From the Folkestone Chronicle 9 February, 1856. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Friday February 8th :- Before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, and W. Major esq.

Mr. John Minter, Solicitor, appeared on a warrant taken out against him by Mr. T.A. Davidson, the clerk to the Magistrates' Clerk, the object being to bind him (the defendant) over to keep the peace, he having used (according to the charge) insulting language and behaviour, with threats, towards the plaintiff.

Thomas Atkinson Davidson, being sworn, said – On Friday last, February 1st, in the evening, I went to the "King's Arms" public house. After sitting there some time Mr. Richard Medhurst came in. Soon after, or at the moment, he had a bill in his hand, which he produced. It was a printed bill. I understood him to say that it had been put up in his house, and that he had taken it down. The bill was read to the company, and afterwards handed round, when I asked to have a look at it, and it was handed to me. I have not the bill, but I believe this (produced) to be an exact copy. (The bill was here read in court.) Upon reading the bill, I said whoever has done this it gives them no great credit for their grammar. Independently of the grammar, I said it is a dirty mean thing for anyone to have taken the liberty with Mr. W. Major's name in the manner they seem to have done, or words to that effect. I was not addressing myself to the defendant in particular, it was merely a general observation for the company. Mr. Minter, who was sitting at the other end of the room, said I should like to know if there is anybody as mean, or more mean, in the town than the clerk to the Magistrate's Clerk – and immediately looking at me, said, I should like to, or I shall, and I would if I could get a chance, punch your head. I am quite certain the defendant looked at me when he made the observation, but he did not put himself in any attitude against me. I was not apprehensive that he would there make any attempt as the room was full of company, and I felt I should be protected. So soon as he had said this, which was done in a very angry tone, (this was about 11) I said I beg your pardon, Mr. Minter, I was not addressing myself to you, (I spoke this very mildly) and therefore I will thank you to confine your observations to yourself. Mr. Minter then called me “a cur”. Some other observations equally offensive were made about my having brought his name before the magistrates, and he said if I did it again he would punch my head. Nothing more occurred then, but the next morning I took out a warrant against the defendant.

Upon a representation being made by Mr. Medhurst to me that the defendant did not mean anything, I asked him to see Mr. Minter, and if he could induce him to give me his assurance that he meant nothing by what he had said on the Friday night, and meant nothing for the future, I should be perfectly satisfied, and would proceed no further in the matter. I asked for no apology. I afterwards asked Mr. Elgee, Mr. Medhurst having mentioned his name to me. I got no answer in return. Not receiving any, I believed defendant was in earnest by what he said that night. I am afraid the defendant would, if he had a chance to, do me, or cause to be done to me, some bodily injury. I believe myself to be in danger. I do not know exactly whether he would do it himself or get others to do it.

Cross-examined by the defendant :- This occurrence took place on Friday night. I took out the warrant on Saturday. It was made out and signed by the magistrates on that day but was not issued. It was delivered to the Superintendent on Wednesday evening about five o'clock. The warrant remained in our office until it was delivered to Mr. Steer. The whole of this time I was under bodily fear from you, but in consequence of what was passing between Mr. Medhurst and others I retained the warrant, and studiously avoided meeting you. Not receiving any answer I proceeded with the matter. I did not see you in the meantime that I remember. I never spoke to you.

On Sunday evening when Mr. Medhurst was talking with me, you passed by, and I said good evening. I scarcely knew you until I looked at you. I was sober. I did not notice where you went. I think you passed me, and went round to the bar fire, and spoke with Mrs. Medhurst, but did not notice particularly. I cannot say how long I remained at the bar. I talked to Mr. Medhurst seriously about it, and was anxiously asking him to get me this assurance. I might have stood at the bar and had three glasses of ale. I did not see you the whole of this time. When I left I might have said goodnight, Mrs. Medhurst, goodnight, sir. It is possible I might have said so, but cannot swear. I will swear I went home sober last night. I may have had some other threats made to me by other persons, but none like this.

Observations were here made by the defendant as to the plaintiff's general character, to show that he was a very quarrelsome man.

Cross-examination continued :- I never threatened or struck anyone. You threatened me twice. I was perfectly sober, but you seemed excited. I remained some long time afterwards in your company that evening. I was arguing upon politics, but not with you. I believe you made some remarks agreeing with me. I was under no apprehension that night.

The defendant, (in answer to the Mayor) said “I bear no malice to the plaintiff”.

Mr. Minter here spoke at long length in defence, complaining in strong terms of the frivolous and vexatious nature of the charge, which was got up entirely to injure his character, and particularly of his having been apprehended on a warrant, and subjected to some hours confinement; and stated that the bill (or squib) in question, with which he had had nothing to do, had been introduced into court with a view to prejudice his case with Mr. Major (one of the sitting magistrates) whose name appeared in it.

The magistrates immediately dismissed the case.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 31 July 1858. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

FIRE

On Monday night a fire broke out in an out-house used as a bottle house adjoining the "King's Arms Inn". By the prompt assistance of many of Mr. Medhurst's friends the fire was prevented extending to the stables and the house, and was extinguished before the engines arrived, but not until the shed in which it broke out was burnt down. The water having been shut off from the Company's mains, the whole of it had to be fetched in buckets from a pump some 250 yards from the spot.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 3 December 1859. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

COUNTY COURT William Medhurst v C. Armytage

Monday November 28th:- Before Charles Harwood esq., Judge

Claim for £5, balance of an IOU for £10 – defendant did not appears. Forthwith order.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 12 December, 1863. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

COUNTY COURT DUD CHEQUE

Friday December 11th:- Before Charles Harwood Esq., Judge.

W. Medhurst v S. Fenn – Claim for £5.

Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff.

It appeared from the opening statement of Mr. Minter, and the evidence of the plaintiff, that some short time ago the servant of defendant came to plaintiff's house, the "King's Arms," and asked for change of a cheque for £5, made payable to Self, drawn on the London and Westminster Bank, and signed “Bathurst”. The wife of defendant endorsed the cheque with her name. Plaintiff without any hesitation cashed the cheque – defendant being a customer. On being presented, however, it turned out that no person of that name banked with the London and Westminster Bank. Plaintiff thereupon demanded his £5 back, which was refused by the defendant, hence the present action.

For the defence it was urged that the cheque was sent to get changed at the request of the drawer, who was a person then occupying furnished apartments at defendant's house, and that plaintiff changed it at his own risk; that the person who wrote the cheque only paid her 33s. due to defendant, and took the rest of the money himself.

His Honour adjourned the case for enquiries to be made with reference to the person who uttered the cheque.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 30 January, 1864. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

STEALING BOOTS

Mary Hart and Fanny Hardman were brought up in custody, charged with stealing one pair of boots, the property of Edwin LeButt, from his shop in Broad Street.

Mr. LeButt deposed that on the 26th instant the prisoner, Fanny Hardman, came into his shop and asked for some boots for Mrs. Lane to look at. Whilst looking out the boots, the prisoner said she was going to the "King's Arms" and would call for them on her return, but she did not come back. The same evening Mr. Hart, the pawnbroker, sent for him and showed him a pair of boots, which witness identified as being his; had only two pair of that description in the shop that morning, and had only one pair now; knew them by the private mark on them; they are worth 15s. 6d.

Mr. P. Hart deposed he was a pawnbroker in the High Street. On the evening of the 26th, the prisoner Hart came into his shop, and producing a new pair of boots, wished to pledge them. Witness having a suspicion of the prisoner detained them, the prisoner saying the owner was outside and she would send her in; she did not return, however, till next morning when she came in and said she had come to give every information that she had received them from the prisoner Fanny Hardman. Witness then sent for a policeman and gave her into custody.

Michael Upton deposed he was assistant to Mr. LeButt, by whose request he had followed the prisoner out of the shop. She did not, however, go near the "King's Arms," but up Church Street. Witness returned, and going up Bayle Street saw the prisoner, who immediately ran down the Bayle steps, when witness lost sight of her.

P.C. Ovenden deposed that he took Mary Hart into custody at Mr. Hart's shop. She said to witness that the prisoner Hardyman had given her the boots five minutes before she went into the shop to pawn them for her. Witness then proceeded to Hardyman's lodgings, and taking her into custody brought her to Mr. LeButt, who identified her as the girl who had been in his shop on the previous day. Prisoner was then charged with stealing the boots, and made no reply to it.

The magistrates ultimately discharged the prisoner Mary Hart, and remanded Fanny Hardman until Saturday, the 30th inst.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 12 March, 1864. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

BREAKING GLASSES

Monday March 7th:- Before Capt. Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt and A.M. Leith, Esqs.

William Cowen was brought up in custody charged with wilfully and maliciously breaking seven glasses, doing damage to the amount of 2s 6d, being the property of Mr. Wm. Medhurst, of the "Kings Arms Inn."

William Medhurst, sworn, deposed he was the landlord of the "Kings Arms Inn," and on the last evening, the 6th instant, prisoner came into his bar. Witness was sitting behind the screen, and presently saw a jug and some glasses come tumbling to the floor; some of the glasses were broken; witness got up and saw the prisoner in the passage; in his hearing Mrs. Medhurst said “This soldier has deliberately knocked the glasses off the counter”; witness put him out of the front door; he kept attempting to strike witness; he just struck witness, but not so as to hurt him; afterwards witness found seven glasses broken, their value is half a crown.

Richard Medhurst, sworn, deposed he was the son of previous witness; corroborated the statement of his father.

Prisoner convicted in 2s 6d for malicious injury, 2s 6d the damage, and 5s 6d costs. Prisoner committed for seven days in default.