Folkestone Express 4 April 1868.

Transfer of License.

Wednesday, April 1st: Before The Mayor, Capt. Leith, and Alderman Boarer.

The Martello Tavern, Dover Street, from Mr. Thomas Cobb to Mr. R. Coomber.

Folkestone Express 16 October 1869.

Transfer of license.

Wednesday, October 13th: Before J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer, J. Clark and C. Dashwood Esqs.

Martello Tavern, from Henry R. Coomber to William Bennett.

Folkestone Express 17 February 1872.

Wednesday, February 14th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

A man, apparently of Russian nationality, giving the name of Antoni Schuttenbach, was brought up on a warrant, charged with unlawfully and knowingly, by a certain false pretence, obtaining from William Bennett, the sum of £3 with intent to cheat and defraud.

Mr. W. Bennett, Martello Hotel, deposed: Prisoner came into my house on the 12th January between 11 and 12 o'clock and asked me if I wanted a situation in which I could earn a considerable sum of money. I told him I was unable to leave my business and should not think of doing so. He then asked me to lend him £3, and showed me a bill or receipt for £16, payable by Messrs. Lebeau and Co., on the 16th January. Knowing Messrs. Lebeau and Co. to be a substantial firm, and seeing the name of Mr. Robinson on the receipt, and prisoner showing me a letter from Messrs. Lebeau and Co., on the faith of the bill and letter I let him have £3. Prisoner said the money had been paid in Boulogne, and was payable at Folkestone on the 16th January. I endeavoured to read the receipt, which was written in French, but not understanding the language sufficiently I could not do so. Prisoner took the receipt away with him; if he had left it I should have lent him more money upon it. After he had got the £3 he left my house and took the receipt away with him. He called at my house again in the evening and wanted to borrow some more money, but I refused to lend him any more. I saw him again about a fortnight afterwards, and he asked me for 2s.; he did not say when he would repay the £3. The receipt he showed me was stamped with a Government stamp.

By the Clerk: I am sure the receipt was written in the French language. Prisoner read the letter to me.

The Clerk: You have to make out a case for obtaining money by false pretences. There seems to be no case at all.

Mr. Bennett: prisoner obtained the £3 by making use of Messrs. Lebeau's name.

The Clerk: It is a matter of what took place between you and the prisoner, and not what you found out afterwards. You could not tell whether the receipt, or bill, or whatever it might be, was a genuine document or not.

Mr. Bennett: It was an order to receive £16 from Messrs. Lebeau and Co.

Mr. Clarke: What had Mr. Robinson's name to do with it?

Mr. Bennett: His name was written at the bottom of it, and it assumed that £16 were coming to the prisoner on the 16th January.

Mr. Clarke: Having Mr. Robinson's name to it would not make Messrs. Lebeau responsible.

Mr. Robinson said he believed the bill was originally sent to Antwerp.

Mr. Bennett: If you will grant a remand, I can bring witnesses to prove prisoner has swindled several persons.

The Clerk: You have no right to say so.

The Mayor to Mr. Bennett: It is your case we have to do with.

Mr. Caister: It appears to me that the case has broken down for want of evidence.

The Mayor: We consider the case is not proved; if you can get further evidence you can have a fresh warrant.

Prisoner was then discharged.

Mr. Gardner, a lodging house keeper, 4, East Cliffe, Dover, stepped forward and applied for a warrant against Scuttenbach, saying that he had shown him an order for £16 on the National Provincial Bank, and asked him to lend him 10s. to pay for a telegram to Boulogne. Mr. Gardner went to Mr. Robinson, who told him the bill was dishonoured at Boulogne. He (Mr. G) afterwards saw Schuttenbach, who told him that the money came direct from Paris.

The Clerk: There is no false pretence. You lent money on very bad security; it is simply a debt.

Mr. Robinson: May I ask what false pretences are?

The Mayor: Persons should not come here to ask such questions as that.

Mr. Gardner: Schuttenbach told me his luggage was at Boulogne, and that his wife and seven children had come over by the packet, and I took them to the drawing room floor, and they had ham and eggs for tea. I could bring plenty of poor people from Dover upon whom Scuttenbach and his family have been living without paying anything.

Mr. Robinson produced a copying book in which was a copy of the letter shown to Mr. Bennett, and remarked that no-one would recognise Schuttenbach's bill in Boulogne.

The Clerk: He draws upon men of straw.

Mr. R. Hudson, Yorkshire Coffee House, 1, Eaton Place, Grace Hill, said Scuttenbach went to his house and asked to be accommodated with tea and a bed, and said he had discovered a very valuable invention in connection with photography, and at his request he lent him half a crown. On Saturday night week Schuttenbach's wife and seven children went to the house and stayed a week and, finding he could get no money, he ordered them to leave. He (Mr. Hudson) wrote to a person at Boulogne to ask if Scuttenbach's representations were genuine, and received a reply that they were not.

The Clerk to Mr. Hudson: Yours is simply a debt.

The parties concerned then left the Court, and on Scuttenbach leaving the Hall he was pounced upon by two of his victims who vowed to take "lynch law" upon him by giving him a ducking in the Bayle Pond, whither they proceeded to drag him, bonneting him by the way as a sort of preliminary. He laid down upon the pavement and set up such a hideous howling that they relinquished their hold, and a policeman came up and escorted the gentleman to Sandgate, leaving him when he had got out of the boundary of the Borough.

It seems that on being turned out of the Yorkshire Coffee House at Folkestone, Schuttenbach took his wife and seven children to the Kent Hotel, Sandgate, and by his specious and cunning manner contrived to throw Mr. Keeler off his guard, and the lot were taken in and well done for, and on Wednesday were in the full enjoyment of the worthy host's hospitality, Mr. Keeler never dreaming that the family who had patronised him had just been thrown out at Folkestone in consequence of no cash being forthcoming. Four of the victims who had heard the case at the Folkestone Police Court determined that the Russian should not victimise Mr. Keeler, and accordingly went post-haste to Sandgate, and informed mine host of the Kent of the real character of his guest. This resulted in a bill for board and lodgings for the nine being set up, and, as usual, no money was forthcoming. The gentlemen who had followed the Russian to Sandgate, feeling chagrined that the mesons of the law were wide enough for Scuttenbach to slip through, and regretting that they had not carried out their intention of giving him a ducking in the Bayle Pond, they resolved that he should have a bath in the horse trough in the Kent yard, and waited for him coming downstairs in obedience to the landlord's command to seek fresh lodgings. Presently the Russian, with his wife and seven children, came down the front stairs, and the lynchers emerged from their ambush and proceeded to take the Russian in hand. He had a child in his arms, which was tenderly removed, and the man was being taken to his bath when his wife made a brave effort to release him from the lynchers, accompanying her efforts with the most unearthly screams, the man and the children keeping up a running accompaniment. After a few minutes of scuffling and screaming in the passage, during which the Russian received a sharp blow on the face, the whole lot were ejected into the street, and took up their quarters on the pavement in front of the Hotel, continuing their howling for some little time. Having remained there about an hour, they took their departure, passing through Folkestone, and it is supposed that they have gone to pay another visit to Dover. During the time the family were sitting on the pavement a young man, having the appearance of a sailor, conversed in Russian with the woman, and in extremely energetic English declared that all the German and Russian newspapers should know how the Russians had been treated by the English, and avowed that if anyone interfered with him as they had done with the Russian he would "stick a knife into them, or shoot them down".

The family consists of five boys and two girls, their ages ranging from two or three to seventeen years. Their appearance is that known as "shabby genteel". What their antecedents have been has not transpired. It is stated that the man said he had been to Eton College. Whatever they are, and wherever they come from, one thing is evident, that they know how to make themselves comfortable at other people's expense. Beyond a bundle of papers they have no luggage, and we should advise innkeepers to ascertain something of the antecedents of intending patrons before entertaining them, especially when they come nine in a batch! It is quite clear that the Russian is adept at getting board and lodgings on the cheap, and at the same time evading the criminal law. We hear that they have taken up their quarters in Dover Union.

Folkestone Express 22 November 1873.

Inquest.

On Thursday afternoon an inquest was held at the Martello Hotel, before J. Minter Esq., Coroner and a jury on the body of Susannah Hams.

William Hams, husband of the deceased, said she was 66 years of age, and although she was at times she was a little "flighty", she was in a fit state to be left by herself. On the morning of the 4th instant he left the house about half past eight to go to work in a meadow, and whilst there saw a man running towards the house. Thinking something was amiss he went home and found his wife severely burnt. Two or three potatoes and a knife were lying in front of the fire, and he had no doubt that while deceased was preparing the potatoes for dinner her dress caught fire.

Mr. John Gilfin, Railway Arms (sic), Dover Road, deposed to being near the Cement Works on the morning in question, and as he was coming home he saw a woman coming out of Folly Cottages with her arms thrown up, and crying out "Oh, dear". He at once rant to her assistance, seeing that her clothes were in flames from top to bottom. He pulled his coat off as quickly as he could and wrapped it round her, and with the assistance of a man named Nash, who was coming by, the flames were extinguished, but not before deceased had been very severely burnt. She was taken into the house and a doctor sent for.

W. Bateman Esq., M.R.C.S., said he was called to deceased and found her suffering from very severe burns on the upper part of the person. He had hopes at first that she would recover, but she gradually sank from the shock caused to the system by the irritation, and died on Wednesday.

Verdict "Accidental Death".

Folkestone Express 31 January 1874.

Wednesday, January 28th: Before Col. De Crespigny, J. Tolputt and R. W. Boarer Esqs.

Transfer:

The following transfer of public houses was granted:

The Martello Tavern – to Henry Sutton.

Folkestone Express 13 April 1895.

Wednesday, April 10th: Before Alderman Banks, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Mr. White, of the Martello Hotel, was granted permission to supply refreshments at the Masonic Hall on the occasion of a ball.

Folkestone Express 4 August 1900.

Local News.

The promptitude of the Fire Brigade, combined with the marvellous extinguishing properties of the Simplex Fire Extincteur, averted what might have proved a very serious conflagration at the Martello Hotel, in Dover Road. A gas connection was being made in the cellar when the open end of a large gas main became ignited, and suddenly flared up. The Fire Brigade were immediately summoned, and arrived on the scene with their customary promptitude. Captain Nichols entered the hotel, and looking through an aperture behind the counter saw that the cellar was blazing like a furnace. He immediately put the nozzle of the Simplex Extincteur through the aperture, and in less than two minutes the chemical fluid had extinguished the fire. In the words of Mr. Nichols it was "a very smart stop". No damage was done by water, but just to prove the heat, it may be mentioned that the firemen took out ten feet of a large gas pipe absolutely red hot.

Folkestone Express 8 December 1900.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before J. Hoad, W.C. Carpenter, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and G. Peden Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Richard Dickson White, the son of the licensee, asked for a transfer of the licence of the Martello Hotel, and it was granted.

Folkestone Express 1 April 1905.

Saturday, March 25th: Before The Mayor and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

William Stapley was summoned for leaving a pony and cart unattended in Dover Road on March 17th.

P.C. Leonard Johnson said at 6.25 p.m. he saw the pony and cart outside the Martello Hotel. After standing for several minutes, the pony turned round and went up Dover Road. Witness went after it, and stopped it near Mr. Willson's shop. He brought it back to the hotel, where he saw the defendant inside.

James Henry Hall was called by the defendant, and told the Magistrates that he took the pony and trap for a run. He left it outside the hotel, and went inside to see Stapley.

The Mayor said the pony and trap were not left outside by the defendant, therefore the case would be dismissed.

Folkestone Express 12 August 1905.

Tuesday, August 8th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Spurgen, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Holliday was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road the previous night. Prisoner said he was the worse for drink, but not disorderly. P.C. Allen said at 9.30 he was in Dover Road, near the Drill Hall, when the prisoner, who was very drunk, came across to him and used bad language. He requested him to go away several times, but he refused, and commenced to dance on the pavement. A large crowd of people gathered round the prisoner, so with the assistance of P.C. Prebble witness took him to the police station.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner once kept a public house in the town. There were three or four convictions against him for drunkenness and assaulting the police.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 27 March 1909.

Local News.

We regret to have to record the death of Mr. Alfred Edward Dixon White, of the Martello Hotel. The deceased was quite a young man – his age was 37 years – and a large circle of friends will mourn his loss. He was always regarded as a downright good fellow, and will be greatly missed. He was a thorough sportsman, and up to a few years ago he appeared in the ranks of the Folkestone Football eleven. He had lived in Folkestone all his life, so naturally he was well known about the town. Several years back he was a member of the East Kent Yeomanry. Up to about ten days ago he had enjoyed good health, and he appeared to have many years in front of him. He was, however, laid low by influenza, which was followed by congestion of the lungs and pneumonia, and last Friday his condition was regarded as most serious. He failed to rally and became worse, eventually passing away at 12.40 on Tuesday morning. He leaves a widow and three young children, to whom every sympathy is extended.

Folkestone Express 10 April 1909.

Wednesday, April 7th: Before Mr. E. T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Messrs. W. G. Herbert and R.J. Linton.

A temporary licence to sell at the Martello Hotel, Dover Road, until next transfer day was granted to Mrs. White, widow and executrix of the late Mr. A. E. D. White. The application was made by Mr. Watts.

Folkestone Express 29 May 1909.

Wednesday, May 26th: Before Mr. W. G. Herbert, Alderman Jenner, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G. I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd.

The day was fixed as a special sessions for the transfer of licences. The Magistrates confirmed the transfer of the following: The Martello Hotel, to Mrs. A. E. White, the widow of the late licensee.

Folkestone Express 27 May 1911.

Local News.

We regret to announce that Mr. Richard White, formerly proprietor of the Martello Hotel, died on Sunday morning, after a protracted illness, aged 75.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred, temporary authority having been sanctioned previously by the Magistrates: The Martello Hotel, from Mrs. White to Mr. Taylor.

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.

An application was made for the transfer of the licence of the Martello Hotel from Mr. Taylor to Mr. Bridges, of the White Horse Inn.

The Chief Constable said he had no objection, and the application was granted.

Folkestone Express 6 March 1915.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Thursday, before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and other Magistrates, James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews, and William Henry Page, all in the employ of the Railway Company, were charged with stealing a number of watches from a broken case at the S.E. And C. Railway Company's Station at the Harbour. Arthur Sydney Barker, watch repairer, and Albert William Bridges, a licensed victualler, were charged with receiving a number of watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Bridges.

Charles Edward Gaines, night Inspector for the Harbour, said Spicer, Andrews, and Page were employed as extra labourers in unloading trucks. On February 3rd, about 5 o'clock, the three men were on duty in the goods shed, when he took charge of a truck which contained a consignment of watches which had arrived by the Dieppe steamer. Three or four of the cases were very much broken, and he saw a quantity of pink boxes like the one produced, containing watches, loose in the cases. They were in a small net in the goods truck. The loose watches were placed in a rainproof sheet, under his direction, and taken to the Customs examination room. The three men were engaged in that work. He handed up the watches to Mr. Gilpin, the night clerk. About ten minutes later he saw them in the lock-up cage. The cases of watches were forwarded to London the following night.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said the previous day, about 12.45 p.m., he saw Barker in his workshop off Dover Road, and cautioned him. He told him he was making inquiries respecting a quantity of ladies' wristlet watches missing from the Folkestone Pier, and he understood that he (prisoner) had sold some. He said he had bought some, and further stated “I bought them off a man I knew by sight, but I don't know his name. He's a business man in the town”. He took him to the police station. Later he charged him with receiving several ladies' wristlet watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. He showed him the two boxes which contained nine wristlet watches (produced), and told him he had received them from Mr. Warren, jeweller, of High Street. Prisoner replied “I bought them off a business man in the town who has pounds”. Later, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he went to prisoner's workshop. In a drawer he found three boxes (produced) containing nine wristlet watches. Later, from what Inspector Simpson told him, he went to the cell door and saw Barker, who said “Yes, it will all have to come out; I bought them off Bridges, the landlord of the Martello Hotel. You go and see him”. Accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he went to the Martello Hotel, where he saw Bridges. He cautioned him, and told him that a man named Barker, a watchmaker, was in custody for receiving a quantity of stolen ladies' wristlet watches, and from a statement he had made it appeared he bought them from him. Bridges said “About a fortnight ago a man came into the public bar and showed me several ladies' watches in cardboard boxes, and said they were travellers' samples. He asked me 2s. 6d. each for them. I bought four boxes, which contained six watches in a box. I gave him 15s. for each box. I know his name as William Page. He looked as if he was a South Eastern man. I sold twenty two of the watches in the boxes to Mr. Barker, whom I know as a customer, and kept two for myself, which I gave to my daughters. The two watches (produced) are the two I kept”. He then handed him the two watches. He then brought him to the police station. The witness then described how he saw the other three men separately. He also explained that he cautioned them. When charged, Spicer said “I didn't steal them”. Andrews said “I had four; two of them I have given away, but I decline to say who to. The other two are broken, and they are at home on the mantelpiece”. When charged at the police station, he replied “I'll say nothing”. Page replied “Oh, all right”. He brought him to the police station and formally charged him, and he made no reply.

Mr. Harry W. Price, jeweller, of Sandgate Road, said Barker, who he had given work on and off for some years, came to his shop about ten days or a fortnight ago, and said he had got some wristlet watches, and would he purchase them? Barker brought twelve watches up the following day. He asked him the price of them, and where he obtained them. He said “I'm selling them on commission for a man that sells auction lots at Ashford market”. Witness asked prisoner if the man was all right, and he said “Yes, he's sold them there for nineteen years”. Witness said “They seem all right, and I'll buy them”. The next day he gave Barker £3 15s. for the dozen, the price he asked. In his experience of the trade he thought that that price was the full value. He asked him if he would like to have some more watches a day or two later. He replied “No, I don't want any more rubbish”. The retail selling price would be about 8s. or 9s. each.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said there were two qualities of watches. One quality was worth 5s., and the other quality about 7s. or 8s. The small watches were rubbish.

Mr. F.H. Warren, watchmaker, of 83, High Street, gave evidence of purchasing twelve watches for £3. He returned three of the watches which had stopped, and paid him £1 16s. for the other nine, claiming credit for 9s., which Barker owed him. Barker told him a similar story to what he had Mr. Price.

Mr. A.S. Jones deposed to Barker coming to him, and in consequence of a similar statement to that given to the previous two witnesses, he purchased three of the watches, two for 5s. each, and a third for 7s.

At this stage a remand for a week was granted, and bail was offered to each of the prisoners in one surety of £10 each, and themselves in £10.

Folkestone Express 13 March 1915.

Thursday, March 25th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, R.G. Wood Esq., and Colonel Owen.

James Spicer, William Andrews, and William Page, on remand, were charged with stealing a quantity of watches, and Arthur Sidney Barker and Albert W. Bridges were charged with receiving, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Bridges, and Mr. C.H. Brewer, of the Brighton Railway Company, prosecuted.

Mr. Brewer said the property was sent from France to this country, and in ordinary times it would have gone to Newhaven. The traffic which the Dieppe boat brought was still in the interest of the Brighton Railway Company, and that was why he was prosecuting. The police had made stringent inquiries, and the case would develop into a most important one. The missing property was valued at £136, and the police would have a very hard task to trace more of the missing watches. He would therefore ask for a remand, with Mr. Haines' agreement, as the property would have to be traced, perhaps, all over the country. He would therefore like a remand for a week.

Remanded for a week, the same bail being allowed.

Folkestone Express 20 March 1915.

Local News.

On Thursday there was a crowded Court at the adjourned hearing of a charge against James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews and William Henry Page for stealing a number of watches from the Harbour Station, and also the charge against Arthur Barker and Albert William Bridges for receiving watches well-knowing them to have been stolen. The Magistrates on the Bench were Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Jenner, R.G. Wood Esq., and Colonel Owen. Mr. C.H. Brewer prosecuted on behalf of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, and Mr. G.W. Haines represented Barker and Bridges.

Mr. Brewer said the Magistrates would remember that at the last hearing he asked them to kindly grant a remand in order that there might be an opportunity of obtaining further evidence. He then intimated that the case was a serious one, and that enquiries by the police would have to cover a very large area. He then had no idea that the inquiries would be so great as they had found to be necessary. The Borough Police, with the assistance of the Company's Police Superintendent, had been working on that case ever since the remand, and inquiries had had to be made in Birmingham, Switzerland, Dieppe, and also Aldershot. When he told them that the charges which were being preferred against the prisoners related to two missing cases, one containing 144 watches, and the other 370 watches, and that those watches had been disposed of to a large number of people, they would appreciate that he would not be able to complete the case that day by any means. There was no doubt they had a very serious case to deal with, and one which would necessitate very hard work on the part of the police to bring all the evidence before them. The Magistrates would remember that some watches came out of a broken case that was transhipped from Dieppe to Folkestone. He asked them to dismiss that from their minds and to start de novo. With a few exceptions those watches had not been traced to the seller. They had been able to trace them to numerous channels, but they wanted to trace them to the person who actually sold them. He was there that day to prosecute in a charge of stealing two cases, one of which would be identified as No. 575, and the other as No. 37. Case No. 575 came from Dieppe, consigned by Schottlander, of Hatton Gardens, London. The other was sent out to someone in Birmingham, but he was not in a position to identify that yet. With regard to the 370 wristlet watches, the total was £109 13s. 7d., and they were consigned to London. He would call evidence to show that everything was brought on the quay at Folkestone. The reasonable inference was that that case containing 370 watches never arrived in London, and out of those 370 watches, 22 had been traced. Nine of them they could prove were sold to a Mr. Warren by the prisoner Barker. Nine watches were also found on the premises of the prisoner Barker, seven of which could be traced to case No. 575, and two to the Birmingham case. Three had been received in the town, sold by Barker, and with regard to three others they had not been able to trace the original seller, but they had been identified as forming part of the case No. 575. Case No. 37 contained 144 watches of the total value of £60, and that was consigned to Birmingham. That case they could trace at Folkestone, and it was actually dealt with at Folkestone, but it never arrived in London. Twelve of those watches had been recovered and identified by the owners as originally forming part of the watches in that case. Of those twelve two were found in Barker's shop, and two had been sold to soldiers now stationed at Aldershot, and who had identified Spicer and Andrews as the men who sold the watches. Two had been sold by Barker to a witness named Price, and two to a witness named Bradwell. Four had been recovered and identified, but they could not trace the seller. The Magistrates would appreciate as they went on how difficult it was to get all the loose ends together. He thought they could certainly make out a strong prima facie case that those two cases came over to that country and to that very port, and that over 500 watches were missing. He would like to point out that where a man was found in possession of recently stolen property the onus was upon him to prove to the Magistrates' satisfaction how he came in possession of them. It was clear there had been a large pilferage going on, and the watches had been scattered broadcast, and so made it difficult to trace them.

The Clerk said the evidence given at the previous hearing was effective on the definite charges now before them.

Mr. Haines said so far as his clients were concerned, they were charged with receiving certain property, and that property was absolutely put in evidence there, and it could be allowed to remain.

The Clerk asked what objection there was to the charge being altered to one of stealing 514 watches.

Mr. Brewer said that would be the charge, and all the evidence previously given was effective, except the conjectural evidence concerning the watches placed in the net.

The Clerk: You will keep it as one charge?

Mr. Brewer: Yes.

Mr. Haines thought that the prosecution should show that the property was missing.

Mr. Brewer said he was going to call evidence as to that.

Adolf Vallet, the Chief Checker of the French State Railway, said he lived at Dieppe. He was on duty at the Harbour Station at Dieppe on February 17th when the steamship Sussex was alongside the quay preparatory to leaving for Folkestone. The steamer belonged to the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway company. It was loaded with a quantity of cargo for London via Folkestone. The goods included a case of watches marked “575, L.W.C.”, and also a case marked “C.R.F.C. 37”. He produced the Customs certificate in support of his statement. He was sure both cases were put on board the vessel for transport.

In reply to the Clerk, he said he was not present when the cases were put on board the boat. He never saw the cases at all.

Mr. Brewer said he could not ask for M. Vallet's statement to be taken as evidence. The documents showed what should have been in the train, and the Customs had certified that everything in the train had been loaded into the boat.

The Clerk said the Customs certificate was not evidence in that Court.

Mr. Brewer said all they could do was to get the French authorities to send the man who had done the loading of the cases. They had evidently sent the Chief of the department.

The Clerk: What do you propose to do with regard to him?

Mr. Brewer said he could only agree to his evidence being withdrawn.

William Joyce, a delivery checker in the employ of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway at Willow Walk, said on February 22nd he was on duty in the Continental goods shed on the arrival of a goods train from Folkestone Harbour. It was his duty to check the goods, and he received an invoice and authorisation (produced) which arrived with the train, and contained a list of the goods which should have come on the train.

Mr. Haines objected to the production of the declaration being put in without it being proved as to who wrote it.

Witness, continuing, said the declaration produced was the sender's declaration, containing a list of the goods which should have arrived.

The Clerk could not see it was admissible or material.

Witness said the declaration contained a reference to two cases marked “L.W.C. 575” and “C.R.F.C. 37”. Neither of those cases arrived by the train, and they were still required at Willow Walk. The two lists (produced) were made out by himself, and they contained a complete list of the goods arriving by the train, and did not include either of the two cases referred to.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said there were only five trucks on the train. He did not unload them by himself.

Aaron marks Schottlander said he was employed by the Lagendorff Watch Company, of 9, Hatton Gardens. On or about February 22nd he was expecting 20 cases of watches from their factory in Switzerland. He had previously received the invoices (produced) from the factory, and included on them were the cases of goods numbered 573, 574 and 575. Only two arrived – numbers 573 and 574 – on or about February 22nd. The case numbered 575 had not been since delivered to them. There should have been, according to the invoice, 370 watches, of the value of £109 13s. 7d. in the case numbered 575. He would know some of those watches if he saw them. The nine watches (produced) should have been in the case. The cardboard boxes were their boxes, and one should certainly have been in the case. The further seven watches and the two cardboard boxes should have been in case No. 575. The three separate watches received from Mr. Jones, a witness, should also have been in the case. The watches received from Nash should have been in the case as well. Six separate watches (produced) should have been in the case. The approximate value of the enamel watches would be about 12/6, and that of the smallest watches about 15/-. There was a third variety among the watches identified, and their ordinary retail value was from 21/- to 25/-. No-one in Folkestone had authority to deal with the consignment.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said the reason why he stated the watches should have been in the case was by the pattern numbers on the boxes in which the watches were placed.

Thomas Hill, of 30, Gladstone Road, said he was a checker in the employ of the S.E. And C. Railway Company at the Harbour. He was on duty in the goods loading shed on the night of February 17th, and was engaged in checking goods from the s.s. Sussex. The slip (produced) was the one he made out that night. Among those goods he checked goods placed in a railway van for Willow Walk. Among the goods placed in the van was a case marked “C.R.F.C. 37”. The number of the van was 662.

Corpl. William Edward Honeywood, of the 5th Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Aldershot, said between 7.30 and 8 p.m. on February 25th he was in the Chequers Inn in the bar parlour. The prisoners Spicer and Andrews were there. Spicer had two cardboard boxes containing watches in his hand, and he saw him sell one to a corporal, whom he did not know, for 2/6. Spicer said to him “Will you have one?”, and he (witness) said “Show me one”. Prisoner showed him the watch (produced) and he bought it for 5/-. There were three sorts of watches. Andrews was sitting near, and was in a position to see and hear all that took place. Andrews said to a corporal in the room “Have one; You can raffle it for 2d. a man”. He did not see Andrews with a watch.

Pte. William John Sturges, of the 5th Royal Berkshire Regiment, said between 7.30 and 8 p.m. on February 25th he was in the bar parlour of the Chequers Inn. He saw Spicer and Andrews there. He saw Corpl. Honeywood buy a watch from the former for 5/-. Afterwards he (witness) asked Spicer if he would let him have one like it, and he replied “Yes”. He eventually bought the watch (produced) for 5/-. Andrews took no part in the transaction.

Mabel Bridgeland, of No. 9, Dover Street, said for some months past she had been employed at the Chequers Inn. On the evening of February 25th she was attending to the customers in the bar parlour, and she then saw Spicer and Andrews and several soldiers there between seven and eight o'clock. She saw Spicer sell a watch to Corpl. Honeywood. As the latter was buying it, Spicer said he would not get one if he went down the street for less than 21/-. She saw Spicer had two cardboard cases. Andrews was seated close by. She did not hear him say anything. Both men arrived together in the house, and left together.

Charles Edward Gaze, an inspector in the employ of the Railway Company, said Spicer, Andrews and Page were on duty at the Harbour Station on the evening of February 17th. Andrews and Page were employed in dealing with the goods traffic from the Dieppe boat, and Spicer was employed on the goods traffic from the Flushing boat.

Mark Cloke, a jeweller's assistant at 60a, High Street, in the employ of Mr. T.W. Baker, said he was in his shop on the 25th February between 11 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., when Spicer came into the shop and asked him if he could fit a wrist strap to a wristlet watch he showed. The watch was similar to the one produced. He had not a strap in stock at the time. Spicer then asked him the value of it, and after examining the watch he said he had seen similar watches sold for anything up to 25/-. Spicer then said “Do you think the governor could do with any? It is not dear for 4/- or 5/-, is it?” He (witness) said to him “Have you any more for sale?”, and Spicer replied “Yes, these two boxes”, at the same time producing two cardboard boxes. The two boxes contained 69 watches altogether. He (witness) said “Will you call again and see the governor?” Spicer said he would, and he called again on the 27th. The prisoner produced to Mr. Baker two or three similar boxes containing watches, and said “Can you do with any of these?” Mr. Baker then said “I can't buy these off you unless you can produce a receipt for the same”. Spicer then said “They are quite all right. There is nothing to be afraid of. Then you can't do with any?” He then left the shop. On the first occasion when Spicer produced the watches to him he said he was selling some for 3/6 and others for 4/-.

Mr. Brewer said that was as far as he could take the case that day. He asked for a further remand.

The Magistrates remanded the five men until Friday next, bail again being allowed.

Folkestone Express 3 April 1915.

Local News.

On Friday, for the fourth time, the Magistrates, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Jenner, R.G. Wood Esq., and Colonel Owen, at the Police Court, had before them five men on charges with respect to a large number of watches, which were, it was alleged, stolen from the S.E. And C. Railway Company's Harbour on February 17th. James Spicer, William Alfred Andrews, and William Henry Page, three casual porters were charged with stealing 514 watches valued at £160, while Sidney Barker, a watchmaker and repairer, and Albert William bridges, the licensee of the Martello Hotel were charged with receiving a number of the watches well-knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. C.H. Brewer, assistant solicitor of the L.B. and S.C. Railway Company, prosecuted, and Mr. G.W. Haines defended Barker and Bridges.

Mr. Brewer, in opening the proceedings, said the Magistrates would remember the case was adjourned in order that they could get witnesses from Switzerland to prove that the watches were actually placed in the two missing cases, Nos. 575 and 37, but no reply had been received. They could not compel people to come from Switzerland, and the communication between that country and Switzerland just now was not of the most quick character. But he could now call evidence from France to prove that the case 575 was put on the boat at Dieppe, and that all the cargo had been taken off at Folkestone. As regarded case 37, he was going to call evidence from Birmingham to prove what should have been in the case, and it had already been given in evidence that a certain number of watches found in possession of certain people should have been in the case.

Felix Legras, a checker at Honfleur in the employ of the French State Railway, said on February 17th he was employed in a similar capacity at Dieppe. On that day he checked the goods into the S.S. Sussex. He saw all the goods put on board, and made out the list produced containing “case No. 575”. He checked the entries on the list himself. Three cases, Nos. 573, 574 and 575, were placed on board the S.S. Sussex. The cases bore the lettering “L.W.C”.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not know the contents of the case No. 575 except from the description given on the list.

George Streeter Robinson, an officer in H.M. Customs, at present at Southampton, said on February 17th he was on duty at the Folkestone Pier when the S.S. Sussex arrived at 5.30 p.m. from Dieppe. After the landing of the passengers, which took two hours, he boarded the vessel and searched her for contraband. He then found there was no cargo left on board.

Thomas hill, a checker of the S.E. and C. Railway Company, said at the last hearing he produced a slip showing the goods he checked from the s.s. Sussex on February 17th into the train for Willow Walk. He did not on that day check into the train a case marked “L.W.C. 575”. That number did not appear on the list. Cases No. 573 and 574 appeared on the list. If case “L.W.C. 575” had been put on the train it would have appeared on the list.

Cross-examined, witness said it was not possible for the case to be put on the train without it being entered on the list.

Evelyn Grace Oliver, of 49, Barker Street, Birmingham, said he was a clerk in the employ of Louis Jacot, watch manufacturer, York Terrace, Hockley Hill, Birmingham. On February 11th she received the invoice (produced) dated February 6th, from Fleury and Co., watch manufacturers, of Switzerland. It related to 24 boxes of silver wristlet watches. There were six watches in a box, and the number of watches was 144. Mr. Jacot had ordered the watches. On February 14th she received the postcard (produced) from Messrs. Danzas and Co. Ltd., of Bale, announcing that they on February 10th sent from Bale for delivery to Mr. Jacot a case of watches marked “37 C.R.F.C.”. The case contained the first lot of watches of that kind consigned to M. Jacot, and bore the stamp L.J. In the back of the watch. All the watches consigned to M. Jacot bore that stamp. The particular case No. 37 never arrived at their place in Birmingham. The factory value of the watches was £60, and the wholesale value, as they sold them, for each watch was 13/6. All the watches in the case were exactly the same. The retail price of the watches was generally double the wholesale price. (Laughter)

The Magistrates' Clerk: We are in the wrong occupation. (Renewed laughter)

Witness, continuing, said the seven watches produced to her should have been in the case “37 C.R.F.C.”.

Cross-examined, witness said all the watches were marked “L.J.”.

Mr. Brewer said that was the completion of the case, subject to questions arising out of the reason of the evidence. He asked for the defendants to be committed for trial. He ought to briefly say he particularly wished to make it quite clear that, acting as he did for the Brighton Company, he wished to be perfectly impartial. He was bound to confess the evidence against the prisoners Page and Andrews was of a somewhat slight nature. As regarded Page, it absolutely rested on a statement he made to Det. Sergt. Johnson when arrested. When Johnson told him he had recovered a number of watches which Bridges said he had bought from him (Page) he said “All right”. That was all the evidence against Page except that he was on duty at the Harbour on the night of February 17th when the Sussex arrived.

Mr. Haines: You might as well arrest the whole of the Harbour staff if that is the only evidence against him.

Mr. Brewer said the statement of Bridges was not evidence against Page, whose reply of “All right” to the Det. Sergt. Might be construed into an admission. As regarded Andrews, the evidence was that he was with Spicer when the latter sold watches to the soldiers at the Chequers Inn, and Andrews made a remark that they could not get a better watch down the street for a guinea. Andrews, when arrested, said he had had four watches, two of which were at home on the mantelpiece. As regarded Bridges and Barker, he submitted that the evidence was strong against them. In charges of receiving it was impossible to prove absolutely conclusively what a man knew, but they were entitled to infer from a man's behaviour and conduct. He contended that the evidence showed that he knew the watches were not come by lawfully. The evidence of the witness Cloke was very strong against Spicer. Against all the accused except Page the evidence was quite clear, but as regarded Page he left it entirely to the Bench whether they committed him for trial or not.

The Magistrates' Clerk, after the Magistrates had consulted together, said the Bench were of opinion that they could not withhold the case from a jury, subject to any observations that might be made by Mr. Haines.

Mr. Haines said he submitted there was no prima facie case against Barker and Bridges, who were charged there with regard to receiving the watches well-knowing them to have been stolen. The very essence of that offence was that the men had knowledge the watches had been stolen, and it had to be proved that they knew of that. Unless the Magistrates were satisfied that knowledge was brought home to the men there was no case against them. In the first instance they had heard respecting Page that the prosecution suggested that there was no evidence against him. The only evidence against that man was that he was at work on the Harbour. On the very same day forty or fifty other men were working at the Harbour, all of whom might just as well have been arrested. The Magistrates must remember that Page was the only connecting link with Bridges and Barker to bring them there. Not one single jot of evidence had been given which connected them with Spicer or Andrews. The prosecution were there to prove that those two cases of watches were stolen, and they actually stated that Page was a party to stealing them. He contended there was no case against Page, and if the Magistrates dismissed him from that charge He was the only one with whom Bridges and Barker came into contact. To prove a larceny they must trace the goods. The prosecution had undoubtedly had very great difficulty in doing that, and he did not think the difficulties had been surmounted sufficiently to prove that the watches which were before the Court were actually in the cases 575 and 37. Those watches were manufactured in thousands, and cases of them were always coming over. There was along list of such cases, even in the Sussex alone. First of all the charge of stealing was dated February 3rd. There was no proof that the watches did come from the boat on February 3rd. The case 575 had not been traced into Folkestone, and there was no evidence to show that it was not put overboard as the boat came over. Where was it? It had not been proved that Bridges bought the watches on or after February 17th or sold them to Barker after that date. Evidence would be given by Bridges that he bought them before February 17th. If the Magistrates believed that that transaction took place before the 17th February there was no prima facie case against his clients. He (Mr. Haines) might have purchased the watches from Bridges if he had been in Barker's position, knowing the high reputation of Mr. Bridges and knowing the position he held. He contended anyone would be justified in purchasing anything from Bridges, whose unblemished reputation he knew, and would have no reason to suspect that he had come by the watches unlawfully. Bridges said he bought the watches from Page because he told him the watches were travellers' samples. It was a fact that jewellery travellers, towards the end of the year, did dispose of their samples. He (Mr. Haines) had known himself of that being done in Folkestone. At the Rose Hotel, which was at one time a commercial house, he had known samples in watches, chains, sets of plate, etc., to be sold at a very much lower price than what was usually charged. Bridges migt have thought the watches had been sold in a similar way. He accepted the statement that was made to him, and the Bench had to be satisfied that he knew they were stolen good before they could commit him. Mr. Haines also pointed out that the Magistrates had to take into consideration Bridges' high reputation.

After the evidence was read over the Court adjourned for lunch.

On the resumption the defendants were charged, and the usual caution was read over to them.

Spicer said: I only say I am not Guilty. I was not working on that steamer on the 17th February. On the 17th february the Sussex was lying on the outer berth. The boat I was employed on, the Flushing boat, was lying at the inner berth, near the harbour.

Andrews said: I am Not Guilty.

Page said: I am Not Guilty of stealing any watches.

Bridges, giving evidence on oath, said he was the licence holder of the Martello hotel, and had been there since November 20th. Prior to that he held the licence of the White Horse, Hawkinge, for 23 years. He was Chairman of the Hawkinge Parish Council, and was a member of the School Board and an Overseer, the latter office having been held by him for 18 years. He was a member of the Burial Board. He knew Page by sight as a frequent customer at the Martello, but did not know what his occupation was. He remembered Page coming to his house one day with some watches about four or five o'clock in the afternoon. He said “I have got some watches if they are any use to you. I bought them as travellers' samples”. He then produced some boxes from his pocket and opened them. He (defendant) then saw that they were watches of different kinds. He showed him five boxes, but some were blue round them, and some were quite plain. He asked him what he wanted for them, and Page replied “2/6 apiece”. He (defendant) did not know anything about the value of watches. He told Page he would have them. He took it the watches were samples travellers had been using, and were selling before going away. He noticed some had the glasses cracked, and one had the hands off. He paid Page £3 15s. At that time he had received no notice from the police or anyone that there had been a robbery of watches in Folkestone. Since he had been in Folkestone the police had been in his house once or twice to inquire of he knew of anyone offering stolen property for sale. The transaction took place on a Wednesday, but he did not make any note of the date. He took the money out of his pocket. He believed the date was the first Wednesday in February. When he saw Det. Sergt. Johnson he told him it was about a fortnight before. He would swear that the date was not on February 17th, or since that date. He did not show the watches to anyone on that date, except to his daughters the same evening, and they each chose a blue watch, which he gave to them. He knew Barker, andf had known him for twelve years. He saw Barker the same evening between seven and eight, when he came into his house, and he told him he had bought some watches as travellers' samples, and that he had given two to his daughters, and the winding screw of one had fallen off. Batker took it to repair, and said he would look at the others the next day. The reason for the last statement was that he (Bridges) had told them he could buy them if they were any use to him. He told him what he had given for them. Barker then left, but called in the next evening. He told him he could have the watches for the same price if they were worth it to him. Barker said the watches would be worth a shilling or two more after he had put them in order, and he would pay him 10/- in addition. There were six watches in each of the boxes. Barker paid him for two of the boxes, which he took away with him, giving him 30/-. On the following Monday Barger again called and took the remaining boxes. He said “Pay me when you like” and he replied that he would pay him when he had sold them. His daughters had worn them since, and they had worn them when assisting in the bar. From that date until March 3rd, when Det. Sergt. Johnson came, he was not aware there had been any robbery of watches. He told Johnson that he had bought four of the boxes, but that was because he hardly knew what he was saying. He was very perturbed at the time. Page had always seemed respectable, and he (defendant) had no reason to think that the articles were stolen and that Page was dishonest. There was no-one in the bar when Page brought out the watches, neither was there anyone in when he went into the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer, defendant said he had been on good terms with the police since he had been in Folkestone. He did not know that a public house in a seaport town was an eligible place for people to sell stolen property. Page had never told him where he had been employed. He was dressed in plain clothes, and always had been. There was something in the dress that suggested that he worked on the South Eastern Harbour. He generally wore a blue jersey. He told Det. Sergt. Johnson that the date when he bought the watches was a fortnight or more ago when he made the statement to him. He bought the watches simply for speculation, for they were no use to him. He hoped to have got a profit by re-selling them. He had not made up his mind to whom he was going to sell them. He had bought several little things before in his bar. He had even been offered a bullock. (Laughter) He had tried to sell things before he had purchased in that way. Page had never offered anything to him before. He gave the price which Page asked. When he bought the watches he did not know whether he was buying a “rabbit” or not. (Laughter) Barker came in on that particular night quite casually. He (defendant) knew he was a watchmaker, and so he told him about the watches. He told Barker he had bought them to speculate. He asked Barker if they were worth the money, and he said “Yes”. Barker had paid him for two boxes, but had never paid for the others. He was not sure how many watches he had bought wanted repairing. It would be a surprise to him if he heard that some of the watches were worth a pound apiece. He took them for white metal watches. He did not ask Page what he paid for the watches, and he accepted Page's statement as being honest.

Arthur Sidney Barker said he was a working jeweller, and had been working in the town for seventeen years. He was a customer at the Martello Hotel. Sometime in February he went into the bar after tea. It was a Friday, but he could not say the date. It was seven weeks ago that day. He saw Mr. Bridges in the saloon bar. There was nobody in there, and the door to another bar was open. Mr. Bridges showed him some watches, and said he had bought them as travellers' samples from a customer. He said he gave him 2/6 each for them, and asked if they were worth the money. He said they were very common, but he would take them off him if he did not want them. Bridges told him he could have them at the same price he gave for them, but he offered half a sovereign on the deal. He had done work for Mr. Bridges for 14 years. He took a broken watch away to be repaired, but that was all he took. The next day he went in again and looked at one or two of the watches, and he took away two boxes containing twelve watches, paying 30/- for them. With regard to the others, he said he would repair the broken ones and sell them, and then pay Mr. Bridges for them. He was going to sell them at 15/- the box. There was not one watch in saleable condition, and before he could get them to go he had to spend some time on them. Subsequently he sold some to Mr. Warren, Mr. Price and Mr. Jones. He had had similar watches brought to him by customers, and they were in his workshop when Det. Sergt. Johnson came to him. He told Mr. Warren that he bought them at Ashford because he was not going to open his market to anybody. (Laughter) He believed Mr. Bridges' statement. He did not tell Det. Sergt. Johnson at first where he got them from, because he did not want to disturb Mr. Bridges' peace of mind. He was wearing one of the watches when he was arrested. He had never been informed that there had been robberies in the town. He usually had notice from the police of such robberies, but had not received any in that instance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer, defendant said he had a substantial profit in each deal with Messrs. Warren, Price and Jones. He was not particularly keen in buying the watches off Mr. Bridges. He should not care if Mr. Bridges had known about the profit. He expected to get four or five shillings apiece for the watches. He sold one watch for 10/6 to Mr. Bradwell. One customer named Bailey brought a similar watch to him to be repaired. He did not know where he lived, or what the man's Christian name was.

Mr. Brewer: Was it William? (Laughter)

Witness said he should not be surprised if it was. It did not take long to repair the watches, ranging from a few minutes to an hour each. They seemed as if they had been knocked about. He thought it quite probable that a bona fide traveller would have a wristlet watch without a strap, as it would not take up so much room. He went into the Martello Hotel frequently, but had never bought anything before. The watch selling did not strike him as curious.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said he had taken two boxes to Mr. Price before he had the other three from Mr. Bridges. The watches he sold to Mr. Warren were from the second consignment.

The Chairman said the Bench considered that a prima facie case was made out against the defendants, who would be committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, fixed for April 12th.

Bail was allowed to the defendants in the same recognisances as previously.

Folkestone Express 17 April 1915.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday and Tuesday, 12th and 13th April: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Three separate trials had to be gone through with regard to the five prisoners who had been committed for trial in connection with the theft of 514 watches from the Folkestone Harbour.

James Spicer (38), William Alfred Andrews (22), and William Henry Page (47), pleaded Not Guilty to stealing 514 ladies' wristlet watches, of the value of £169 3s. 7d., the property of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company. Mr. Dickens prosecuted on behalf of the Crown and the prisoners were undefended.

Mr. Dickens, in opening the case, said all the three men were employed at the Harbour. He could not offer any direct evidence by any witness that saw those men take the watches.

Aaron Mark Schottlander, the representative of the Langendorff Watch Company, said on February 22nd he received an invoice of a number of cases of watches which were being sent from Switzerland to his firm at 9, Hatton Gardens. Included in the cases were three numbered L.W.C. 573, 574, and 575. They purported to contain 370 ladies' wristlet watches to the value of £109 13s. 7d. The watches were packed in cardboard boxes of sixes. There were nine kinds of watches altogether in case 575, and the values ranged from 4/1 to 8/10. The retail value of the watches would be from about 8/6 to 21/-. Cases 573 and 574 had arrived at their place, but case 575 had not arrived. The cardboard boxes produced were like those usually sent over by their firm.

Felix Le Gras, a checker on the French State Railway, said on February 17th he checked a number of cases at Dieppe, placed in the s.s. Sussex. He put the marks on the list produced of the cases placed on the ship, and among those he checked were cases 573, 574, and 575.

This witness's evidence had to be interpreted for the Court by M. P. De Caower, who was complimented by Mr. Dickens on his clear interpretation.

George Streeter Robinson, an officer in H.M. Customs, said on February 17th he boarded the S.S. Sussex at Folkestone Pier both before and after the unloading of the goods. At eight o'clock in the evening he went on board to search for contraband, and at that time there was no cargo left on board.

Miss Evelyn Grace Oliver, clerk for M. Louis Jacot, watch manufacturer, of Birmingham, said on February 11th she reveived an invoice from Messrs. Reufli, Fleury and Co., watch manufacturers of Switzerland, relating to 24 boxes of ladies' silver wristlet watches. She later received a postcard from Switzerland showing that the watches had been dispatched in case C.R.F.C. 37, which was marked with the initials of the firm. The postcard was received in the ordinary course of business, and was in the handwriting of their correspondents in Switzerland. The watches bore the stamp of the initials of the firm, L.J., and their value was £60. There were 144 watches altogether. They consisted of one class of watch. There would be three values to the watches. The factory price to the firm by whom she was employed was 8/6. They would then sell to the wholesale people at 13/6, and the retail people would charge about 27/- each for the watches. Two watches, marked 13 and 14, were both her firm's property, and were stamped “L.J.”, and they should have been in case 37.

Thomas Hill, a checker in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, said on February 17th he checked the goods which were unloaded from the s.s. Sussex, which had arrived from Dieppe. He made out the list produced, and it contained an entry showing that case 37 was placed in the van No. 662 on the train for Willow Walk, London. The cases No. 573 and 574 were loaded in the truck 2,956. There was no mention of case 575 on the list. He could not say whether case 37 ever got to London.

William Joyce, a delivery checker, employed by the L.B. and S.C. Railway Company, said on February 22nd he was on duty at the continental shed at Willow Walk depot, London, when the goods train from Folkestone Harbour arrived. He received an invoice of the goods which arrived on the train. It contained references to cases L.W.C. 575 and C.R.F.C. 37, but neither of the cases arrived by the train, and they were still required to complete the invoice.

Charles Edward Gaze, an inspector in the employ of the S.E. and C. Railway Company at Folkestone Harbour, said he knew the three prisoners as men who had been employed from time to time for extra work in unloading cargo off the steamers on their arrival, and loading it into the trains. They were all on duty on February 17th at the Harbour. Andrews and Page were employed on the work on the Sussex, and Spicer was employed in unloading the Flushing boat. Both boats were lying close together. Page and Andrews had been employed on the Harbour roughly for ten years, and Spicer on and off for two or three years. Page usually wore a blue jersey.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on March 3rd he saw Spicer in the True Briton public house in Harbour Street. He cautioned him, and then told him that he would be charged with stealing, on or about February 3rd, several ladies' wristlet watches from Folkestone Pier. He replied “I did not steal them”. He saw Andrews later, and when he charged him he said “I had four; two of them I have given away, but I decline to say who to. The other two are broken, and they are at home on the mantelpiece”. When charged at the police station, he replied “I'll say nothing”. Page, when charged at his home, said “Oh, all right”. He brought him to the police station and formally charged him, and he made no reply. He told Page that Mr. Bridges had handed to him two watches out of 24 which had been stolen.

Page: You did not do any such thing.

Cross-examined by Spicer, Johnson said he had no proof that he had stolen the watches.

Cross-examined by Andrews, the Detective Sergeant said he had not recovered any of the watches he (Andrews) had stolen. When before the Police Court he then said Andrews told him he had four watches. The words used by Andrews were “I took four”.

The witness produced his notebook in support of his statement, and answering Andrews further he said that he did not tell him (Johnson) that the watches he had were black watches.

William Henry Honeywood, a corporal in the 5th Royal Berkshire Regiment, described how on February 25th, between 7.30 and 8 p.m., he purchased a watch from Spicer in the bar parlour of the Chequers Inn. Andrews was sitting in the bar at the time. He bought one of the watches which had been identified by Miss Oliver for 5/-. Andrews said to another corporal who bought a watch from Spicer “You can raffle it to your mates in the barrack room for 2d. a man”.

William George Sturges, a private in the 5th Battalion of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, said he was in the Chequers on February 27th about 7 o'clock, when Spicer and Andrews were there, the latter sitting down. He bought a watch from Spicer for 5/-. He left the two men standing outside the house together after closing time.

Cross-examined by Andrews, witness said he did not hear him make any remark during the time he was there.

Mabel Bridgeland, who served in the bar of the Chequers, spoke to seeing Spicer and Andrews com into the bar on February 25th together. They also left together. She saw Spicer with the boxes containing some watches, and also noticed him sell the watch to Honeywood. Spicer said to Honeywood “If you went down the street you would not get one under 21/-“. Andrews was sitting close by at the time.

Mark Cloke, a jeweller's assistant, employed by Mr. T.W. Baker, of 68, High Street, said on February 25th Spicer came to the shop in the morning and asked him if he could fit a strap to the watch which he produced. He told him that he had sold out of straps. Spicer then asked him if he could tell him the value of the watch. He replied, after examining it, that he had seen such watches sold for anything up to 25/-. Spicer then asked him if he thought the governor could do with any, and added that they would not de dear for 4/- or 5/-. Spicer showed him three different watches. He (witness) asked him to call again, as he did not like to deal with it. On February 27th Spicer came to the shop, when Mr. Baker was present. He produced two or three boxes, and asked Mr. Baker if he could do with any of the watches. Eventually Mr. Baker said he could not do with any unless he could produce a receipt for them. Spicer left the shop immediately after.

The Recorder, addressing the witness, said the Court considered that he had acted with the greatest propriety, and they only wished others had taken the same course.

The statements made by the prisoners before the Magistrates were the read over.

Mr. Pitman, who said he did not represent any of the prisoners in that case, suggested on behalf of the other two prisoners concerned in the charges respecting the watches, that there was no evidence. The manner in which the indictments had been drawn placed him in a rather embarrassing position.

The Recorder said he could not hear Mr. Pitman. He also could not withhold the case from the jury.

Spicer gave evidence on oath. He said he was not engaged on the steamer Sussex on that particular night. He bought seven watches from a stranger, but he did not know the date.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens, prisoner said he met the stranger one evening in Dover Road about seven o'clock. The man, who was clean shaven, asked him the way into the town from the Junction Station. They then got into conversation together, and the man told him he was a traveller in watches. The man showed him the watches, and he bought seven of them for £1. He did not know the value of them, or whether they were metal or silver. He had only told that story to Andrews, whom he had not known two or three months, when they had met in the Chequers a few nights later. He did not think they went into the Chequers together. He did not on that occasion hear Andrews pass any remark to the soldier about raffling a watch.

Andrews, in the box, said the four watches to which he referred in his statement to Det. Sergt. Johnson he had had for some years. The detective had given a false statement, for at the police station he said that he (Andrews) stated to him “I had four watches”, and that day he stated “I took four”.

Cross-examined, prisoner said Johnson did not at first charge him with stealing the watches. He told the officer he could go to his home and examine the watches. When Johnson asked him if he knew anything about the broken cases of watches on February 3rd, he told him he knew nothing about them, but he had four watches at home. The police had not troubled to go to his home to get the watches. They did not search his parents' house, but they went to the house and knocked at the door. When they asked if there were any watches on the mantelpieces, his father replied that if his son wanted the watches he must come and get them. He denied saying anything in the public house about the soldier raffling the watch. It was not until they went out of the Chequers that night that he asked Spicer where he got the watches.

Page said he did not wish to give evidence. He had nothing to say except that he was Not Guilty.

The jury retired, and were absent for about ten minutes. On their return into Court they announced that they had found Spicer and Page Guilty, but Andrews was Not Guilty.

The Recorder discharged Andrews, and intimated that he would postpone sentence on Spicer and Page until he had heard the other cases.

Arthur Sidney Barker, who pleaded Not Guilty, was then placed in the dock on a charge of receiving 22 watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Dickens prosecuted, and Mr. Pitman defended.

The evidence given by Mr. Schottlander, Miss Oliver, Felix Le Gras, George Streeter Robinson and Thomas Hill was repeated.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on March 3rd he saw Barker in his workshop off Dover Road, and cautioned him. He told him he was making inquiries respecting a quantity of ladies' wristlet watches missing from the Folkestone Pier, and that he understood that he (prisoner) had sold some. He said he had bought some, and further stated “I bought them off a man I knew by sight, but I don't know his name. He's a businessman in the town”. He took him to the police station. Later he charged him with receiving several ladies' wristlet watches well-knowing them to have been stolen. He showed him the two boxes, which contained nine wristlet watches (produced), and told him he had received them from Mr. Warren, jeweller, of High Street. Prisoner replied “I bought them off a businessman in the town who has pounds”. Later, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he went to prisoner's workshop. In a drawer he found three boxes (produced), containing nine wristlet watches. Later he went to the cell and saw Barker, who said “Yes, it will all have to come out. I bought them off Bridges, landlord of the Martello Hotel. You go and see him”. Accompanied by P.C. Butcher he went to the Martello Hotel, where he saw Bridges.

Cross-examined, witness said Bridges was a respectable man. He told him at once how he came by the watches.

Re-examined, Johnson said Bridges made the following statement to him, which he signed: “About a fortnight ago a man came into the public bar and showed me several ladies' watches in cardboard boxes. He asked me 2/6 each for them. I bought four boxes, which contained six watches in a box. I gave him 15/- for each box. I know his name as William Page. He looked as if he was a South Eastern man. I sold twenty two of the watches in the boxes to Mr. Barker, whom I know as a customer, and kept two for myself, which I gave to my daughters. The two watches (produced) are the two I kept”. He then handed him the two watches.

Evidence of purchasing some of the watches from Barker was given by Mr. H.W. Price, Mr. F.H. Warren, and Mr. A.S. Jones, all jewellers.

Barker gave evidence on his own behalf. He said he had been working in the town for seventeen years. When he bought the 22 watches he had no idea they were stolen property. He had known Mr. Bridges for some years. Nearly all the watches wanted repairing, and he spent a great deal of time on them. Similar watches to those he had bought had been brought to him to repair. The reason he told the jewellers to whom he sold the watches that he hda got them from a man at Ashford market was because he did not want to let them know where his market was. He bought the watches openly, and sold them openly.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens, Barker said there was nothing, in his opinion, to conceal about the transaction. The reason he told the detective sergeant the various stories was because he did not want to disturb Mr. Bridges' peace of mind. If Mr. Bridges had offered him the watches at 6d. each he would have paid him that amount. When he offered to let him have them at 2/6 each, he said he would pay him 10/- over as profit, as he thought the purchasing of the watches might have meant a drink or two to him. He had got an average of a little over 5/- for the watches. He purchased 28 watches altogether from Mr. Bridges, and that must have been at the beginning of February. He might have told Mr. Warren the watches were bankrupt stock. He did not take the names and addresses of those people who had brought similar watches to him to be repaired.

Albert William Bridges said he had been the licensee of the Martello Hotel since November 20th last year. Previously he had held the licence of the White Horse, Hawkinge, for 23 years. At that village he was chairman of the Parish Council, a member of the School Board, an overseer, and a member of the Burial Board. Page was a customer at the Martello, and one day he came in and showed him some watches, which he said were travellers' samples, and wanted 2/6 each for them. He did not know the value of the watches, and he gave him what he asked for them. Three watches had the glass broken, and one had the hands off. None of the watches looked as new as they might have done. He purchased 30 watches altogether. The reason he told Det. Sergt. Johnson he had bought four boxes of six each was because he was upset. From first to last he had not the slightest suspicion that the watches were stolen property.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens, witness said he could not remember the date he purchased the watches. He could not swear it was not since February 17th.

The jury, after a retirement of twenty minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty.

The Recorder announced that the Court would be adjourned until the following day, when he should give his sentence.

On Tuesday morning, the charge against Albert William Bridges, licensee of the Martello Hotel, was proceeded with. The same jury who tried the previous cases were empanelled, and the same counsel as on the previous day were engaged.

Mr. Dickens said the prisoner was a man of good position and character, and therefore the charge against him of receiving stolen property was a very serious one. But the circumstances, he urged, were such that he must have known when he bought 24 watches that they were stolen. But if that had been the only case against Bridges the prosecution would not have proceeded against him. There was his subsequent action and his statements to the police. He had told an obvious untruth when he said he had the watches in the beginning of February, when it was perfectly clear that they came out of the cases which were stolen from the steamer. There was another point against him; that was his statement to Barker that he was selling them without a penny profit. The case was full of suspicion, and it could only point to the fact that the prisoner must have known there was something wrong about the transaction. He should put in his statement that he sold the watches to Barker, and that Barker sold them to others.

Mr. Aaron Mark Scottlander gave evidence on the same lines as he did on Monday, as to what the cases should have contained, and what the value of the watches, and he identified the watches put in as the property of his firm. No-one had any authority to sell the watches in Folkestone.

Miss Oliver, a clerk, gave evidence as to the invoices received by her for the firm from the Swiss firm, and also identified the handwriting on a postcard as the same as had been familiar to her for years.

Mr. Pitman objected to the invoice and the postcard as not being admissible evidence.

Witness gave evidence as to the value of the watches produced.

Felix Le Gras, a Frenchman, said he was employed as a checker of goods at Dieppe on the 17th February, and saw certain goods put on board of the steamer Sussex. He produced a list of the goods in which were the cases of watches referred to in the charge.

George Robinson, Thomas Hill, William Joyce, Harry William Price, A. Jones, and Detective Sergt. Johnson were called, and repeated the evidence given on the previous day.

Sergt. Johnson produced the prisoner's signed statement, in which he said he bought 24 watches from Page, kept two, and sold 22 to Barker.

In reply to Mr. Pitman, the witness said Mr. Bridges had held a licence at Hawkinge for 23 years, and had only moved recently into Folkestone (about November last). At Hawkinge Bridges was chairman of the Parish Council and an overseer of the poor.

The Recorder: Don't the jewellers in the town communicate with the police sometimes?

Witness: Sometimes.

The Recorder: But they did not do so in this case?

Witness: No.

Prisoner then went into the witness box and gave his version of the transaction. There were five different boxes and three different sorts of watches. Page wanted 2/6 eaxch for them, and he bought them at that price - £3 15s. for the lot. He had not the slightest suspicion that they were stolen property. He had not had any notice from the police that there had been a robbery of watches. He gave two of the watches to his daughters, and they wore them on their wrists until the police came.

In cross-examination by Mr. Dickens, Bridges said the watches he bought were similar to those produced. There were three sorts. He did not know that Page was employed at the Harbour. He looked like a South Eastern man. Page said he bought the watches from a commercial traveller, but he did not say how much he paid for them, nor did he ask. He thought they were cheap metal watches – not silver. He offered them to Barker at the same price he paid for them, in order that he might make a few shillings out of them. When he made the statement to Johnson he was so much upset that he hardly knew what he did say. He could not swear that it was not on the 17th February or since. He was not sure of the date.

The Recorder asked to see the book kept by Johnson containing the signed statement of prisoner.

The Rev. A. Simpson, Rector of Hawkinge, said he had known Bridges for 14 years, and he bore a very good character while at Hawkinge, and he should think he was the last man who would purchase stolen property knowingly.

Mr. Pitman, in addressing the jury, said Mr. Bridges was the one man in the case who throughout had acted straightforwardly. The only question for them to decide was: did Bridges deal with those watches knowing they had been obtained feloniously? He did not attempt to say that Bridges did not act foolishly, but the law dealt with knaves, not with fools. He asked the jury to say that the explanations given by Bridges were perfectly honest explanations, and that he was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged.

The Recorder, in summing up, said the Crown had to satisfy the jury that the prisoner had a guilty knowledge. He read the statement made by Bridges to Johnson, and it was most important when compared with the statement made when before the Magistrates, which latter was that the watches were purchased long before the 17th February. He read those two statements, and pointed out that they were totally different statements, and on that ground the jury had a right to say that he had a guilty knowledge. The evidence as to character was important. He prisoner had held positions and offices, but he was bound to point out to them that he, having held those positions, he could not be held to be an absolute fool, and, therefore, that evidence cut both ways. If after carefully weighing the facts, even if it did spell ruin to the prisoner, they had a duty to perform, and whatever the consequences they must perform it.

The jury, after a lengthy retirement, announced that the prisoner was Not Guilty.

The Recorder thereupon discharged the prisoner.

Spicer, Page and Barker were then placed in the dock.

Mr. Reeve (Chief Constable) said there were no convictions against Barker or Page, but Spicer had been previously convicted by the Magistrates, and sentenced to one month's hard labour for stealing.

The Recorder: Have you been able to find out anything about the large bulk of the watches? We are only on the fringe of this inquiry in this Court.

Mr. Reeve said they had recovered 50 watches altogether from different people. They had passed through so many hands that it had been very difficult indeed to trace them.

The Recorder asked if the jewellers concerned had given him any information about the watches before they were seen on the matter.

The Chief Constable replied in the negative.

Mr. Price, Mr. Warren and Mr. Jones then stepped into the witness box at the request of the Recorder, who said he was extremely sorry to think that they did not take the course that Mr. Baker and Mr. Cloke took, which was the only redeeming feature in that case, in declining to have anything to do with the watches. He was bound to say that their action in that matter did not commend itself to the Court; on the contrary, it was deeply to be deplored that gentlemen in their position should engage in such transactions with a man like Barker. All he could say was he marked his sense of it by disallowing any expenses which any of them had incurred in or about that case.

Mr. Pitman, who said he was instructed to defend the prisoner Barker by Bridges, who felt very strongly he had been guilty of a foolish act, and that to a certain extent it was through his indiscretion that Barker had got into trouble, appealed to the Recorder to be lenient with Barker.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said Spicer and Page had been convicted by the jury, who had taken the more lenient view of saying that they had received the goods, and that they did not actually steal them. He believed they actually stole them, and that each of them, if they felt so disposed, might have disclosed a story which would have enabled the Court to have dealt in a somewhat different manner than the Court proposed to deal with them. They had had very nearly 24 hours in the cells to think over their position, but they had refrained from telling the Court anything about it. It was a very serious robbery. They were in positions of trust. As servants they betrayed their trusts. He had no doubt there were others who were with them, whom the Court did not know of. Spicer had a previous conviction of felony against him. If he did not look out he would find himself undergoing a very long term of imprisonment. The sentence upon him was that he be imprisoned for twelve calendar months with hard labour. As for Page, they knew that some 30 of those watches were traced to him, and that he disposed of them. The jury had given the purchaser of the watches the benefit of the doubt. It was impossible to treat his (Page's) offence other than as a very serious one. He would be imprisoned for nine calendar months with hard labour. With regard to Barker, he wished he could have acceded to the appeal which had been made by his counsel. If that appeal had been supported by any evidence at all of good character it would have affected the mind of the Court. In his opinion that receiving of stolen goods had been going on all too long in that borough, until it had become a scandal, and a reproach on the fair name of Folkestone. He was amazed to think that jeweller after jeweller could come into that Town Hall and admit that they took watches under the circumstances which it had been proved the watches were taken. Barker knew perfectly well the value of those watches, and that made his crime more serious. He would be imprisoned, with hard labour, for twelve calendar months.

On the application of the Chief Constable, the Recorder made an order for the restitution of the watches to the Railway Company.

Folkestone Express 15 May 1915.

Appeal.

On Tuesday, at the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Avery and Mr. Justice Low heard the appeals of William Henry Page and Arthur Sidney Barker, who were convicted at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions on April 13th for receiving a number of watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. The former was sentenced to nine months' hard labour, and Barker was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour.

Mr. Dickens, on behalf of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, appeared in support of the convictions, while Mr. C.M. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) appeared on behalf of the appellants.

It will be remembered that 514 watches were missing from the steamship Sussex after its arrival at Folkestone on February 17th, and the Police Court proceedings and the trials of the various prisoners at the Quarter Sessions were of a lengthy nature.

Mr. C.M. Pitman, in the case of the appeal made by Page, stated that the chief grounds of the appeal were that there was no evidence against the prisoner that he had stolen the watches, or that they had ever been in his possession. There was a second ground, and that was that Page was not charged before the Petty Jury with receiving stolen goods, but only with stealing them, and that the jury found he was not guilty of larceny, but guilty of an offence with which he was not charged. He did not desire to rely upon the technical objection to the conviction standing. He argued that there was not the slightest evidence against Page, other than that he was working with other men on the ship on the night in question, and that when the police arrested him and told him that Bridges had made a statement that he, Page, had sold to him some watches which had been stolen, the appellant's answer was “All right”.

The Lord Chief Justice, in giving the finding of the Court, said that was an appeal against a conviction of nine months' hard labour for receiving goods well-knowing them to have been stolen. The only evidence, if evidence it might be called, against the prisoner, was that he was working on the ship with some forty or fifty other men on the night on which it was alleged the watches were stolen. That was really no evidence. Another point put forward by the prosecution was that when Bridges' statement was made to Page by the police, he replied “All right”, and it was contended that that was an admission of guilt on his part. However, reading the statement which was made by the police officer to Page it could be divided into two portions – one being the statement of Bridges, and the other that he would have to go to the police station for an explanation. His answer of “All right” was consistent with both innocence and guilt, and in any case where a statement could be so construed it certainly should be construed in favour of the prisoner as evidence of his innocence. In their opinion there was no evidence whatever against Page. Another point had been suggested that he was indicted for stealing, and by another Court of receiving, and that he was given in charge to the petty jury for stealing only, and that jury brought in a verdict that he was not guilty of stealing, but found him guilty of another offence, namely, receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen – an offence with which he was not charged, and for which he was not tried. That objection would be fatal, and under the circumstances the Court was of opinion there was no evidence against Page, and the conviction must be quashed.

In the case of Arthur Sidney Barker, Mr. Pitman said the ground of appeal was that the goods had not been proved to have been stolen. The evidence of the prosecution was that certain cases of watches had been put on board the steamship Sussex at Dieppe, but that at Folkestone case No. 575 containing watches was not proved to have been received. On behalf of the appellant the admissibility of evidence of the watches having been consigned in that particular case, 575, was raised, and it was urged that the person who made out the invoice should have been called, otherwise the invoice was hearsay evidence, and that the witness Schottlander and others based their evidence purely on the invoice.

The Lord Chief Justice questioned whether it was necessary to prove that those goods were actually despatched from Switzerland or that they even arrived in Folkestone, if there was evidence to go to the jury that the goods were stolen.

Mr. Dickens submitted that Mr. Schottlander's evidence was that certain watches were the first of a special pattern manufactured for his firm, and which had never been brought into that country before. Barker was wearing a watch of that identical pattern at the time of his arrest, and the watch was identified by Mr. Schottlander as one of the particular pattern in question.

Mr. Pitman argued that the identity could not be established without bringing in the invoice, which had been put in simply to show that the watches in question had been sent from Switzerland. The proper course for the prosecution to have pursued was to have called witnesses who could speak as to the goods being despatched. It was contrary to the law of evidence that a written document such as the invoice in question should be put in without being properly proved by the writer, especially in a criminal charge.

The Court deferred their decision in order that they could give the matter further consideration.

Folkestone Express 22 May 1915.

Appeal.

It will be remembered that last week the Court of Criminal Appeal heard an appeal by Arthur Sidney Barker, a Folkestone watch repairer, against his sentence at the Quarter Sessions of twelve months' hard labour for receiving a number of watches, well-knowing them to have been stolen. Judgement was then deferred. On Monday, at a sitting of the Court, the Lord Chief Justice announced that the conviction must stand.

Folkestone Express 31 March 1917.

Friday, March 23th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor C.E. Mumford, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Albert William Bridges was summoned for making an alteration at the licensed premises of the Martello Hotel without having obtained permission from the authorities.

Mr. Arrowsmith, of Canterbury, appeared for the defendant and the owners of the house (Messrs. Ash and Co.) and forthwith admitted that a technical offence had been committed. It appeared that, at the request of the Military Authorities, a door was made from one of the departments to the public bar so as to establish a separate bar for women, the owners being given to understand that unless this were done the house might be put out of bounds to the military. Messrs. Ash and Co. placed the matter in the hands of their builder who, they assumed, would make the necessary application for permission to carry out the alteration, while, on the other hand, the builder assumed that Messrs. Ash had obtained assent. So far as the alteration itself was concerned, it was undoubtedly an improvement, and as plans were now before the Bench, he (Mr. Arrowsmith) would suggest that the question of approval be adjourned till the next licensing sessions.

The Bench acceded to the request on condition that the door was fastened up and not used until authority was obtained from the Licensing Justices. The brewers ought to have known they should not have done this.

Undertakings were given on behalf of the owners and the licensee.

Folkestone Express 14 April 1917.

Local News.

The Magistrates on Wednesday dismissed the adjourned summons against Albert William Bridges, the landlord of the Martello Hotel, for making alterations to his premises without the sanction of the Justices. The plans of the alterations were submitted to the Bench, and they were approved.

Folkestone Express 2 February 1924.

Inquest.

On Monday afternoon a shocking discovery was made in the Folkestone Warren, near Abbott's Cliff Tunnel, by Mr. A.W. Bridges, of the Martello Hotel, Folkestone, who was out shooting, coming across the body of a woman in a dyke under the cliff, about 150 feet from the top. The County Police were informed, and a number of them proceeded from Seabrook, and in the darkness carried the body to the top of the cliff, and removed it to the Royal Oak Inn, Hougham. It was subsequently identified as that of Mrs. Mary Ann Datlen, aged 58, who lived at the Red Lion Inn, Dover, and who had been missing since Sunday. At the top of the cliff was discovered a handbag, and footmarks indicated where someone had gone over the cliff.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, the East Kent Coroner, conducted an inquiry into the circumstances on Tuesday afternoon at the Royal Oak Inn.

The Coroner said deceased was the wife of Thomas Stephen Datlen, of the Red Lion Inn, Charlton Green, Dover. She apparently left home about 3 p.m. on the 27th January and disappeared. At 4 p.m. on Monday the body was discovered three parts of the way down Abbott's Cliff. She had recently undergone a serious operation. Her handbag was found on top of the cliff, and in the bag was found a piece of paper with the following words written upon it: Don't worry. My brain gave way. That pointed to a case of suicide.

Percival Thomas Datlen, of 43, Clarendon Road, Dover, an engine driver, identified the body as that of his mother who lived at the Red Lion, Charlton Green, with his father, who was the licensee of the inn. She was 58 years of age. He last saw her alive about 10.45 on Saturday night, when she seemed as usual. She had been worried about her health and an operation which she had had two months ago. She was last seen on Sunday about 4.40 p.m. by an engine driver named Edward Iggulden, who saw her in the Market Square at Dover. He (witness) recognised the handwriting and her handbag. His father said he would go for a walk with her, but she told him to keep in, and she would go out herself. She would find some friends, or she would go to No. 5, Park Street, his (witness's) aunt's house. He later made enquiries, and found that she had not called there. He (witness) thought she must have taken a bus, as she was too weak to walk far.

Albert William Bridges, of the Martello Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone, said he helped his father, who was a licensed victualler. On Monday afternoon, about four o'clock, he was walking through the Warren with his dog, shooting. When was coming up a footpath leading to the top of the cliff near the Royal Oak Inn, his dog's movements drew his attention to something. He walked across to where the dog was, and found the body, which lay in a dyke under the cliff. She was dead. She was three quarters of the way down the cliff, and had it not been for some brambles and the dyke she would have gone to the bottom. He did not move the body, but informed the police.

P,C, Luckhurst, stationed at Seabrook, of the K.C.C., stated that about 5 p.m. on the 28th inst., a telephone communication was received from the Folkestone police that a woman had been found dead over the cliff opposite the Royal Oak, Hougham. He was instructed, with other officers, by Supt. Russell, to proceed to the spot. They arrived about 5.45, and in company with the last witness proceeded down the cliff. The last witness showed him where the body lay. She was dead at the time, fully dressed, and still warm. She lay on her back in the ditch. She had dragged through a lot of brambles, which evidently stopped her going further down the cliff. They conveyed her to the Royal Oak on a stretcher. They then searched the top of the cliff and found a handbag (produced) lying on the footpath, which was about twelve to fourteen feet from the edge of the cliff and ran along the top of it. The handbag was at the top of the cliff immediately above the spot where the body was found. There were also five small footprints leading to the edge of the cliff from the footpath. He examined the handbag, and found it contained money, a letter, etc., and a piece of paper which was on the top of the other things, and which bore the words £Don't worry. My brain gave way". There was no pencil found on the body.

Mr. Datlen, re-called, said he informed the police about 7 p.m. on Sunday evening that his mother was missing. The paper was not like her writing pad. He did not think she wrote it at home. She used to carry a pencil with her.

Dr. E. Elliot, of Dover, said he had examined the body, and found rigor mortis well marked. There were no injuries to the head. The neck was broken above the third vertebra. There was a bruise on the left side of the chest, and the left wrist was broken, and both legs were fractured. The injuries to the neck would cause instantaneous death. Deceased had been a patient of his for 40 years. He last saw her about three weeks ago. She was not quite so happy as usual, and said she thought she ought to get on better. She was operated upon at St. Thomas's Hospital, London, and she on the whole was making a remarkable recovery. She was somewhat depressed at times.

The jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst temporarily insane".

Folkestone Express 30 April 1932.

Saturday, April 23rd: Before Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, and Mr. W. Smith.

Mary Ann Williams, an old offender, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Dover Road on the previous night.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and said she was very sorry that she had to come before them again.

P.S. Whittaker said at 9.35 p.m. on the previous evening he was in Dover Road, accompanied by P.C. Goundry, and when opposite the Martello Hotel he saw the prisoner ejected by the landlord from the public bar into the street. She fell across the pavement and cut her eye. He assisted her to her feet and found she was under the influence of drink. She became very abusive and made use of filthy language. They took her to the police station, and on the way she was again abusive and made use of more filthy language. He charged her, and she said "You are a ---- liar".

Continuing, witness said at 8.35 the same evening he was called by the landlord of the Gun Tavern with regard to that prisoner, owing to her conduct there. She came outside and was quite sober. He cautioned her and advised her to go home. She promised him she would do so.

Prisoner said she came into Folkestone to see her daughter and get some things, and she had a drink or two. She was very sorry she had come before them again, and if they gave her a chance she would not trouble them any more.

Chief Inspector Pittock said the prisoner had been before the Court on a number of occasions. She was first convicted in 1900 for being drunk and disorderly Since then there were 40 convictions against her for similar offences, two for felony, and four for wilful damage. She was last before the Court on the 4th July, 1928, and they did think they had seen the last of her. She lived down at West Hythe with her husband.

The Chairman said she would be fined 2s. 6d.

Folkestone Express 29 May 1937.

Local News.

The Folkestone Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court, on Wednesday, when Mr. R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. R.J. Stokes and Alderman G.A. Gurr were the Justices on the Bench.

The licences of the Martello Hotel and the Raglan Hotel were transferred to Mr. Chapman and Mr. L. A. Stanley respec­tively, to whom protection orders were granted recently.

Folkestone Express 21 May 1938.

Local News.

Potatoes and old motor parts were damaged when fire broke out in a store at the rear of the Martello Hotel on Saturday evening. The Fire Brigade were on the spot within two minutes of receiving the call and the outbreak was extinguished with water from a hydrant. The cause of the fire is unknown, but damage estimated at £10 resulted.