Folkestone Chronicle 19 December 1857.

Wednesday December 16th:- Before R. W. Boarer esq., and G. Kennicott esq.

Special Sessions for transferring licences.

The licence of the Packet Boat was transferred from Richard Boorn, to John Boorn.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 23 March, 1861.

COUNTY COURT INSOLVENT

Richard Boorn, an insolvent, appeared to pass his first examination, supported by Mr. Bedford. He was opposed by Mr. John Minter, on behalf of Mr. George Conley, for a debt of £16 11s. 9d. Insolvent was examined by Mr. Minter, who failed to elicit that he had any effects. Debts £225. He passed his first examination.

Note: Boorn had been landlord of the "Packet Boat," Radnor Street 1851-57. Strangely, it seems that he carries on with the "Alma," Cheriton Road (1855-64) and returns to the "Packet Boat" (1861-69) despite this insolvency! Jan Pedersen.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 27 April, 1861.

COUNTY COURT INSOLVENT

Richard Boorn. This insolvent came up for his final examination. Mr. Minter withdrew his opposition upon His Honour allowing the insolvent to amend his schedule, by inserting a reversionary interest he was entitled to; which having been done, he passed.

Note: Boorn had interests in both the "Packet Boat," Radnor Street, and the "Alma," Cheriton Road. Jan Pedersen.

Folkestone Chronicle 27 April 1861.

County Court.

Wednesday April 24th:- Before Charles Harwood Esq., Judge.

Richard Boorn. This insolvent came up for his final examination. Mr. Minter withdrew his opposition upon His Honour allowing the insolvent to amend his schedule, by inserting a reversionary interest he was entitled to; which having been done, he passed.

Note: Boorn had interests in both the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, and the Alma, Cheriton Road.

Folkestone Chronicle 9 August 1862.

Birth: On Tuesday, August 5th, at the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, the wife of Mr. John Boorn, of a son.

From the Folkestone Chronicle 12 November, 1864.

NEW LUGGER CELEBRATIONS

On Thursday evening Mr. John Boorn of the "Packet Boat Inn" invited a few friends to a quiet little supper to celebrate the launch of a new lugger he has just finished, and the first he has finished since he entered into the business of a boat builder. The vessel was launched in the afternoon of the same day, and was named the Blair Athol. It is to be hoped that she will be as successful in her trips as her namesake, the celebrated racehorse. The lugger is a very nice one and from her lines appears to combine speed with strength.

Folkestone Chronicle 29 July 1865.

County Court.

Friday July 28th:- Before C. Harwood.

Alfred Rayment v John Boorn – Claim for £20 10s for liquor supplied to defendant, a publican in Radnor Street. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant and stated that his client had a perfect answer to the claim. The case was adjourned to prove delivery and sale of goods by plaintiff's partner.

Folkestone Chronicle 26 August 1865.

County Court.

Friday August 25th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Spurrier & Rayment v J. Boorn – This was an action which had been adjourned from the last court, to recover a sum of £20 14s for goods sold.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and said the defendant would admit having received all the goods charged in plaintiff's bill, but defendant said he had paid for some of them, and to save time he asked Mr. Hellensberg to point out what portion of the bill defendant had paid.

Mr. Hellensberg said he could not do so.

Mr. Minter asked this witness whether defendant was not charged in this bill for some bottles which he had returned.

Mr. Hellensberg said not to his knowledge.

His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, to be paid forthwith, with costs.

Folkestone Chronicle 14 October 1865.

County Court.

Friday October 13th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

John Boorn v Alfred Rayment – This was a claim for £4 6s 6d for spirits. Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff.

The defendant at first said that he did not dispute the claim, but pleaded that it was constructed under a partnership, and said that the plaintiff owed him a good deal larger sum of money than he had sued him for.

Plaintiff, having said he was landlord of the Packet Boat public house, and was in partnership with defendant as a builder and owner of fishing boats, but never with respect to the public house. He sold the goods charged in the account to the defendant, and delivered some of them himself, and sent the others. He did not claim the money before, because he owed defendant money, but after defendant sued him at the last court he made out the bill.

Defendant said the partnership between them commenced in January, 1864. Never took any money for the sale of spirits. Plaintiff kept the house and he kept the books. Had advanced money to plaintiff and others on account of the house. Defendant was examined at length by His Honour as to the partnership, and defendant said it could be proved by an entry in the books.

The cash book, day book, and ledger were put in and examined by His Honour for evidence of the partnership, and two entries for sums entered in the defendant's name for spirits and beer, to the amount of £109, were found.

Defendant, cross-examined by Mr. Minter, said he agreed with the plaintiff as to the partnership about January 1864. He was to have half of the profits arising out of the public house business. Before the partnership agreement was made, the plaintiff was greatly embarrassed, and he offered to find the money to pay off the old debts, on condition that the whole concern – the boat building, fishery, and public house – should be thrown into one partnership. He kept the books, but there had never been any division of profits.

The case came to an end in a rather singular manner. Mr. Minter pressed the defendant closely in cross-examination, and Mr. Harrison, the deputy registrar of the court, appealed to His Honour to protect the defendant, who had no legal adviser, and said that defendant had been advised by him in the course he had taken, and he was sorry that his position compelled him to remain silent in a case which he could explain in a few words.

Plaintiff's attorney said that Mr. Harrison, holding the position he did, had no right to try to influence His Honour in his decision, and withdrew the case.

After this His Honour asked a question, when Mr. Minter contended that as the case, having been withdrawn, was out of court, the plaintiff was not bound to answer.

His Honour then struck the case out, and Mr. Minter, upon this, took a non-suit, stating that it was his intention to carry the case into another court.