Harbour Ale Shades

From the Dover Telegraph, 3 January 1863.

THE BURGLARY AT CHARLTON.

John Henry Woodhouse, 26, an artilleryman, pleaded "Not Guilty" to a charge of stealing one gold pin, the property of Mr. Wm. Brewster, in his dwelling-house at Charlton, on the 25th October; there was a second indictment charging prisoner with dealing with stolen property.

Mr. Addison for the prosecution.

The evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Brewster proved the discovery of the robbery at the house in Charlton, and the loss of a considerable portion of jewellery. The following week prisoner offered her pin in question for sale at Mr. Brewster's shop in Snargate Street, stating that it had been given to him by one Christopher Rawlinson, of the 90th Foot, some rive months since. Upon being asked his name he said it was William Tayler of the 2nd battery, 5th brigade; and upon Mr. Brewster endeavouring to detain him, he ran away, but was ultimately captured by Sergeant Back.

Prisoner cross-examined the witnesses upon what "sign or token" they could identify the property produced, and to show that similar pins could he procured at any jeweller's shop in the town — Mr. Brewster knew the pin from its peculiar make — it was manufactured by Mears of Birmingham.

Prisoner:- I wish the first witness to be called back, and the gentleman there who wrote down what she said before the Mayor

Mrs. Brewster re-called.

Prisoner:- Did she not say they had not lost any pins at first?

Mrs. Brewster:- I did when the question was first asked — I thought they meant hair-pins, and do not wear any. I did not know at that time how much jewellery there was in the drawer.

Mrs. Mary Chetwynd did not think the Artilleryman she saw near Mr. Brewster's house in the Charlton Back-road was quite so tall as the prisoner.

Thomas Cattermole, landlord of the "Recruiting Sergeant," Buckland Road, when the prisoner offered to sell him a gold pin, on the 1st November, refused to buy anything of a soldier.

Charles Williams p.c., deposed that an entrance had been effected by the breaking of a kitchen window at the residence.

Prisoner in defence called two of his comrades to prove an alibi, and further stated that another soldier named Taylor had given him the pin to sell.

Gunners Thompson and Hopper were closely cross examined by the Recorder and Mr. Addison, but there was no discrepancy in either statement that they had left the Castle at five o'clock, visited the "Anglesey Arms" in Priory Street, and left it for the "Ale Shades" in Snargate Street, returned to the "Anglesey Arms," and started at 8.40 for their barracks. Prisoner was with them the whole time. They had not had curiosity enough to ascertain how far the house where the robbery was committed was from the "Anglesey Arms."

Gunner Taylor denied all knowledge of the pin; he had never given it to the prisoner.

Prisoner:- Ask him whether he did not state that he gave it to me, before the Superintendent, Sergeant Back, and the policeman Williams.

Recorder:- I cannot consistently — you called him to prove that he gave you the pin and he has failed to do so.

Lieut. James Jenkins stated that prisoner had been in his battery about three years, and up to the present time nothing was against him — his character had been generally good.

Mr. Addison then addressed the jury upon the second count - admitting the possibility that the prisoner’s comrades had given truthful evidence, and that being in their company about the time the robbery had been committed, it would have been impossible for the prisoner to have perpetrated it; still there was the fact that he had been found most improperly dealing with it, and his acts were such as exhibited a knowledge that it had been improperly come by.

The Recorder summed up at length, and with concise remarks thought it would be better for the jury to dismiss the first count of the indictment from their minds, and to find upon the second one. The misrepresentations of the prisoner, and the failure of his own witness to prove the statement they had heard him make that the pin was given to him by Taylor were certainly not in his favour.

The jury having returned a verdict of Guilty, the Recorder called upon Sergeant Back and Superintendent Coram, the latter of whom had heard Taylor say to the prisoner "I'll get you out of it!" but nothing about his ownership of the pin, or he would have ordered him into custody.

The Recorder in passing sentence, said the prisoner had been convicted upon very clear evidence, although the circumstances connected with this robbery were under suspicious and it was certainly a most audacious robber under the most atrocious circumstance; and he felt it his duty to sentence him to a period of 18 calendar months.

From the Dover Telegraph, 3 January 1863.

Dover quarter sessions.

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

Passing counterfeit coin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recorder:- I recollect the circumstances.

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

Mrs. Mepham also pleaded her small family.

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

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

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

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