From the Folkestone Chronicle 25 July 1857. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Monday July 20th: - Present, the Mayor, Thomas Golder, and James Tolputt esqs.

John Wallis was summoned with keeping his house open after the hours on Sunday night.

Police constable Munns, sworn, said on Sunday night the 12th July, I was on duty near the "North Foreland Inn". Thinking it was past 11, I went into the house, finding it open. I went into a large room and saw four or five persons there, some were just leaving. I turned to Mr. Wallis who was behind me, and said it was time his house was closed, it was past 11. He said I was not aware of it, I am going to clear the house directly. I then went into the little back parlour, and saw three or four more persons in there. They said they were going. A man and woman who appeared to be travellers came in and I believe Mr. Wallis drew some gin for the woman. The persons in the house were residents in the town.

Benjamin Wyld, a person lodging at the "North Foreland", said he had been out for a walk and went in about a quarter to 11, there were several trades-people of the town there. I called for a glass of gin and water. I was the last person Mr. Wallis served. At 11 o'clock he came in and said the time was up, we must go. Mr. Wallis did not tell the policeman he did not know what the time was. It was 5 minutes past 11 when the policeman came in. I never saw a policeman in the house before. There were some relatives of Mr. Wallis in the private room. I cannot say if I ever saw Mr. Martin before. I will swear he was not in the large room. I may know Mr. Matchett, a tall man. His son was there. I think the father also. If Mr. Matchett was there he was in the large room.

Case dismissed.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 23 March, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

COUNTY COURT

Friday March 22nd:- Before C. Harwood, Esq.

Leney & Evenden v J. Wallis. Claim £13. To be paid forthwith.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 23 March, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

CORONER'S INQUEST

An inquest was holden on Wednesday afternoon, at the "North Foreland Inn," by S. Eastes esq., coroner for the Borough, on the body of William Fowler, who met his death in the circumstances detailed in the following evidence.

The jury having been sworn, proceeded to view the body, and on their return, the following witnesses were called:-

William Henry Marshall, sworn, deposed that he was employed as a labourer on the tram-road. He knew deceased by sight, but did not know his name; had identified the body of the deceased, witness last saw deceased on the previous afternoon, about half past 12. He was going on the tram-road with a basket containing potatoes, turnips and cabbages; he was carrying the basket with both hands. Witness saw him go to a ladder, leading from the tramway, to a vessel lying alongside. The Clarence was the name of the vessel he was going to, he slipped from the top of the ladder, and fell between the vessel and the quay, striking against the side of the vessel, and falling into the water. There was not much water, about 5 or 6 feet. The tide was then flowing. Deceased never spoke afterwards. There were some coal trucks standing near, but no-one was with them at the time. Witness cried out for help, when his brother John came, and sliding down a rope into the water tried to save the deceased; he did not succeed the first time, but the tide brought the body within reach, when he held him up until a boat came to his assistance, he was taken into the boat and carried ashore. The body did not go under water. The witness did not go down into the boat. Deceased fell from the top rail of the ladder, the distance would be about 20 feet from the tramway to the water. The basket he was carrying seemed to be heavy; it was a carpenter's basket. Deceased did not appear to move after he was in the water.

John Marshall, sworn, deposed as follows – I am a mariner. About half past 12 yesterday afternoon I was standing on the tramway, near the harbour. I heard my brother (the last witness) call out for help – a man is overboard. I ran to the spot, across the line to the Dover side of the tram-road, and saw the body of deceased floating on the water. I slid down a rope to the water, and held his head up with one hand, and myself with the other. I held him up until a boat came; he did not speak or move. He did not go under water, only his head partly. I think the wind had got under his frock. He was in the water about four minutes. I assisted to bring him ashore in a boat, and took him to the "North Foreland Inn." I should think it must have been 30 feet he fell – there was not above five or six feet water at the time.

Thomas Mullett, sworn, said I am a labourer, working about the colliers. I have identified the body of the deceased, whom I have known ever since he came from Hastings, about three years. He was about 50 years of age, he told me so last week. About half past twelve yesterday afternoon I saw deceased on the tramway. I was standing at the lower part of the road. He asked me to hail the brigantine Clarence for him. I told him I would if he would go to the beach. He had a basket with potatoes, cabbages, and turnips, and some cabbages under his arm. He asked me to help him put his basket on his back. I refused to do so, as I saw he was very tipsy, and told him he was not in a fit state to be on the tram-road. He persisted in going down the ladder, but I cautioned him not to do so. He was walking along the narrow edge of the tramway, in a space of a few inches, some coal trucks being on his right side. I had just got down the hold of the vessel where I was at work, when I heard them cry out “Fowler`s overboard”. I saw him in the water; he did not speak or move. I did not see him fall. I should not have left him, but it was time for me to go to work.

The coroner then said as no medical gentlemen had seen him alive he might just state to the jury what medical evidence there was. When he was sent for about half past twelve he found deceased sitting in a chair. He immediately had him laid down, stripped and rubbed with coarse towels, and other restoratives applied in cases of drowning, from which he partially recovered. He then had him taken upstairs and laid on a bed. He soon found however that he was rapidly getting worse, and in half an hour he died. Upon examination he found that three of his ribs were broken near the spine, and had penetrated the lungs, causing the air to escape, and ooze out under the skin. This was the cause of death, and had it not been for these severe internal injuries, he would have recovered from the effects of the drowning.

The jury immediately returned a verdict of “Accidental Death”.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 14 September, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

COUNTY COURT

Tuesday 10th September:- Before C. Harwood Esq., Judge.

Calvert and City of London Brewery v J. Wallis, defendant, to show cause why he refused to deliver up possession of a certain public house called the "North Foreland Inn."

Mr. Knocker appeared for plaintiffs, whilst Mr. John Minter appeared for defendant.

The court being formally opened, His honour called upon Mr. Knocker to open the case.

Mr. Knocker said he should call defendant as witness. Defendant who was in court was then sworn, and being shown a printed form of agreement filled in, in writing, was asked if he had signed it; defendant after looking at it for some time admitted it was his writing, upon which Mr. Knocker said he should put it in, and he thought His Honour would at once give his clients a verdict.

Mr. Minter asked to look at the deed, and remarked it was a personal one of a peculiar kind, by which defendant bound himself to take a house and beer of the other party to it.

His Honour then addressing defendant asked him if he was not in court on the previous court day, to which witness replied he was. His Honour then enquired why he left before the court closed; defendant said he acted on the advice of his solicitor. His Honour said it was highly improper.

Mr. Minter in explanation said his client had received no money with the subpoena, and therefore he thought he had no right to or reason to remain: he (Mr. Minter) had not the least desire of showing any disrespect to His Honour or the court by the course he had advised his client to pursue. Mr. Minter then commenced to address His Honour on the agreement produced, as also upon the provisions of a deed produced by Mr. Knocker, which assigned all the effects of the original party to the agreement to other parties therein named; the deed set forth that the rent of the premises leased to them was £79 a year, although the rent paid by defendant was only £24, and therefore it was out of His Honour's jurisdiction. Mr. Minter said he should call a witness to prove that the house was not worth more than £50.

He called Mr. James Pledge who proved that he was in negotiation now with a person who would give £65 a year rent for the premises.

A long argument then took place upon the construction of clauses in the 9th and 10th of Victoria, section 122, and the 19th and 20th of Victoria, section 50 and 60.

His Honour ultimately decided that he should look carefully into the point raised by Mr. Minter, and would give his decision when the court met again in about a fortnight's time.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 28 September, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

COUNTY COURT

Wednesday 25th September: Before Charles Harwood Esq., Judge.

Calvert and others v John Wallis.

Mr. Knocker, as before, for the plaintiffs and Mr. John Minter for defendant.

The case was now brought on to prove the value of the premises as one of the points raised by defendant's solicitor was the non-jurisdiction of the court to try the case, the rent being over £50 per annum.

His Honour said he was now prepared to hear evidence upon this point.

Mr. Minter thereupon called John Wallis Jr., who proved he conducted his father's business at the "North Foreland;" that the premises were well worth £65 per year, and that he should have no hesitation in giving that rent for them; they were well situated near the harbour, and an excellent trade could be done therein.

On the other hand, Mr. Knocker called Mr. Robinson, an auctioneer, residing at Dover, who deposed he had known the premises for sixty years; he was of opinion that the premises were not worth more than £35 per annum.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter – Had not been in the premises for some few years; formed his opinion from his knowledge of them and their general appearance.

Mr. John Banks, examined by Mr. Knocker, considered the premises worth not much more than £35 or £36 per annum. The "Queen's Head," a beer-house near, lets for £33.

Mr. James Harrison, collector of poor's rate, proved the gross rating of the North Foreland to be £35, net rating £28 10s; the rating of the "Chequers" was £28 gross, £22 net; the "Chequers Inn," having stables attached, was more valuable than the "Foreland;" the gross rating of the "Queen's Head" was £37.

Mr Ebenezer Pope, examined by Mr. Knocker, was collector of assessed taxes; the "North Foreland" was assessed for the house tax at £35.

Mr. Knocker said that was the case.

Mr. Minter for defendant argued that the evidence of value brought against him was purely speculative. Mr. Robinson as a witness at Dover might be very valuable, but here he comes today with his recollections of 60 years ago, this was purely speculative. The way to test the value of a house was to see what would be given for it, and there was the evidence of Mr. Pledge, which showed he had a party willing to give £65 a year for it; the present defendant also would give £60 a year for it; again a deed is put in which shows that the rent of the premises now on lease is £75 a year, and none of the plaintiffs are brought forward to say they repent of having made such a bargain. The lease passes through two or three hands, and none of them complain. Mr. Pledge's sworn evidence that he has a party willing to give £65 a year for the premises is conclusive evidence against that of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Banks.

His Honour said Mr. Pledge did not give the name of the party.

Mr. Minter said it was offered privately to His Honour and plaintiff's solicitor, and in addition they had the evidence of defendant, and his son, that they were willing to give £60 a year for the premises. The date of the deed put in is February 1860, and in that The City of London Brewery Company agree to give £75 a year for the leasehold.

His Honour, in summing up, said £75 a year value was out of the question altogether. If he was sitting as revising Barrister, say, and the present evidence was brought to support a claim of £50 holding for a vote, he should feel bound not to allow it. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Banks both put the rent at £35 a year; he therefore felt bound to give a verdict against the defendant, who must leave the premises in five or six days at the utmost.

Verdict for the plaintiffs recorded.

Note: Did he actually leave then? More Bastions gives him there until 1863. Jan Pedersen.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 27 June, 1863. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

CORONER'S INQUEST

On Thursday last an inquest was held at the "North Foreland Inn" on the body of Mary Cockett, aged 68, before John Minter Esq., coroner for the borough.

The jury having been sworn, they viewed the body, which was lying in an upper room at the above house. The first witness examined was Mr. William Bateman, who being sworn, deposed he was a surgeon, living and practicing in Folkestone; identified the body just viewed as that of Mary Cockett, wife of Thomas Cockett, town crier. On Monday evening last, about 9 o'clock, he was called to the "North Foreland Inn;" found deceased sitting in a chair in a back parlour, with a shawl wrapped round her; found, on examining her, that the lower part of her clothing was completely burnt away; she was extensively burnt on the left side, from the top of her head to the knee; there was a deeper burn on the left arm, as if she had fallen on the bar of the fireplace; she was in a state of collapse, from which she never rallied; she was removed upstairs to bed at once, her clothes taken off, and wrapped in wadding. Witness administered opiates. Had no doubt the cause of her death was from being extensively burnt; she died on Wednesday morning, the 24th, at 6 o'clock.

Mary Ann Murphy, sworn, deposed she was the wife of Henry Patrick Murphy, landlord of the "North Foreland Inn." Deceased lodged in the Inn with her husband. On Monday evening last about half past eight witness was sitting in the bar parlour, when she observed a light at the upper part of the staircase; she went towards it and saw deceased standing at the top of the staircase all in flames; witness called out “Fire”; the deceased screamed, who then attempted to come downstairs and fell to the bottom; deceased had gone into her room about three quarters of an hour before; some neighbours then brought in water and threw it over deceased to put out the fire; Doctor Bateman was then sent for, who came immediately; Doctor Eastes attended her next day; her husband was not at home; he had been from home since eleven o'clock that morning; there was a large fire in the room where she used to cook.

Mrs. Meal, a sister of Mr. Cockett, came into the house and went upstairs with Mrs. Cockett about a quarter to eight, and left about ten minutes past.

Fanny Emery, sworn, deposed she was the wife of Henry Emery, labourer, Mill Bay. At ten minutes past ten on Monday evening last, witness came to "North Foreland," and found deceased in bed; deceased wished witness to remain with her until Tuesday evening. On Monday night about a quarter to twelve deceased wished witness to look at her wounds; she then said she would tell witness how it occurred; she said she cooked one fish, and after that she sat down to eat it; she put her foot on the fender, it slipped, and she fell with her arm across the grate; deceased recovered herself and then found she was on fire. She died about a quarter past six yesterday morning.

Mr. Minter then said that was all the evidence he had to put before them; it appeared from the evidence of the witnesses that her death was purely accidental.

The jury returned the following verdict – That deceased was accidentally burnt to death.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 11 July, 1863. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

FATAL ACCIDENT

On Thursday afternoon a melancholy accident, by which a poor man named Thomas Rains, employed on the new pier, lost his life, and another narrowly escaped, occurred through a crane overbalancing and falling into the sea, carrying deceased with it and drowning him.

An inquest assembled at 8 o'clock the same evening, before the coroner, John Minter Esq., at the "North Foreland Inn," where the body of the unfortunate deceased lay. The body having been viewed, the following evidence was adduced.

Thomas Hall, sworn, deposed he was a barge man in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, and identified the body as that of Thomas Rains, residing in Dover Street, and in the company's employ working in the barge at the mole edge at the mouth of the harbour, assisting in getting up stone from the ground, for the purpose of deepening the mouth of the harbour. The deceased was working on board a larger barge, pumping air to the diver, and then went on the little barge to discharge the stone; the stone was discharged by cranes on the new pier. Witness heard an outcry three or four minutes after, when witness got in a small boat, and went to ascertain the cause. On arriving at the new pier, he saw that a crane, which was usually on the new pier, had disappeared. Witness got a rope from Mr. Latham, and sent it down to the diver, who slung the body of the deceased in the bight of the rope, and witness hauled the body on board his boat; several persons assisted in hauling the body on board; deceased was then dead, but witness did not observe any wounds on his head. Witness then assisted to bring the body to the "North Foreland Inn;" it occurred about a quarter to three p.m.

John Goldsmith deposed he was foreman at the new pier, under the direction of Mr. Latham, inspector of Permanent Way and Works; in Mr. Latham's absence, witness had the entire charge of the works: saw the small barge come alongside the new pier about quarter to eleven; deceased was on the new pier at work. They began to discharge the vessel about quarter past two, under witness's direction; there were eight labourers employed, deceased being one. The stone was removed by a moveable crane, on wheels, running on the rails of the new pier. Six tons can be removed with safety from the barge by the crane. Deceased was employed on the crane, winding the stone up; this occurrence took place about a quarter to three. Previous to that he had taken out four stones, some weighing 14 or 15 cwt., and some a ton; this one that caused the accident was from 2 ½ tons in weight. There was a man in the barge employed in slinging the rocks; witness saw him sling this particular rock to the crane chain; witness saw it properly fastened, and witness directed the men to what is technically called “set up”, or to work the crane. Deceased with five others began to turn the handle; the crane was then in a proper position to lift the weight; the labourers had almost got the stone to a level with the top of the pier, when the half-hitch, which fastened the sling on to the crane chain, slipped from six to eight feet, and by the sudden pressure of the fall, it over-balanced the crane, which fell over into the sea, and two men with it, deceased being one, and a man named George Grey; could not tell whether deceased was struck or not. The remainder of the men jumped on to the pier. Just before the stone was hauled up, witness told a man named Richard Pledge, who was in the barge, to take care and make a good half-hitch with the sling chain, and witness saw him do it; deceased sank, and the body was not seen afterwards; witness saw deceased's body hauled into the boat; witness could not account for the hitch slipping, as witness had seen hundreds made, and never knew one to slip before; the same kind of half-hitch is always used; witness has been 2 years and 2 months at the pier; the crane was properly weighted by a balance box at the hind part; we have lifted four tons with the same balance; it was not possible for the balance box to slip forward; deceased was in the water for about an hour, and was brought up by a diver.

Silvester Eastes deposed he was a surgeon working in this town; was called to see the body of deceased about half past four this afternoon, and on examining it, found it had the usual appearance of death from drowning; the surface of the body pallid, the pupils of the eye dilated, and a quantity of froth oozing from the mouth; there was also an extensive compound fracture of the upper part of the skull over the right temple; he had evidently been dead some time, as the body was getting cold; should say that death occurred from drowning, though it was probable he would have died from fracture of the skull if he had not been drowned; the fracture was no doubt occasioned by head of deceased coming into contact with some hard substance under water.

Richard Pledge deposed he was in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company on the new pier; was in the null at the new pier, on the small barge; two pieces of rock had been lifted before the one that fell over; it was about two tons in weight. Witness fastened the sling round the rock and the blackwall on the hook of the crane chain, and a half-hitch under. Mr. Goldsith said to me “set up taut”, and witness hailed those on the crane to “set up”. As soon as this was done witness took a half-hitch under the blackwall and the ring at the end over the crane hook, and then went forward and hauled the barge out of the way. Witness did not see the crane fall over, but heard a crash and a fall into the water. The sling and blackwall were made fast in the usual manner. Witness had been about four years employed in slinging rocks.

The coroner said that was all the evidence he proposed to call. The occurrence seemed to him to be purely accidental, as every precaution had been taken by the men employed.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of accidental death.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 16 January, 1864. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

ASSAULT

Monday January 11th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and James Tolputt, Esqs.

Henry Patrick Murphy, landlord of the "North Foreland" appeared on a summons, charged with assaulting Mr. Henry Flaherty, accountant. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

From the evidence of the complainant, which was corroborated by a preventive man, it appeared that on the Friday night previous, complainant was in the Chronicle office, Tontine Street, when he was alarmed by hearing cries from a woman, seemingly in distress. Witness went out to ascertain the cause, and found a woman, who it appears lives with the defendant, standing at the junction of High Street and Tontine Street, crying bitterly and threatening to drown herself, arising from the ill-usage of defendant; complainant persuaded her to go home, and accompanied her, and a daughter of the defendant, who came up while they were talking, towards defendant's house; when they reached the "North Foreland" defendant's daughter went indoors, and directly afterwards he came out, and using some foul language, struck the complainant two violent blows, one at the back of the ear whilst walking away from him, and the other on the left eye when complainant turned round: complainant had not spoken to, nor previously done anything, to defendant. This was the assault complained of.

For the defence, defendant made an accusation that complainant had pushed against him, and had uttered threats against him to the two females on their way towards his house; he also endeavoured to insinuate that complainant had used a dangerous weapon against him. He called the two females to substantiate this defence; they, however, signally failed in this, as they committed deliberate perjury, and contradicted each other in the most important points of their statements.

The court was then cleared for deliberation, and on the re-admission of the public, Capt. Kennicott said a majority of the bench had decided on a conviction; it would have been more severe if they had all agreed. The decision of the bench was that defendant be fined £1 and 12s costs.

Mr. Leith added that a majority of the court were also of opinion that the defendant had deliberately endeavoured to make the bench believe that the complainant had been guilty of improper conduct with the two women, one of them his own daughter, which was a most vile calumny.