, said that on the point of law the Magistrates were against Mr. Bonniface in feeling that there was prima facie evidence that the barman was in charge there and that the defendant had delegated his authority to him at the material times.

Goddard, the barman, was then called by Mr. Bonniface as the first witness for the defence.

Mr. Bonniface: At the time that evidence has been given betting slips were taken by you, to your knowledge was Mrs. Anderson on the premises?

Witness: On the last occasion.

And on all occasions was Mr. Anderson on the premises? – Yes, sir.

Has he ever left you in charge at any time? – No, sir.

What have been his instructions to you with regard to betting? – At the time when he first employed me he gave definite orders that there were to be no betting or betting slips upon the premises.

Does Mrs. Anderson come to the bar at irregular intervals? – Yes, sir.

And did Mr. Anderson know, did you ever tell him or had you ever suggested to him that you were taking in betting slips upon the premises? – No, sir.

The Town clerk: The first day upon which the witness Hind went to the house was the 12th October. Do you say the landlord was present on that day?

Witness: Yes, sir.

How do you remember that? – He was in the lounge.

But how do you remember that he was present on that particular day? Is he always there? – The majority of days he is there, and if he is not there, Mrs. Anderson is on the premises.

Do you know then on the 12th October that he was definitely there? – I am sorry, sir, but I cannot really say.

Do you know that he was there on the 13th October? You cannot say? – Not definitely, sir.

You know he was there on the day of the raid? – Yes, sir.

But was he there the day before, October the 24th? You cannot say? – No, sir.

How often does he come into this bar in which you serve drinks? – Every quarter of an hour or twenty minutes.

You heard the evidence of the two witnesses who were in there, one for two days and another for three days, and they never saw the landlord at all? – Very often he does not come in, but he shouts through the lounge door if everything is O.K., sir.

Mr. Bonniface: Were you at once dismissed for this happening?

Witness: Yes, sir

Temporarily dismissed? – Yes, sir.

You won't go back when this case is over? – I don't know.

Defendant, on oath, said he had held a licence in the town three years, previously at the Black Bull and then at the Guildhall. He had never left his barman in charge. He was in charge of the premises himself, and in the event of his not being there, his wife was in charge. He paid periodical visits to the private and public bars. “I had absolutely no knowledge that anything of this kind was going on” he added. “I have given my servants definite instructions, and as a result of this I have dismissed my man”.

The Town Clerk: Don't you think if you had exercised proper control over these premises, you would have seen?

Defendant: I have exercised proper control, to the best of my ability.

You heard the evidence of the constable that certain slips were placed in the glass? – I have never seen any betting slips on my premises at any time.

If you are both out, there must be somebody in charge? – In those circumstances, if there was any trouble, the senior servant would be in charge.

The Magistrates' Clerk: And who would that be?

Defendant: I presume, in this case, Goddard.

The Town Clerk: One would assume that the man in charge of the bar, if the licensee was in another part of the house, is in charge?

Defendant: He is not in charge. I am in charge. He is serving in the bar.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Do you know Robinson?

Defendant: Yes.

Does he come in the house? – Yes, frequently.

What do you know him as? – I know him as a newsvendor.

What does he come to the house for? – Apparently to drink. I have never seen him do anything else. I regard him as a particularly good customer.

More than once in the day have you seen him there? – Yes.

The Chairman: Which bar does Robinson frequent?

Defendant: The public bar, your worship.

You have seen him there? – Yes.

Mr. Bonniface: And have you ever seen him in any way take betting slips?

Defendant: I certainly have not, at any time.

In reply to further questions, defendant said that Robinson stood right opposite his house, by the Queen's Hotel corner.

The Magistrates' Clerk: How long has Goddard been employed in this hotel?

Mr. Bonniface: My client took him over when my client first took over the Black Bull, and he came down from the Black Bull with them. That was three years ago.

He Chairman, when they returned, said that with regard to Mr. Anderson's case, the Bench had come to the conclusion that legally he was responsible for the act of his servant, Goddard, and he must be fined £5 and £2 costs. With regard to Goddard, he would be fined £10, and Robinson £15, leviable by distress, or one month's imprisonment.

Mr. Bonniface asked the Bench if they would state a case, if he was so instructed.

The Chairman: Yes.

The defendants Goddard and Robinson were allowed a month in which to pay their respective fines.

Folkestone Express 3 March 1934.

Local News.

On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates transferred the licence of the Guildhall Hotel from Mr. Anderson to Mr. P.E. Wootton, who previously had been a wholesale tobacconist at Hemsworth, Yorkshire.

Folkestone Express 10 March 1934.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Tuesday, March 6th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Councillor Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, Judge H. Terrell, and Councillor W. Hollands.

The Magistrates formally renewed the licence of the Guildhall Hotel, following its recent transfer.

Folkestone Express 4 June 1938.

Local News.

Where did Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22 years, the Folkestone woman found strangled not far from Holy Well in a small coppice at the foot of the hills on Thursday night in last week, stay on the Monday and Tuesday nights previous to her murder? That is a point upon which the Folkestone Police desire to have information from anyone who can assist them. Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, last night said: It is of the utmost importance that people knowing where Mrs. Spiers stayed on either of these nights should communicate with us immediately, without them waiting for the Police to call on them. It certainly would he assisting the interests of justice if anyone with information of use to the Police would get into touch with them immediately.

The body of Mrs. Spiers, a married woman separated from her husband, and a foster child of Mrs. Minter, who formerly lived at a lodging house in Radnor Street, was first discovered by Kenneth George Andrews, a sixteen year old youth residing with his parents in Ethelbert Road. He was looking for birds’ nests at the time, when he saw what appeared to be a bundle. Looking closer, he saw that a portion of a woman’s head and leg were showing. He immediately proceeded to his home and informed his father, who at once found the constable on the beat, and particulars of the discovery were telephoned to Police headquarters.

Mr. Beesley, the Chief Constable, was immediately informed and he, accompanied by Chief Inspector Hollands, Dr. W.C.P. Barrett and Det. Constable Bates, the Coroner's Officer, were speedily at the scene. They found amongst the bushes the body of a woman completely covered with her blue coat, lying on her back with her head down the sloping ground.

Dr. Barrett made an examination, and gave it as his opinion that the woman had been strangled by her green scarf which had been knotted tightly round her throat.

The body was subsequently removed to the mortuary, where a long and careful examination was made by the Chief Constable, who took charge of the case, and the Police Surgeon.

The C.I. Department worked throughout the night trying to establish her identity and making numerous other enquiries. It was clear from the first examination by Dr. Barrett that the woman had been lying where she was found at least 24 hours. Before it was taken away photographs were taken of it and the surrounding land. An intensive search for possible clues was at once commenced by detectives of the Folkestone Force.

Early on Friday morning the Chief Con stable decided to seek the assistance of Scotland Yard, and a few hours later Det. Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon, from the Yard, arrived and began investigations in conjunction with the Chief Constable and his officers. There were no signs of a struggle at the place where the body was found, and the fact that the clothing was very wet showed that it was there on the Wednesday night when there was heavy rain.

The Chief Constable, Det. Inspector Parker, and numerous officers have ceaselessly and energetically carried out investigations from the time they began them. As a result it has been established that the murder occurred about fifty feet distant from the place where Mrs. Spiers’ body was found. She had been passing in the name of Butcher for some time in Folkestone, where she had been employed at hotels and cafes.

On the Saturday previous to her death she went to a house in Garden Road, where she engaged a room, telling the landlady that her name was Minter, and that she had come from Tooting to take up a position as a waitress at a cafe on the lower sea front. She brought no luggage with her, and slept at the house on Saturday and Sunday nights. On Monday morning she left the house, apparently to go to her work, after arranging with the landlady to meet her so that she could take her to the pictures. The landlady kept the appointment, but Mrs. Spiers did not, and she did not see her again. When the landlady returned to her home she noticed that a "man without a hat and wearing a light mackintosh was apparently waiting outside. On Monday morning Mrs. Spiers walked along the Marine Promenade, for she had her photograph taken as she was doing so. From that time there seems to be no connected story of her movements. It is stated that she was seen on Tuesday night with a tall man wearing a mackintosh. So far as is known she was last seen alive on Wednesday at about a quarter to twelve in a Sandgate Road shop, and therefore the probable time of her death was between noon and three o’clock on Wednesday in last week.

The enquiries of the Police have been of a very extensive character, and have extended over a wide area of the country. Mrs. Spiers attended many dances in the district, and was known to many men, not only in Folkestone, but in the military camps at Shorncliffe and the R.A.F. at Hawkinge. Over sixty men have been interrogated by the Police, and the process of elimination is still proceeding. The men include soldiers, airmen and civilians.

On Saturday night, a report was received from the Sandwich district that a man who had been stopped in a country lane by a Kent County police officer and questioned had stated that he had come from Folkestone and that he admitted he was responsible for the murder of Mrs. Spiers. Mr. Beesley and Det.Insp. Parker, and other officers without delay motored over to Sandwich, but on questioning the man they quickly came to the conclusion that he had had nothing to do with the crime.

A section of the Force had arranged to visit Epsom to see the Derby, but in view of the crime the immediately cancelled the arrangements.

Under Inspector Heastie a number of officers, in plain clothes, have made a house-to-house visit in the Cheriton, Morehall, Foord and the surrounding streets and roads, and the East Cliff districts, and have shown a photograph of Mrs. Spiers to the occupiers. They have also asked if she was known or had stayed there. Mr. Beesley, asked last (Thursday) night if that had brought any results, replied “It has brought some crumbs of useful information”.

On Wednesday, Dr. Bernard Spilsbury, who has assisted in the unravelling of many murders, came to Folkestone at the request of the Chief Constable, and he, in company with Dr. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, and the Chief Constable, conducted a long examination of the body of the murdered woman at the mortuary. A large number of exhibits which have been collected in the investigations have ai.so been seat to London for examination by Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert.

It was at one time thought that the theft of a Harley Davidson motor cycle from a Folkestone garage during Tuesday night or Wednesday morning had some connection with the crime, and the police of the whole of the country were asked to try and trace it, but that has now been ruled out by the officers engaged in the case.

The cause of Mrs. Spiers’ death was not by asphyxiation, but the scarf having been tied so tightly the flow of blood through the carotid artery was snapped, and so her death must have been instantaneous.

The inquest was opened on Monday afternoon at the Folkestone Town Hall. Mr. G.W. Haines, the Borough Coroner, sat with a jury of ten. There was a large attendance of the public. Only three witnesses gave evidence, and the enquiry was then adjourned to July 8th.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) was the first witness. He said at 7.15 p.m. on Thursday he was called to a spot in a small coppice or wood, and was accompanied by the Coroner’s Officer. At the foot of the hill to the north of Folkestone between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill he saw a woman lying on her back covered pretty well from head to foot with a woman’s blue coat. The photograph produced was as she was found.

This photograph was handed to the members of the jury to examine.

The Chief Constable, continuing, said the woman was lying on a slight decline with the head downwards. The lower portions of both legs were exposed from a point about half-way below the knee. She had no stockings, but she wore a pair of low-heeled shoes. Her face and head were covered, but a portion of her back hair, which was flaxen in colour, was exposed, and was lying straight out behind the body. “I moved the coat”, Mr. Beesley continued, “and exposed the face and felt it. The face was quite cold, but soft to the touch. It was of good colour and in fact quite natural. I formed the opinion she was dead. Her nose was swollen and discoloured and blood was oozing from the left nostril. I completely removed the coat and found she was she was lying on her back with her arms and legs flexed, her knees drawn. She was wearing a pair of panties, which just covered her thighs. They were in good condition, but badly torn, especially at the back. Her green frock was pulled or dragged right up, back and front, level to her breasts, leaving the whole of the breasts and body bare. Very extensive bleeding scratches led from her legs right up to the thighs. They were especially numerous on the front. There were deep indentations on the lower part of the body made by pressure of the earth and dry pieces of twig and briar upon which she was lying. All clothing was saturated with rain, except the back of the dress, which was dry. The photographs put in were taken at once”.

The jury were also handed these photographs to examine.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, said he saw the body in the coppice where it was found. The woman was dead. He had since made a post mortem examination. There was a long bruise measuring four inches on the left arm. There were two large spots, dark in colour, on the chest. There were scratches on the left collar bone and there were multiple scratches on the lowerr limbs right up to the groin, but mainly on the front, but with quite a few on the back. There was a deep indentation right around the neck, front and back. The stomach contained ten small lumps of potato and brownish fluid resembling soup. The bruises and scratches were definitely ante-mortem. Death was due to strangulation caused by pressure on the main arteries to the head. Rigor mortis had set in and the limbs were rigid. The face was of a natural colour. His opinion was that she had not been dead longer than two days. Death might have occurred under that time. There was no sign of putrification.

The Coroner: There must have been considerable pressure to stop the flow of blood?

Witness: No. I tried it on myself last night and it is surprising how little pressure is needed to make you feel faint.

Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Road. Bexhill-on-Sea, said he was 27 years of age and was a milk roundsman. He was formerly in the Army, stationed at Shorncliffe. When in the Army he became acquainted with the deceased and knew her as Phyllis Minter. They were married on April 11th, 1932, at the Folkestone Register Office. On January 25th, 1933, his wife gave birth to a daughter, who was in his custody. He returned to Bexhill and got work there. On April 13th, 1934, his wife left him with the baby, following a quarrel over a letter she had received. He tried to patch it up once or twice. He last saw her alive three years and ten months ago at Hastings. In November last he applied for a Poor Persons divorce. He did not know where she was living. His application for divorce was based on desertion. She was 16 years and five months old when he married her. He visited the Folkestone mortuary on Friday afternoon and identified the body as that of his wife. He could not say whether she followed any occupation.

The Coroner said he did not propose to take any further evidence.

The Chief Constable: My application is that you should adjourn the enquiry for at least a month.

The Coroner: I will adjourn the inquest until 8th July at 2.30 p.m. The police have many enquiries to make, and the jury will have to come again.

Folkestone Express 11 June 1938.

Local News.

The murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, a Folkestone woman living apart from her husband, is still unsolved, but the police are not relaxing in their efforts to find the person responsible for her death by strangulation on Wednesday, May 25th.

It will be remembered that her dead body was found not far from Holy Well at the foot of Caesar's Camp on the evening of Thursday, May 26th, and since then the police have prosecuted their enquiries unceasingly and vigorously.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, from the time the dead woman was found, took control immediately of the case, and Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon from Scotland Yard arrived the following day, and have had a big share of the investigations which have been carried on since it was evident that Mrs. Spiers had been murdered.

The appeal made by the Chief Constable last week for anyone who could give information concerning the dead woman resulted in a number of people coming forward, and some of the details which they supplied were undoubtedly of assistance to the officers engaged in the case. Chief Inspector Parker and the C.I.D. staff of the Folkestone Police Force working under him have interviewed quite a number of people every day. On Tuesday Chief Inspector Parker visited Scotland Yard in order to report progress to headquarters there, and he also saw Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert, with whom he conferred as to the result of his analysis of certain exhibits forwarded to him last week.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, has issued the following appeal to people to assist the Police: At about 6.10 p.m. on 26th May, 1938, a girl known as Phyllis Spiers, alias Butcher, Osborn and Wall, aged 22 years, 5ft. 5ins., eyes blue, hair bleached, medium build; Dress: full length belted blue overcoat, green frock, blue leather shoes, no hat or stockings, was found murdered at a spot known as Caesar’s Camp, Hill Road, Folkestone. It is earnestly desired to trace a woman who was in her company shortly before 12 noon on Wednesday, 25th May, 1938, at Woolworth’s Stores, Sandgate Road, Folkestone. The woman is known to have purchased a packet of grease-proof paper. It is of the utmost importance that this woman should communicate with the Chief Constable, the Town Hall, Folkestone, or with any Police Station at the earliest possible moment.

It is clear that the movements of the dead woman prior to noon on the day she met her death should be known as fully as possible, and if it is possible for any person to shed any light upon them it is their duty to get into communications with the police at once. Another direction in which great assistance can be rendered to the police is in supplying any information regarding Mrs. Spiers' whereabouts on the Monday and Tuesday nights before the day on which she was murdered. That she was in Folkestone on those two nights is known, and it is hoped that information as to where she slept then will be forthcoming.

The police, it is thought, have now decided that the theft of the Harley Davidson motorcycle from a Folkestone garage, and which they asked the police in all parts of the country to assist them tracing, had no connection with the crime.

The appeal of the Chief Constable published on Wednesday resulted in some people coming forward, as a result of which a few fresh facts came to the knowledge of the police.

Folkestone Express 18 June 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone Police, assisted by Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon, of Scotland Yard, are actively pursuing enquiries concerning the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, the Folkestone woman who was found strangled at the foot of Caesar's Camp on the evening of May 26th. They have interviewed a number of people who came forward as a result of the appeal made by Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, last week, and several fresh facts regarding the mystery have come to light.

Folkestone Express 25 June 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone Police, with the assistance of Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scardon, of Scotland Yard, are still proceeding with their enquiries concerning the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, the 22 year old Folkestone married woman found strangled on May 26th near Caesar's Camp.

On Friday in last week Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scardon were at Scotland Yard, where they were in consultation with Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert, and other officers at the Yard. Returning to Folkestone, they have since been actively engaged on the case, and no efforts are being spared by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), the Scotland Yard officers, and the C.I.D. staff of the Folkestone Police to solve the mystery of Mrs. Spiers' death.

Folkestone Express 2 July 1938.

Local News.

On Saturday, just over a month after the body of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, a Folkestone woman, had been found at the foot of Caesar’s Camp, to the north of Folkestone, Mr. A. S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, charged a Folkestone labourer, William Whiting, aged 38, giving as his address a lodging-house in Dover Street, with the wilful murder of the woman.

The dead woman was found amongst some bushes, and she had a green scarf tied round her neck, on the evening of May 26th. Since that day the Chief Constable, Chief Inspector Parker, and Det.Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, and the Folkestone Police, have been carrying out Investigations concerning the woman’s death. The accused man is a widower, and has three children. He is particularly well known in the east area of Folkestone. The Chief Constable saw him in his office on Saturday and charged him. Later he was again charged in the Police Station and then placed in the cells.

Whiting was placed in the dock at the Police Court on Monday. He was charged that on or about 23rd May of this year at Folkestone he feloniously and with malice aforethought wilfully murdered Phyllis May Spiers.

The Court was crowded to its utmost extent, and the doors had to be closed, many people being unable to gain admission.

The magistrates were Councillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Judge H. Terrell, K.C., Mrs. A.M. Saunders and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

At the Court officials’ table, in addition to the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) and the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), there were also seated Chief Inspector Parker and Det.-Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, who had been conducting investigations into the case.

The Chief Constable said it was a case in which, as the magistrates were aware, the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions was to be sought, therefore that morning he proposed only to give evidence of arrest, and then ask for a remand until Tuesday. It was a formal remand, because he was sure that the Director would not be ready by that time. They would need, he was afraid, a further remand.

The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You have, of course, made many enquiries?

The Chief Constable: There are a very large number of witnesses to be called before you.

The Chief Constable, giving evidence, said at 12.34 p.m. on June 25th he saw the prisoner in his office. He said to him “You know who I am? I am the Chief Constable of Folkestone”. Whiting replied “Yes, sir”. Proceeding, he said: “I said ‘William Whiting, I am going to arrest and formally charge you with the murder of Phyllis May Spiers on or about Monday, 23rd May, 1938, and you will be taken before the Court on that charge. I must caution you that you need not say anything unless you wish, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence. Have you anything to say?’ Whiting replied 'I do not wish to say anything. I am not guilty’”. At 1.20 p.m. the same day, continued Mr. Beesley, Whiting was formally charged by the Station officer, P.S. Butcher, with the offence. He was cautioned, and replied “I have nothing to say”. Whiting was then searched and taken to the cells.

The Clerk: Nothing was found upon him to which you wish to refer?

The Chief Constable: No.

Whiting said he did not wish to ask the Chief Constable any questions.

The Chairman said they would appoint somebody to conduct Whiting’s defence.

The Clerk: A solicitor will be assigned to conduct your defence.

The Chairman (to Whiting): You are remanded in custody until tomorrow week (Tuesday).

The prisoner was then hurried out of the dock, and without looking at the people in the Court Whiting proceeded to the Police Station below.

Folkestone Express 9 July 1938.

Local News.

When William Whiting (38), a labours, of Dover Street, Folkestone. charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, appeared before the Folkestone magistrates on Tuesday, he was represented by Mr. Lloyd Bunco, a Folkestone solicitor. Whiting had been remanded eight days before, and the short time he was before the magistrates on Tuesday was taken up with formalities. He was ultimately remanded in custody until next Monday, when it is possible that the case might be opened and some evidence taken.

The public portion of the Court was crowded, many people having waited since 9 a.m. in the rain. There was a large crowd outside the Town Hall half- an-hour before the case was due to commence. One of the women who occupied leading places in the queue fainted, and was taken into the Town Hall, where she received attention.

The Magistrates were Courcillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G. . Collins, Mrs. Saunders and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he was asking for another remand. He understood the Director of Public Prosecutions would be ready on Wednesday in next week.

The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he did not think that was the most convenient day. He thought it would be bettor perhaps to remand the prisoner until Tuesday, unless the Director could commence on Monday. Continuing, he said he thought it would be better perhaps to commence the case the week commencing 18th July, and then it could be taken from day to day if so desired. They had to consider the justices available - the justices who started the case had to be available.

The Chairman, in reply to a query by Mr. Bunce, said the justices had decided that counsel should defend the prisoner.

The Chairman said Whiting would be.

The Chairman, in reply to a query by Mr. Bunce, said the Justices had decided that counsel should defend the prisoner.

The Chairman said Whiting would be remanded until Monday.

Whiting: I have an application to make. Can I have my letters and photos in possession of the police?

The Clerk: I do not think the magistrates have any power over that.

The Chief Constable said they were personal to Whiting, and he thought he would have no difficulty in complying with the request.

Folkestone Express 16 July 1938.

Local News.

When the case against William Whiting, aged 38, a labourer, of Dover Street, charged with the wilful murder on or about May 23rd of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, a Folkestone, woman, was opened the Folkestone Police Court on Monday, Mr. B.H. Waddy prosecuting on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, said “The motive, to put it in one word, was revenge”. Mrs. Spiers was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on the 26th May, her body being almost completely covered by her coat.

Whiting had been twice formally remanded, and the whole of Monday was occupied in hearing Mr. Waddy’s opening, and five witnesses, two of whom were Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch. The Magistrates, after a sitting of close upon five hours, again remanded Whiting until Monday next when the case will be continued on the following days until all the evidence is heard.

There was a large number of exhibits in connection with the case, and they included framed portions of a tree and a rough fence which had attached to it barbed wire. The large framed exhibit was placed on the side of the magisterial bench.

The Magistrates were Mr. R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

Mr. B. H. Waddy and Mr. F. Donal-Barry, barristers, appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel (instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce) represented Whiting. Seated at the table with the officials were Chief Inspector Parker, and Det. Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, who have been engaged with the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) and the Folkestone Police in the inquiries in connection with the case.

There was another large attendance of the public in the Court, but not so large as on Whiting’s two previous appearances.

Whiting was provided with a chair in the dock, but at first he said he did not require it, and stood during the opening statement by the prosecuting counsel and the hearing of the earlier evidence.

Mr. Waddy said he was instructed to prosecute. Before he opened the facts of the case he wanted to say he had in Court two gentlemen who would be witnesses, Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon. Chief Inspector Parker was in charge of the case, and it was absolutely necessary that he should be there to instruct him. With regard to Det. Sergt. Skardon he would be most useful to him in handling and producing the numerous exhibits he would have to put in. He suggested that he should remain in Court except when Chief Inspector Parker was giving evidence. No other witnesses were in Court.

Mr. Stuart Daniel said he did not object to that.

Mr. Waddy said on Thursday, the 26th May, somewhere about six o'clock in the afternoon, a Folkestone youth was birds’ nesting in a coppice at the foot of Castle Hill near Caesar’s Camp. Hidden in the undergrowth in that coppice he found the dead body of Phyllis May Spiers. He would call before them a body of medical evidence and other witnesses, who would tell them what was the condition and what was found in the immediate locality, and the evidence would, he thought, lead them to the conclusion that this girl met her death on May 23rd, which was a Monday, and that she met her death in this wav. She was rendered unconscious by blows in the fact and she was strangled bv hands, manual strangulation, that after her death there was put round her throat and tied tightly a green scarf with white spots on it twice round her neck, pulled tight and knotted. There were one or two possible reasons for tying that green scarf round the girl’s throat. One possibly was that the person who did it desired to make assurance doubly sure and make quite sure she died. The other possibility, which was one which would have to be considered, was that that scarf was put round her throat in the hopes that it might lead to the belief that the girl committed suicide by tying it round her throat herself. If the girl’s death, which in the view of the prosecution, took place in a little clearing in the coppice, which was visible up the hill, her body was dragged by the feet for some thirty feet or ten yards to the place where it was ultimately found. It was dragged down hill; it is quite steep, and through a barrier or an obstruction which existed between the place between the little clearing where, in the view of the prosecution, she died and the place where the body was found, that obstruction was a very rough obstruction and consisted of dead branches which were roughly fastened to a leaning post by means of barbed wire. Eventually it would appear that it was probably there to guard a bog which was at the foot of the hill to which cattle might possibly get. A great deal of importance might attach to that obstruction. That barrier had a gap in it through which it was possible for anyone to go. The obstruction was by the side of the side of the Court, and the Magistrates would see it had been framed. “You will see”,-Mr. Waddy proceeded, “there is a stout post leaning to the left and there are a number of branches, and you can see upon them some pieces of rusted barbed wire. As you look at that you will imagine that the ground you are on is a little higher and that from the other side it goes down hill. Again, the case for the prosecution is that the body of this girl was dragged by the murderer feet first through the gap, the murderer coming backwards on hands and knees. There will be given in evidence, certain evidence of a comb, certain hairs, and so on, but what is of great importance as far as that gap is concerned is that there is a piece of barbed wire to the right-hand side, which, if you were coming through the gap backwards on your hands and knees, would be about where your left shoulder would come. We are right in thinking that, if the murderer dragged the body through on his hands and knees there would be every likelihood that the point of that barbed wire would probably catch in the clothing which covered his left shoulder. Some ten yards below that point where the body was found, and opposite the body, was the girl’s handbag. In the girl’s handbag was a torn piece of a black and white scarf, quite different to the scarf knotted round her neck. The rest of that scarf had vanished. That piece of scarf was a portion of the scarf which we shall prove was given to her by a man friend, and she was wearing it on the morning she met her death. It would appear probable after her death her assailant tied her own scarf round her neck and in pulling it tight possibly ripped the end off. He then probably put the green scarf round her neck and put her own scarf in her handbag. Having put it in position he was minded to get rid of the torn scarf and took it out of the handbag again, but left behind the little bit, which he may not have noticed. Another feature of the handbag was that there was riot found in it a little green purse which, it would be proved to the magistrates, was owned and carried by her. It would appear probable the assailant, in taking out the major portion of the torn scarf, took out the green purse as well, and might have put them in his pocket”. Those were the deductions that he (Mr. Waddy) thought might be drawn from the evidence which would be called before them.

As to what was found at the site of the murder one had got to see in what way that evidence pointed to the accused as being the man who commuted the murder. “The first pointer”, he continued, “which points to the accused as having committed the murder is the evidence that on the afternoon of May 23rd he walked with this girl from somewhere in the centre of the town up over the golf links and right across it. There is a road from the right leading to the scene of the crime. So far I am in a position to say that the accused has made a statement in which his own story is that on the afternoon of May 23rd he walked with this girl over the golf course.The next pointer is that on May 31st they came into possession of everything he had on him. He was wearing a jacket. That jacket just over the left shoulder has a right angle tear, torn upwards. The evidence will be that the tear is exactly the type of tear that would he made by the barbed wire in that obstruction if he were going through the obstruction backwards. A police officer went through that gap later, and his jacket was torn in exactly the same spot. In one of the accused’s jacket pockets there were certain hairs, and I am calling evidence to show that those hairs were exactly the same as those which came from the head of the dead girl. In addition to a comb there was found in his possession a lady’s little green zip-fastener purse which was similar to one the dead girl carried in her bag. That is really another pointer. The third pointer which is perhaps more important than any of the others is the scarf which was tied round the girl’s neck. It is a very distinctive scarf. It is a green one with white spots upon it. According to what the prisoner told the police he has never had one like it and that it is not his”.

He (Mr. Waddy) thought he might call before them a host of witnesses of every kind who would tell them that they had seen Whiting wearing this green scarf with the white spots, and that he was wearing it as recently as May 20th. If that scarf is his, how came it tied tightly round the neck of the dead girl? In public houses the accused, in unguarded moments, had made remarks which were only consistent with an admission that he had strangled a blonde girl, and that the dead girl was a girl who had had her hair bleached. They would hear not one, hut several witnesses, who would speak to similar remarks. As the Bench were aware, there was no burden upon the Crown to prove motive for a crime like this, but, of course, if the Crown is in possession of evidence which points to a motive for such a crime the Crown lays such evidence before the Court. In this case they are in possession of evidence which would be laid before the Court pointing to the motive for this man murdering this girl. The motive, in a word, is revenge. Whiting knew and was for some time associated with a young woman named Rose Woodbridge. They lived together for a period, and parted shortly before Christmas last. She left him. There could be no doubt that he was not only, and was still, infatuated with Rose Woodbridge, but his mind was filled with an obsession of resentment against the person who came between him and Rose Woodbridge and caused that separation. Evidence will be called before the Court to show what his feelings were with regard to Rose Woodbridge arid what his feelings were towards the person, whoever it might have been, who caused him to lose Rose Woodbridge”. There would also be evidence before them, both from witnesses, and again on his own statement, to show that he firmly believed that Phyllis May Spiers, the girl who was murdered, was the person who had caused his separation from Rose Woodbridge.“The prosecution say”, Mr. Waddy, continuing, said “that here is a man who hated Phyllis for what she had done, or what he thought she had done, in parting him from the woman with whom he was in love”. The only other matter he had to mention was that the accused was arrested on June 26th, and that when he was arrested and charged he said “I am not guilty”.

Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, a milk roundsman, said he was shown the dead body of a woman at the mortuary. That woman was his wife, Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22 years. His wife was the woman on the left of the photograph produced. He also recognised his wife in the second and third photographs produced. He was married to his wife on the 11th April, 1932. Her name then was Phyllis May Minter. They lived together for some time, parting on the 13th April, 1934. He last saw her alive about four years ago at Hastings, after she had left him. He had recently commenced divorce proceedings against her.

Kenneth George Andrews, 23, Ethelbert Road. Folkestone, a roundsman said on Thursday, 26th May, after he had finished work he went up to Caesar’s Camp and into a coppice at the foot of the hill to get birds’ eggs. He started hunting for eggs and while there he saw something that looked like a bundle. He thought that that was approximately about six o’clock in the evening. He looked at the bundle and saw that it was a woman laying there, covered over with what looked like a dark green coat. He could just see the hair and part of the naked leg sticking out. He shouted, thinking there might be someone asleep, and touched the bundle with a stick. He then realised that it was riot a sleeping person. He went, away from the place and a little later spoke to a police officer. Some little time after tie was taken in a car back to the place with Chief Inspector Hollands and Det. Con. Bates and took them to the spot. The body was in the same position.

Chief Inspector Hollands said at about 6.20 p.m. on the 26th May he received a telephone message and in consequence went with the last witness and Det. Con. Bates to the foot of the hills between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill. The lad took them to a spot where a body was lying. The first photograph in the book showed a view of the coppice looking towards Sugar Loaf Hill. The second showed a view of the coppice from the hill above. About the centre of the picture there was a clearing. He found the body near the foot of a big tree shown in the picture. Picture No 12 in the book showed the body as he first saw it. The last photograph in the book showed where the body was found after it ha been removed. The branches-of trees ear the spot to some extent overhung, but did not completely cover it overhead. Later on the same evening the coat was removed from the body and photograph No. 13 showed the position of the body with the coat off. The next photograph showed the appearance of the body from the other side after the coat had been removed. Photograph 14 also showed a lady’s handbag. When he first went there he lifted the coat from off the face and smelt putrifaction. She was quite cold, her arms were stiff, slightly bent, her fingers were half clenched; nothing in the hands and they were stiff. The legs were covered in scratches going in all directions, and these were fresh and unhealed. He noticed her hair was drawn out straight from beyond the head. Her head was pointing towards the field and was slightly downhill. Her face was quite a normal colour and her tongue was slightly protruding between her teeth. Blood issued from the left nostril when he moved her head. The coat that was over the body was sodden wet. There was heavy rain on Wednesday, 25th, and on Tuesday it rained a little between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. It was fine in the morning on Wednesday, the rain being in the afternoon, and Monday was fine. He noticed that there was a little dirt splashed on the hands of the body, as though from heavy rain. The handbag showed rain, marks and the ground all round showed signs of heavy rain. Her frock was pulled up above the level of the breasts in front and right up to the shoulder blades at the back. Dry brumbies and leaves were in the clothing at the back and they were quite dry. She was wearing a pair of knickers, which were torn badly, and appeared to be a new pair. In all the clothing were brambles and leaves, which were also dry. He noticed the girl’s shoes, which were damp, but had no mud on them, and there was not any mud on her clothing. The body and clothing gave every appearance of the body having been dragged along by the feet while lying on the back. The ground underneath the body was dry when it was turned over. In the glade where she was lying there was no sign of a struggle and near where she was lying there was a rough footpath, rising sharply from her head towards Caesar’s Camp. The ground of the path was chalky and it was slightly damp. At the top of the footpath there was a barrier across it. The branches (produced) was the barrier. Round the neck of the body was a green spotted scarf (produced). The scarf was twisted round the neck twice and knotted as in the exhibit. The knot was on the right of the windpipe and was very tight indeed.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

Mr. Waddy, on resuming, said he wished to ask that Dr. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, should be present in Court when Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch gave evidence.

Mr. Stuart Daniel said he objected to that. Dr. Barrett made the first examination and it seemed that the opinion of the cause of death might have been changed since then.

The Chairman said the magistrates did not see why Dr. Barrett should not remain in Court.

Sir Bernard Henry Spilsbury. hon. pathologist to the Home Office, said that on the afternoon of Wednesday, 1st June, he made a post mortem examination at tie Folkestone mortuary on the body of a woman. She was a well nourished woman, about 5ft. 4½ins. in height. Death stiffening was absent. There was no lividity in the face or lips and no tiny haemmorhages on the eyes or the skin of the face. He saw the mark of the ligature which encircled the neck at the level of the larynx. It was pale and there was no injury of the skin beneath it. It was about one and a quarter inches broad in front, three quarters of an inch broad at the side and slightly more than an inch broad at the back. Sir Bernard Spilsbury then described a number of external bruises he found on the face, including the jaw. Along the left collar bone, immediately above the inner end of the right collar bone, on the outer side of the right upper arm, on the inner side of the same limb, on the inner side of the right forearm, on the front of the left shoulder, on the upper part of the front of the arm, on the outer side of the right hip and on the thigh.

There were many scratches in the skin, distributed widely, through the right hip and on both thighs and legs, and others on the back of the trunk up to the lower part of the shoulders. There were also scratches on the back of the right forearm, one on the front of the left forearm one across the knuckles of the left hand. In addition he also found the following bruises, which were not visible on the surface, but were visible on cutting through the skin. There was considerable area of bruising of the spine in the lower dorsal region and a bruise one inch in diameter at the same level and one and a half inches to the right. There was a bruise one inch in diameter to the right of the spine in the upper dorsal region. On internal examination there was a small bruise on the upper part of the back of the neck and another on the left side of the forehead. The skull and the brain, with its covering and blood vessels, were healthy and free from injury. On dissecting the neck there was bruising of the left sterno mastoid muscle at its lower end. There was also slight bruising of the corresponding muscle on the right side at the lower end and bruising of the left muscle higher up at the level of the lower jaw. There was a bruise at the upper side of the left main cartilage of the larynx and bruising on either side of that cartilage at the same level. There was slight bruising behind the larynx and there was bruising along the upper edge of the same cartilage which extended upwards. The bone was free from injury. The inner surface of the larynx and trachea was reddened. The tonsils and the glands in the upper part of the neck were very congested, and other organs in the body generally were congested but healthy, and the blood throughout the body was fluid and dark in colour. The mark of the ligature which he found was consistent with the scarf (produced) having been tied tightly round the neck. The deceased was a perfectly healthy woman. The general changes of death from asphyxia were present, namely, the congested organs and the dark fluid condition of the blood. The asphyxia was not produced by the scarf which was found tied tightly round the neck when the body was found.

Mr. Waddy: If it had been tied tightly round the neck during life what would have been the condition?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: The face would have been very livid and there would have been tiny haemorrhages in the whites of the eyes and the skin of the face. The face must have been livid after death as long as the ligature remained in position.

What conclusion do you come to as to when the ligature was applied? - It was applied after death.

The bruising, he continued, on the left side at the back of the larynx indicated that death was due to strangulation by the hand. The absence of bruising and abrasions on the skin of the neck suggested that deceased had been rendered unconscious before she was strangled. If a woman was conscious while being strangled she would be likely to struggle violently. The number and distribution of the bruises over the body indicated that the deceased received a number of blows and some of these bruises, and especially those on the face, might have rendered her unconscious. Some of the smaller bruises on the arms might have been produced by forcible restraint and others on the back of the neck and front by her being pressed firmly on rough ground during the course of the struggle. The bruises were all recent and of the same age and were produced shortly before death.

Mr. Waddy: Will you speak as to the possibility of death having been produced by suicide?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: It is quite out of the question. Proceeding, he said with regard to the scratches on the body they were consistent with the body having been dragged over and through brambles. Assuming that the body was found in a coppice on May 26th and which was not fully exposed to the sun and assuming that there was an odour of putrifaction when the body was found and that rigor mortis was passing off, it was a strong presumption that death occurred not less than three days before she was found. It would be consistent with her meeting her death on the afternoon of May 23rd.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stuart Daniel, Sir Bernard Spilsbury said the absence of putrifaction might mean that the woman had been dead anything short of three or four days. The death from the stopping of an artery would not account for all the signs he found.

Dr. G. Roche Lynch, official analyst to the Home Office, said that he received the jacket (produced) from Chief Inspector Parker and examined it. At the back of the garment, eight inches from the top seam and three inches from the left side seam, then was a tear. The two parts of the tear formed a right angle, the point of which was directed down and towards the right. The fabric of the garment had been torn and not cut. In his opinion, the tear had been produced by some rigid, round, sharp-pointed article perforating the fabric and whilst in that position the jacket had been moved obliquely downward and to the right, so that one part of the tear was directed upwards and the other to the left away from the point of entrance. The tear was in the cloth of the jacket only, the lining being undamaged. A tear of that type was almost invariably produced when such a garment was caught in barbed wire, but, of course, a similar sharp-pointed article, if firmly pressed, could cause similar damage. In the photograph (produced) of a man with a coat which was torn, the coat was torn in the same position as the enlarged photograph of the tear (produced). Looking at the point of the barbed wire in the lower part of the exhibit (produced), if a man went through the gap backwards the point of the barb could produce the tear which he found. He received from Chief Inspector Parker two tubes of semi-liquid material, which appeared to be the stomach contents, which, with the exception of small lumps of fat, showed almost complete digestion. Assuming that those stomach contents were taken from the deceased the condition of them would indicate that some hours had elapsed since the taking of the last meal. On the 8th July he received from Det. Sergt. Skardon a packet of a certain butter. The tow kinds of fat that were found in the stomach and the butter showed a general similarity. He had examined the green spotted scarf (produced) and observed from one end of the scarf signs of wear. At one end, in places, there appeared to be impressions in the fabric. There was a very slight sign of wear in the other side and three small holes. He saw the pair of braces (produced) and the marks on one end of the scarf could have been made by the teeth of the clip of the braces if the end of the scarf had been pushed in between the clip and the brace material. If a man wore the scarf round his neck the tails of the scarf would have reached to the clip of the braces. The marks could not have been caused by a second pair of braces (produced), which also belonged to the prisoner. He had received some hairs from Chief Inspector Parker. The hairs bearing certain numbers closely resembled the hairs in slide No. 124. He thought that they were probably from the same head. Two of the hairs came from the inside pocket of the jacket and closely resembled those in the slide, No. 124.

The Chairman announced that Whiting would be remanded until Monday.

Folkestone Express 23 July 1938.

Local News.

Two days of this week, so far, have been occupied at the Folkestone Police Court in hearing the evidence against William Whiting, 38, a Folkestone labourer, charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, the Folkestone woman, on or about May 23rd last.

Last week, when Whiting appeared before the Court, Mr. B.H. Waddy, who appeared together with Mr. J. Donal-Barry, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opened the case, a number of witnesses, including Sir Bernard Spilsburv and Dr. Roche Lynch, were called.

Whiting appeared in the dock on Monday, and the chief evidence was that given by Chief Inspector Parker, who presented two statements alleged to have been made by the accused. One was of exceptional length, and it was stated that it occupied 2¾ hours to make. The second was only very short, and in the course of it Whiting was alleged to have said that Mrs Sniers had told him that she was going to do herself in, and when he asked her how she was going to do it said “Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck”. The statement also mentioned that she was wearing a green scarf round her neck. The hearing proceeded on Tuesday, and when the case was re-opened, Mr. Waddy first told the Court that one of the witnesses he proposed to call was in Hospital, unconscious and dangerously ill. When all the other witnesses had been heard, Mr. Waddy said that he understood the witness, whose name was Wanstall, would be well enough to attend the Court on Friday, when the case for the prosecution could be concluded. The magistrates thereupon remanded Whiting until to-day (Friday).

The Magistrates were Councillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

The Court was held in the large hall of the Town Hall, and when the hearing of the evidence was resumed on Monday the balcony was crowded with the general public.

Whiting was provided with a chair in the dock, but for the major portion of the clay be remained standing, and it was very rare that he spoke to his counsel, Mr. J. Stuart Daniel, who was instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett, Police Surgeon, said on Thursday, 26th May, he went to the coppice near the foot of Caesar’s Camp, where he saw the dead body of a woman. He saw a green scarf with white spots (produced) around the woman’s neck. It was round the neck twice and tied tightly with the knot pressing on the right side of the neck. It was close under the chin and above the larynx. He saw it cut and removed from the neck. The colour of the woman's face was natural, and the expression on it was peaceful. There was no blueness of the face, and the tongue was just between the teeth. It was not injured. The nose was bruised and there was blood exuding from both nostrils. It was consistent with a blow on the nose shortly before death. Rigor mortis was definitely present. He did not make a thorough examination in the coppice. The lower jaw and the fingers were stiff. When they turned the body over there were scratches on the left shoulder blade, and the position of the hair and clothing gave the impression that the body bad be on dragged by the feet. Dr. Barrett, proceeding, said later in the evening he conducted a post-mortem examination in the Folkestone mortuary. On examining the body he noticed a smell of putrifaction. All the joints were affected by rigor mortis. The head, shoulders and the hips were stiff, but they were movable. This he attributed to the body having been moved to the glade. Rigor mortis was usually complete in from ten to eighteen hours after death. The usual time was ten to twelve hours. Rigor mortis usually lasted for 48 to 72 hours. The length of rigor mortis depended on climatic conditions. Under cool conditions it lasted longer and was slower in its onset. Continuing, Dr. Barrett said there was a bruise on the lower jaw, three on the forehead, three on the inside of the right arm, one three inches in length on the inner side of the left arm, and two immediately below the collar bone. There were other bruises not evident at the time. During the post-mortem examination he found two collections of fly eggs on the body. Fly eggs were laid as soon as the body putrified. At a temperature of about 50 degrees Fahr. such eggs would take about three days to hatch. At about 8 p.m. on May 27th he saw the body again. He found, by testing, that rigor mortis had disappeared, and the body was limp. He also took the contents of the stomach at that examination. Witness said he showed the body to Sir Bernard Spilsbury on June 1st, and was present when he made his examination.

Mr. Waddy: What is your opinion as to the cause of death?

Dr. Barrett: Strangulation caused by compression of the carotid arteries, causing immediate death.

Having regard to the dissection of the neck, what is your present opinion? - Having regard to what I have seen since I think death was due to pressure on the arteries rather than obstruction of the air passages.

In all the circumstances, what do you say about how long before the time that you saw the body on the evening of May 26th do you think death took place? - At least two, or probably three, days.

Witness was cross-examined about the evidence he gave at the inquest and the opinion he expressed then as to the length of time the woman had been dead.

Mr. Stuart Daniel, referring to the evidence given at the inquest, read: "The deceased had, in my opinion, been dead not longer than two days” - you said that on oath?

Witness: Yes.

Later, witness said he could not remember what he said, but if counsel had it in writing he would admit it. Continuing, witness said the scratch on the left shoulder blade was caused after death.

Mr. Daniel: Were all the others, in your opinion, incurred before death?

Witness: Quite definitely.

As to the cause of death, do you disagree with Sir Bernard Spilsbury? - I do disagree with Bernard Spilsbury. In my opinion it was caused by the tightening of the ligature.

Mr. Stanley Seymour Harrison, a photographer, of Tontine Street, Folkestone, gave evidence of the photographs he had taken of the body in the coppice and also of others taken when a tailor’s dummy was used in connection with the obstruction, consisting of branches of trees and a portion of the fence.

Mr. Bertram Harry Bonniface, Deputy Borough Coroner, said he had in his possession a report made by Dr. Barrett to the Coroner of the post-mortem examination on a woman unknown and put in at the inquest.

Dr. Barrett, re-called by Mr. Waddy for re-examination, said the report produced was the report he made to the Coroner.

Det. Inspector James O’Brien, of New Scotland Yard, gave evidence of taking photographs of a green scarf, a pair of braces, and a handkerchief. One of the photographs showed holes in the green scarf made by the clip of the braces.

Mr. Robert Henry Bird, a photographer employed by a firm known as Holiday Snaps, said the photograph of Mrs. Spiers produced was taken on the promenade near the Royal Victoria Pier at approximately 11 a.m. on Saturday, May 21st.

Mr. Alfred James Carter, of Ramsgate, a photographer employed by the same firm, said lie took the photographs produced near the Zig-Zag Cafe on Saturday, 21st May. It was a photograph of Mrs. Spiers. The other photograph of Mrs. Spiers was taken on Monday, 23rd May, at about 11.30 to 12 a.m., judging by the shadows. He noticed that she was wearing a scarf - it might have been a lined or spotted scarf.

Mr. Geoffrey Poole, Borough Surveyor’s assistant at Folkestone, produced a plan of the coppice where the body of Mrs. Spiers was found.

Mr. Douglas S. Moncrieff, 23, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, in charge of the meteorological department of Folkestone, said on 23rd May the maximum temperature was 64 degrees Fahr. and the minimum 42 degrees Fahr. The minimum grass temperature was 36 degrees. There was no rainfall. On Tuesday, 24th May, the maximum temperature was 63 degrees, and the minimum 44. There was no rainfall recorded at 10 a.m., but at 6 p.m. there was 0.01 inches recorded. On Wednesday, 25th May, the maximum temperature was 59 degrees Fahr. and the minimum 48 degrees. There was a fall of rain of less than .005 inches at 10 a.m., and at 6 p.m. .3 inches of rain. On Thursday, May 26th, the maximum temperature was 61 degrees, and the minimum 46 degrees. The rainfall at 10 a.m. was .02 inches, and at 6 p.m. nil.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stuart Daniel, witness said there was no rainfall on Sunday, May 22nd.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

When the case was resumed, Mr. Stuart Daniel said he had a short application to make on behalf of the prisoner, who complained that he had not been given anything to drink since breakfast time.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he did not know whether it was intoxicating liquor, but if it was anything else it could be prepared for him.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: He is asking for a pint of beer.

The Clerk said that was not possible as it was intoxicating drink.

The Chairman said it was not really a matter for them to deal with Det. Con. Bates, the Coroner’s Officer, said he went to the coppice at the foot of Caesar’s Camp, where be saw the body of the dead woman. There was a smell of putrifaction. He saw the fly eggs, and collected them in a glass tube, which be placed in a drawer at the Police Station. He examined it from time to time, and on Sunday, 29th, at 9.30 a.m. be found that the eggs had hatched, and the grubs were crawling. The approximate temperature of the office was 50 degrees Fahr. Continuing, witness said he showed the body of the woman to Mr. Spiers, to a Mr. Santer and Mr. Wanstall. On 31st May, in the evening, he took the prisoner to an outfitter in Folkestone and purchased him a complete change of clothing. He changed into the new clothing at the Police Station, and witness took possession of all the clothing he had been wearing.

He was wearing a trilby hat, trousers and braces, and a jacket with a tear. These he produced. The green zip-fastener purse (produced) was found in the left-hand pocket of the jacket.

Mr. Waddy pointed out that was the pocket from which Dr. Roche Lynch had said he had taken certain hairs.

Mrs. Bernice Katherine Hegarty, 18, Mead Road, Folkestone, said she had known Mrs. Spiers as “Phyllis Minter” for about 3½ years. She recognised the handbag which she knew belonged to the murdered woman. She had a green purse which was something like the one produced. Witness could not say whether it was the same one. She remembered the murdered woman wearing a scarf, a plaid sort of thing with a white and black fringe. The piece of material produced was exactly like the scarf the murdered woman used to wear. She had never seen Phyllis wearing a green spotted scarf like the one produced.

Mr. Daniel: When was the last time you saw Phyllis?

Witness: On the Saturday before she was found.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said that on the evening of the 26th May he went to the coppice at the base of Caesar’s Camp. He took possession of the handbag (produced). He examined the contents of the bag, and found the piece of scarf (produced) in the bag. On the 27th May he made a search round the site and found a comb with one end broken off. He examined the ground between the spot where he found the comb and the barrier. The ground had the appearance of having had a heavy object dragged over it in the direction of the barrier. Near the spot where he found the comb he found a long hair, which he put in an envelope. One hair was taken from inside the collar of the coat covering the body. Another hair was taken from under the left lapel of the coat, and another from the right lapel of the coat. He also found a hair on the bramble over the body. He took a hair off the fence post which formed part of an exhibit. In another envelope he placed three hairs from the prisoner’s hat. He took some hairs from the head of the deceased woman at the mortuary and placed them in an envelope. On the 11th July last, in the presence of prisoner’s solicitor, he took four hairs from the prisoner’s head. On the 31st May he went to the common lodging-house at 50, Dover Street. He then obtained from the deputy a suitcase full of property. He showed them to the prisoner. Amongst the things were some photographs which prisoner intimated he would like. He found a blue and white pair of braces in the case. There was no scarf at all. He handed all the property to Chief Inspector Parker. On the 7th July he purchased half a pound of a certain make of butter and sent it to Chief Inspector Parker.

Robert John Read, 50, Dover Street, Folkestone, said he was the deputy of the lodging-house in Dover Street. He had known Whiting well for six to eight years. Prisoner had stayed at the house and was in and out of the house about two months ago. He kept a daily record of the men who stayed in the lodging- house. On the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th of May Whiting was booked to stay the night. He was occupying bed No. 25. He had a suitcase under his bed, which he handed to a police officer. He could not remember the date, but it was about the end of the week. There was an old bus driver’s coat over the bed.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: Were there any braces lying about?

Witness: I don’t remember any.

There was a certain amount of stuff lying about belonging to various people? - Yes, various articles.

If you find things lying about, and you do not know to whom they belong, do you put them in his suitcase? - Yes, I do if the man has one.

I suppose things sometimes get into a muddle? Yes, they pretty often get into a muddle.

Chief Inspector W. Parker, New Scotland Yard, said on May 27th he went to the coppice with Det. Sergt. Skardon. They went again the following morning and examined the clearing. From the state of the ground it was quite clear that some heavy object had been dragged to the obstruction in the pathway. He saw the prisoner at the Folkestone Police Station on May 30th. He was accompanied by Det. Sergt. Skardon. He said “We are police officers from London making enquiries concerning Phyllis May Spiers who was found dead on May 26th at Caesar’s Camp. I believe you knew her.” He replied “Yes.” Witness then said “I desire you to tell me all you know about this woman and your association with her”. Whiting replied “I will tell you what I know”.

Mr. Daniel questioned Det. Inspector Parker about the circumstances and the conditions when a statement was taken from Whiting.

Mr. Daniel: What was the time when you first came in contact with him?

Det.-Inspector Parker: About ten o’clock at night.

Do you know how long he had been in the Police Station then? - No, I do not.

Would you be surprised to know that he had been there since 7.30? - No, I should not be surprised.

What time did he leave that evening? - I finished with him somewhere about two o’clock in the morning, but, of course, there were interruptions in between. I had to see other people, and he had his storv to tell me, and his statement was taken after.

Are you sure it was not later than that? - No.

It was exactly two o’clock? - Yes.

Did you make him strip at this interview?

The Magistrates’ Clerk: At what stage, in the course of making the statement?

Witness: After the statement had been taken from him in writing.

Mr. Daniel: At what time between ten and two was the statement taken?

Det.-Inspector Parker: He commenced to tell me his story about ten o’clock or shortly after, and I should think the statement was commenced round about eleven o’clock.

How long did it take to get it down? - About 2¾ hours. It was written down carefully and very slowly.

Did he sign it immediately? - After the statement had been read over to him.

Whiting: You never read it over to me.

Mr. Daniel: Are you sure it was read over to him?

Det. Inspector Parker: I am positive.

Did you say “Now sign here and walk out a free man.”? - No, I certainly did not.

Did you say anything of that sort? - No.

Was anything of that sort said to the prisoner in your presence? - No.

Did he have anything to drink during this time? - Whilst I was there, no.

You were there all the time? - During the time I have mentioned Whiting, in his statement, said: “I am a widower, my wife died on 3rd May, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. My wife left me in 1935.” Later, went on the statement, he lived in Dover with a Mrs. Woodbridge. She left him in November, 1937, after her mother received a letter from a landlord in Folkestone saying that her daughter was drinking in public houses. While he was living with Mrs. Woodbridge a young girl, who Mrs. Woodbridge said was named Phyllis Minter, came to see her. In his statement Whiting said he met the murdered woman on Monday, May 23rd at about 12.30 p.m., and they went to the Globe public house on The Bayle. They stayed for about ten minutes. While they were there she said she could get married again. “I said ‘Can you?’” continued Whiting’s statement, “and read the divorce papers. She said ‘Why don’t you marry me and let’s go back to Dover?’” The statement then went on to describe how Whiting and the girl went to the golf links. “We sat down on the grass”, it continued, “when she pulled out something wrapped in brown paper. Some stitches and a ring, a little bone ring. She said they were stitches which had been taken out of her operation. We were both thinking. I don't know what was the matter with her that day. She was not cheerful. She did not speak much. I believe there was something worrying her. I have seen her like it at Dover when she came in staring at me. I cannot say what was on her mind. Perhaps it was because she was down and out. I said nothing to upset her”. Continuing, the statement described how they made their way to Cherry Garden Lane and into Cheriton Road, after crossing the golf links. “I told her that I worshipped Rose”, it continued. “I said 'If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again'. I did not see Phyllis at all on Tuesday. Phyllis and I did not discuss living together before last Monday”.

Continuing his evidence, Chief Inspector Parker said he examined the prisoner's body, and there were no scratches on it. He was wearing a blue cloth jacket. At the back of the jacket, at the point of the left shoulder blade, there was a right angle tear. Witness asked him where he tore his jacket, and he replied “I don't know where or when I did it”. He showed him the green scarf and asked him if he recognised it. He replied “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that”. At about 11.15 p.m. on June 1st he, together with Det. Sergt. Skardon. saw ihe prisoner and went through the statement up to the point where he referred to sitting on the grass on the golf course on May 23rd. Whiting then made a statement which witness immediately instructed Sergt. Skardon to write down. Witness said to the prisoner after the statement had been taken “Would you care for this statement which you have just made to be taken down in writing?” He replied “Yes, it is quite true”. The prisoner was taken to the Chief Constable’s office, where he was cautioned, and the statement was read to him from Det. Sergt. Skardon’s notebook. The statement was as follows: “When we went on to the golf course on the Monday, the day I have already told you about, I mean when I was with Phyllis and when we were sitting on the grass, she was very quiet, and I said ‘What is the matter?’ She said ‘I am fed up and I am going to do myself in’. I said ‘How are you going to do it?’ and she said ‘Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck’. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. After we got up and walked across the golf links. She was very quiet and kept saying she was fed up. I have not seen her since that Monday, 22nd May, 1938.” “I might tell you that she was partly the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving me”, the statement concluded. Describing how the last sentence of the statement came out, witness said before Whiting made the last part of the statement there was some delay. He was very quiet and he appeared to be thinking very deeply.

The case was at this stage adjourned until the following day.

Before the evidence for the prosecution was continued on Tuesday Mr. Waddy referred to a witness who was unconscious and in Hospital. He said one of the witnesses he proposed to call that day was in Hospital dangerously ill. An officer was waiting to see if he regained consciousness, and if he did it might be necessary to take an examination of the witness at the Hospital, which was permissible under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1867. It was important, he continued, that if a witness was ill and not likely to recover that it should be done. The Court would adjourn to the Hospital.

The Chairman of the Magistrates: It is very unfortunate.

Mr. Waddy: I understand it was only this morning that the witness was admitted to the Hospital unconscious.

When the day’s proceedings were brought to a close, Mr. Waddy said he could have completed all the evidence had it not been for the unfortunate illness of the witness, Wanstall, who was still in Hospital. He was told that Wanstall was expected to be there to give evidence on Friday.

It is understood that a man named Frederick Wanstall, of Invicta Road, an employee of the Folkestone Golf Club, was found unconscious at the edge of a pond on the golf links on Tuesday morning. His clothing was wet, and he was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital, where he was detained.

Chief Inspector Parker went into the box for the purpose of Mr. Stuart Daniel continuing his cross-examination.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: Why did you read through his statement?

Witness: I was endeavouring to test the accuracy of his statement.

During the interview was it you that first mentioned suicide? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon, New Scotland Yard, said on the afternoon of 27th May, 1938, he went with Chief Inspector Parker to a coppice near Caesar’s Camp. It was raining heavily at the time. He noticed a clearing to the west of the barrier which was an exhibit. There were signs as if some heavy object had been dragged towards the barrier from a spot about ten to fifteen feet away. He was present when the statement was made by Whiting. Prisoner was wearing a blue jacket which had a right-angle tear. Chief Inspector Parker said “Where did you tear your jacket?” and be replied "I don’t know where or when I did it”. He saw Chief Inspector Pinker produce the scarf and said “Do you recognise the scarf?” Whiting said “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that”. On the 1st June he was present throughout the interview in which the second statement was made. On the fourth June he posed for the photograph (produced). On the 8th June he posed for a second photograph. He went through the barrier backwards, the only practical way, wearing a blue tunic. He tore his tunic on the barb of wire which he saw in the exhibit. He tore it on the left shoulder blade. That tear was quite accidental though he Knew there was a barb there and there was a chance of tearing it.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: You have seen both these tears, have you?

Witness: Yes.

They are quite a different shape? - 'Yes, they are different materials.

The weave in the two coats runs at the same angle from the shoulder? - Yes.

Was it not you or Inspector Parker who first suggested suicide? - No.

Did you say to the prisoner “He is trying to help you”? - No.

Pte. Harold Wall, of the 1st Bn. Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe, said that he recognised a girl in the photograph (produced) as Phyllis Butcher. He met her first about last March. He became friendly with her, and they lived together as man and wife from about 15th to the 19th May in Sandgate. In the photograph he saw that Phyllis was wearing a scarf. It was his scarf. The piece of scarf (produced) was part of his scarf. On two sides it was plain and on the other two a sort of fringe. He had the fringe cut off and the ends bound over. One side of the material produced showed where it had been bound over. He last saw her on the 19th May, and he left the scarf behind him. He went to Aldershot. He had never seen the green scarf (produced) in Phyllis’ possession.

Mr. John Joseph Hearst, 100, Joyes Road, Folkestone, manager of Messrs. Hepworth’s, Folkestone, said they stocked a similar scarf to the one produced. They stocked them from October, 1936, to November, 1937. He might have had them in stock after that date, but could not say definitely. They were definitely again in stock from October, 1937, to February or March, 1938.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: It’s a very common type of scarf isn’t it?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Joseph Charles Kember, 4, Shakespeare Road, Dover, employed at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he knew the prisoner by sight, and had interviewed him in connection with his duties. He last sent him to work on the 19th April to the Esplanade Hotel. He noticed he was wearing round his neck a scarf or neckerchief. It was dark green with white spots. The green scarf (produced) was very similar to the one he wore. It was tied at the left-hand side of the throat. He would think that it was wound twice round the neck and then tied. It appeared to be in a reef knot. He saw him wearing the scarf on the 21st April. On the 16th to 20th May, to the best of his recollection, Whiting was wearing the scarf. That was the last time he saw him wearing the scarf. He next saw him on the 30th May, but he could not say whether he was wearing a scarf at all.

P.C. Pearce, Dover Borough Police, said on the 9th April last the prisoner was in his charge at Dover for about three-quarters of an hour. He noticed that he was wearing a bottle green scarf with dirty white spots around his neck. The green scarf (produced) was very similar to the one that lie saw. The scarf was wound round prisoner's neck twice and tied in a small knot on the left-hand side of his neck.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: I want to get it quite clear it was not in connection with any criminal offence that he was in your charge?

Witness: No.

Mr. John McKinnon Taylor, 24, Walton Gardens, Folkestone, a clerk in the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said that he knew the prisoner by sight. He went on leave on the 21st May and returned on the 30th May. He last saw the accused on Friday, the 20th May, before he went on leave. On that occasion Whiting was wearing a green scarf with white spots round his neck quite similar to the one produced. He had frequently seen him wearing the green scarf. He saw the prisoner on the 30th May, and he was not wearing any scarf then, and he had never seen him wearing a scarf since that date.

Mrs. A.M. Wright, of 9, Garden Road, Folkestone, said she recognised Mrs. Spiers in the photograph. She came to her house on Saturday, 21st May, and witness let her a room in the name of Phyllis Minter, She stayed in the house on Saturday night, and on the Sunday night, and witness took her bread and butter and tea into her room on Monday morning. She used a certain kind of butter. On Monday morning witness went out with Phyllis, and they walked into the town. They did some shopping and left each other at 10.25 a.m., when witness caught a bus in Sandgate Road. She had not seen Mrs. Spiers since, but she had an appointment to meet her at the Lido at 7.45 p.m. on the Monday. Witness kept the appointment, but Mrs. Spiers did not arrive. Witness went home and waited for Mrs. Spiers. The comb produced belonged to Mrs. Spiers. She saw it on the chest of drawers by the side of her bed. As far as she could see Phyllis did not have a green scarf similar to the one produced.

Mr. Hubert Pynaert, a waiter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he first saw Mrs. Spiers at the hotel, where she was working, about a year ago. He had only seen her once this year, on May 23rd, at 9.40 a.m., and he was with her until 12.30 p.m. During that time they walked by the beach. She was wearing a dark scarf with light lines in it. The piece of material produced was similar to the scarf.

Mr. Charles Leonard Varrier, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, said he knew the prisoner and Mrs. Spiers. He knew her as the “Minter girl”. He last saw her on May 23rd at about 1.30 p.m. or 1.40 p.m. on the corner of New Street. He saw Whiting come out of a shop and go over to her. They both turned the corner of Bradstone Road together.

Mrs. Lilian Maude Varrier, wife of the previous witness, said she knew the prisoner. She saw him on Monday, May 23rd. He went to the corner of Bradstone Road and New Street, where he met a girl wearing a long blue coat.

Mrs. Norah Laws, of 68, Foord Road, said she knew the dead woman as Mrs. Butcher. She came to her house on a Thursday in May and took a room. She stayed for two nights, Thursday and Friday nights. She left without paying witness. Continuing, witness said she saw Mrs. Spiers the following Monday at dinner time. She was with a man. Mrs. Spiers ran after her and spoke to her. She saw Mrs. Spiers and the man cross over by the Foord baths. That was the last she saw of her.

Mr. William David Marsh, of 18, Clarence Street, Folkestone, a Folkestone Corporation employee, said he had to do some repair work to paving stones in Radnor Park Avenue, opposite the Peter Pan Pool. On Monday, May 23rd, he saw Whiting and a woman pass, going in the direction of the golf links. He did not know the woman.

William J. Harbird, of 23. Allendale Street, Folkestone, a gardener, employed at 7, Julian Road, said he saw Whiting in Radnor Park Avenue either on May 23rd or 24th with a woman. They were going towards the golf links. The woman was wearing a blue coat and was hatless. He recognised the young lady in the photograph produced.

Mr. Harry James Santer, of 5, Pavilion Road, Folkestone, a groundsman employed by the Folkestone Golf Club, said on June 1st he was shown the dead body of a young woman. He had seen her before on May 23rd at about 1.20 p.m. on the beach road at the Folkestone golf links. Whiting was with her. He saw the girl sit down on the bank and Whiting standing about nine feet away from her. He noticed that the girl was very red under the eyes, and it appeared to him as if she had been crying.

Mr. Waddy said the next witness he wanted to call was the one in the Hospital.

Mrs. Florence Thompson, of 19, Hamilton Road, Dover, said she knew the dead woman, Phyllis, and Whiting. She had noticed that the prisoner wore a green scarf similar to the one produced. She had seen him wearing the scarf at Dover on several occasions. Once, when she came over to Folkestone she saw Whiting at the Guildhall Hotel a day or two before May 30th. She went to various places, and eventually to the South Foreland public house with Whiting. Witness mentioned she knew a girl called Rose. Whiting told her that he thought a lot of Rose, and he did not know the reason why she left him. Witness said she happened to mention Phyllis' name in Jordan's public house, and Whiting said “If you don't keep your mouth shut I will put you on the spot”. Witness said it was a shame Phyllis was murdered, as she was a decent girl. Whiting asked her how she would like a scarf round her neck. “He said 'You can do a murder without finding the print marks or the foot marks'”, continued witness. “I said 'No, it would not pay you to'”, added witness.

Mr. Robert William Weatherhead, of 35, Darlington Street, Folkestone, said he knew Whiting well. He remembered a “noisy” evening at the Guildhall public house on a Friday about 23rd or 24th June. Whiting was in the saloon bar and came round to the public bar and played a game of darts with witness as his partner. Whiting was abusive to the landlord, and witness tried to pacify him. Whiting tucked up his sleeves and rushed towards the counter. Witness tried to pull him back, and he said “You ----. I will serve you the same as I served the blondie”.

Mr. Daniel: I think I will have an objection to this evidence.

Mr. Waddy: How can there be any objection?

Witness said that Whiting had had one or two drinks.

Mr. Daniel said he did object to the evidence. It was not admissible against him unless it amounted to a confession or admission of facts which tended to prove that he committed the crime. Taken at its worst, the evidence amounted to nothing more than the admission of a violent act on an unspecified person.

The Chairman of the Magistrates said they did not find any grounds on which they could object to the evidence going in.

Mr. William W.H. Hall, of 16, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said he had seen Whiting with Rose Milton (Mrs. Woodbridge) at the Elham Institution. Whiting stayed with witness in March for about two weeks. He said he wished he was back with Rose, and if she ever wanted to, he was willing to start a home. Witness knew they had been living together. Whiting used to talk about her a lot. Whiting wore a green scarf with white spots on it. He wore it twice round his neck and tucked inside his jersey.

Mrs. Daisy E.C. Hall, wife of the last witness, said Whiting seemed very upset that Rose had left him, and blamed the girl’s mother. She did the prisoner’s washing, and she remembered that he had a green scarf with white spots on it.

Cross-examined, witness agreed that Whiting had only one pair of braces.

Mrs. Elvey Flynn, of 21, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Minter. She also knew Rose Milton, Whiting and Mr. and Mrs. Hall.

Whiting asked her on one occasion if she had seen Rose. She replied she had not seen her since the time she came out of the pictures. He said “Have you said anything to her?” and she replied “No”. He then asked her if she knew anyone who had, and did she think Phyllis had said anything? He said if he did find out anybody who did tell her anything he would strangle them. Witness noted that the prisoner wore a green scarf with white spots on it. The scarf produced was the scarf. She had seen him put it on. He knotted it in front and twisted each end round his braces.

Mrs. Rose Cathleen Woodbridge, of the Eight Bells lodging house, King Street, Canterbury, said she knew a man named Milton, and for a time lived with him as his wife. While she was living with Milton she got to know a girl named Phyllis Minter. On 4th September, 1935, she married Mr. Woodbridge and lived with him for nearly a year. After she had separated from him she lived with the prisoner. At that time she had known Whiting for just over a year. She lived with him until a fortnight before Christmas, when she went home. She had been to the Alexandra public house, Folkestone, with Phyllis while she was living with Whiting. When she got home she told Whiting about two fellows who had asked her and Phyllis to go away with them. Whiting started to get a bit rough over it. He said “If you don't stop going about with Phyllis I shall do something wrong”. He said he would try to strangle her (Phyllis), and witness told him to be careful as walls might have ears. Later on her (witness’) mother came and took her home, and Whiting was quite upset. She had not seen him since she left him.

While Whiting lived with her he wore a green scarf with white spots round his neck. It was similar to the scarf produced. She had worn the scarf which he had said he had purchased from Hepburn’s near the Savoy Picture Theatre.

Mrs. Woodbridge, accompanied by Mr. Lloyd Bunce and Det. Segrt. Skardon, was taken out to identify the shop. When she returned she said it was Lewis and Hyland's.

Cross-examined, witness said Whiting had only one pair of braces.

Alfred James Moore, of 10, Dale Street, Chiswick, said in the early part of the year he was employed as a clerk in the Public Assistance Department at Folkestone. He had seen the prisoner on several occasions in the middle of March and he noticed that he was wearing a green scarf with white spots.

Mr. Waddy said had it not been for the unfortunate illness of an important witness he could easily have finished. He was unable to call a man named Wanstall, who was in Hospital. He was told that they expected to have Wanstall there to give evidence by Friday. It was just possible that in calling him he might have to call one more witness to fix a certain place and date.

Whiting was remanded in custody until today (Friday).

Folkestone Express 30 July 1938.

Local News.

The evidence for the prosecution in the case known as the green scarf murder case was completed at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, when William Whiting (38), a labourer, of Dover Street, Folkestone, charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, who was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on May 26th, was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court.

The case would have been completed earlier in the week, but Mr. B H. Waddy, for the prosecution, was unable to call Frederick Wanstall, an important witness, who was stated to be unconscious in the Royal Victoria Hospital.

First of all on Friday Mr. Waddy recalled Mr. J.C. Kember, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, who corrected a date he gave in evidence at the previous hearing. He said he sent Whiting for a job on March 19th, and not April 19th.

Frederick Wanstall, 17, Invicta Road, Folkestone, a groundsman employed by the Folkestone Golf Club, said at the beginning of June he was taken to the mortuary and shown the dead body of a girl. He saw the girl on Monday, 23rd May, at about 2.30 p.m. Witness was cutting the 16th tee on the golf course, which was close to the road known as Cherry Garden Avenue or the New Road. The girl was accompanied by Whiting, and they passed within four or five yards of him going towards Caesar’s Camp. He went on with his work and saw the couple going up Waterworks Hill. He saw them up to the bend, when they disappeared from view.

Beyond the bend there was a stile, and by getting over it a person could follow a cow track round the foot of Caesar’s Camp to Sugar Loaf Hill and into the New Road again.

Mr. Waddy said that was the evidence he called for the prosecution, and upon that evidence he would ask the magistrates to commit the prisoner for trial at the next session at the Central Criminal Court. There was no Kent Assizes for many months. There would he a session of the Central Criminal Court in the early part of September.

The prisoner reserved his defence, and said he would call witnesses at his trial.

The Chairman (Councillor R. G. Wood) said Whiting would be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court.

Folkestone Express 6 August 1938.

Local News.

We understand that Mr. St. John Hutchinson, K.C., has been retained as leading counsel to defend William Whiting, the Folkestone man charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, on his trial at the Central Criminal Court, in September.

Folkestone Express 10 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder charge will open at the Old Bailey, London, on Monday, that day having been fixed after the opening of the Sessions on Tuesday. The case will, it is expected, last for at least two days.

William Whiting, a Folkestone 38 year old widower, is charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, who was found dead at the foot of Caesar’s Camp with a green scarf round her neck. It was stated at the Police Court proceedings in July that she had been strangled.

Amongst the witnesses for the prosecution will be Sir Bernard Spilsbury, Dr. Roche Lynch, Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon, two officers sent down by Scotland Yard, to carry out the investigations into the crime.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., the Recorder of Folkestone, will appear for the prosecution, and Mr. St. J. Hutchinson, K.C., will be the leading counsel for the defence.

Folkestone Express 17 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder trial at the Old Bailey has occupied three days this week, and last (Thursday) evening, when the Court rose shortly before six o’clock, all the evidence for the prosecution and defence and the counsels’ closing speeches bad been heard. Mr. Justice Wrottesley, before whom the case is being heard, will give his summing up this (Friday) morning, and it is expected that the jury, of whom three are women, will give their verdict today.

The large number of exhibits were displayed in the Court, and the branches of a tree in a frame were placed in front of the dock. This was closely inspected by the jury on Wednesday when the Court rose for luncheon. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused man came through the branches backwards, dragging the body of the murdered woman, and that a barb in a portion of the wire fence tore his coat on the shoulder.

The case was fixed to start on Monday, but owing to another case, which was not finished last week, occupying the greater portion of the day, it was decided that a start should not be made until the following day.

When Mrs. Rose Woodbridge was giving evidence on Wednesday the accused man cried in the dock.

The trial opened on Tuesday, when William Whiting, aged 38, a well-known Folkestone labourer, was placed in the dock on the charge of the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, of Folkestone, on or about May 23rd, near Caesar’s Camp. She was found lying dead, covered with a coat, having apparently been strangled, on the evening of May 26th. When the charge was put to him Whiting pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., the Recorder of Folkestone, and Mr. B.H. Waddy were for the prosecution, and Mr. St. J. Hutchinson, K.C., and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel appeared on Whiting’s behalf.

Mr. Roland Oliver said the object of his opening speech was to try to place the story before the jury so that they could have the general case of the prosecution. The best way, he said, was to put before the jury plans. At the top of one they would see marked three hills, forming the prominent feature of the landscape. A dotted line marked a line of thickets expanding the whole length of the foot of the hills. In places the thicket was extremely thick. Continuing, he said one way of getting to the thickets would be to go through various streets of the town. When they arrived at the golf course they walked to the left, which brought them into a road called Cherry Garden Avenue. When they got to Cherry Garden Avenue they turned to their right and went up towards Castle Hill. There was a stile which they could get over, and in that way walk along the hill side of the thicket. It was a very solitary place, and a very secluded place. The body was found some three-quarters of a mile round the thicket in the neighbourhood of Sugar Loaf Hill. She, and presumably her murderer, must have walked along that track to the secluded spot where she was murdered. It was a rough walk, and the jury would probably come to the conclusion that a man and woman would not go to such a place as that on a mere pleasure walk. Several reasons might occur to them. From that point of view it was right that they should know something about the woman. Mrs. Spiers was 22, and was married before she was 17. She lived with her husband for two years, until 1934, and then they parted, and her husband had never seen her again. “I am afraid there is no doubt that she was a young woman who was of an extremely immoral character’,’ continued Mr. Oliver. “She had affairs with a great many men, and was, therefore, a young woman who might have gone to that place with almost any type of man, certainly a good many. The prisoner knew her quite well”. Mrs. Spiers, he said, was practically destitute. She made a practice of staying a night or two at lodgings, without any luggage, and invariably disappeared without paying. The manner of her murder, explained Mr. Oliver, was apparently plainly written on the scene of the crime and on her body. She had obviously been violently attacked, probably with fists, and beaten into a state of unconsciousness before she was actually murdered. After that she had been dragged further into the thicket, because the place where she was first attacked could be seen from part of one of the hills that overlooked the thicket. The body was dragged by the murderer deeper into the thicket to a place where it could not be seen unless somebody went right into the thing. “Our case is that, the body lay there from May 23rd to the 26th”, he added. A blue coat was thrown over the body, and round the neck, tied twice and tightly knotted, was a green scarf which was one of the salient pieces of evidence in the case. Whether the scarf was tied round after or before death did not matter. Whether the scarf murdered her or bare hands, it did not matter. The murderer had to drag the body, and he, presumably, walked backwards, dragging the body by the feet. He had to go past a piece of barbed wire in an obstruction, and the jury would see that someone walking backwards dragging a body must run a considerable chance of damaging his clothing in the spikes of barbed wire. It was clear that the woman’s body had been dragged. The whole of her clothing had been torn up and filled with twigs and brambles. Her hair was pulled right out behind her head as it had been dragged along the ground. Round the woman’s neck was tied the scarf, and the members of the jury would be asked by the prosecution to say whether or not they were satisfied that the green scarf belonged to the man who murdered her. They had a quantity of evidence that she never had such a scarf herself. She was, by a curious coincidence, snap-shotted on that very day of her death, walking with another man in Folkestone, and the scarf that the photograph depicted her wearing was quite obviously nothing like the green scarf. In her handbag, when the body was discovered, was found a piece of the scarf she was wearing. Most of it had disappeared, but a little piece had been pushed in her handbag. There was conclusive evidence that she was wearing that scarf on that day, and that the green scarf was not hers, but the murderer’s. The prosecution said the murder took place on May 23rd sometime after 2.30 p.m. He was aware that there were witnesses who were coming to say that she was alive after May 23rd. The jury would have to consider very carefully their evidence when they came. They would be glad to hear that those witnesses were found by the police. So far as they could tell, he went on, the people who knew her best, people who were habitually seeing her, said that was the last day they ever saw her. They had been unable to find any place where she stopped after May 23rd. They would have in evidence that when the body was discovered there was a smell of decomposition. If she had died on May 25th or 26th that would be very unlikely. The last known meal the woman had was breakfast consisting of bread find butter on Monday, May 23rd at about nine o’clock. On the Sunday morning she bad deposited her luggage at the offices of the East Kent Road Car Company in Sandgate Road. If May 23rd was accepted as the day on which the young woman was murdered the last person she was seen alive with was the prisoner, walking in the direction of the stile that led to the scene of the crime. Mr. Oliver said Whiting had associated with a woman named Rose Woodbridge, a married woman, who left her husband in September, 1936, and went to live with the prisoner at Dover. She lived with him until somewhere about November last. Phyllis Spiers was a very close friend of Rose Woodbridge, and saw a lot of her and the prisoner at the time. Whiting did not approve of Phyllis' association with Rose. One evening Rose came home and told him she had been out with Phyllis and had met a couple of men who had asked the two of them to go and live with them. Whiting told Rose that if she did not stop sroing about with Phyllis he would do something wron.tr. Then he threatened he would strangle Phyllis. "Beware of Rose Woodbridge. You may not think her a very reliable sort of witness, but that does not mean she cannot tell the truth. It is for you to determine the value of these things”, added Mr. Oliver. “It was quite clear the prisoner was very fond of her. Whiting and Mrs. Woodbridge separated - her mother, I think, took her away - and this made him very jealous. He was anxious to find out who had brought about the separation. He was desperately in love with her. In a statement to the police he said he worshipped her, and in his mind Phyllis was the person really responsible for coming between them”. Concerning the green scarf, Mr. Oliver said it was probably the most reliable piece of evidence in that case Whiting had denied not only that it was not his scarf, but that he had never had a scarf like it. He has asserted that he was not wearing a scarf on the day of the murder. The prosecution had evidence that right up to the day of the murder he was wearing a similar green scarf, but that on the day of the murder he was not. Another piece of evidence, found on a post in the thicket, was a hair similar to Whiting's. On July 1st Whiting made a long statement to the police in which he said that he and Phyllis walked to the golf course and sat on the grass. Phyllis was very quiet. “I said, ‘What is the matter?' the statement proceeded She said 'I am fed up, and am going to do myself in.’ I said 'How are you going to do it?’ and she said, 'Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck.’ She was wearing a green spotted scarf.” He contended that Mrs. Spiers could not have strangled herself.

Kenneth George Andrews (16), of 23, Ethelbert Road, Folkestone, a grocer’s roundsman, said on Thursday, 26th May, fee went to a coppice at the foot of Caesar’s Camp bird-nesting. At about 6 p.m. he saw what appeared to be a bundle, but, looking closer, he saw it was a body of a woman covered with a coat. He shouted, and touched the head with & stick. He realised the woman was not sleeping, and later spoke to a police officer. He saw the body again, and it had not been interfered with.

Mr. Geoffrey Poole, an assistant in the Borough Surveyor’s office, produced a street plan of Folkestone. He said he went to the scene and took measurements of the gap and checked the position of the gap after it was framed. It was the same as it was when growing.

Cross-examined, witness said standing on the sixteenth tee of the golf course it was possible to see up Castle Hill. There was a hut connected with the Kent Agricultural Show and some trees on the corner, but it was possible to see past them.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett, said Stanley Seymour Harrison, a photographer, was a patient of his, and was so ill as not to be able to travel.

Mr. Roland Oliver read the deposition of Mr. Harrison’s evidence given at the Police Court proceedings.

Mr. Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, a milk roundsman, said on May 27th he identified the body Of his wife, aged 22 years. In the photographs produced he recognised his wife as the young woman wearing a dark coat. They were married on April 11th, 1932, ad parted on April 13th, 1934. He last saw his wife alive in August, 1934, at Hastings. Before her death he had commenced divorce proceedings against her.

Chief Inspector Hollands said he went with the witness Andrews and the Coroner’s Officer to the coppice, where the body was found, and caused the book of photographs to be taken. The body had apparently been dragged to the place through the gap framed in Court. When he raised the coat from the body he noticed a strong smell of putrefaction. On Monday, 23rrd, it was a fine day, but on Tuesday it rained from 1.30 to 2.30 p.m. On Wednesday it rained all the afternoon. On the day when the body was found it was fine. The coat over the body was damp, and there were rain marks on the handbag. There were little pitmarks on the ground, and there were dirt marks on the woman’s hand and arms where the rain had splashed up. The ground under the body was dry. In the place where he found the body there was no sign of a struggle. Round the woman’s neck was tied the green-spotted scarf. It was twisted round twice very tightly, and knotted.

Mr. Hutchinson: Whoever it was who pulled this body through all these brambles, you would expect their coat to be very much scratched with brambles?

Witness: No.

How can you push through these sort of brambles without any mark, tear, scratch, or any result on your coat? - I went through them, and my coat did not get scratched with brambles.

Dealing with the question of the tear In the prisoner’s coat, Mr. Hutchinson asked: When the man made the experiment he knew there was a tear in the left-hand shoulder of the defendant’s coat?

Chief Inspector Hollands: Yes.

Did you think that was very much use as an experiment? When you went through you did not tear yours? - When I felt it tearing I went down and wriggled through.

Did you smell putrefaction? - Yes.

Did you see any signs of putrefaction? - No.

One man confessed he had done the murder? - Not to me.

He confessed, and police enquired into it, but took no further steps? - I do not know.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on the evening of May 26th he saw the body at the coppice. He took possession of the handbag produced and examined its contents. He found the piece of material (produced) in the handbag. If it had been torn from a large piece he could find no trace of the larger piece. The following day he made a search of the place and found a broken comb. He examined the ground from the spot where he found the comb to the barrier, and it had the appearance of having had a heavy object dragged over it. He also found a long hair.

Mr. Roland Oliver said they had eliminated a great deal of evidence about the hairs, and they were dealing with only one or two.

Continuing, witness said he found another hair on the back of the post which formed part of the barrier. He also took three hairs from a hat, and other hairs from the head of the dead woman. On July 11th he obtained four hairs from the head of the prisoner. He handed the hairs to Chief Inspector Parker. Continuing, Det. Sergt. Johnson said he went to a common lodging-house in Dover Street on May 31st and obtained a suitcase of property from the man in charge. He found the pair of braces (produced) in the suitcase. On July 7th he purchased half a pound of butter.

Mr. Hutchinson: After you get through the gap, how far was it, to the other gap where the body was found?

Det. Sergt. Johnson: Ten or eleven yards.

It is a very low tunnel? - Not when you get through the tunnel.

Bits would catch your coat? - Possibly.

Mr. Hutchinson suggested it was impossible that the hair found on the post of the barrier had anything to do with the murder. He submitted it was a wild deduction, because anyone going through the barrier backwards could not have got into such a position to leave a hair in that spot.

Mr. Roland Oliver; It has been suggested that his head could not have touched that post. Do you agree that it could or could not have touched it?

Witness: I say it could have touched it.

Mr. Roland Oliver said he had had an opportunity of getting information from Sir Bernard Spilsbury and there was no point in the fly eggs at all and he was not calling any evidence about it.

The Coroner’s Officer, Det. Con. Bates, said at 6.30 p.m. on May 26th he went to the coppice and saw the body. There was a smell of putrefaction. He later showed the body to a Mr. Spiers, Mr. Santer and Mr. Wanstall. On May 31st he purchased a complete change of clothing for the prisoner and took possession of all the clothing Whiting was wearing. The hat, trousers, braces and jacket with the tear produced all belonged to the prisoner. A small green zip fastener purse was found in the left hand pocket of the jacket.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you notice any signs of putrefaction?

Witness: No, but the smell was very strong.

He was not arrested until June 25th? - I think that was the date.

You will agree that the tear you have pointed out might have been caused by anything? - The tear was on the jacket when I took it from the prisoner.

You do not suggest it could only be done by barbed wire? - No.

Mr. Douglas Scott Moncrieff, in charge of the Meteorological Department at Folkestone, said on May 23rd the maximum temperature was 60 deg. F. and the minimum 42 deg. F. The minimum grass temperature was 36 deg. There was no rainfall. On the Tuesday the maximum temperature was 63 deg. F. and the minimum grass temperature was 38. There was no rainfall at 10 a.m., but at 6 p.m. there was .01 inch recorded. On the Wednesday the maximum temperature was 59 deg. and the minimum 48. There was a fair amount of rain, less than .005 inches at 10 a.m., and at 6 p.m, .3 inch. On the Thursday the rainfall at 10 a.m. was .02 inches, and at 6 p.m. nil.

Robert John Reid, the deputy of a lodging house in Dover Street, Folkestone, said he had known the prisoner for about 19 to 20 years. He had stayed at his house for about three months. On May 23rd the prisoner spent the night at the lodging-house. He remained there until May 26th. He handed the prisoner’s suitcase to a police officer.

Mr. Hutchinson: How many men are there in the same room?

Witness: Five.

It would be quite fair to say that people’s properly gets mixed up sometimes? - Yes.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett said on May 26th at 7.30 p.m. he went to the coppice and saw the body. The position was consistent with the body having been dragged on its back. He did not notice any smell from the body, which was covered. At 9.10 p.m. the same night he saw the body in the mortuary, and there was a definite smell of putrefaction. He would not expect any smell from a body under the conditions present for at least three days. He would expect rigor mortis to set in after 12 to 18 hours and last from 48 to 72 hours. Of that body in those circumstances it would be 72 hours. When he saw the body in the thicket there was rigor mortis. At 8.30 p.m. on Friday, May 27th, the rigor mortis had completely gone. There were several bruises on the face and front of the body. The nose had been flattened by a violent blow. He was present when Sir Bernard Spilsbury made his examination, which revealed bruises in the neck. Dr. Barrett said he considered that the bruises were due to the ligature and death, in his view, was by garrotting with the scarf.

Mr. Oliver: How long before you saw the body do you think it likely that the woman met her death?

Witness: Forty-eight to seventy-two hours.

Mr. Hutchinson questioned witness about his report of the post-mortem examination to the Coroner.

Did you say the stomach contained ten lumps of potatoes?

Dr. Barrett: I did.

Is that correct? - Apparently no, when the lumps were put under the microscope.

And the brownish fluid? - There was a brownish fund in the stomach.

At the inquest, when you were on oath, you said “The deceased, in my opinion, had been dead not longer than two days”; what did you mean by that?

Witness: I rather expected the Coroner to take the question further, to tell you the truth.

Why did you tell him that; it must have been what you thought? – Why? Because I had heard rumours that she had been seen shopping. It seemed rattier absurd to certify somebody dead if she had been seen shopping.

Because of the chit-chat you heard you altered your opinion? - Put it that way if you like.

Are you changing your opinion because Sir Bernard Spilsbury has said anything different? - No.

You were the only one who gave evidence about this matter to the Coroner, and you said “The deceased, in my opinion, had been dead not longer than two days”, and you now tell us you did not honestly say that. Do you deny saying that? - No, I do not. I cannot swear to saying that.

Did you tell the Coroner something that is not your honest opinion on the chance of the Coroner asking you something more? - No.

Do you think that the woman was more likely to have been killed on the 24th than the 23rd? - I still think it was 23rd.

You agree that it is a matter of opinion? - Absolutely a matter of opinion.

She certainly may have been living on the 24th? - It is possible, but I do not think it is at all likely.

Supposing twelve witnesses come here and say so, would that make you think she was probably alive on the 24th? - No.

You say she died from garrotting? - I consider it so.

You know Sir Bernard Spilsbury does not agree? - I know.

You thought the scratches were caused before death, and Sir Bernard after death? - The scratches on the legs.

You agree that all these questions are matters of grave difficulty where people may honestly make a mistake? - Yes. I agree that Sir Bernard Spilsbury’s experience must be greater than mine. I have only had two cases of murder.

Sir Bernard Spilbury said he made a post-mortem examination with Dr. Barrett. He found the body was that of a well-nourished young woman. He saw the mark of the ligature round the neck and a number of external injuries on the face and body. He examined the tissues of the neck and found bruising, just such as would be caused by the grip of the hand in manual strangulation. Strangulation in some form caused her death, and in his view it was manual strangulation. He would not have expected her to have been dead for three days, but he could not say definitely within 24 hours.

Mr. Roland Oliver: Is it, in your opinion, possible that this young woman, in the circumstances in which you saw her, had committed suicide by strangling herself with the scarf?

Witness: Quite out of the question.

Mr. Hutchinson: Supposing she had had a long walk, little food, and a terrible struggle, would that bring on rigor mortis very quickly?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: Much more quickly.

Is not putrefaction caused or stimulated by the passing of rigor mortis? - It happens to be coincidal.

Supposing rigor mortis was accelerated, would that accelerate putrefaction? - Not necessarily.

Would you go as far as to say it was impossible for her to be alive on the 24th? - I hardly think it is possible.

Dr. Roche Lynch, Senior Official Analyst to the Home Office, described the tear on the prisoner’s coat. At the apex of the tear, he said, there was a tiny round hole as though a round sharp pointed object had gone through the fabric before it had been torn. The tear must have been downwards and to the right. When the tear was made the coat would be on a man who was going backwards. Witness said he had looked at the barrier (produced), and part of the barbed wire could have made a similar tear as the one in the coat. Continuing, he said the woman’s stomach contained butter fat. The last meal was taken at least three hours before death. He was shown the green scarf. The ends of it showed signs of wear, and there were marks which could have been accounted for by the ends of the scarf being made fast in the braces produced. He compared the hairs from the girl’s head with the hair found near the comb, and they closely resembled each other. Both were bleached. The accused’s hair and the hair from the post on the barrier closely resembled each other. The hair on the post could have come from anybody who had similar hair.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you examine the coat by any chance to see if there were any scratches? - The tear was the only item of note. Dealing with the braces Mr. Hutchinson said the braces which could have made the marks on the scarf might have been a new pair. There were no signs of them being used.

Dr. Roche Lynch said there were signs that they had been used.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am suggesting that they might be a new pair, and in any case have hardly been used at all?

Witness: They have had some wear.

People who go to common lodging-houses do not have a couple of pairs of braces? -I bow to your superior knowledge.

To leave the marks that you found, or some of the marks, it must have been worn very often in that way? - If holes had been produced in the way I mentioned they must have been worn several times, but the linear marks could be produced in twenty minutes.

Robert Henry Rird, of Margate, and Alfred James Carter, of Ramsgate, employed by a firm of holiday snaps, gave evidence of taking photographs of the murdered woman.

Bernice C. Hegarty, of Mead Road, Folkestone, said she recognised one of the women in the holiday snaps (produced) as Phyllis Minter, whom she had known for 3½ years. She spoke to Phyllis at 9.45 a.m. on Monday, and recognised the handbag (produced) as hers. The green zip fastener purse (produced) was very like the dead woman’s purse. Continuing she said the deceased had a dark check scarf similar to the piece of material (produced), but she had never seen her wearing a green spotted scarf.

Cross-examined, witness said the purse was something like the one Phyllis had.

Mr. Hutchinson: About the scarf, you say there was a fringe on it? - There was.

When was it you last saw Phyllis? - Monday morning at about a quarter to ten.

Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that the witness said she had last seen the murdered woman on Saturday morning.

The witness then explained that she had seen her on both days.

Pte. Harold Wall, of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe, said he lived with the murdered woman from May 15th to the 19th, at Sandgate. He first saw her in February or the beginning of March, and gave her the scarf somewhere about April. Originally, it had a fringe on it, hut he cut it off before he gave it to her. The piece of material produced was part of the scarf he gave to Phyllis. He had never seen her wearing the green spotted scarf. Continuing, witness said some of the letters in the suitcase (produced) were written by him to the murdered woman.

Mr. Hutchinson: What sort of place did you stay with her at?

Pte. Wall: It was a one room affair.

Did either of you have any luggage? - I was living at the camp. She had no luggage.

How many days were you there? - Four days.

Mr. Hutchinson went on to question the witness about statements that were taken from him.

Was it found that you had scratches? - One on the arm.

Did not the police discover that a car had been taken from Aldershot and taken back that night, the 23rd or 24th? - I heard something about it.

You do not know the distance shown on that car was exactly the distance from Aldershot to Folkestone? - No.

Mr. Hutchinson said he was not suggesting the witness committed the murder, but he did suggest that there was just as much evidence in some ways against others as against the prisoner.

The witness said he had nothing to do with taking the car from Aldershot, and the scratches on his arm happened while he was carrying meat.

Mr. Roland Oliver: Did you leave Aldershot at all between May 19th and the date of the discovery of the body?

Pte. Wall: No.

At this stage the Court rose until the following day.

The case was resumed at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday.

Mr. Harold Henry Parker, 73, Dover Rood, Folkestone, a Press photographer, said the previous day he took a photograph from the sixteenth tee on Folkestone golf course. It was possible to see the junction of Cherry Garden Avenue and Cherry Garden Lane and to see people going towards Caesar’s Camp over the hedge. After a fleeting glance of people walking along Cherry Garden Avenue, a person on the sixteenth tee would see them when they reached the junction of the two roads.

It was decided by both defence and prosecution to have witnesses make observations from the sixteenth tee.

Chief Inspector Hollands, re-called, said the suitcase produced he got from the East Kent Road Car Company’s office at Folkestone on June 1st. He made a list of the contents, which included a packet of letters, all addressed to Miss P. Butcher.

Mr. Ernest Edward Curtis an Inspector employed by the East Kent Road Car Company, said the blue case produced was like a case he saw on May 22nd or 23rd. On that occasion a young lady asked the next through bus to Margate and then left the office. After she had gone he noticed a dark bag there.

Pte. Harold Wall, re-called, said three of the letters produced were written by him to the murdered woman. They were addressed to Miss Phyllis Butcher, the name he knew her by.

Cross-examined, witness said he wrote the letters before May 19th, when she was in hospital. After he left her in May she gave him “G.P.O., Folkestone”, as her address.

Chief Inspector W. Parker, New Scotland Yard, said on the afternoon of May 27th, he went to the coppice near Caesar’s Camp. He supervised the framing of the barrier produced in the Court. On the side of the coppice nearer Folkestone there was an agricultural field. On May 30th, with Det. Sgt. Skardon, he interviewed the prisoner at Folkestone Police Station. He admitted that he knew the murdered woman. He said he would tell them what he knew and he made a long statement, which he made willingly. Witness said he was endeavouring to find out the prisoner’s movements for several days. The statement was read and during the course of it Whiting stated: “I am a widower, my wife died on 3rd May, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. . . My wife left me in 1935”. Later, went on the statement, he lived in Dover with a Mrs. Woodbridge. She left him in November, 1937, after her mother received a letter from a landlord in Folkestone saying that her daughter was drinking in public houses. While he was living with Mrs. Woodbridge a young girl, who Mrs. Woodbridge said was named Phyllis Minter, came to see her. In his statement Whiting said he met the murdered woman on Monday, May 23rd, at about 12.30 p.m., and they went to the Globe public house on The Bayle. They stayed for about ten minutes. While they were there she said she could get married again. "I said ‘Can you?’”, continued Whiting’s statement, “and read the divorce papers. She said ‘Why don’t you marry me and let’s go back to Dover?' ” The statement then went on to describe how Whiting and the girl went to the golf links. “We sat down on the grass”, it continued, when she pulled out something wrapped in brown paper Some stitches and a ring, a little bone ring She said they were stitches which had been taken out of her operation. We were both thinking. I don’t know what was the matter with her that day. She was not cheerful. She did not speak much. I believe there was something worrying her. I have seen her like it at Dover when she came in staring at me. I cannot say what was on her mind. Perhaps it was because she was down and out. I said nothing to upset her”. Continuing, the statement described how they made their way to Cherry Garden Lane and into Cheriton Road, after crossing the golf links. "I told her that I worshipped Rose”, it continued, “I said ‘If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again’. ... I did not see Phyllis at all on Tuesday. . . Phyllis and I did not discuss living together before last Monday”. Continuing, witness said after the statement had been taken the matter of the jacket was mentioned. He noticed there was a tear in the prisoner’s jacket on the left shoulder. He said “I don’t know where or when I did it." He was asked about the green spotted scarf, and be said “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that.” Whiting made another statement on June 1st, in which he said: “When we went on to the golf course on the Monday, thee day I have already told you about, I mean when I was with Phyllis and when we were sitting on the grass, she was very quiet, and I said ‘What is the matter?’ She said 'I am fed up and I am going to do myself in’. I said 'How are you going to do it?’ and she said ‘Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck’. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. After we got up and walked across the golf links. She was very quiet, and kept saying she was fed up. I have not seen her since that Monday, 23rd May, 1938. . . . I might tell you that she was partly the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving me.” Continuing, witness said he showed the contents of the suit-case to the prisoner. The suitcase was taken from the lodging-house in Dover Street, and Whiting said the articles in the case belonged to him.

Mr. Oliver: Did you endeavour to find out in Folkestone any house at which Phyllis had slept after May 23rd?

Witness: Yes.

Were you unsuccessful? - Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: This man is a very uneducated man?

Witness Yes.

Why was it necessary to take a statement from him, you a trained police officer, from ten o’clock at night as you say, and I say later, until 2 in the morning? - I wanted to get as much detail on this man as possible.

Do you think that it is a usual time to take a statement fairly? - It was the most convenient time at that stage of the enquiry.

He was arrested on June 25th? - Yes.

Do you mean to say that you were in such a hurry that it had to be taken from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m.? - Yes.

"Why? - There were quite a number of people waiting at the Police Station to be seen on that particular evening.

Do you think it fair? Have you not heard of it being done in third degree in other countries? - I was endeavouring to discover who perpetrated this crime.

Surely it was not necessary to take a man at 10 at night and cross-examine him till 2 a.m. Did he get into a muddle? - No.

Did not he get ready to agree to any thing you put to him? - No.

Did you ask whether he had had any food? - Yes.

Had he? - I was told he had been given refreshment.

You examined him very severely? - Yes. I asked him numerous questions.

Is not that third degree?

Judge Wrottesley: I do not know strictly what third degree means.

Mr. Hutchinson (to Chief Inspector Parker): Do you know what it means when people say third degree?

Witness: I have heard of the term, but I do not know what it means.

Chief Inspector Parker said neither he nor Det. Sergt. Skardon suggested it was a case of suicide and that if it was it would let the prisoner out.

Mr. Hutchinson: What happened was on 27th or 28th he had an interview with the Chief Constable? - Yes.

Then he had this long sojourn at the Police Station on the 30th, leaving round about three, I am suggesting, in the morning, and the next day he was taken again and his clothes were taken away from him, and the next day he was sent for again? - Yes.

Witness said there were no scratches on the prisoner’s body, and none, beyond the tear, on his coat. Continuing, witness said there were a whole lot of brambles around the branches produced.

The two nights preceding the murder she was with Mrs. Wright?

Witness: Yes.

Had you in your possession on May 30th anything like the whole of the evidence that has been called in this case? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon said he was present when the two statements wore taken from prisoner, and actually wrote them down. The suggestion of suicide came from the prisoner.

Mr. Oliver: Did you or Chief Inspector Parker ever put the suggestion into the prisoner’s mind about suicide?

Witness: No.

Continuing, witness said he went through the gap backwards and tore his jacket. He knew the barb of wire was there. Apart from the tear in his jacket he did not tear his clothes with the brambles as he walked about.

Cross-examined, witness said the brambles pulled at the fabric of his clothes. The tear in his coat was not very like the tear in the other coat.

Mr. Hutchinson: There were, of course a good many brambles about?

Witness: Yes.

Anyone going where you did would get their clothes, not torn, but scratched? - Possibly, it would depend on the material.

Witness said when he went through the barrier he knew the barb was there, and that the prisoner was supposed to have torn his coat. He (witness) could not have gone through the barrier, pulling the dummy, without tearing his coat.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am suggesting that the suggestion was made to him that this might have been suicide, and that would clear him?

Witness: It was not made.

You are sure? - Quite positive.

Neither directly nor indirectly? - Neither.

Neither by hint nor suggestion? - No.

Are you quite certain of that? - Quite certain.

John Joseph Hurst, of Joyes Road, Folkestone, manager of Messrs. Hepworth. Ltd., of Folkestone, said he stocked scarves similar to the one produced from October, 1936, to February, 1937, and again from October, 1937, to February or March, 1938.

Cross-examined, witness admitted it was quite a popular scarf.

In reply to Mr. Oliver, witness said all the scarves were not green. They were in four different shades.

Mr. Joseph Charles Kember, an employment clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he had interviewed the prisoner in connection with his duty. He last sent the prisoner on a job of work on March 19th. At the time he was wearing a green scarf with white spots. The scarf produced was similar to the scarf the prisoner was wearing. Witness said he saw the prisoner again March 21st and between the 16th and 19th May. He wore the scarf knotted on the left-hand side of the neck, and it appeared to be wound twice round his neck.

Cross-examined, witness said he could see the ends of the scarf.

P.C. Pearce, Dover Borough Police said on April 9th the accused was in his charge at Dover for something like three-quarters of an hour. He was wearing a green scarf with dirty white spots. It was wound twice round the neck and knotted on the left-hand side.

Mr. John McKinnon Taylor, 24, Walton Gardens, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he went on leave on May 23rd to the following Saturday. Before he went on leave he saw the prisoner on May 20th, and he was wearing a green scarf tied with a double knot on one side. After returning from his leave he saw the prisoner on May 30th, and he was not wearing the scarf. He had not seen him wearing the scarf since. The one produced was similar to the scarf the prisoner was wearing on May 20th.

Det. Sergt. Johnson, re-called, said lie made a list of the contents of the handbag found beside the body Among the articles in the bag was a piece of a cigarette packet with the name “H. Pyneart,” printed on it in pencil.

Cross-examined, witness said there were a great many statements taken before 30th May.

Mrs. Adelaide Maude Wright, a widow, of 9, Garden Road, Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Minter. She let her a room on May 21st. On Monday, the 23rd, the woman had bread and butter and a cup of tea for breakfast. The woman had nothing more than what she stood up in. On May 23rd she went into the town with Phyllis. They went into Woolworth’s at about 10 a.m., and witness bought a roll of white paper. Phyllis was wearing a blue coat and a grey coloured scarf. She had never seen her wearing a green scarf. Phyllis had a brown comb with a piece broken off the end. She was able to pick out the girl who served in Woolworth’s.

Cross-examined, witness said Phyllis told her that she came from Tooting, and that she had a job at The Lido. She said she had left her luggage with friends, and witness was surprised when she did not return on the Monday. When witness arrived home on Monday night she saw a man without a hat and wearing a mackintosh waiting outside her house.

When the proceedings were continued in the afternoon the jury wished to know whether the barbed wire on the barrier was the same height from the ground as it was from the floor of the Court. The jury had examined the barrier during the luncheon adjournment.

Det. Sergt. Skardon said the heights were the same. According to the theory of the prosecution the murderer dragged the body downhill through the gap. The gradient was one in four.

Mr. Hubert Pyneart, a waiter employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, said he knew Mrs. Spiers by sight. A year ago she worked at the hotel. He met her on the morning of May 23rd at about 10.40 and walked with her round Folkestone. He was with her until 12.30 p.m., and during the morning walked with her in Sandgate Road. He had never walked with her before in the morning. While he was with her he wrote his name on a piece of card and gave it. to the murdered woman. Witness said the scarf Mrs. Spiers was wearing was of a dark colour, very similar to the piece of material produced.

Mr. Charles Leonard Varner, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, said he knew the accused and also the murdered woman. He knew her as Minter, and he last saw her on the Monday before her body was found. She was at the corner of New Street. He saw prisoner enter Philpott’s shop and then go over to the girl and give her a cigarette. They both went up Bradstone Road.

Cross-examined, witness said Weatherhead had not asked him to say anything about Longley.

Mrs. Lilian Maude Varrier the wife of the last witness, said on Monday, May 23rd, she saw the prisoner in Philpott’s shop at about 1.20 p.m. She saw him leave the shop and meet the murdered woman. They went together towards Bradstone Road.

Mrs. Laura Laws, of 68, Foord Road Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Butcher. She let her a room on May 18th. She stayed there on Thursday and Friday, and left without paying. Witness saw the deceased on the following Monday in Bradstone Avenue. There was a man with her, but she ran after and spoke to witness. Afterwards the deceased went back to the man, and they walked towards the Public Baths.

Cross-examined, witness said the deceased told her that she was a maid at the Longford Hotel. She had no luggage, but she said she came from London.

Mr. William David Marsh, of Clarence Road, Folkestone, a pavior employed by the Folkestone Corporation, said on Monday, May 23rd, he was working in Radnor Park Avenue, and saw the prisoner pass with a young woman. They were walking in the direction of the golf course.

Mr. William John Harbird said he saw the prisoner with a young woman by the Peter Pan’s Pool on May 23rd.

Mr. Hutchinson: At the Police Court you said it was the 23rd or 24th.

Witness: I was wrong on the dates.

Are you still certain it was not the 24th? - Yes, now.

Mr. Harry James Santer, of 5, Pavilion Road, a groundsman employed at the Folkestone golf course, said on Monday, May 23rd, at 1.35 p.m., he saw the murdered woman with the prisoner walking along the road across the golf course. The woman looked as though she had been crying.

Frederick Wanstall, of Invicta Road, Folkestone, a gardener at the Folkestone golf course, said he saw the body of a girl at the mortuary. He saw her on Monday, May 23rd, with the prisoner. When he saw them, he was cutting the 16th tee near Cherry Garden Avenue. The prisoner and the girl were walking towards Caesar’s Camp. He saw them as far as the point where the road they were walking on joined Cherry Garden Lane. The time was somewhere about two, or just after.

Mr. Hutchinson: You were not certain about the date?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: What you mean is that you saw this man with some girl. You saw him walking along this lane on some day that you are not really certain. Is that what it comes to? Has it weighed on your mind very much, this case? - It has.

You did try to kill yourself because of it? - No. I do not think it was because of that. It was because I had left my wife because she had treated me unfairly.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, Chief Constable of Folkestone, said on June 25th, when he cautioned the prisoner, he said he was not guilty.

Mr. Hutchinson: On 4th June you were trying to find where Mrs. Spiers stayed on Tuesday?

Witness: Yes.

Florence Thompson, of 19, Hamilton Road, Dover, said she had a conversation with the prisoner about Phyllis. She told him that it was a shame that Phyllis was murdered. The prisoner asked her if she would like a scarf round her neck. He told her that if she did not keep her mouth shut about Phyllis he would put her on the spot. He said “You can do a murder without leaving finger prints and foot marks”. They went to three public-houses together.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not have a great deal to drink. She never got drunk.

Mr. Hutchinson : I am suggesting that this man never said this to you at all. Did he?

Witness: He did.

There was nothing to call forth this man’s anger in what you said? - I do not know.

Did he really say “You can murder without leaving linger prints or loot marks”? - Yes.

You are not a friend of his? - No.

Hardly know him? - Only by sight.

Robert William Weatherhead, of 35, Darlington Street, Folkestone, said he remembered a day when there was a row at the Guildhall public house. It must have been after May 31st. Witness took the prisoner as a partner at darts. Whiting was abusive to the landlord, who came round to put him out. The prisoner said to the landlord “I will serve you as I served the blondie”. Whiting had had enough drink to make him talk.

Mr. Hutchinson: I suggest he did not say that?

Witness: I say he did.

Percy Ernest Wootton, licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone, said on Friday, 3rd June, there was a row, arid he had occasion to caution the prisoner, who begged him to let him stay, and he did so. He did not hear the prisoner say anything else.

Mr. William Hall, of 16, Great, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said he knew the murdered woman, Rose Woodbridge and the prisoner.

In March the prisoner stayed at his house for two weeks. While he was there he said if Rose was willing to come back to him he was willing to make a home for her. He said he worshipped her. In fact he often mentioned her.

Mrs. Daisy Emily Hall, wife of the previous witness, said in March the prisoner lived at her house for a time. While he was there he said he was sorry Rose had left him. He often spoke of her.

Cross-examined, witness said the prisoner did not like Mrs. Flynn, and she did not like him. She never saw the prisoner with two pairs of braces while he was at her house.

In reply to Mr. Oliver witness said Mrs. Flynn came to see her “now and again”.

Mrs. Elvey Flynn, of 21, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said she knew Rose and the prisoner. She went sometimes to Mr. and Mrs. Hall's place, and remembered the time when the prisoner was staying there. When she went there the prisoner asked her if she knew any body who told Rose Woodbridge anything about him. He said when he found out anyone who had told Rose Wood bridge anything about him he would strangle them.

Cross-examined, witness said on one occasion the prisoner jumped up and ran upstairs when she went into the house, but on another occasion he spoke to her.

Mrs. Rose Woodbridge, Eight Bells lodging-house, King Street, Canterbury said she was married on September 4th, 1935. She lived with her husband for a month or two, and after leaving him she lived with Whiting for a year, and left him a fortnight before last Christmas.

Phyllis was a great friend of hers. Whiting told her that she must stop going about with Phyllis when she told him about two fellows arranging to take them to London. Whiting said if she did not keep away from Phyllis he would do something wrong. She told him that walls had ears.

The prisoner was present when her mother took her away.

This concluded the case for the Crown.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson, in opening the case for the defence, said one of the essential points of the prosecution was that the woman was killed on May 23rd. The accused was walking with the deceased, and was seen by many people with her on that day. If the jury thought the evidence was so strong that she was undoubtedly killed on the 23rd, they would probably find Whiting guilty. Would it be possible for them to honestly say to themselves “I have no reasonable doubt that the day this woman was killed was on the 23rd May and not on the 24th”? This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Sometimes a case of circumstantial evidence could be the strongest they could have, and sometimes it could be the weakest. They could imagine sometimes it might be one of the most difficult to have to decide. He suggested that that case would be very difficult for the jury to decide. Dealing with the green scarf, Mr. Hutchinson said Whiting lied when he told the police he had never had a green scarf and that he knew nothing about it. The fact that he has told such a lie showed in no way that he was a guilty man. It was only by the help of the State that the prisoner could be defended. He was a man of no position and no education. He was taken to the Police Station. The murder was well known in Folkestone, and the jury could realise that it caused a tremendous sensation. The scarf, which he knew was his, he knew J was found on the dead woman. Was it, therefore, extraordinary for a man like that to deny the scarf was his? It was not very extraordinary for him to think if he admitted the scarf was his he was "done for”. “Looking at it from a common-sense point of view”, Mr. St. J. Hutchinson continued, “did they really think any murderer was such a fool when this woman has a scarf of her own, to deliberately take away that scarf, for that is what he must have done, and substitute it with his own scarf - leave one of his visiting cards, as it were, upon the corpse - after strangling her with his own hands deliberately take his own scarf and bind it round her throat for no apparent reason unless than for the reason to make people think she had committed suicide? He tied it like that, and no one out of Bedlam would think she had committed suicide. The prisoner was going to tell them that he gave her the green scarf. Whiting was a man who was in a desperate position, who was literally fighting for his life. What they had to ask themselves was, was the evidence of the prosecution true; were they reasonably convinced of the truth of the evidence? That was what they had to say before they acted upon the evidence of the prosecution. With regard to the evidence for the defence they had to ask themselves whether it was reasonably true. “There might he many with a motive against this unhappy girl on the flotsam and jetsam of life”, he said. “Supposing she was killed by someone else on May 24th or 25th, that she was wearing a green scarf, then the murderer would probably leave it tied round her neck. That is much more likely than that this man would”. He did not know whether the jury noticed the prisoner crying when Rose Woodbridge gave evidence and also when he (Mr. Hutchinson) was cross-examining her. His affection for her was real; perhaps a decent thing. His affection for her was now being used as evidence of motive. Of course it was not necessary to prove any motive at all, but most juries did look for some motive. The prisoner might have been annoyed with this woman, but what a gulf lay between annoyance and murder. With regard to the taking of the statements, he said, was he exaggerating when he said that that was as near third degree as they were ever likely to get in that country? The police, of course, at that time were trying to find a murderer, and they had tried to find a motive. He asked the jury if they were really going to act on that statement. They would hear from the defendant that he had nothing to do with it. People who knew her well would say they saw her on the 24th. Some would say they saw her on the 25th. Was that not going to raise a reasonable doubt in their minds? One witness was going to say she saw her with a green scarf on May 25th.

Whiting then went into the witness box, and Mr. Hutchinson’s first question to him was “Did you murder this girl?”

Whiting: No, sir.

You had lived with Mrs. Woodbridge? - Yes.

You were very fond of her? - Yes.

Are you still desperately fond of her? - Yes.

She left you, did she not? - Yes.

She was taken away by her mother? - Yes.

How much did you know Phyllis? - I did not know her hardly at all.

Had she been over to see you when you and Rose lived together? - She used to come and see Rose now and again.

When did you see Phyllis at Folkestone? - On the Friday.

The Friday before the Monday when you saw her again? – Yes.

Tell us what happened on that Friday? - I came out of the Guildhall at about ten past ten in the evening I was walking towards home, and I saw Phyllis on the corner. Continuing, Whiting said Phyllis said “Hello, Bill, do you miss Flo much?” He said “Yes, and I would like to have her back.” She told him that she was down and out and hungry. He gave her half-a-crown, for she said she had had some trouble with the Labour Exchange.

The scarf produced was his property, and he was wearing it on the Friday, when he gave it to Phyllis. She had an open-necked blouse, and she had just come out of the Savoy Picture Palace. She was cold, and asked for his scarf, which he took off and gave to her. She thanked him for it. He had no idea that Phyllis tried to take Rose from him. She was a good little soul. He next saw Phyllis on the Monday, May 23rd, at about 12.30 p.m. She was looking at some postcards in South Street. He had seen her before with the Belgian at 10.30 a.m. before going up Sandgate Road. When he saw her in South Street she asked if he was going to treat her. She said “Let’s go up to the Globe”, a public house on The Bayle. When they got to the Globe she had a brown ale, and he had a pint of beer. She then showed him some divorce papers in her handbag. She said “Why don’t you get married, Bill?” He said “I will do, but I have got to get a job first”. She said ’’Let’s go to Dover and live, and got married afterwards.” He was not in love with Phyllis, but he was alone, and wanted a home. He also wanted his daughter and eldest boy home. He told her that he would marry her, but he had to have a job first. She was not wearing his green scarf that day. From the Globe they went to the Public Library, and then into New Street, where he bought a box of matches at Philpott’s. Going along Sussex Road Phyllis met Mrs. Laws and spoke to her. When she returned he asked her where she was going, and she said “Home”. He asked her where her home was, and she said "89, Ashley Avenue”. They went along and stopped opposite the Baths to look at the pictures. She said she was going to the pictures that evening with her landlady. She then said "Come on, let’s go home”. Continuing, prisoner said they went up St. John’s Church Road and past the Hospital. She pointed to a room in the Hospital and she said she would show him something. They went along to the golf links and sat on a bank. She kept talking about getting married, and showed him some stitches and a bone ring. She said the stitches were from her operation. They then got up and walked across the golf links and got into Cherry Garden Avenue. They crossed the road and went round to the left into Cherry Garden Lane, and then into Cherry Garden Avenue again. They turned right into Cheriton Road, but she did not want him to go where she lived. A fellow went past on a motor bike, and she waved to him and he to her. She said he was one of her boys. She asked him not to come any further with her, as she did not want her landlady to see him. She kissed him and walked on. That was the last he saw of her.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you take her up to Caesar’s Camp and along there and strangle her?

Whiting: No.

A few clays afterwards he went along to the Chief Constable. He was kept at the Police Station all that day and next night.

On May 30th he was told that Inspector Hollands wished to see him He went to the Police Station at about six o’clock. He was not given any food. Chief Inspector Parker commenced taking the statement at about eight o’clock. Before that he was kept in a room for about two hours. They then took him upstairs, where he saw Mr. Skardon, who said “Come into the torture chamber”.

Mr. Hutchinson: He was being funny?

Witness: I suppose he was?

Continuing, witness said he was asked to sit down by Chief Inspector Parker, who had entered the room with him. He made a statement, and they kept putting questions to him. They took a statement and then put him below again for about half-an-hour, and then took him back into the room. Chief Inspector Parker, Det. Sergt. Skardon and Chief Inspector Hollands were there, and they kept questioning him until about a quarter or half-past two. They never read anything out to him, but said “Just sign here and walk out a free man”. He had been at the Police Station since six o’clock, examined verbally for four hours, and then stripped and examined physically.

Mr. Hutchinson: What was in your mind at 2.20 m the morning? How were you feeling?

Whiting: I was beat.

Whiting further said he did not think that Phyllis wanted to take Rose away from him, and he had no reason to think that Phyllis was the cause of the trouble between him and Rose. He denied that the scarf was his because he had read in the paper that she was strangled with a green scarf.

With regard to the second statement, when he went into the room Chief Inspector Parker asked him to sit down. He took hold of the scarf, tied it twice round his neck and knotted it. Chief Inspector Parker said suicide could easily be done. Witness replied “No, it was not suicide. Whoever done that was the murderer”.

Continuing, Whiting said Chief Inspector Parker kept leaving the room and going into the Chief Constable’s office. When he came back he asked him whether he had made his mind up. In the intervals Det. Sergt. Skardon said “Come on, Bill, tell him. Don’t be a damn fool; he is trying to help you. You won’t have any more trouble. You will walk out a free man. We can go back to London, and our case is settled”.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you think you would be able to walk out a free man?

Whiting: Yes.

Prisoner said Chief Inspector Parker said “You don’t know what I am. I don’t want to be rough. I am going to help you”. Det.-Sergt. Skardon kept saying “Go on, tell him. Tell him it is a case of suicide. We want our case cleared up. You were the last man seen with her; we don’t want to charge you with minder”. He handed prisoner his hat and said “Sign this and walk out”.

Mr. Hutchinson: You did sign it and walk out.

Judge Wrottesly: You had nothing to do with the wording of the statement?

Whiting: I simply said “Yes”.

They invented the story and you signed it? - Yes.

With regard to the incident in the Guildhall public house, he was singing, and the landlord caught hold of him. He (prisoner) said “I will handle you the same as you handle me outside.” He denied saying he would serve him as he served the blondie. Whiting admitted that he hated the sight of Mrs. Thompson. He denied saying he would put her on the spot, but said he told her that he loved Mrs. Woodbridge. He bought the green purse at Dover Woolworth’s before Christmas.

Mr. Hutchinson: Had you any feeling of hatred or revenge against Phyllis at all?

Whiting: No. She was a good little soul.

This concluded the examination of the prisoner, and the Court rose at twenty minutes to seven.

When the hearing was resumed yesterday (Thursday) Whiting was cross- examined by Mr. Roland Oliver.

Mr. Oliver: Will you look at the scarf - look at it carefully - is that actually your scarf?

Whiting: Yes.

When did you tell anybody that the scarf round this murdered woman’s neck was yours? - I told my counsel.

When? - Two or three days ago.

Mr. Hutchinson said he had been told before Wednesday morning.

Mr. Oliver: Two or three days ago you told your counsel that it was your scarf. You did not tell anybody before then?

Whiting: Yes.

You see the ends of your scarf are frayed as if they had been in contact with some hard object? - Yes.

Can you tell the jury how that happened to your scarf? - It was never there when I had that scarf.

You mean those frayed marks were not there at all? - They were not there.

Since you gave it to her that came about - Yes.

Did you ever put the ends of your scarf in the clip of any braces to hold it? - No.

You say you gave her that scarf on Friday, May 20th? - Yes.

You heard a landlady say she had never seen any such scarf? - Yes.

You last saw her with it when she put It round, her neck on Friday? - Yes.

You never saw that scarf again, did you, according to your case? – No.

She did not wear it on the Monday when you went for a walk with her? – No.

She was wearing a different scarf? – I did not notice.

You are a Folkestone man, aren't you? – Yes.

You know these three beehive-looking hills? – Yes.

Did you know there was a thicket along the bottom of them? - No, I never go up there.

You have never been up there in your life? - No.

Have you ever been up as far as the stile along the road called Castle Hill? - I came down that road last August, past that stile.

This girl Phyllis was a loose sort of girl? - According to what some people say.

She would have gone to a place like that with a good number of men if they had asked her, according to your knowledge of her? - Yes, she would.

You knew she would have gone with you if you had asked her? - I do not think she would.

In reply to other questions, Whiting said he loved Rose Woodbridge and he was sorry when she left him.

You thought some interfering person brought about Rose Woodbridge leaving you? - Something about a letter the landlord sent to her mother.

Were you anxious to find out who made that mischief? - No.

You never tried to find out who had done that? - No.

Would you have been angry with the person who had done that? - I would have asked them what they had done it for, that is all.

Can you tell the jury at all when your jacket got torn? It was the only jacket you wore on every day? - I never noticed it.

That purse which was in your pocket, you said you bought that before Christmas and had had it for months and months? - Yes.

A good many people might have seen you with it if it was yours? - I expect so.

Replying to a question by Mr. Justice Wrottesley, the prisoner said when he was in London he kept cigarette ends and papers in the purse. He also used it for money.

Mr. Oliver: You know Elvey Flynn?

Whiting: Yes.

Did you have any conversation with her about Rose Woodbridge? - I would not speak to her at all.

Why would you not speak to her? - Because I don’t like her. She is mischief making and always has been.

Did you never ask her if she knew anything about Rose Woodbridge, or whether anybody had made mischief about Rose Woodbridge? - No.

You said you hated and detested Florence Thompson. Is that right? - Yes.

Were you with her one afternoon in the Guildhall? - She came in there.

Were you afterwards with her in Jordan’s? - Yes.

Did you talk to her? - Yes. She asked me if I would treat her to a dinner in the South Foreland.

Did Mrs. Thompson say to you “It is a shame Phyllis has been murdered”? - She did not say anything like that.

Did you say “If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis I will put you on the spot? - No.

It is sheer invention? - Yes.

Did you say “How would you like a scarf round your neck?” - Pure invention.

Weatherhead is a friend of yours? - No friend of mine.

Is that an invention of his? - Absolutely.

You never said you would serve anyone like you served the blondie? - No. There were other people in the bar.

Mr. Oliver then questioned Whiting about the long statement he had made.

Mr. Oliver; Do you say that the police wrote down things you did not say?

Whiting: Yes.

They invented things, and then you say they wrote them down, and you never said them at all? - Yes.

You gave them, no doubt, in answer to questions getting a detailed account of your movements with Phyllis on 23rd May? - Yes.

Is that part of the statement right? Did you tell them those things? - Yes.

They have written down a lot of things you have said about Mrs. Woodbridge. Did you say anything about Mrs. Woodbridge? - They put it to me that I had been living with Mrs. Woodbridge and I told them I had been living with her. They said “When you were there did a young girl named Phyllis Minter come there?” and I said “Yes”. They said “You say Phyllis was the cause of Mrs. Woodbridge leaving you?” They kept on putting that to me and I suppose I must have said “Yes”. Continuing, Whiting said he did not hear that she had been in hospital.

Can you think why the police should talk about her being in hospital? Are you sure you did not say that? - I am sure I did not.

Continuing, Whiting said he did say that he would be annoyed with anyone who led Rose astray. The police kept putting it to him and he said “Yes”. He did not say he thought Phyllis was the cause of the trouble between Rose and him.

Mr. Oliver: What the police have done, according to you, is to write down a lot you did say and put in little bits they invented themselves? - Yes.

If you wanted to get Phyllis to that thicket for immoral purposes you may have talked about marrying her and living with her? - It never entered my mind.

After saying you would marry her on the afternoon of Monday. May 23rd, and knowing where you thought she lived, 89, Ashley Avenue, did you make any attempt to see her again after that Monday? - No.

You were lonely and wanted to marry; you had arranged to marry this woman. She had told you her address where you thought she lived. How came it you never tried to find her until her body was discovered? - She said she would see me next day in the Library. She never turned up and I forgot all about her.

Did you say to the police “I am always worried since Mrs. Woodbridge left me”? - Yes.

Whiting said the statement was not read over to him and the statement “This statement has been read over to me and is true”, was put in after his signature was put on it. With regard to the second statement dealing with the question of suicide, Whiting said he did not see Phyllis wearing the green scarf on the Monday evening.

Mr. Oliver: Every word in that is a lie invented by the police?

Whiting: They kept saying it themselves.

Mr. Oliver asked Whiting to look at the scarf and said “Was that how it was when the police showed it to you?”

Whiting: Yes.

Mr. Oliver then reminded Whiting what he had said the previous day about Chief Inspector Parker tying the scarf twice round his neck, knotting it and saying “Look Bill, easy”. “You show the jury what Chief Inspector Parker did with that scarf”, added Mr. Oliver.

Whiting took the scarf, wound it twice round his neck and knotted it in the front.

Mr. Hutchinson: In this statement the police nut questions to you?

Whiting: Yes.

You say it is the answers to these questions that they put down in some instances wrong? - Yes.

Mr. Henry Allen, of 4, Margaret Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he made a statement to the police on June 2nd. He had known the murdered woman well by sight for about eight years. He saw her on May 24th at 9.30 p.m. in Margaret Street smoking a cigarette.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw Phyllis practically every day.

Mr. John Brookes, of 4, Margaret Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he made a statement to the police on June 2nd. He knew the murdered woman by sight and saw her on May 24th between 9.30 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. in Margaret Street, when he was with the previous witness.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw the murdered woman practically every weekend in a public-house. He did not see her every day.

Mrs. Ella Hall, of Station Cottages, Folkestone, said the police sent for her and she told them she went to Sainsbury’s on the 24th or 25th of May at about 10 a.m. She got off the bus at West Cliff Gardens and saw the murdered woman talking to two men. She said “Hello” to her.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not see Phyllis very often. She was not sure whether it was the 24th or 25th, but she knew it would not be the Monday.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley: Are you sure it was not the 17th or 18th that you saw Phyllis?

Witness: It was not as far back as that.

Miss Hilda Miller, of 28, Harvey Street Folkestone, a shop assistant at the Folkestone Woolworth’s, said the police sent for her on May 28th. She knew Phyllis by sight and last saw her on May 25th between 11.30 and 12 noon in the store. She was with another woman, who bought a roll of greaseproof paper. Phyllis was wearing a navy blue coat and a green scarf similar to the one produced. She had seen the murdered woman the day before and she was wearing the same coat. She was able to fix the dates because it was the same week the woman was murdered.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not remember the murdered woman coming with Mrs. Wright to the shop on Monday. She first knew that the murdered woman had a green scarf tied round her neck when she heard the other girls talking about it. Witness said she was serving on a counter where paper was sold.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you notice anything about Phyllis? What drew your attention to her?

Witness: I looked at her hair.

What did you notice about her hair? - It had been dyed.

Mrs. Wright, re-called, said she recognised Miss Miller as the young lady from whom she made her purchase on the Monday at Woolworth’s.

Mr. Edward Marwood, a newsvendor, of 29. Tontine Street, Folkestone, said he was sent for by the police on May 29th. During the week previous, on the Wednesday morning, at about 9.50, he saw the murdered woman near Milky Way. She had a book in her hand. He was able to fix the time because he was going to the Labour Exchange to sign on. He had seen the girl on Monday at about 10.50 a.m. or 11 a.m. outside Wood’s, in Tontine Street. She was then talking to a big, stout lady. He had also seen her on the Sunday morning, when she asked him where the East Kent booking office was. She had a case in her hand and said she was going to Margate.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw Phyllis a good many times during a week.

Mr. Hutchinson: Are you certain after you had seen her on Sunday that you saw her on two days after?

Witness: On Monday and Wednesday.

Mr. John Henry Turner, of 8, Mill Bay, Folkestone, a newsvendor, said on May 29th he gave a statement to the police. He knew Phyllis Minter by sight and saw her on Wednesday, May 25th. He was locking the “Star” office up at about 7.45 a.m., when Phyllis said “Good morning” to him. He walked with her as far as the Shakespeare public house. He saw her again at 8.20 a.m. and she said she was waiting for her pal.

Miss Lucille Godden, of 43, Bridge Street, Folkestone, a waitress, said she was sent for by the police. She had known the murdered woman all her life. On May 22nd she saw Phyllis in the Alexandra Hotel. Phyllis said she had had a phone call from somebody and did not know who it was. She next saw Phyllis again on the Wednesday evening in Dover Road, between 10.30 and 11 at night. She saw Phyllis coming up the road on the pillion seat of a motor cycle. She was wearing a navy blue coat and green scarf, but no hat. A medium aged man was driving the motor cycle. He was wearing a light raincoat, but no hat. She was able to fix the date because on the Monday and Tuesday she went to a dance arid did not leave until 12 o’clock.

Mr. Oliver: I am going to suggest you are quite mistaken that you saw Phyllis between 10.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Wednesday.

Mr. Oliver: You are able to say she was dressed in a blue coat?

Witness: Yes.

And a green scarf? - Yes.

When did you first remember seeing her wearing a green scarf? - Different times I saw she was wearing a green scarf.

How long before this Wednesday had you seen her with a green scarf? - On Sunday.

Did you ever see her before with that green scarf? - I cannot remember what day.

A week before? - About that.

Did the police ask you how this woman was dressed? - Yes.

Why did you not tell them amongst other things she had a green scarf? - I thought I told them she had a green scarf on.

Has not your imagination been getting to work? - No.

In reply to a question by Mr. Justice Wrottesley, witness said she thought the scarf Phyllis was wearing was darker than the one produced.

Miss Lilian Beasley, of 37, Marshall Street, Folkestone, said she was with Miss Godden on the Wednesday when they saw Phyllis on the back of a motor cycle in Dover Road. She only saw the back of the murdered girl, but knew her because of her coat and hair.

Cross-examined, witness said she would not have seen Phyllis unless Miss Godden had said “There is Phyllis Minter”.

Mr. Charles Butler, of 23, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, a fisherman, said he had known the girl known as Phyllis Minter since she was three or four years of age. On May 27th he saw a newspaper photograph of the murdered girl. He had seen her on Wednesday, May 25th at the Dover bus stop at the top of Tontine Street. Witness said it was the 24th or the 25th when he saw the girl. She was talking to a man about six feet tall, who looked like a soldier. They appeared to be quarrelling and Phyllis looked to be on the point of crying.

Cross-examined, witness said he came ashore at about 10.05 p.m. and saw Phyllis at 10.35 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: You had just come from the sea every evening that week, including Monday?

Witness: Yes.

After the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Justice Wrottesley said that he had received a note from the jury. “If I thought it possible to do what is asked in accordance with the administration of justice in this country”, he said, “I would do so, but it is quite impossible. I can only say ‘No'”.

The contents of the note were not made public.

Mr. Richard Brazier, of 23, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, a platelayer, said he lodged with Butler. He had known Phyllis Minter by sight for six months at the most. Looking at the photograph (produced) witness said he could not say he knew either of the girls depicted, but he knew Rose Woodbridge. On the Tuesday he met Mr. Butler at the bottom of Tontine Street. They passed the Congregational Church and he saw a woman and man standing on the kerb having a row. The man was tall and wore a light raincoat.

Mr. Hutchinson: You would not give the defence a statement?

Witness: I have been away working for the last 16 weeks.

Did you tell everything you could remember to the police – Yes.

Did you tell them more than you could remember? - No.

Mr. Hutchinson asked leave to treat Brazier as a hostile witness and asked Mr. Justice Wrottesley to read the statement given by the witness to the police.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley said he could see no signs of hostility.

In reply to his lordship, witness said he did not recognise the man or woman ho saw at the bus stop.

Mr. Hutchinson: How do you know they were having a row?

Witness: They were arguing.

Cross-examined, witness said the incident happened on the Tuesday. He never went out on the Wednesday. He had only seen Phyllis once before.

Mr. Oliver: Is your memory a rather weak one?

Witness: No.

Mr. George Neville, of Dudley Road, Folkestone, said he had known the murdered girl for seven or eight years. He heard about her death on May 26th. He last saw her on May 25th at the bottom of Tontine Street at about 11.15 a.m. She was with two other women, and was wearing a blue coat with white spots on it and had no stockings on. He had no doubt at all that the girl was Phyllis.

Cross-examined, witness said the blue coat produced was not the coat he saw Phyllis wearing.

Mr. William Alfred Richards, of 60, Dover Street, Folkestone, a mechanic, said he had known the murdered woman ever since she was quite a small girl. On May 22nd he bought a rowing boat at Dover and on the Tuesday he rowed it from Dover to Folkestone. He reached Folkestone at 5.30 p.m. and he worked on it until about 9 p.m. The next day, Wednesday, he went to his father’s house in Foord Road, and on the way passed Phyllis by Messrs. Rye's stores at about 10.15 a.m. He had no doubt at all that the girl was Phyllis Minter.

Mr. William Knott, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he knew Whiting and Weatherhead. On the Friday night, when there was a row in the Guildhall, he was in the public bar. The landlord told Whiting that if he did not keep quiet he would put him out. He heard no threats.

Cross-examined, witness said there was not a great deal of noise, although it was a bit “jangley”.

Miss Iris Horton, of 114, Buckland Avenue, Dover, employed by Messrs. Woolworth’s, at Dover, said she had been in charge of the leather counter since before September, 1937. They sold many purses like the green purse produced.

Cross-examined, witness said that it was very rare they sold such a purse to a man.

Closing the case for the defence, Mr. Hutchinson, addressing the jury, said it was a very terrible murder. A young girl on the threshold of life had been done to death very brutally. “My submission is going to be”, he continued, “that throughout this case there is not enough evidence here for you to say that the prosecution have done what they are bound to do. That is to prove to you beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the prisoner”. There was one point for them, he said, in that case. Had it been proved to them beyond all reasonable doubt that the girl was killed on May 23rd? If they thought the evidence was so overwhelming as to be safe to act upon, that the woman was killed on May 23rd, they would get a very long way towards proving the guilt of the prisoner. Twelve reputable people had all given evidence that they had seen the woman alive after May 23rd. If they found that those twelve people must have been mistaken, they need not attend to any other part of the case at all. Continuing, he said the prisoner denied it-was his scarf, but he was lying. There was no doubt about that. Were they surprised that he told lies about it? It was wrong for him to tell lies. It would be dangerous if people were convicted merely because they told untruths to themselves out of trouble. Dealing with the statement about suicide, Mr. Hutchinson said it was one of the most extraordinary parts of the case. They knew the prisoner made a statement to the Chief Constable, but he never made any suggestion that the murdered woman was depressed or likely to commit suicide. He then made a statement of four hours, and he never breathed that she was going to commit suicide; in fact, he said he was going to marry her. Did it not seem extraordinary that he next suddenly evolved that theory? Were not four hours taken up by this wretched man being cross-examined by a clever police officer? “Really, I do protest as strongly as I can against that form of statement”, he added. Continuing, Mr. Hutchinson said why not let the man write it himself; there was plenty of time? They kept him in the Police Station for four or five hours without food before they asked him a single question. Next day the man’s clothes were taken from him, and he was given others. The next night he was sent for again, and at 11.15 he was cross-examined again. Why on earth did that man, out of the blue, suddenly make that suggestion of suicide?

Mr. Oliver, addressing the jury, said it was the prosecution’s case that the woman was murdered on Monday, May 23rd. Since then no one could be found at whose house she had slept or in whose presence she had eaten. One suggestion came from a witness that she might have slept out. Did the jury think it at all likely that she would leave her belongings at the bus office unclaimed? When the body was found on May 26th at six o’clock it was smelling of decomposition. Did they require scientists to tell them that the girl was not living at ten o’clock the previous evening as some of those reliable witnesses say? Were they impressed by Sir Bernard Spilsbury when he said could not be alive on Wednesday? It was possible that she was alive on Tuesday, but riot probable. That she died on May 23rd was consistent with her disappearing from any house where she lived.

Folkestone Express 24 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder trial at the Old Bailey, occupying four days last week, ended on Friday with the jury returning a verdict of “Not Guilty’’ against William Whiting (38), the Folkestone labourer, who was charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, (22), a Folkestone woman. Mrs. Spiers was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on May 26th, and the prosecution alleged that the crime had been committed on May 23rd.

All the evidence and the closing Speeches of counsel had been given by the time the Court rose on Thursday evening, and this only left the summing up of Mr. Justice Wrottesley, who had heard the case, and the consideration by the jury of their verdict on Friday. The summing up occupied nearly two hours, and the jury were absent for about two hours and twenty minutes in arriving at their decision. When the foreman announced that their verdict was “Not Guilty”, there was applause in the Court, but it was immediately subdued, and after Whiting had been discharged and left the dock, some of the women witnesses kissed him, while some of the men congratulated him and shook him by the hand.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., and Mr. B.H Waddy appeared on behalf of the Crown to prosecute, and Mr. St. J. Hutchison, K.C., and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel (instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce, of Folkestone) were for the defence.

The Judge, in the course of his summing up, said certain facts had not been disputed, and these formed an admitted background over which the jury need not concern themselves. Phyllis Spiers was undoubtedly first battered, possibly into insensibility, and then strangled. It was clear that this happened near the place where the body was found. It was also clear that she was dragged to a comparatively open glade through the gap in the hedge into some bushes. She met her death sometime between the early afternoon of May 23rd and May 26th, when her body was found. How long before May 26th was in dispute. It was clear that she was alive in the company of the accused man on May 23rd, and that they were going in the direction of the place of the murder. How came those two together? Was there anything in the relationship of the dead woman and the accused which might explain the murder? They knew he had lived with Rose Woodbridge until November, 1937, that he was very much attached to her and that when she left him it was to his great sorrow. If the jury accepted his signed statements - and these were challenged by the defence - he said he disapproved of Rose meeting Phyllis at one time, and that Phyllis was the cause of trouble between him and Rose. Accused now denied that, arid he said in the witness box that that statement was put in his mouth by the police. They had heard the evidence of Sir Bernard Spilsbury, probably the most experienced man in these matters in the country, and he was of opinion that she had been dead approximately for three days when she was found. It was fair to sum up his opinion, said the Judge, by saying that Sir Bernard thought three days the most probable date; four days the next probable, and then two days in order of probability, and he thought they could rule out the probability of one day. If the case rested merely on suspicion that Whiting had the opportunity of murdering the girl, it would be far from enough, but it led them to look into the matter further, and the other evidence. If Whiting murdered the girl on the afternoon of May 23rd, the jury might well ask themselves whether anything of his was found near the body. First and foremost there was the green scarf found tied tightly round her neck. Where did it come from? At one stage of the trial it seemed to be suggested it was not Whiting’s property at all. He told the police he had never seen it before. Two or three days ago he decided to abandon that denial, and admit that the scarf was his. He now said that he had given it to the girl an May 20th. A purse was found in WliitingTs pocket and this, the Judge said, resembled one which Mrs. Spiers had had. Mr. Justice Wrottesley then proceeded to refer to the difficulty which the murderer would have in dragging the body through the gap, and said in the urgency of the moment he would probably not notice some barbed wire. He might well tear his coat in doing so, and Whiting’s coat was torn. Whiting said he had done it while mushrooming. By itself the tear in his coat was not of much, value. But it was a remarkable coincidence, and things were accumulating. There was the green scarf, the purse and a tear-mark, which would correspond with the crime as it was reconstructed. Another coincidence was the finding of a human hair resembling that of Whiting's on a post in the gap. Science had not yet reached the pitch when it could be said with certainty that a hair found “is my hair”. The most that could be said was that “It is similar to my hair or your hair”. The Judge then commented upon the evidence given by Mrs. Thompson, Weatherhead and Mrs. Flynn. With regard to that of Weatherhead, he suggested that the jury would not attach too much importance to it when he said that Whiting had said to him “I will serve you the same as the blondie was served”, although it had been said that truth sometimes did come out when a man was in his cups. Regarding the questions of the defending counsel concerning “Third degree”, Mr, Justice Wrottesley said “'Third degree ‘ is rather a dangerous word to use. We have probably read something about prisoners being locked up, hurt and damaged, and woke up in the middle of the night. That is not the kind of thing suggested here. What is said is that the first statement took a very long time, from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. That is recorded on the statement. A statement may take a long time when you have not a clever man to deal with, but because it takes a long time it does not follow that it is untruthful”. The judge, continuing, said what was most strongly relied on hy the defence was the evidence of the witnesses who said they had seen Mrs. Spiers after the time the Crown said she was killed. After being in Whiting’s company on May 23rd she disappeared. No one could say where she slept or bought any food afterwards. The jury must remember that she had no settled home. She was a bird of passage, here today and gone tomorrow. They must also remember that these witnesses were found by the police themselves and honestly believed what they saw. The Crown said it was the case of people making a mistake, as people did when asked to recall when they last saw a person they did not know very well. But if the jury thought only one of these witnesses was not making a mistake, and that the girl was seen alive after May 23rd, they had no choice but to find Whiting not guilty. He had prepared a time-table showing the days and times when those witnesses said they saw the girl. In some cases their evidence might be open to criticism on the ground that they had made a mistake in identity; in other cases that they had got the wrong date.

The jury would not attach too much importance, he was sure, to the accused’s alleged statements, but they would give their attention to more serious and weighty questions. At the same time they had got to remember that if in any way they fell short of satisfying themselves beyond reasonable doubt that this man committed the murder on Monday they had to find him not guilty at that stage. If they did not accept the story that he gave this young woman that scarf there was serious material there which might lead them to bring in a verdict of guilty, putting aside, for the moment, the other evidence. Concerning the bulk of the evidence of the people who said they saw Phyllis Minter on the Tuesday and Wednesday, the evidence that the young woman was seen on Tuesday would probably occur to the jury as being more likely than the evidence of the two young women who said they saw her as late as 10.30 p.m. on Wednesday.

If the jury accepted the evidence of even one of those persons who said they saw her on Tuesday or Wednesday there would he a doubt which should lead them to find the man not guilty, because it was tantamount to destroying the whole fabric of the case. It was not necessary for the defence to establish to their satisfaction that the accused did not do it.

The jury returned the verdict of “Not guilty ’’ as stated earlier.