DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, November, 2021.

Page Updated:- Monday, 15 November, 2021.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1843

Pavilion Hotel

Latest 1940

(Name to)

The Harbour

Folkestone

Pavilion Hotel circa 1850

Pavilion Hotel circa 1850.

Pavilion Hotel 1860

Above print dated 20th June, 1860 also showing the Tidal Packet Boat in the Inner Harbour and the old Custom-house.

Royal Pavillion Hotel 1911

Above postcard, date 1911, kindly sent by Mark Jennings.

Above print from the book "Dickensian Inns and Taverns, 1922."

Royal Pavilion Hotel date unknown

Above postcard undated.

Royal Pavilion Hotel

Royal Pavilion Hotel date unknown.

Pavilion hotel 1933

Above photo, 1933.

 

Kelly's directory of 1899 says the following:- "The Royal Pavilion Hotel" which faces the sea in a sheltered position, has an extensive Winter garden, and is close to the steamboat and promenade piers and the Undercliffe.

Kelly's 1934 stated that it was adjacent to the landing stage. Bedrooms fitted with heating, hot and cold water. Garage. Telegrams, "Pavilion, Folkestone;" Telephone: Folkestone 3186.

 

Canterbury Weekly Journal 25 May 1844.

The building of the new "Pavilion Hotel" is going on very rapidly and, when completed, it will be, probably, the finest hotel on the coast.

 

From the Kentish Gazette, 8 August 1843.

THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY FETE AT FOLKESTONE.

On Tuesday the mayor and corporation of Folkestone, and the directors of the Dover and South-Eastern Railway Company, celebrated the opening of the communication by regular steam-packets between the ports of Folkestone and Boulogne by a public breakfast and other festivities at the "South Eastern Pavilion Tavern" at Folkestone. The town was filled all day long with visitors from the adjacent places, and by arrivals from London, to be present at the celebration. The vessels in the harbour, which has been purchased by the railway company, and which it is in contemplation to enlarge and improve forthwith, were decorated with flags and ensigns, and presented a very gay appearance, whilst from the old tower of the church the bells rang forth a merry peal. At half-past twelve o'clock the City of Boulogne steamer came into the harbour and landed the mayor and authorities of Boulogne, and the gentlemen of that place invited to be present at the festival. Their arrival was announced by a salute of ordnance, and they were received on landing by the Mayor and corporation of Folkestone and conducted to the terminus of the railway, where they inspected the engines, carriages, &c., add expressed their satisfaction with the arrangements. About this time the down train from London came in, having brought down several of the directors and many more guests to the breakfast. In the earlier port of the day the Sir William Wallace steamer, one of the eight new vessels intended to make the passage between Boulogne and Folkestone, had arrived from London, and taken from Folkestone to Boulogne in this her first trip upwards of one hundred passengers, and another vessel shortly afterward came in from Boulogne with a large number of passengers. It appears that the harbour of Folkestone in its present state contains at high tide water to the depth of twenty feet, and that when the wind is south or south-west it affords a better entrance for vessels than Dover.

By four o’clock the town was filled with people, and the two mayors, and those by whom they were attended, the directors and the visitors having returned from the railroad, the breakfast commenced. In order to afford accommodation to the very numerous party assembled, and to the various groups collected together, an elegant marquee, sent down for the occasion from the manufactory of Mr. B. Edgington, of Duke-street, Borough, had been erected in front of the "Pavilion Tavern," facing the sea, and beneath this were placed seats and tables; and in addition to this a building, formerly a boat house, had been converted into a banqueting room, and fitted up with great taste by Mr. Vantini, the proprietor of the tavern, to whom it is but justice to say that his arrangements for the gratification of his guests were most satisfactory. The repast, to which nearly two hundred persons sat down at four o’clock, was in a very excellent style. The chair was taken by the mayor of Folkestone, supported on his right hand by Mr. Baxeudale, and on his left by M. Adam, the mayor of Boulogne. There were also present, Mr. Marjoribanks, M.P. for Folkestone; M. Bailly, commandant of the artillery at Boulogne; M. De la Sabloniere, lieutenant colonel of the national guard of that city; M. De Mentique, sub-prefect; M. Sanson, colonel of the national guard; Capt. Tyndall, M. Marquet, civil engineer at Boulogne; M. Le Comte, grand vicaire; Mr. Caldwell, M.P.; Mr. Hamilton, consul of her Britannic Majesty; Baron de Chiveuet, commandant of the garrison at Boulogne; M. de Hestingham, king’s advocate at Boulogne; M. Dessaux, Captain Barthelemy, Mr. F. Cubitt, Captain Charlwood. R.N., Captain Pent, R.N., General Hodgson, M. de la Porte, &c., the Directors of the railway, &c. The company, in addition to the good things placed on the tables, were entertained by a musical band from Boulogne, which, during the breakfast, played some of the national airs of England and France.

The mayor of Boulogne gave tin first toast, viz., "the health of her Majesty Queen Victoria." which was drunk with the honours. The mayor of Folkestone then proposed "the health of his Majesty Louis Philippe," which was a so received with cheers, and drunk with all the honours. The next toast, "The Royal Families of England and France," was the third in succession, and was drunk with the honours, after which the health of "the Mayor of Folkestone," was proposed and drank, and the mayor returned thanks. On the health of "the Mayor of Boulogne" being drunk, which came next in succession, M. Adam, in returning thanks, detailed the history of the projected railroad from Paris to Boulogne through the French Chambers, and observed that the recent fete given at Boulogne on occasion of the railroad and steam boat excursion from London to that city, had had a beneficial effect in showing what could be done by railroads and steamers, and had expedited the wishes for proceedings. M. Adam repudiated all intention of injuring Calais by supporting a communication between Boulogne and Folkestone, and said there was sufficient traffic for both ports, and enough to render the competition of the one no injury to the other.

On the health of Mr. Baxendale and the Directors of the South Eastern Railroad being drunk, the gentlemen returned thanks, and in doing so described the state of Folkestone harbour from the printed report and memorial laid before the commissioners of her Majesty's treasury by the merchants, ship-owners, and masters of ships of the port of London. Mr. Baxendale said he considered the interests of the four port of Boulogne, Calais, Dover, and Folkestone, would all be advanced by the more rapid communication of railroads, and that it was not from the injury of any one of them that the others should receive increased advantages. He then briefly adverted to the state of the harbour of Folkestone before it was purchased by the railroad company; and pointed out the capabilities it possessed, and the improvement of which it was susceptible. He hoped the example set to the government of the country by the company would be productive of good effects in calling their attention to what might be done to render other harbours better than they now were. Mr. Baxendale concluded amidst loud cheering.

The health's of Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Bleaden, and several others were then drunk, and those gentlemen returned thanks. After which a large portion of the company retired in order to return to London by the train. The festivities were, however, not over till a late hour, and it was nearly midnight before the steamer conveyed the French guest back to Boulogne.

 

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 20 January, 1844. Price 5d.

It is said that another Hotel is to be erected here, on the site of the "Pavilion," 150ft larger than the recently built one.

 

Kentish Gazette, 23 January 1844.

FOLKESTONE.

The improvements of this place had been for two or three weeks nearly at a stand still, but considerable activity is again evinced in the progress of the works, and a good number of hands are employed on the branch tram road from the station to the harbour, which is rapidly approaching completion. The clearing out of the mud and stones from the bed of the harbour is finished, and the depth of water much increased, but this has had a serious effect in increasing the shingle bank at the mouth, which has caused considerable obstruction to vessels entering or leaving the port. The company, however, intend to carry out their work with spirit, and a large space is laid out for the purpose of forming a capacious back water bay, the effect of which will be to prevent the bar from forming at the mouth. An act is about to be applied for to enable the company to do this, of which notice has been given to the inhabitants of 500 houses in the lower part of Folkestone, the whole of which houses are to be taken down. The new "Pavilion" facing the harbour has been opened to the public by the company. It is a fine building, replete with every accommodation, and capable of making up a hundred beds.

Baths are tilted up on a superior construction, which, as well as the whole house, are supplied with water from a deep well sunk on the premises, the water from which is conveyed into every department on the hydraulic principle. The new harbour house is nearly completed. It is a handsome building, surmounted by a square tower, in which an illuminated clock with four faces is now being placed. The lawn in front of the "Pavilion" has been neatly laid out, and well turfed down, which gives it a gay and cheerful appearance. The trains now run over the viaduct to the permanent station, which is in every way commodious, and stands in an excellent situation to command the communication with every part of the town, the Dover road and the adjoining country.

Well-horsed omnibuses are plying to and from the station, the harbour, Dover, Sandgate, Hythe, &c.; and the communication between this place and the continent is rendered expeditious and sate, by the establishment of steamboats, which leave and arrive in the harbour every tide to and from Boulogne. An excellent road, lit with gas, has been constructed from the station to the harbour, with a raised footpath, which renders the communication with the lower part of the town easy and safe. This place is rapidly progressing in importance, the effects of which are every day apparent in the rapidly
increasing value of property, and there is no doubt it will soon become a port of considerable consequence. There are many opinions afloat respecting the probable time when the line will be opened to Dover; but whenever that may be, there is no reason why this port may not become the grand outlet to the continent. A great proportion of travellers will prefer the shorter and more expeditious route by Boulogne, which is not only a saving of time and distance, but a saving of expense, and will be preferred to the more circuitous route by Dover and Calais. The whole aspect of the town has much improved of late, and the streets (which are lit with gas) are much better kept and cleaner swept than formerly.

 

From the Kentish Gazette, 27 May 1845.

PAVILION HOTEL, FOLKESTONE.

THE present Proprietor of this Hotel (Mr. Vantini having ceased to be Proprietor thereof), begs to inform the Nobility, Gentry, and Public that this Establishment affords accommodation of a most superior character for Families, Visitors, and Travellers to the Continent, with a scale of charges that will be found as moderate as any first-class Hotel in the kingdom. The Cuisine is under the management of eminent foreign Cooks, and the Wines, which are of the highest order, are now wholly supplied by a first-rate and old-established House in the City, the former stock having been entirely removed.

PARIS via FOLKESTONE and BOULOGNE. — The Hotel is also situated close to the Quay, where the steamers (which go from Folkestone to Boulogue and back daily) land their Passengers. It need hardly be observed that this is the shortest and best route to and from Boulogne, avoiding the numerous Tunnels that lie beyond. Folkestone on the Dover Line, whilst the present Boulogne steamers on this station, the Queen of the Belgians and the Princess Maude, being first-class Vessels, are, unrivalled in speed, safety, and accommodation. The present Proprietor is happy to say that although Mr. Vantini has ceased to be the Proprietor of this Hotel, he will still have the valuable assistance of himself and Mad. Vantini in the management of the same; and families and others requiring rooms or information, are requested to address letters to Mad. Vantini, "Pavilion Hotel," Folkestone.

 

From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday, 23 May, 1846. Price 5d.

FOLKESTONE

On Thursday week the new burial ground attached to Folkestone Church (presented by the Earl of Radnor,) was consecrated by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was attended by the Venerable Archdeacon Croft and the clergy of the district. Owing to the very unfavourable state of the weather, but few spectators were present to view the ceremony. The Archbishop, Archdeacon, and several clergymen and gentlemen, afterwards adjourned to the “Pavilion Hotel,” when an excellent dinner was prepared for them.

 

Kentish Gazette, 14 August 1849.

Public Sales.

July 28, at the "Pavilion Hotel," Folkestone, by Mr. M. M. Major; Freehold estate, Cheriton, near Folkestone, with 22 acres of arable and meadow land, sold for £1,520; freehold residence and acre of pasture land, in the Upper Sandgate-road, £1,800 (bought in); freehold messuages, Dover-road, £500 (bought in); freehold pasture land, two acres, near Dover-road, Folkestone, sold for £385, to Mr. John Jeffery, whose property it adjoins; the "York Hotel," Folkestone, put up at £800 (no bidders). — July 21, by Messrs. Farebrother and Co., at Garraway's: Freehold farm, called Clinch-street, Hoo, Kent, let for £300, knocked down at £8,400.

 

Kentish Gazette, 15 January 1850.

FOLKESTONE.

The "Pavilion Hotel" is about to change hands. We understand that it has been taken by Mr. Breach, of the firm of Battle and Breach, of the "London Tavern," Bishopsgate-street.

 

Kentish Gazette, 15 January 1850.

QUARTER SESSIONS.

On Tuesday last, the quarter sessions for the borough of Folkestone were holden at the Guildhall, Folkestone, before the Recorder (J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.,) the Mayor (D. Major, Esq.,) and Messrs. C. Golder, Wm. Major, and S. Bateman, magistrates.

James Osborne, labourer, late of Hythe, was indicted for having stolen a piece of copper, value 9s., the property of Mr. Owen Fickell Algar, proprietor of the "Pavilion Hotel."

Guilio Giovarni, manager of the "Pavilion Hotel," deposed that the piece of copper was brought to him by Pearson, the policeman, and which he recognised as being the top of a "bain marie." It had not been used for two years; originally coat 25s.; and had been put away in the scullery.

Matthew Pearson, policeman, on the 25th of December, went to John Myers, the marine store dealer, at Hythe, in consequence of information he had received; saw the piece of copper produced; asked where it came from; was told by Myers that he had purchased it from the ostler of the "Duke’s Head Inn," named Osborn Lee; took it away and brought it home; next day took it to the "Pavilion Hotel," where the servants identified it as being the property of Mr. Algar.

John Myers, marine-store dealer, deposed that Osborn Lee, ostler of the "Duke’s Head," brought the piece of copper produced, asked him haw he came by it, said it was all right, told him all right was sometimes all wrong; gave him 4s. for it, but told him he might have the difference in the price, if any, at some future time; did not know the exact value, told him, over and over again, he was afraid it was stolen.

The Recorder cautioned this witness about his dealings, and told him to be more cautious in future.

Osborn Lee, ostler at the "Duke's Head," Hythe, deposed to selling the piece of copper for Osborne, without any suspicion that it had been stolen.

Mary Roker, still-room maid at the hotel, identified the copper as belonging to the "bain marie" at the "Pavilion." Saw it last in the still-room, two or three years since.

William Francis, whitesmith, identified the copper produced, it being fitted by him in the place it occupied.

The prisoner, on being asked what he had to say, stated that about a fortnight ago he was sent for a load of ashes. One of his master's sweeps was down the ash-hole at the "Pavilion Hotel"; he passed the piece of copper through the hole, and when he (prisoner) cautioned him about it, he said all thrown in there belonged to the sweeps. The sweep asked him to sell it for him, and he passed it to Osborn Lee for the purpose.

The Recorder summed up, and the jury, having retired for a short time, acquitted the prisoner. He was, however, detained in custody, to be brought up as evidence against the sweep.

 

Kentish Gazette, 14 January 1851.

Folkestone. Enlargement of the "Pavilion Hotel."

An addition to this hotel will be immediately made, the building being continued on the north side to the boundary of the South Eastern Company's property. The Marine cottage will be removed to make room for it. The hotel will then be of the following form and make-up over 200 beds.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 6 October 1855. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Friday October 5th:- Before W. Major Esq., James Kelcey Esq., Thomas Golder Esq., and Capt. Kennicott, R.N.

William Whitely and Robert Parkins were brought before the bench on remand, charged with having endeavoured to obtain money under false pretences.

Mr. Lewis of Ely Place, Holborn, appeared for the witness Whitely, and Mr. Minter, of Folkestone, for the defendant Parkins.

It appeared from the evidence of several gentlemen, viz, Mr. Sibeth, now staying at the Pavilion, Mr. Breach, of the Pavilion, and a lady called Martin, that the defendants had called upon them representing themselves as being collectors and agents for a society called the “Sailors' Improvement Society”, and professing to emanate from some obscure street in Shadwell; from the apparent respectability of the prisoners and their very plausible manners they had succeeded in obtaining several sums of money varying in amounts from a guinea to 2s 6d., in aid of the above society.

Superintendent Steer, on going to London ascertained that the office of the society was held at a small shop, but with no external recognition of it to be seen. When he called he saw the son of the defendant Whitely, who showed him a bookcase, containing about 150 books, which he said was the library of the society. One or two Rev. Gentlemen whose names appeared on the circular of the society, on being written to, replied that they had no connection with the society.

Mr. Lewis having briefly addressed the bench, pointed out there was not the slightest foundation for the charge against his client. The magistrates dismissed the prisoners.

A balance sheet appended to the circular, showed that during four years the society had collected over £600, at the trifling charge of only £552 for Agent's and Collector's expenses.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 28 June 1856. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Same day, at 3 o'clock :- Before the Mayor, S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major and J. Kelcey esqs.

Augustus Hastier, manager of the "Pavilion Hotel," was brought up in custody of sergeant Fleet, charged with having absconded from the hotel, and having stolen certain monies to the value of £1600, the property of a gentleman named Alfred De la Motte who was staying at the hotel.

Joseph Ollivier sworn as interpreter.

Alfred De la Motte, being sworn, deposed – I am an independent gentleman residing at Paris. I came to the "Pavilion Hotel" on Sunday afternoon last, about half past 2, on my way to London. I had in my possession 430,000 francs, more or less. I had made no arrangement with Mr. Breach about it. I gave it to John Francis Bond, a waiter in the hotel, on Sunday evening. There was a large portfolio containing money to the value of 385,000 francs, in French notes of 1,000 francs each: it was locked. I had a sac or courier bag containing about 12,500 francs in value, in gold, English bank notes and Post Bills, and a few French notes. I do not know the amount exactly; I had not counted it when I put it in. The gold was in English coin, sovereigns and half sovereigns. I had in the sac about 35,000 francs in notes, or about £1500. I gave both the sac and portfolio to Bond (who acted as my interpreter, Mr. Breach not speaking French). Bond went and sought Mr. Breach, and when he came in I told him there was a considerable amount of money in them, and that I did not wish to keep so much in my room, and wished him to take charge of it. Mr. Breach took it, and they both went away. Both the sac and the portfolio were locked. I had no further conversation with Mr. Breach then. On the same evening, or the next day I saw Mr. Breach; he told me he was going from home, and said if you want your money today or tomorrow, I will give it you, but if you should want it after my departure you must apply to Mr. Hastier, and he will give it to you. Hastier was not there then. Mr. Breach told me Hastier was his representative, and it would be just the same as if he was there himself. He did not tell me where the money was placed. Mr. Breach left by the eight o'clock express train on Tuesday morning. On Wednesday morning I asked Mr. Hastier for my money, as I had an intention of going to Dover and thence to London. He said if you wish it I will fetch it directly. Soon after I saw him again and told him that I had altered my mind, and as I was going to Dover in a small boat I did not wish to take it with me, and wished him to take charge of it until Thursday. I started for Dover about one o'clock on Wednesday, in a small four-oared boat, and left Dover on the 2 p.m. train on Thursday, coming direct to the "Pavilion Hotel". When I returned I asked for Hastier, and was told he had gone to London during the night. I waited until about three o'clock on the Thursday afternoon but he did not return. They showed me a telegraph message from him which stated he should be back by half past 2. I waited about half an hour before anything was done. I then went to Bond, as he knew my position. Fearing that the money would not be recovered by the next day, I wished the house to be searched. I sent for the housekeeper and asked for this to be done, requesting them to force the locks and offering to pay the expenses. Search was made and in a small cupboard the bag was found, but I was not present. I think it was Bond who showed me the bag, and found that it had been cut open.

There was a silk purse full of gold in it, none of which was missing. But there were no notes, they had all been abstracted. The purse was twisted and knotted in a peculiar manner, so that no other person could undo it and do it up again the same but myself. They gave me the portfolio, which was not touched, and on opening it, found that nothing had been removed from it. All my French money was there. It was quite full of notes, &c. I am in the habit of carrying my money in bundles of notes of 10,000 francs each, and by the respective Nos. written on the bundles, and the peculiar manner of pinning them together, I identify the notes (produced) as part of my property. I had 28 notes of 1,000 francs each. One packet I cannot identify, but I think they might be at the bank in Paris. I had ten £5 and one £10 Bank Of England notes, and I believe those produced are the same which I got changed in Boulogne on Sunday morning by an Englishman named Pay, residing on the quay at Boulogne. All my English notes which I received from Pay were put in the sac; and were marked by him, with the exception of 1 or 2. Those I retained, were not marked by Pay. The rest I received from Pay himself at his house. The two bank Post Bills, value £50 each, I received from Monteau in Paris. Those produced I believe are the same.

Various other notes, Post Bills, and Bills of Exchange were identified as those which the prosecutor had received from a person named Chaigneau, living in the Rue de la Paix, Paris.

Examination resumed – The prisoner knew there was a large sum in the portfolio and sac. I told him so myself on the Monday, when Hastier came to speak to me. He said “I have your money, and when you want it I will give it to you. There is a portfolio and a bag which Mr. Breach has put in my charge”. I said to the prisoner take great care of them, as they contain a large sum of money (describing the amount in each).

This closed the examination of the prosecutor, when the case was adjourned till eleven o'clock on Tuesday.

The prisoner was committed to Dover.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 5 July 1856. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Tuesday July 1st :- Before the Mayor, S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major, W. Bateman. J. Kelsey esqs., and Captain Kennicott.

Augustus Hastier was brought up on remand from Friday last, for the robbery at the "Pavilion Hotel".

Mr. Lewis of the firm Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, attended on behalf of the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis demanded the privilege of cross-examining Mr. De la Motte, on the evidence given by him on Friday last. This being refused, Mr. Lewis said, from circumstances which had come to his knowledge, he might not have another opportunity of cross-examining this gentleman.

Sergeant Fleet said he had investigated the case, and in order to complete it he must ask for a further remand.

This the clerk to the magistrates advised, as the case was so incomplete, there not having been sufficient time to procure the necessary evidence. The magistrates having consulted for a short time, again remanded the prisoner till Tuesday next, at 11 o'clock.

Mr. Lewis then applied for some portion of the money, found upon the prisoner, and which he could prove was his own property, to be given up to him for the purposes of his defence, but this the magistrates agreed they could not allow.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 12 July 1856. transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Tuesday July 8th :- Before J. Tolputt esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, G. Kennicott, S. Godden, W. Major, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey and J. Kinsnorth esqs.

Augustus Hastier was brought before the bench on remand, for re-examination, charged with robbery at the "Pavilion Hotel," Folkestone. Mr. Lewis, of the firm Lewis Brothers of Ely Place, Holborn again attended for the defence. No solicitor was present to support the charge.

John Francis Bond deposed he was a waiter at the "Pavilion Hotel," and remembered Mr. De la Motte coming to the hotel on June 22nd; he came by the Boulogne boat, about a quarter past 2; it was a Sunday. He wished to have a sitting room and bedroom on the first floor. He then said he wanted to see Mr. Breach to deposit some money. The witness took him to Mr. Breach, with a bag and portfolio, (the bag was quite full of something). The witness saw some bank notes put in the bag; there were some Bank of England notes and some French bank notes; the bag was locked before it was given to him. Did not see the portfolio opened. The bag appeared heavy. Witness did not see any coin. Gave both bag and portfolio to Mr. Breach. Mr. De la Motte went with him, and they were handed over in his presence; the prisoner was not present at the time. Mr. De la Motte told witness to tell Mr. Breach that they contained gold and notes; witness interpreted for him. Mr. Breach left home on the Tuesday, and witness had no instructions about the money until the following day, when Mr. De la Motte went to Dover. He told witness he should not return until the following day, and he wished to see the prisoner. They left the hotel and met prisoner on the beach, and witness handed Mr. De la Motte's keys to him. (The witness was about to give a conversation that passed, but Mr. Lewis interposed, and said it was proposed to give as evidence a conversation that took place; now as both parties who heard that conversation were present, and one of them would be examined as a witness, he held it was more to the purpose to elicit that conversation from a principal rather than a witness; he should therefore object to this witness stating the conversation that took place).

Mr. Hart advised the magistrates to accept the witness' evidence.

Mr. Lewis said there was an act of Parliament expressly to prevent magistrates' clerks from being advocates, and strongly condemned the practice.

Examination continued – Mr. De la Motte gave his keys to witness, who handed them to prisoner; did not give the message, Mr. De la Motte being there himself. On the Thursday Mr. De la Motte came back from Dover, about half past 2. Witness saw him in his room, and he immediately asked him about his money. Witness told him that the prisoner had gone to town by the 2 o'clock a.m. mail train. Witness made enquiries, and found that no message had been left for Mr. De la Motte, who became very anxious about his money, and suggested that locks might be opened; if he could but see it he would be satisfied. Witness consented, with the other principal servants, and the result was that a cupboard was opened by a locksmith, who picked the lock, and witness took out the bag and portfolio, the same as Mr. Breach received. The bag was cut, and all the top part of it was emptied; there were no notes in it. Mr. De la Motte was called in immediately. The portfolio was also there, but apparently not opened. Witness showed Mr. De la Motte the bag, and he immediately remarked it had been cut. He took out his keys and opened the bag, and also the portfolio. There were a number of sovereigns at the bottom – about 485. The portfolio, Mr. De la Motte said, had not been opened. Saw a large number of bank notes in it. The prisoner was not present when this took place. Mr De la Motte gave a receipt for the money left to the housekeeper of the Pavilion. Measures were afterwards taken to recover the missing money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – After the conversation on Wednesday, recollected having one with the prisoner on the Monday about the gentleman who had arrived on Sunday. Witness did not remember that prisoner said Mr. De la Motte had given him (prisoner) some money. Would not swear that prisoner said nothing about it. He (witness) told the prisoner that the gentleman had given him as much gold as he could carry. Had some conversation with Mr. De la Motte about exchanging the money for him; offered £39 2s. for every 1,000 francs. Prisoner did not tell Mr. De la Motte he could get better exchange in London than that offered by witness. Believed the conversation ended there. After the money was counted, Mr. De la Motte stated that he had lost from £1,400 to £1,600 or about 35,000 francs. When Mr. De la Motte was pressing for his money, witness, for the first time, heard of the serious amount of the whole, about 400,000 or 500,000 francs. The bag produced was stuffed at the top with notes; could not say if they were in the divisions. Mr De la Motte took the notes from separate packets and pressed them into the bag; they were not pinned together. Mr. De la Motte's hand passed from his pocket to the bag more than twice; his hand was moderately full each time.

By the Bench. – The cupboard was relocked after Mr. De la Motte had his money.

James Gaby Breach deposed he was proprietor of the "Pavilion Hotel". The prisoner was manager of the hotel, and had been so for three months. On Sunday, June 22nd, the witness Bond came to him with a gentleman, having a bag and a portfolio. The gentleman was Mr. De la Motte; the bag produced was the one given to witness. Bond put the bag and portfolio in his hands, and told him they contained money, which he was requested to take care of until Monday. Mr. De la Motte told witness (through Bond) that the bag contained gold, and the portfolio notes of the Bank of France, and there was much in value. Witness took them and locked them up; no-one knew where they were put. Later in the day the prisoner gave witness two rolls of bank notes, one of the Bank of England, the other of France; the French notes were pinned together. The prisoner did not know how much money there was; he told witness they were as the gentleman had given them to him. Witness counted the notes, but could not recollect if there were 38 or 39 1,000 franc notes; there were 65 £5 Bank of England notes. The prisoner was not present when the notes were counted. Witness kept the notes in his possession until the following day, when, going home for a week, he told the prisoner there was a considerable sum of money deposited with him by the gentleman in No. 21, and that on the following morning he should have possession of the money. When the prisoner gave witness the notes he (witness) remarked to him that the gentleman had already deposited a great amount of money with him. On the following morning (Tuesday) witness called prisoner into his private sitting room, unlocked a cupboard, and took the two bundles of notes given him by the prisoner, and put them into the drawer in the cupboard: there was a nest of drawers that the door enclosed. Witness then showed prisoner the portfolio and the bag of money, which were in the cupboard, but forgot whether they were taken out, drew the prisoner's attention to them, locked the door, and gave him the key. Told the prisoner to ascertain if the gentleman would take the money away that day, if not, the prisoner was to take the money to the bank, and deposit it there, as he (witness) did not like the responsibility of having such a quantity of money, it being more than he liked. Witness did not say which bank, but it was understood that he meant the bank in Folkestone, there being only one here. Witness added he did not like the manner in which the money was brought to him, and wished it taken away, as he understood he was only taking care of it for one night. Witness also told him that if anything occurred he was to telegraph to him, as he would travel too fast for a letter to overtake him. This had reference to the general business of the hotel of sufficient importance to communicate. Witness left by the 8 a.m. express train, and received a telegraphic message in Dublin, on the following Saturday, about 8 p.m., the first communication from Folkestone. On witness' return he found the cupboard locked, but was informed it had been opened, and the money removed, and the receipt was now put into his hands. Witness afterwards obtained the key of the cupboard from the police; he then opened the cupboard, and found the rolls of notes, &c., were gone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Prisoner had been in his employ about 3 months; he had been manager of the "Lord Warden" at Dover for 2 years previous. Witness told the prisoner what the proprietor of the "Lord Warden" had told him respecting him. The proprietor might have told him what his duties had been, but he had not been told that he had entire control of the money department. The money was brought to witness by the prisoner between 8 and 9 o'clock on Sunday evening. Could assign no reason why he did not count the money given him by the prisoner: it was the confidence he had in the prisoner that induced him to receive it without counting it. Witness afterwards counted it, but not in prisoner's presence. If there had been fictitious money, or lead, he should have placed it where he did. Might have told the prisoner to be careful of the Frenchman, as he did not like the way in which the money had been deposited, it appeared such a careless way of doing business. When the money was deposited by Mr. De la Motte he might have named there was upwards of £400 in gold, but that the other was of the most value. Witness counted the notes given him by the prisoner, and was quite sure there were 38 or 39 French ones. The notes the prisoner gave him he kept in his own possession till the morning of leaving, when they were put into the cupboard with the bag and portfolio. Between the Sunday and the Monday the money was put in a private drawer by night, but was kept by witness about his person in the daytime. When witness was about to leave he re-deposited the money with the prisoner that he received from him, and showed him where the other was deposited, and gave him the key of the cupboard. Between the Sunday and Tuesday that witness kept the key, it was never out of his possession the whole time. Others had access to that room at all times; the outer door is never fastened. Never heard that the gentleman had other valuable property in the house.

From a question here put by the clerk to the magistrates, Mr. Lewis again addressed the bench, and said he must again press upon the bench that the magistrates' clerk must not be allowed to act as an advocate; he might look and appear very innocent, but he was afraid he was not so.

Cross-examination continued – Witness meant by his last answer to imply that he put the notes into the cupboard, and gave him the key. He meant by this that he redelivered the money he had received from him. Witness did not know whether any letters had been received for the prisoner since his return, but he understood letters had been received, addressed to the prisoner, and he had been told they were given to Mr. Hart.

John Coram deposed he was superintendent of the Dover police. He was sent for on the 22nd June by Mr. Wheeler, the proprietor of the "Lord Warden". The witness went and was informed that a telegraphic message had been received from Folkestone. While in conversation a person came and said the prisoner was at Galantie's Hotel in Dover. I went to the hotel. On being informed there was no officer there, he entered one of the rooms and found the prisoner in company with a custom-house agent from Folkestone, named Richards. On entering the room witness apprehended the prisoner, but before he could charge him, Richards said it was all right, that Mr. Hastier was going back to settle the matter. Witness enquired what he meant, when witness said there was no charge against him, and that everything would be amicably arranged, and that he had the property in his possession in a bag. Witness asked Richards if he was a constable, when he said he was, and also a commission agent. Witness had doubts about it, and pressed Richards for a direct answer, when he said he was not a constable. Witness then required possession of the property from him, Richards however handed the bag to sergeant Fleet who was also present. Witness detained the prisoner about two hours and ultimately locked him up at the station, prisoner was searched and there was found on him five £5 Bank Of England notes, £5 6s. in gold and silver, two 20 franc gold pieces, a Tuscan lottery ticket, a passport, a railway through-ticket, a gold watch and key with small compass attached, all these articles were afterwards given up to sergeant Fleet.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Witness was fetched by Mr. Way, station master, Dover station, to Galantie's Hotel. When witness got there he was told they had sent for a fly to return to Folkestone. Some person in the room said this. The prisoner and Richards were the only persons in the room when he went in. The landlord of the Inn followed, and Fleet came close after. Witness waited 2 hours because some persons were coming from Folkestone, one named Davidson, and another named Palmer, when everything would be arranged. When Davidson arrived he told witness that the matter was going before the magistrates, where he would prefer a charge of stealing or embezzling £1,600. No-one signed the charge sheet. This occurred after the prisoner was in custody, and after Richards told him no charge would be preferred. Witness would have detained the prisoner without the conversation between Davidson and himself. Would have detained him till he had seen the person to whom the property belonged. Was not present when anything else was said about a settlement. Ten minutes elapsed after Davidson arrived before the prisoner was locked up. Davidson wanted the prisoner to be taken before the police at Folkestone. The prisoner was ultimately locked up about 2 a.m.

Mr. Steer the superintendent here applied for another remand until Tuesday next.

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench requested that a portion of the money found on the prisoner and not owned, might be handed over to him for the purpose of the prisoner's defence.

A female witness, we understand from London, was bound over in the sum of £100 to attend and give evidence on Tuesday next.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 19 July 1856. transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Tuesday July 15th – Before J. Tolputt, esq., Mayor, G. Kennicott, J. Kelcey, S. Mackie, W. Major, S. Godden and W. Bateman esqrs.

Augustus Hastier, charged with the robbery at the "Pavilion Hotel," was again brought up on remand from Tuesday last, for further examination. Mr. Lewis again attended on behalf of the prisoner.

The first witness examined was Emily Hamilton, who deposed that she had known the prisoner 2 years, and that she had last seen him about 5 months since. (Some objection was made here by Mr. Lewis to a question regarding some letters). The witness here fainted in court so that her examination could not be proceeded with.

The next witness called was William Smith, who deposed that he was a detective officer in the Metropolitan Police, and that on Sunday, 30th June, he went to the lodgings of Miss Hamilton, Hanover Place, Pimlico, and asked her if she had heard from Hastier lately; she said she had. Asked her if he could see the letters. She answered “Yes” and gave them up. The two now produced are the same witness received. They had remained in his custody since then.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis, - She told me she had been in the habit of receiving letters from Hastier. She showed me more than the two produced; I only asked for them. Did not read any of the letters she had received. There might have been about 100 more in a bundle; did not take charge of them.

The witness Hamilton returning into court, her examination was resumed. – She deposed that the letter (No. 1) handed to her she received by the post on Wednesday 25th or 26th June. It was in the prisoner's handwriting, and in the following terms:-

Pavilion Hotel,

Wednesday

Dearest Emily; - When you receive this note send me the following telegraphic message and I will settle with you when in town. Yours ever,

A. Victor.

“From Hamilton, London, to Mr. Hastier, Pavilion, Folkestone”

“Come up immediately, I must see you; urgent.”

Sent a telegraphic message as required from an office in Westminster, according to the instructions in the letter received from the prisoner, and in the same words as the letter produced. Did not see the prisoner in London, nor till she saw him here. The second letter produced witness received after she had written to know if the telegraphic dispatch had reached him. The answer was received about 3 days after, and was in the following terms:-

June 27th

I must pray you, my dearest Emily, not to write to me any more until you hear from me, for your letter would not reach me. You will hear from me in a few days, and believe me ever yours.

Victor,

In haste.

Did not keep a copy of the letter she wrote. The letter came in reply to the one written to Hastier. The letter was in the handwriting of Hastier.

Cross examined by Mr. Lewis – Had never seen Hastier write. This was the first telegraphic dispatch of a similar kind she had received from him. Never had telegraphed that she would receive him. She might have written in reply. Had written to him many times. Never received a visit from Hastier in consequence of letters written to him. Hastier did not visit the witness in consequence of the telegraphic message. In March or April 1855 the prisoner did visit the witness in Church Street, London. Could not say if that visit was in consequence of a telegraphic dispatch. Witness visited Dover in consequence of a dispatch. Left Dover by the 3.20 train for London. (Witness here again fainted and was obliged to leave the court.)

Frances Pollock deposed she was housekeeper at the "Pavilion Hotel". Remembered Mr. Breach leaving Folkestone on Tuesday morning before the prisoner's departure. Prisoner left on the night of the 26th. Saw him about 11 o'clock in No. 1. (Mr. Breach's private sitting room). Prisoner said he was to leave for London on the mail train at 2 a.m., from the upper station. Witness was surprised, and said to the prisoner, “am I to be left alone when Mr. And Mrs. Breach are both away – a poor little nervous housekeeper – I shall feel as if all the bricks in the house are falling on my head”. Tried to persuade the prisoner to stay till the morning; thought the matter was not of much importance. The prisoner said he would lie down on the couch until the train left – he had had a telegraphic dispatch and must go. The prisoner requested witness to get up early, so as to keep the other servants out of mischief. Noticed the prisoner was very agitated, and asked him if he was unwell. Witness left the prisoner in the room and retired to rest about 12 p.m., and came down again about half past 8. Before she left her room she received a telegraphic dispatch from the prisoner, which she destroyed – thought it of no consequence – it merely informed her where she could find the key of Mr. De la Motte's room to give him in the morning. It was from Mr. Hastier. Witness was directed by it to give the keys to Mr. De la Motte only. This was on Thursday morning. Received another telegraphic dispatch about 3 p.m. from the prisoner, as follows:-

“Hastier, London, to Miss Pollock, Folkestone”. “Cannot come down tonight. Will be at Folkestone by first train tomorrow morning”. Mr. De la Motte did not return till about half past 2. She gave him his keys after receiving the message. Mr. De la Motte enquired if prisoner had returned, and was very anxious about his money. Witness told him she knew nothing about any money, but it would be all right when prisoner returned later that night or the next morning. Mr. De la Motte was very excited, and said it was a large sum of money. Witness told him if she knew where it was she could not give it to him; to which he answered if he saw it he would be satisfied. Witness and the principal waiters then consulted together, and they agreed to search for the money. Bond, the waiter, suggested that if the money were anywhere it must be in No. 1 (Mr. Breach's private room). A locksmith was then sent for and the lock of an escritoire in No. 1 was picked; inside was a portfolio and a courier's purse. Bond felt in and thought the money was all right, and immediately called Mr. De la Motte, who opened the portfolio, and found the money all right. The purse was found cut. Could not understand what Mr. De la Motte said, but was told that notes had been abstracted and the gold left.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - Mr. De la Motte took the money away, put the gold in little piles, but did not count it in witness' presence. Mr. De la Motte gave witness a receipt for the money. Mr. Davidson was present. Mr. De la Motte did not take the money away before the receipt was given. Believed she had received the receipt from Mr. Bond's hand. It was an error when she said Mr. De la Motte gave her (witness) the receipt; an hour had passed since the discovery of the money and the giving of the receipt. Could not say if any other person beside Mr. De la Motte had counted the money. After the receipt was given nothing further was done. Prisoner had had a conversation with witness regarding some articles of virtue, which Mr. De la Motte had shown him in his room. The prisoner told witness Mr. De la Motte had filled his (prisoner's) pockets with money, prisoner named a gold basin and ewer that Mr. De la Motte had shown him, and also some pictures. Prisoner did not say that Mr. De la Motte had “done the custom house officers”. With reference to the “telegraphic message” first received, it was not written on half a dispatch paper, did not sign for the same, it was given to witness by “Sarah”, one of the still room maids. Did not recollect how the paper was folded, it was addressed to witness on the outside, formed an opinion it was a telegraphic message from the appearance of it. Could not recollect by whom it was signed. Cannot remember if it was signed by Hastier or not. The second telegraph message was folded and in an envelope, but could not recollect if the first was in an envelope or not.

William Bevan deposed, he was one of the night porters at the "Pavilion Hotel". On the 28th June was on duty at about half past 11 p.m. Mr. Hastier was on the lawn. Afterwards found he had gone to bed, saw a light in his room. This was about 12 p.m. Half an hour after Mr. Hastier had directed witness to get him a fly for the upper station, as he was going to London by the mail train at 2 a.m. He went into No. 1 (Mr. Breach's room), soon after Mr. Hastier came out and asked for a sheet of brown paper. Mr. Hastier gave witness the key of No. 19 (his office) and asked him to give it to the housekeeper in the morning. At half past one Mr. Hastier left in the fly, had not seen the prisoner since, till now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - It was not unusual to see a light in Mr. Hastier's room at 12 p.m., he generally went to bed at that hour. Prisoner told witness to call Miss Pollock at 7 o'clock in the morning, he answered it was all right she was booked.

Cross examined by the bench: - When the prisoner left the hotel he had a small brown paper parcel in his hand, he was dressed in his usual clothes.

Francios Miland Chaigneau being now about to be examined, Joseph Ollivier was sworn interpreter. Mr. Lewis addressing the interpreter said he understood at the last examination he had not interpreted correctly; he therefore cautioned him as he (Mr. Lewis) had now a check on him.

Francois M. Chaigneau deposed he was a money changer, residing at No. 32, Rue de la Paix, in Paris. Knew nothing of Mr. De la Motte. Recollected seeing him on the 20th of June at his (witness') place of business. This was Friday. He then requested to have English money for bank post bills, because they came from an agent and he was afraid they were bad ones. Witness gave change for them in French bank notes to the value of £200; there was no gold given in the change. Possibly he might be able to know the money given in change. Could not identify the English bank notes but identified an Irish bank note or bill now produced for £20; an order for £5 on the Glasgow bank; a circular note on the National Bank of Scotland for £10, dated 18th June, payable at Glynn & Co., London, or what is known as a letter of credit. Knew the notes being produced as being the same from his signature being endorsed on the back, and from the entry in his book. Remembered the circumstance of giving those notes in change, it being the last transaction he had had that night. The book he now produced was the book in which the business done every day was first entered.

(Some remarks being made on the case, the Mayor said the bench only wanted to be put right on the matter. Mr. Davidson, clerk to the magistrates' clerk, here started up, and addressing the bench, said he wanted no putting right, he was always right.)

Examination continued: - The circular letter or note was taken by the witness the same evening, the 13th June, in the way of business. The particular entries referred to in the book produced were made by the witness himself. He was certain he gave the notes produced to Mr. De la Motte, as they were in the show case in the window of his place of business; one of these had been placed in the case but a short time before.

(Another discussion here took place, when Mr. Lewis interposed, and remarked that Mr. Davidson should not take upon himself to interfere in the manner he had done. He (Mr. Davidson) had addressed the bench in a very impudent manner; and he (Mr. Lewis) understood that all the witnesses had been examined by Mr. Hart previous to coming into court, without he (Mr. Lewis), as the attorney for the prisoner, being there. Mr. Hart, the clerk to the magistrates, explained that Mr. Lewis had interposed and created confusion by irrelevant remarks being introduced into the case before the bench).

Examination continued: - The £5 and £10 Bank of England notes produced were there all day; that is to say, from the time they were purchased. Witness could not say whether from 1, 2, or 3 o'clock on that particular day. The £20 Bank of Ireland post bill produced was the last purchase witness had made that day.

Mr. Lewis declined to cross-examine this witness.

Henry Pay deposed that he resided at No. 84, Rue de Boston, Boulogne sur Mer; he was by profession a money changer. On 22nd June, Mr. De la Motte came to his place of business and requested change for French money into English. The amount changed was £328. Witness gave him part in notes and part in gold. There was a Bank of England note for £100, one for £50, and £85 in five and ten pound notes, principally five pound notes of the Bank of England, the remainder was in sovereigns and half sovereigns; could identify the £100 note produced but not the smaller ones. They were all stamped at the time he gave them to Mr. De la Motte. The notes were stamped with the witness' name; the stamp was coloured blue, (stamp produced) inscribed “H. Pay, House Agent, 84, Rue de Boston, Boulogne sur Mer”. No-one could have stamped them except witness as he kept no clerk; there was no date on the stamp. Had not the slightest doubt but that the notes produced were the same as given by witness to Mr. De la Motte.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - Was not in a larger way of business; had not used the stamp long; might have used it for 3 or 4 months; could not tell how many notes he had stamped in that time; always stamped the notes paid to private persons. If the notes produced had been shown to him in Boulogne, he should not be able to tell to whom they had been paid, nor how recently they had been in his possession – all witness could say was that the notes had been stamped by him and had been in his possession. Was requested to attend as a witness by Mr. Hart. Mr Hart had asked witness if he had sold any notes. Mr. Davidson had first written a note to witness to attend the examination – had seen Mr. Hart in Boulogne the day before yesterday; had had no conversation with Mr. Hart about this business. Mr Hart had called at his place of business yesterday, but witness was not at home. Saw Mr. Hart go on board the Folkestone boat. Had not seen Mr. Hart today before coming to the court, but saw Mr. Davidson who said nothing to witness.

Mr. Chaigneau re-examined: - The superintendent of police requested him to attend today. Mr. Hart came to his place of business and showed him the notes. Mr. Hart saw the entries made by witness. Mr. Hart spoke but the policemen were present. The conversation was in English in the presence of witness' wife. Witness' wife was an Englishwoman.

Mark Richards deposed he was a custom house agent residing at Folkestone. On June 26th witness was at the "Pavilion Hotel" in conversation with Bond the waiter, had been informed of what had taken place and offered his services. Mr. Hart and Mr. Davidson came past at the time and wished someone to go to Boulogne to get the number of some notes. No person was at this time in custody for the robbery. Witness offered to go. On which he was introduced to Mr. De la Motte, who gave witness the name of a commissioner in Boulogne. Witness was to proceed via Dover to Calais and thence to Boulogne and back to Folkestone. Witness asked if he met prisoner on the way what should he do with him, was told he should take him into custody and bring him back. This was on the day the robbery was discovered. Bond had told witness Mr. Breach had been robbed. The witness then went to the Junction Station to go to Dover by the mail train at 11 p.m. Witness looked through the carriages at the Junction to see if the prisoner was in the train, but did not see him. Proceeded to Dover by that train; before the train stopped at Dover witness got out on the platform and saw the prisoner going towards the door. Did not see the prisoner get out of the train. Witness stepped up to him and said “Mr. Hastier, you must go back to Folkestone with me”, thought he touched him, prisoner replied “Must I? Then I shall go back in the morning”. Witness answered “You must go back tonight”, upon which Mr. Bayly, who was with witness, stepped up and said “I suppose you don't want force to be used”, this was said to the prisoner. Prisoner immediately without witness asking him handed the bag he had in his hand, it was a small leather bag. The witness and prisoner walked on together to an hotel and witness told him he might have a fly to go back to Folkestone. Prisoner mentioned an hotel at the top of the town where flies could be obtained, but ultimately they went into Galantie's Hotel. On entering the prisoner asked the landlord if he could send to Packham's for a fly, and also ordered a room into which they all went. Witness then wrote a telegraph message to send to Mr. Hart at Folkestone. An answer was returned that Mr. Davidson was coming in a fly with Mr. Palmer. Shortly after a person entered the room who gave his name as Mr. Coram, who spoke to the prisoner. Sergeant Flint of the Folkestone Police came in at the same time. Witness did not hear what passed between the prisoner and Mr. Coram, but the prisoner said “I am in the custody of Mr. Richards”. Mr. Coram spoke to witness, who replied he had no doubt he was a policeman, but not knowing him he refused to give him the bag prisoner had given him. Sergeant Fleet stepped up and said “You know me as a policeman”, and witness gave the bag to him. Witness had not opened the bag but the prisoner had, and had taken out a pocket handkerchief. There was no key to it; it opened with a spring. Witness returned to Folkestone by the mail train at 2 a.m. Witness on the way from the station charged prisoner with taking the money away, to which the prisoner answered how it came about. Witness told the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte had returned and had insisted upon seeing his money, and that he (prisoner) was suspected of having run away with it; that telegraphic dispatches had been sent to almost every port to detain him if he attempted to embark. The prisoner made an observation that it was his own fault, and that he had been a great fool and he must bear the consequences of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - The last observation was made while they were on the way to Galentie's Hotel. No-one was present when the prisoner made the observation “I am a great fool”. Prisoner also said “I don't know how it was, but I could not resist the temptation”. Bayly at this time was gone to the station with the telegraphic message. Mr. Galantie was in and out of the room during this time. Witness looked into all the carriages at Folkestone. Knew Mr. Taglioni, the father of the danseuse; did not see him in the train at Folkestone: saw him at Dover. Prisoner, when first seen by witness, was walking with a gentleman. Hear the prisoner wish someone goodnight as witness was going up to him; did not know if it was the Station Master. Witness spoke to Mr. Hipgrave, the commissioner of the "Lord Warden Hotel," but did not recollect the prisoner speaking to him. Never told the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte had sent him to look after him. Had no recollection of saying anything about a fly before Bayly came up. The prisoner lit a cigar at the "Dover Castle Hotel". The prisoner had given witness the bag before the corner was turned at the end of the station. Bayly was walking on one side of the prisoner, and witness on the other at the time the cigar was lit. A proposal was made that they should come to Folkestone in a fly. Witness thought Bayly proposed to come by the train. The prisoner, however, proposed to come by a fly. Witness told prisoner he might go to any hotel he liked; the "Shakespeare" was proposed as it was near to Packham's, where a fly could be obtained. Never told the prisoner that it would be all right – that no charge would be preferred. Witness told Coram the prisoner was going to Folkestone with him. Coram never asked witness what he meant by “all right”. Never said all would be amicably arranged, and that no charge would be preferred against him. If Coram had sworn that it is false. (Sensation in court). Witness stayed at Galastie's till the arrival of Mr. Davidson. They began talking about the technicalities of law, which witness did not understand. Mr. Davidson said a charge would be preferred against the prisoner, and it would save expense if it was done at Folkestone. Coram asked the question as to whether a charge would be preferred at Folkestone; but previous to that the prisoner had said to Coram “You don't want to prefer a charge against me if I go back to Folkestone”. Witness had been a customs agent about 2 years; had never been in the police. Told Coram he was a constable. Witness supposed himself a constable while he had the prisoner in his charge. Never had been a constable at any time. (Mr. Lewis here recommended the witness, on any other occasion, to call himself “an amateur thief-taker”, as he (Mr. Lewis) liked things to be called by their proper names.)

The witness here added to his evidence – When the prisoner said he was very sorry for doing what he had done, witness told him that Mr. De la Motte had said he would rather have given him the money than it should have happened.

The magistrates here decided to adjourn the case till Wednesday, July 16th.

 

From the report of the examination of Hastier being so voluminous, and with a desire to give our readers a full report, we are compelled to defer the second day's examination until next week.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 26 July 1856. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

The adjourned examination of Auguste Hastier, which was resumed on Wednesday, 16th inst, (continued from our report of last week), took place before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, J. Kelcey, W. Major, W. Bateman, S. Godden, G. Kennicott and S. Mackie esqs.

The interest in this protracted inquiry continued unabated. Several ladies who sat through the hearing of yesterday were again in attendance, having taken their seats before the bench was occupied, and expressed a quiet determination to see, as it is popularly called, “the end of it”.

William Fleet, police sergeant, repeated his evidence in chief, as deposed to at the first hearing, and fully reported in our columns, and was cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Went from Folkestone to Dover about 7 o'clock on Thursday, the 26th of June. Was watching the steam boats when the mail train arrived about 11 p.m.; saw the boats start. It was 20 minutes past 11 when witness first heard of the prisoner being in Dover; saw the prisoner first about 12 o'clock. It would take 5 minutes to go from the pier to Galantie's Hotel. When witness first saw the prisoner Mr. Richards was with him. Mr. Galantie followed witness and Mr. Coram into the room. Heard Coram tell Hastier he must go with him; Hastier replied “no, I am going to Folkestone with Mr. Richards”. Richards answered “That is quite right”. Witness thought a Mr. Palmer came into the room with them; to the best of witness' recollection no other person was present; saw Bayly there afterwards. Upon his solemn oath, did not recollect seeing a person asleep in the corner of the room. Will swear he had no conversation respecting an engineer. Cannot say whether Bayly came into the room alone; did not recollect Bayly coming in to the room; Bayly was not in the room when witness first entered; could not say if Bayly came into the room alone or not. The room was a small parlour. It was unlikely for a person to be in the room without witness seeing him. Bayly came into the room and said something about a fly. Bayly belongs to Folkestone; does not know what Bayly is; has seen him with custom-house officers. Does not know (why) he went to Dover. Does not know if Bayly took any part in the matter after Mr. Coram came into the room. When Richards said it was all right, Coram asked him what was all right; Richards replied they were going back to Folkestone. Heard nothing about the matter being “amicably settled”, or that “no charge would be preferred”. Heard Richards tell Coram he had property in the bag. Arrived at the Union about 12 p.m.. There was a dispute between Coram and Richards as to who should have the prisoner. There were several persons in the room during the time. The bag was on the table a great part of the time – witness leant upon it. Witness carried the bag to the police station. Witness came to Folkestone during the time. On his return the prisoner was searched and property given up to witness. Prisoner was left in Dover in custody. Witness brought the bag to Folkestone; came over in a fly. Stopped at one place on the road; did not go into any house. It took the witness till 4 o'clock to search the prisoner and count the money. Witness then went into the "Lord Warden" and waited for the train. The bag was in witness' possession the whole of this time. Prisoner never expressed any wish to stay in Dover; on the contrary, he rather wished to come to Folkestone. On witness' arrival at the Union, believed the prisoner said he had sent for a fly to go to Folkestone. Was present when Mr. Davidson arrived. Thought he had heard the prisoner ask if any charge would be preferred. It might have been Richards that asked the question. Mr. Davidson answered, “Oh, yes, I will charge him, or give him in charge”. When the prisoner was searched, made a memorandum of what was found on him. Prisoner seemed surprised when Davidson said he would charge him, and wrote something in his pocket-book. Witness had had possession of the book ever since. Witness entered what was found in the bag; the paper produced was the original memorandum. Witness did not go to Mr. Pay's, at Boulogne. Went to the witness Chaigneau's house, in Paris. There was a difficulty in obtaining the number of the notes. Conversed with Mrs. Chaigneau in English; Mrs. Chaigneau spoke to her husband in French; part of the conversation was translated to witness. Witness told Mrs. Chaigneau her husband would be wanted in Folkestone, and that he must bring his book with him, and he said he would come. The difficulty was he (Mr. Chaigneau) could not speak English. Witness did not go to Paris alone – Mr. Hart went with him to advise him, and to speak French for him.

The witness here added to his examination in chief – That on the morning of the 27th, on his way from Dover with the prisoner in a fly, he said to witness, “if Mr. De la Motte declines to prosecute will Mr. Breach do so?”; witness answered he thought he would. Prisoner then said “I don't think he will, but if he does it will be in consequence of his establishment: but whether he does or not my character will be gone – time will only retrieve it and that not in this country. I must try some other; but it is not for myself I care, it is for my friends”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Nothing had occurred to cause prisoner to say this to him. Did not recollect Mr. Hart's name being mentioned. Did not think the prisoner said it was wrong for Mr. Hart to act so harshly against him. This conversation took place after the charge was made against him by Mr. Davidson. The prisoner said nothing further about Mr. Hart, but he did about Mr. Breach – he said it would be an injury to the establishment. Witness did not caution the prisoner that anything he might say would be given in evidence against him. Witness told prisoner he was under a mistake in saying Mr. Coram had entered the room first: the prisoner said he was under the impression he had done so. All this was said without witness having cautioned the prisoner.

Angus Mackay Leith deposed he was manager of the National Provincial Bank, at Folkestone, and that no money had been deposited with him in a portfolio or bag.

Mr. De la Motte was re-examined, and repeated (through an interpreter) the evidence he gave at the first examination.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Witness resided at No. 7, Rue Trudon. Carried on business there for himself and friends. Witness' occupation was to buy and sell valeur. Was not a commercial man. He worked with his money. Could not tell better what he was; he had what belonged to him and lived on it. Could not say how long he lived at the Rue Trudon, but thought about 6 or 7 months; resided previously in the Faubourg, St. Germains. He bought valeur and sold them again; by this he meant everything that has a value, and is represented by paper, the paper now shown to witness was a receipt for the sale of some French Rente, it was his own; another paper was a receipt given by a broker for the sale of shares in the Credit Mobilier sold in Paris, it was his own. The whole of the money belonged to himself or somebody else, but that was business of the advocate: the money had come legally into his own hands, it was his own or those to whom he owed anything, friends had given him money to make profit of, and share with the witness, to whom he had given receipts; some might not have had receipts, (this witness showed an evident reluctance to answer the question put in cross-examination).

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench said by a recent Act of Parliament the evidence given at a preliminary enquiry like the present could be put in as evidence on trial, therefore the bench would see the necessity of his strictly cross-examining the witness.

Cross-examination continued – The money he had with him was about being deposited at Rothschild's in London. Witness had not been called upon to pay the money to any person before he left Paris. Came to England to deposit the money himself; could have done so without coming. There had been no legal proceedings commenced against him before he left Paris; is not a bankrupt by the French laws; has a friend who resides at Paris, 62, Rue Chasse de Autin, her name is the Baroness de ------, had however telegraphed to her in the name of Stewart, it was not arranged before witness left Paris to do so, he had sent a telegraph to this person by Hastier. Can play billiards, played on the Monday night. Did not send Hastier to get £5 from that deposited with him. Hastier lent him £5 which he (Hastier) had borrowed from another servant in the "Pavilion". Never asked Hastier to go to London in a special train, and that he (witness) would pay for it. Had asked permission of Mr. Breach to take Hastier to London to act as interpreter for him, Mr. Breach refused to let him go. He afterwards wished Bond to go, this was for the purpose of depositing his money. Witness counted his money in Paris, had then 15,000 francs in English money, he also received 15,000 francs in English money in Boulogne. Did not count his money at the "Pavilion", he only looked at it and thought it was right by the sight, gave the money to Bond in his sitting room; he could not tell the exact amount he had when at the "Pavilion". Had money in all his pockets. Hastier did not ask him on Sunday what he was going to do with all that money; did not recollect a conversation having taken place between Hastier and himself on the Sunday night; recollected Hastier coming into his room respecting a telegraphic dispatch, (witness here went into calculation to prove the amount of his loss which he estimated as being about 75,875 francs). Could not tell nearer that 1,000 or 2,000 francs because of various petty amounts he had expended. This closed the case against the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench said he supposed the bench had made up their minds to commit his client, he should therefore not take up the time of the court needlessly but would reserve the ample defence he had for another opportunity.

The prisoner having been cautioned in the usual way said that the greater part of Mr. De la Motte's evidence was false, and that part of Richard's was incorrect. The prisoner was then committed for trial, and the witnesses bound over to attend and give evidence. Mr. Breach being bound to prosecute, and the witness De la Motte was bound in the sum of £1,000 to attend and give evidence.

 

To the editor of The Folkestone Chronicle:

Sir, - In the report, in your last impression, on the proceedings before the magistrates on Tuesday week, touching a charge against Auguste Hastier, for an alleged robbery at the "Pavilion Hotel", I am reported to have said that “I wanted no putting right – I was always right”. As such an observation by anyone making it must subject him to much ridicule, I beg you will allow me to state what actually occurred. In the examination in chief of Mr. Chaigneau, of Paris, he was interrupted by remarks from Mr. Lewis, which the latter was clearly out of order in making. I objected, and Mr. Lewis appealed to the magistrates, and after some conversation, I read from a previous part of the deposition what the witness had stated, (and which he then re-affirmed), and it was admitted on all hands, and especially by the witness, that there was no foundation for the interruption. I was about to proceed with the deposition, when an observation to Mr. Lewis fell from the Mayor to the effect that “all was right – that we only wanted to be put right”. I, knowing that it was purely a mistake or mis-recollection of Mr. Lewis, immediately stood up and observed “I beg your pardon, Sir, we did not want any putting right – we were right”. Now, what a difference there is between these words, and those in your report. I simply did not wish the public, or the prisoner, to be under the impression that either his interests, or the ends of justice, were furthered by continued interruptions, which were equally unjustified by law, and wholly uncalled for.

Yours, most obediently,

Thomas A. Davidson.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 2 August 1856. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

A special sessions was holden at the Guildhall, on Wednesday last, July 30th, before J.J. Lonsdale esq., the Recorder, J. Tolputt esq., (Mayor). S. Mackie, W. Bateman, W. Major, J. Kelcey, G. Kennicott, and J. Kingsnorth esqs. Were on the bench.

These special sessions were held for the purpose of trying Auguste Hastier, the late manager of the "Pavilion Hotel", on a charge of stealing £1,500, the property of Alfred De la Motte.

The Recorder, in addressing the grand jury, said he was sorry for the occasion that induced him to hold these sessions. They, the grand jury, had no doubt heard of the prisoner who was there to take his trial. He however need not detain them long, but would offer briefly a few remarks on the case that would be brought before them. The bill of indictment to be laid before the grand jury contained three counts: - 1st, for stealing £1,500 the property of James Gaby Breach; 2nd, for stealing £1,500 the property of Alfred De la Motte; and the 3rd, for stealing £1,500 from the same J.G. Breach, the prisoner being then a servant of the said J.G. Breach. The grand jury however, in considering this case, had more particularly bear in mind that the tracing of any portion of the property stolen to the possession of the prisoner would be sufficient for them to return a true bill. By a recent Act of Parliament the foreman of the grand jury was empowered to administer the oath to witnesses to be examined before them, but he would impress upon the foreman to be very careful at to the manner in which the oath was administered. He (the Recorder) had now been a County Court Judge for a year and a half, and he had had sufficient experience in that time to observe that the sanctity of an oath was not regarded with that reverence it ought to command. The learned Recorder then desired the grand jury to withdraw and consider the bill to be brought before them.

Some delay arose to the grand jury by the bill of indictment not being prepared properly; the time of the jury and court being wasted while the counsel and solicitors were arranging a new form of indictment. This being handed to the grand jury they very shortly returned a true bill.

Mr. Sergeant Perry and Mr. Biron appeared to support the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Robinson, instructed by Mr. Lewis, of Ely Place, Holbord.

On the prisoner being called upon to plead, he in a loud and confident tone answered “Not Guilty”.

Mr. Sergeant Parry then opened the case by observing that he had the honour to appear before the court to conduct the prosecution, assisted by his friend Mr. Biron. He begged the jury to dismiss everything from their minds that they might have heard out of doors, and be guided entirely by the evidence that would then be adduced. The prosecutor would be Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the "Pavilion Hotel", and the prisoner Auguste Hastier was the manager. He would be indicted under three counts as the learned Recorder had explained to the jury. The prisoner had committed a serious crime in a crafty manner, and he was happy to say one not common to his class, (that of a waiter) who he (Mr. Parry) must bear testimony were generally most trustworthy persons. The prosecutor had received a most excellent character with the prisoner, and reposed the most implicit confidence in him. The circumstances of the case were briefly as follows: Mr. De la Motte, the gentleman who had lost the money, it appeared had arrived at the "Pavilion Hotel" on June 22nd, by the boat from Boulogne; he then saw Bond, a waiter, and spoke to him about a large sum of money which he (De la Motte) had in his possession, and which he wished to deposit for safe custody with Mr. Breach. He ultimately saw that gentleman, and deposited with him notes and gold amounting in the whole to about 485,000 francs, amongst which were one or two bank Post Bills, which he, Mr. Parry, desired the jury particularly to remember, as they would be positively identified, and be the chief means of bringing the robbery home to the prisoner. Mr. De la Motte would be brought before them in custody, he was an agent on the Bourse at Paris, and had in his possession a large quantity of money, the property of several persons, his clients. A crisis came in the money markets, and De la Motte being unable to meet his creditors, came to this country with this large sum of money which would now be given up, and he might add that Mr. Breach was personally liable for the loss Mr. De la Motte and his creditors might suffer from the robbery that had been committed. It would appear from the evidence that Mr. Breach being about to go to London, entrusted the money that had been deposited with him to the custody of the prisoner, giving him instructions that in the event of Mr. De la Motte not claiming it the next day he should take it to the bank and deposit it there. This however he did not do, but on a day or two after Mr. Breach's departure, he left Folkestone by the 2 a.m. train and did not again return. Mr. De la Motte being anxious about his money a consultation took place amongst the principal servants of the hotel, and the result was that a cupboard was opened where the money had been deposited, and it was then discovered that a robbery had been committed. Suspicion at once fell on the prisoner, and means were immediately taken for his apprehension, which was ultimately effected at Dover by a witness named Richards, who would be examined before them. The learned Sergeant then concluded his address and called Alfred De la Motte, who was examined, through an interpreter, by Mr. Biron. The substance of his evidence, which has already appeared in extenso in our columns, was to the effect that he had brought a large sum of money from Paris to the "Pavilion Hotel", which he had deposited with Mr. Breach, and that in the absence of Mr. Breach and the prisoner he, becoming anxious about it, had had the place where it was deposited opened, and found he had been robbed of a sum of 75,000 francs, or about £3,000.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was now a prisoner in the Queen's Bench – went from Maidstone Gaol there; was apprehended on Thursday last. When at home was an independent gentleman, but was not so now. (A laugh). Was not in debt when he left France, but was so now from being robbed. His accounts were not in order so therefore he left. He brought with him about £19,000. Had stated at first it was £1,600 he had lost, but now found it was nearly double that amount. Had had conversations with the prisoner, and showed him several valuable articles he had with him, and also some pictures. Witness had a conversation with a waiter named Bond with reference to the amount of exchange he would give for French money. He had offered him £39 5s, being a discount at the rate of 15s. for every 1,000 francs. Prisoner told witness that Bond had asked too much, and that he would write to London and ascertain the amount he could get there for every 1,000 francs. Witness had heard that the prisoner had received a letter from Speilman, a money changer, with reference to this matter. Had played at billiards with Hastier; did not borrow £5 from him. Had asked prisoner to go to London with him to deposit his money at Rothschild's, which Mr. Breach would not allow. Wished Bond to go with him after Mr. Breach had left home, but prisoner would not allow him to go. Had received 510,000 francs in Paris, and had expended about 50,000, making the sum he deposited to be about 475,000.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – The money was now deposited by Mr. Hart at the French Embassy. The arrest he was under was a civil, not a criminal one.

James Gaby Breach, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, deposed he was proprietor of the "Pavilion", and repeated the evidence which has already appeared, to which nothing new was added.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Had received a good character with the prisoner. He was peculiarly useful to him in his hotel, and had placed great confidence in him.

Francis Bond, examined by Mr. Biron, added nothing new to his previous statement, and was cross-examined by Mr. Robinson. – Had had a conversation with Mr. De la Motte about changing money; had offered £39 5s. per 1,000 francs. Had never received a letter addressed to the prisoner from Spielman's; would swear to it. The bag produced was the one given to him by Mr. De la Motte. Told Hastier that there was a great quantity of money in Mr. De la Motte's possession.

Examined by Mr. Parry – The bag produced could not have been torn by the weight of the gold, but in his (witness's) opinion had been cut.

Frances Pollock, housekeeper at the "Pavilion", examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, repeated her former evidence in chief, as given before the magistrates, and already reported.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Had heard from the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte was friendly with him. Mr. De la Motte, when the cupboard was opened, found out the cut in the bag. Bond took the bag out and gave it to Mr. De la Motte.

Francis Bond re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – The bag was cut when found in the cupboard.

Mark Richards, examined by Mr. Biron, also repeated his former evidence in chief as to the apprehension of the prisoner, and added that the prisoner told him at Dover that he did not think it was Mr. De la Motte's money at all, and that he (the prisoner) wished that Mr. De la Motte had never come across the water, he did not know why he took it, he could not resist the temptation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was a custom house agent. Volunteered to go to Calais. Made no arrangements as to being paid for going. Had stated in conversation in Folkestone what the prisoner had said to him regarding the money, but did not give it in evidence before the magistrates. The conversation with prisoner about the money took place in the street, Bayly is not present when this was said. Bayly is not here today. Did not tell the prisoner it would be all right. Never said in Coram's presence it would be amicably settled. Witness told the prisoner he was a very foolish young man; stated this before the magistrates. Never told the prisoner no charge would be preferred against him. Would not give up the bag till he had seen Fleet. Never saw Coram before. Did not know him. Stayed at Dover about three hours.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Went from Folkestone to go to Calais and then to Boulogne.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that the witness was an amateur police officer, who seemed more anxious that anyone else in this case, he (Mr. Robinson) thought it would not do him much good.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Did not know Coram; but gave up the bag to Sergeant Fleet. Coram shook hands with the prisoner and seemed to be on friendly terms with him, he also spoke to him in a low tone of voice, but the witness did not hear what was said.

Police sergeant Fleet, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, repeated his evidence in chief, as given at the examination before the magistrates, and added, that the prisoner after he was in custody said to him “had I not seen my folly you would not have caught me these three or four months”. He afterwards said “I am guilty to a certain extent”, this was after an answer to a question who would charge him, when Mr. Davidson said “that he would”. Witness here described the things found on the prisoner when searched.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was Sergeant of police at Folkestone. Coram is superintendent of police at Dover. Told the prisoner the loss was about £1,600. The prisoner before he was charged said that he was going to Folkestone.

Alfred De la Motte, re-called and examined by Mr. Sergeant Perry – The two £5 notes and the bank bills, &c., produced, were pinned together by him, and were his; he had received them from Mr. Pay, of Boulogne. Believed the whole of the money found on the prisoner was his.

William Cook, examined by Mr. Biron, proved that the prisoner had a first-class return ticket from Folkestone to London, but could not identify the half produced as being part of the one so issued.

Francis Macnamara Faulkner, examined by Mr. Sergeant Perry, proved the passport produced to be a Belgian one, and that it was vised on the 26th of June to enable the holder to pass through into Belgium.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Would have vised the passport himself for the prisoner if he had applied to him.

Mr. Sergeant Parry, addressing the bench, said that was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that he observed on the back of the bill of indictment the name of Coram, he would therefore call upon the learned Recorder to put Coram in the witness box, which his Honour having acceded to –

James Coram deposed he was superintendent of Dover police; had been so for six years. Had known the prisoner for about a year and a half. Was not on friendly terms with him, but saw him frequently in pursuance of his duty. Fleet and witness went into Galantie's Hotel together, when he apprehended the prisoner. Never shook hands with the prisoner, but went up to him and apprehended him at once, laying his hand on his arm. Had seen the witness Richards before; received money from him with respect to one or two warrants he had to serve when he (Richards) was at the "Pavilion Hotel". Richards said no charge would be preferred.

Examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Went to the hotel about 20 minutes to 12 o'clock. Would have taken the prisoner into custody from the information received. When Davidson came he wished the prisoner to be taken to Folkestone, but witness would not accede to this.

Mr. Robinson then proceeded to address the jury in favour of the prisoner, and occupied about an hour and a half in the luminous and certainly ingenious defence, urging that there was no proof that the prisoner intended to steal the money of Mr. De la Motte, but though he might have taken it to London for the purpose of exchanging it as was requested by Mr. De la Motte and so profit by the exchange, he strongly condemned the conduct of some of the witnesses, and concluded by exhorting the jury that if they had a doubt, they would give his unhappy client the benefit of it.

The learned Recorder then proceeded to sum up the evidence, and said no defence was attempted to be made, except the assumption brought before them by the counsel for the prisoner, but which he must beg to remind them did not appear in the evidence at all: the sending to London for a telegraph dispatch to be sent to him was not consistent with innocence, the getting his passport vised also told strongly against him, the suggestion also of the counsel that the bag was not cut was not borne out in the evidence, but rather to the contrary; the jury must however dismiss from their minds every suggestion then given, and give their verdict solely on the evidence brought before them, if they had reasonable doubt about the guilt of the prisoner he hoped they would give him the benefit of it but not otherwise.

The jury then retired for about 10 minutes, and on their return into court delivered a verdict of “Guilty” but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy from his previous good character, and also believing that he had yielded to a sudden temptation.

Mr. Sergeant Parry addressing the learned Recorder said he was instructed by the prosecutor Mr. Breach, also to recommend the prisoner to mercy on precisely the same grounds that the jury had done.

The Recorder then, addressing the prisoner, told him he had been convicted on the clearest evidence of having committed a very serious crime. It was most painful to see a young man like him, possessed of his superior advantages of education, and from the situation in life he previously occupied, placed in such a degraded position. From the serious nature of the crime, which was a double robbery, not only of Mr. De la Motte, but also of his employer, Mr. Breach, a clearer case could not be, and he had the power to sentence him to 15 years' transportation; but taking into consideration the recommendation to mercy of the jury, and also that of Mr. Breach, he should pass a comparatively lenient one, which would be 3 years' imprisonment, with hard labour.

The prisoner seemed astounded at the sentence, and burst into tears. Great surprise was also manifested by a number of persons in the court, at the heavy sentence, considering all the circumstances of the case.

 

Kentish Gazette, Tuesday 7 November 1865.

The Loan of a Grave.

Among our obituary notices will be found the record of the death of a daughter of Mr. A. O. Aldis, the United States Consul to Nice, France.

This lady, with her father and family, landed at Liverpool on 28th October, and arrived at the "Pavilion Hotel," Folkestone, on the 29th. She had been in an extremely delicate state of health and was on the way to Nice, but was not destined to reach that place, as she died on the following day.

She was temporarily buried in the cemetery this day (Tuesday) week, in a grave which had been kindly lent, and it is the intention of a friend to convey her remains to America to be buried.

 

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 18 May, 1867. Price 1d.

FOLKESTONE FREEMASONRY

The preparatory meeting of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Kent was held at the “Pavilion Hotel”, on Thursday last, when the usual routine business was transacted, after which, the Dep. Prov. Master (W. P. Dobson, Esq.) and about forty of the Provincial officers dined together. The annual provincial grand festival is, we believe fixed to he held here this year, on Wednesday, the 19th June.

 

Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kentish Advertiser, Friday 30 September 1881.

Folkestone. The Alleged Hotel Robbery.

On Saturday Ellen Hodges, a domestic servant, who stands charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600 the property of Mrs. Saunders, at the "Pavilion Hotel," was again brought up on remand, at the Borough Police cought. The prison was now committed for trial.

 

From the Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate and Cheriton Herald, Saturday 16 September, 1899.

EXCERPTS FROM A SHORT TALK WITH MR. JOHN HEALEY.

Mr. Healey had a long connection with the South Eastern Railway Company's local carpenter's shop, and had worked for 57 years in one employment.

(The above paper published an article containing some of his memories, parts of which I have copied below:- Paul Skelton)

Well I remembered that where the "Pavilion Hotel" stands were a collection of boat-houses. Sandgate Road and the Leas were either meadows or cornfields

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 8 October, 1937.

THE EAST KENT HUNT BALL.

Will be held at  the "Royal Pavilion Hotel," Folkestone, on 4th March, 1938.

 

Information taken from website gofolkestone.org.uk

During the second World War, the hotel was used as a hospital and one of the wards is still laid out in the basement. So too, is the mortuary and one man who worked at the hotel until recently said, "Even now, the mortuary is deathly cold and still has the smell of death."

Liam Dray, who was night manager in 2003, and John Lambert, the night porter who has been at the new hotel since it opened both have seen two separate ghosts and have even chased one together.

The first ghost is that of Mary, a waitress in the original hotel. She refused the romantic advances of one of the hotel chefs and he, in a fit of rage, brutally stabbed her to death with a kitchen knife.

He then dragged her body through the hotel and locked it in the cellar, where it lay, undiscovered for several months afterwards. Today she often appears in the Victorian restaurant where she runs across the room and disappears into the Green room, which is now used as an overflow restaurant but which used to be the main entrance to the old hotel.

Many have felt her presence and some have even had her run right through them but she is only ever actually seen in reflection – either in a mirror or the windows. Those sightings are said to be clear (not just an outline) enough to describe her as having long, flowing, curly black hair and wearing a white dress.

The story behind the second ghost is not so well known although he has been clearly seen by both the people mentioned above on two separate occasions. He is described as a young man, in his teens, with short, blond hair and wearing a black suit – possibly a battledress.

The night manager and the night porter both saw the young man run across the foyer towards the ballroom. They both chased him, thinking that he was intent on mischief, but when they got to the ballroom the cleaners already in there said that nobody had entered even though both men had clearly seen the doors open. A search of the adjacent toilets also proved fruitless and there was no other way out of that part of the hotel.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

VANTINI Mr to May/1845

BENNETT Thomas 1847 Bagshaw's Directory 1847

BREACH James Gaby 1850-55+ Dover Telegraph

GIOVANNINI Guilio 1851+ Next pub licensee had (manager age 50 in 1851Census)

DORIDANT Charles Oct/1857-61+ (age 45 in 1861Census) Folkestone Chronicle

EDWARDS John Bowen 1874+ Post Office Directory 1874

 

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Dover TelegraphFrom the Dover Telegraph

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

CensusCensus

 

The following has kindly been researched and sent by Jan Pedersen and is still to be formatted.

 

Pavilion Hotel

Kentish Gazette 8 August 1843

The South Eastern Railway Fete at Folkestone

On Tuesday the mayor and corporation of Folkestone, and the directors of the Dover and South Eastern Railway Company, celebrated the opening of the communication by regular steam-packets between the ports of Folkestone and Boulogne by a public breakfast and other festivities at the South Eastern Pavilion Tavern at Folkestone. The town was filled all day long with visitors from the adjacent places, and by arrivals from London, to be present at the celebration. The vessels in the harbour, which has been purchased by the railway company, and which it is in contemplation to enlarge and improve forthwith, were decorated with flags and ensigns, and presented a very gay appearance, whilst from the old lower of the church the bells rang forth a merrv peal. At half-past tweIve o' clock the City of Boulogne steamer came into the harbour and landed the mayor and authorities of Boulogne, and the gentlemen of that place invited to be present at the festival. Their arrival was announced by a salute of ordnance, and they were received on landing by the mayor and corporation of Folkestone and conducted to the terminus of the railway, where they inspected the engines, carriages, &c, and expressed their satisfaction with the arrangements. About this time the down train from London came in, having brought down several of the directors and many more guests to the breakfast. In the earlier part of the day the Sir William Wallace steamer, one of the eight new vessels intended to make the passage between Boulogne and Folkestone, had arrived from London, and taken from Folkestone to Boulogne in this her first trip upwards of one hundred passengers, and another vessel shortly afterward came in from Boulogne with a large number of passengers. It appears that the harbour of Folkestone in its present state contains at high tide water to the depth of twenty feet, and that when the wind is south or south-west it affords a better entrance for vessels than Dover.

By four o'clock the town was filled with people, and the two mayors, and those by whom they were attended, the directors and the visitors having returned from the railroad, the breakfast commenced. In order to afford accommodation to the very numerous party assembled, and to the various groups collected together, an elegant marquee, sent down for the occasion from the manufactory of Mr. B. Edgington, of Duke Street, Borough, had been erected in front of the Pavilion Tavern, facing the sea, and beneath this were placed seats and tables; and ii addition to this a building, formerly a beat house, had been converted into a banqueting, room, and fitted up with great taste bv Mr. Vanlini, the proprietor of the Tavern, to whom it is but justice to say that his arrangements for the gratification ot his guests were most satisfactory. The repast, to which nearly two hundred persons sat down at four o'clock, was in a very excellent style The chair was taken by the mayor of Folkestone, supported on his right hand by Mr. Baxendale, and on his left by M. Adam, the mayor of Boulogne. There were also present. Mr. Marjoribanks, M.P. for Folkestone; M. Bailly, commandant of the artillery ait Boulogne; M. De lą Sabloniere, lieutenant colonel of the national guard of that city; M. De Mentque, sub-prefect; M. Sanson, colonel of the national guard; Capt. Tyndall, M. Marquet, civil engineer at Boulogne; M. Le Comte, grand vicaire; Mr.Caidwell, M.P., Mr. Hamilton, consul of her Britannic Majesty; Baron de Chivenet, commandant of the garrison at Boulogne; M. de Hestingham, king’s advocate at Boulogne: M. Dessaux, Captain Barthelemy, Mr. F. Cubitt, Captain Charlwnod, R.N., Captain Pent, R.N., General Hodgson, M. de la Porte, &c., the directors of the railway, &c. The company, in addition to the good things placed on the tables, were entertained by a musical band from Boulogne, which, during the breakfast, played some of the national airs of England and France.

The mayor of Boulogne gave the first toast, viz., “the health of her Majesty Queen Victoria" which was drunk with the honours. The mayor of Folkestone then proposed “the health of his Majesty Louis Philippe," which was also received with cheers, and drunk with all the honours. The next toast, “the Royal Families of England and France," was the third in succession, and was drunk with the honours, after which the health of “the Mayor of Folkestone," was proposed and drunk, and the mayor returned thanks. On the health of “the Mayor of Boulogne" being drunk, which came next in succession, M. Adam, in returning thanks, detailed the history of the projected railroad from Paris to Boulogne through the French Chambers. and observed that the recent fete given at Boulogne on occasion vf the railroad and steam boat excursion from London to that city, had had a beneficial effect in showing what could be done by railroads and steamers, and bad expedited the wished-for proceedings. M. Adam repudiated all intention of injuring Calais by supporting a communication between Boulogne and Folkestone, and said there was sufficieint traffic for both ports, and enough to render the competition of the one no injury to the other.

On the health of Mr. Baxendale and the Directors of the Smith Eastern Railroad being drunk, Ihat gentleman returned thanks, and in doing so described the state of Folkestone harbour from the printed report and memorial laid before the commissioners of Her Majesty's treasury by the merchants, shipowners, and masters of ships of the port ol London. Mr. Bnxemhile said he considered the interests of the four ports of Boulogne, Calais, Dover, and Folkestone, would all be advanced by the more rapid communication of railroads, and that it was not from the injury of any one of them that the others should receive increased advantages. He then briefly adverted to the state of the harbour of Folkestone before it was purchased by the railroad company; and pointed out the capabilities it possessed, and the improvement of which it was susceptible. He hoped the example set to the government of the country by the company would lie productive of good effects in calling their attention to what might be done to render other harbours better than they now were. Mr. Baxendale concluded amidst loud cheering.

The healths of Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Bleaden, and several others were then drunk, and those gentlemen returned thanks. After which a large portion of the company retired in order to return to London by the train. The festivities were, however, not over till a late hour, and it was nearly midnight before the steamer conveyed the French guests back to Boulogne.

Kentish Gazette 5 September 1843

A great many workmen are now employed in forming the Railway to the Harbour; upwards of twenty houses are already down, and many more will be removed in a short time. The contractor for clearing the harbour has put on more men, who work night and day. As soon as the mud and shingle are cleared out, other contracts are ready to be let. Messrs. Grissel and Peto are building a large hotel, which will contain a great number of bedrooms; its situation is fronting the harbour, on what was called Farley’s Ground, close by the Pavilion. The pier is being made wider, and is lighted with gas, which is a great improvement. The company seems “to stand for nothing” - whatever is wanted is done.

Kentish Gazette 21 November 1843

Mr. Major, on his re-election to the office of Mayor on the 9th inst. invited the Town Council, and Joseph Baxendale, Esq. the chairman of the South Eastern Railway, to a breakfast, a la fourchette, at the Pavilion. The Mayor and Corporation, and a party of gentlemen, afterwards dined together at the Rose Hotel.

Kentish Gazette 28 November 1843

The new hotel and harbour house are now nearly completed. The tramway from the station to the harbour will shortly be finished. It is expected the trains will now run to the permanent station.

Kentish Gazette 23 January 1844

The improvements of this place bad been for two or three weeks nearly at a standstill, but considerable activity is again evinced in the progress of the works, and a good number of hands are employed on the branch tram road from the station to the harbour, which is rapidly approaching completion. The clearing out of the mud and stones from the bed of the harbour is finished, and the depth of water much increased, but this has had a serious effect in increasing the shingle bank at the mouth, which has caused considerable obstruction to vessels entering or leaving the port. The company, however, intend to carry out their work with spirit, and a large space is laid out for the purpose of forming a capacious back water bay, the effect of which will be to prevent the bar from forming at the mouth. An act is about to be applied for to enable the company to do this, of which notice has been given to the inhabitants of 500 houses in the lower part of Folkestone, the whole of which houses are to be taken down. The new pavilion facing the harbour has been opened to the public by the company. It is a fine building, replete with every accommodation, and capable of making up a hundred beds. Baths are fitted up on a superior construction, which, as well as the whole house, are supplied with water from a deep well sunk on the premises, the water from which is conveyed into every department on the hydraulic principle. The new harbour house is nearly completed. It is a handsome building, surmounted by a square lower, in which an illuminated clock with four faces is now being placed. The lawn in front of the pavilion has been neatly laid out, and well turfed down, which gives it a gay and cheerful appearance. The trains now run over the viaduct to the permanent station, which is in every way commodious, and stands in an excellent situation to command the communication with every part of the town, the Dover road and the adjoining country. Well-horsed omnibuses are plying to and from the station, the harbour, Dover, Sandgate, Hythe, &c.; and the communication between this place and the continent is rendered expeditious and safe, by the establishment of steamboats, which leave and arrive in the harbour every tide to and from Boulogne. An excellent road, lit with gas, has been constructed from the station to the harbour, with a raised footpath, which renders the communication with the lower part of the town easy and safe. This place is rapidly progressing in importance, the effects of which are every day apparent in the rapidly increasing value of property, and there is no doubt it will soon become a port of considerable consequence. There are many opinions afloat respecting the probable time when the line will be opened to Dover; but whenever that may be, there is no reason why this port may not become the grand outlet to the continent. A great proportion of travellers will prefer the shorter and more expeditious route by Boulogne, which is not only a saving of time and distance, but a saving of expense, and will be preferred to the more circuitous route by Dover and Calais. The whole aspect of the town has much improved of late, and the streets (which are lit with gas) are much better kept and cleaner swept than formerly.

Kentish Gazette 27 May 1845

The present Proprietor of this Hotel (Mr. Vantini having ceased to be Proprietor thereof), begs to inform the Nobility, Gentry, and Public that this Establishment affords accommodation of a most superior character for Families, Visitors, and Travellers to the Continent, with a scale of charges that will be found as moderate as any first-class Hotel in the Kingdom. The Cuisine is under the management of eminent foreign Cooks, and the Wines, which are of the highest order, are now wholly supplied by a first-rate and old-established House in the City, the former stock having been entirely removed.

Paris via Folkestone and Boulogne - The Hotel is also situated close to the Quay, where the steamers (which go from Folkestone to Boulogne and back daily) land their Passengers. It need hardly be observed that this is the shortest and best route to and from Boulogne, avoiding the numerous tunnels that lie beyond Folkestone on the Dover Line, whilst the present Boulogne steamers on this station, the Queen of the Belgians and the Princess Maude, being first-class Vessels, are unrivalled in speed, safety, and accommodation. The present Proprietor is happy to say that although Mr. Vantini has ceased to be the Proprietor of this Hotel, he will still have the valuable assistance of himself and Mad. Vantini in the management of the same; and families and others requiring rooms or information, are requested to address letters to Mad. Vantini, Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone.

Kentish Gazette 15 January 1850

The Pavilion Hotel is about to change hands. We understand that it has been taken by Mr. Breach, of the firm of Battle and Breach, of the London Tavern, Bishopsgate Street.

On Tuesday last, the quarter sessions for the borough of Folkestone were holden at the Guildball, Folkestone, before the Recorder (J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.,) the Mayor (D. Major, Esq.,) and Messrs. C. Golder, Wm. Major, and S. Bateman, magistrates.

James Osborne, labourer, late of Hythe, was indicted for having stolen a piece of copper, value 9d., the property of Mr. Owen Fickell Algar, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel.

Guilio Giovarni, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, deposed that the piece of copper was brought to him by Pearson, the policeman, and which he recognised as being the top of a “bain marie” It had not been used for two years; originally coat 25s.; and had been put away in the scullery.

Matthew Pearson, policeman, on the 25th of December, went to John Myers, the marine store dealer, at Hythe, in consequence of information he had received; saw the piece of copper produced; asked where it came from; was told by Myers that he had purchased it from the ostler of the Duke’s Head Inn, named Osborn Lee; took it away and brought it home; next day took it to the Pavilion Hotel, where the servants identified it as being the property of Mr. Algar.

John Myers, marine-store dealer, deposed that Osborn Lee, ostler of the Duke’s Head, brought the piece of copper produced; asked him how he came by it; said it was all right; told him all right was sometimes all wrong; gave him 4s. for it, but told him he might have the difference in the price, if any, at some future time; did not know the exact value; told him, over and over again, he was afraid it was stolen.

The Recorder cautioned this witness about his dealings, and told him to be more cautious in future.

Osborn Lee, ostler at the Duke’s Head, Hythe, deposed to selling the piece of copper for Osborne, without any suspicion that it had been stolen.

Mary Roker, still-room maid at the hotel, identified the copper as belonging to the “bain marie” at the Pavilion. Saw it last in the still-room, two or three years since.

William Francis, whitesmith, identified the copper produced, it being fitted by him in the place it occupied.

The prisoner, on being asked what he had to say, stated that about a fortnight ago he was sent for a load of ashes. One of his master's sweeps was down the ash-hole at the Pavilion Hotel; he passed the piece of copper through the hole, and when be (prisoner) cautioned him about it, he said all thrown in there belonged to the sweeps. The sweep asked him to sell it for him, and he passed it to Osborn Lee for the purpose.

The Recorder summed up, and the jury, having retired for a short time, acquitted the prisoner. He was, however, detained in custody, to be brought up as evidence against the sweep.

Kentish Gazette 14 January 1851

Enlargement of the Pavilion Hotel: An addition to this hotel will immediately be made, the building being continued on the north side to the boundary of the South Eastern Company's property. The Marine cottage will be removed to make room for it. The hotel will then make up over 200 beds.

Kentish Gazette 3 October 1854

No small sensation was created here on Saturday last, by the circumstances of a visitor named Samuel Augustin Courtauld, a medical student, having met with his death while bathing from one of the machines to the westward of the harbour; and the excitement was much increased, and another pang added to the poignant grief of the deceased’s relatives, by a report of the neglect of those having charge of the bathing machines; and that fatal delay in using restorative means after recovering the body had resulted, from alleged opposition offered by the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel to its reception there. With a view of arriving at the facts, we attended the adjourned inquiry on Monday, at the Town Hall, before R. T. Brockman, Esq.. Deputy Coroner, when the evidence of a principal witness (Mr. John Warren, taken on Saturday) was recapitulated, and several other witnesses examined, the investigation occupying nearly 5 hours, and being conducted so as to elicit every possible fact associated with the lamentable occurrence, and what amount of blame (if any) attached to the conduct of any in the least involved in any feature of the transaction. With the evidence before us, we are in a position to state, (adopting the language of the Coroner,) that the proprietors of the Pavilion are completely exculpated from the slightest charge of refusing to receive the body of the deceased gentleman. Of the bather, whatever may be urged in extenuation, we cannot speak so favourably. In the first place, the boat connected with the machines, and provided against accidents, was said by the bathing-man to be unseaworthy, and when run to was without oars, holes, plug, or warp, and secondly, the attention of this man appears to have been so engrossed about the preservation of his employer's machines, as to induce conduct that called forth a stricture from Mr. Brockman, that it was evident the bather had not used the best means he could to save the deceased. It is to be hoped that the proprietor (Mr. Willis) will forthwith supply what the deplored issue of Saturday revealed to be so much wanted. An uncle and two brothers of the deceased were present nt the adjourned examination, when the following witnesses were examined: Mr. John Warren, a relative of the deceased, recalled; Mr. Tapham, a visitor; Mr. Tyson, surgeon; Thomas Hall, mariner, who recovered the body with his sceine net; John Rolfe, the bather; his daughter, who attended the ladies' department; and Mr. George Courtauld, the elder brother of deceased. The Coroner having briefly summed up, the jury retired, and after a deliberation, recorded “That deceased died whilst bathing.”

Kentish Gazette 8 May 1855

On Monday, Nyssen Peeters, the booking-clerk of the Harbour Station, was charged before the magistrates, with having stolen a tartan cloak and a black silk mackintosh coat, the property of a gentleman named Oswald, who had come down by the boat train on Friday, and, on leaving the carriage to go to the Pavilion Hotel, the valet left a bundle, containing coats, cloaks, &c., in the train, which was taken to the booking-office by the carriage-searcher, and given up to the prisoner, whose duty it was to receive it. Shortly after arriving at the hotel, the bundle was missing, and, on inquiry being made, it was found in the office; but, during the short interval, the two articles were abstracted. Mr. Oswald had proceeded to Paris, and the prisoner was remanded, to enable Superintendant Steers to find that gentleman.

Kentish Gazette 29 May 1855

At the Pavilion, this day, we understand a dinner is to be given to Captain Heartley, as a mark of respect for his long military services. It will be in the recollection of our readers that Captain Heartley, at a review in Eastwell Park, many years since, of the East Kent Yeomanry, now the East Kent Mounted Rifles lost an arm by the accidental discharge of a cannon. Notwithstanding this loss, we have had frequent opportunities of witnessing the indefatigable exertions of Captain Heartley in the discharge of his duties, and we have no doubt that the company present today will do every justice to the services of so valuable an officer.

Kentish Gazette 11 September 1855

A day or so ago Mrs. Granville, of Elliot Vale Brook, near Hastings, whilst in the refreshment room of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, was plundered of her purse, containing a 500f. note, a 100f. note, and £15 in gold, besides silver. The room was instantly closed, but the thief could not be found.

Folkestone Chronicle 6 October 1855

Friday October 5th:- Before W. Major Esq., James Kelcey Esq., Thomas Golder Esq., and Capt. Kennicott, R.N.

William Whitely and Robert Parkins were brought before the bench on remand, charged with having endeavoured to obtain money under false pretences.

Mr. Lewis of Ely Place, Holborn, appeared for the witness Whitely, and Mr. Minter, of Folkestone, for the defendant Parkins.

It appeared from the evidence of several gentlemen, viz, Mr. Sibeth, now staying at the Pavilion, Mr. Breach, of the Pavilion, and a lady called Martin, that the defendants had called upon them representing themselves as being collectors and agents for a society called the “Sailors' Improvement Society”, and professing to emanate from some obscure street in Shadwell; from the apparent respectability of the prisoners and their very plausible manners they had succeeded in obtaining several sums of money varying in amounts from a guinea to 2s 6d., in aid of the above society.

Superintendent Steer, on going to London ascertained that the office of the society was held at a small shop, but with no external recognition of it to be seen. When he called he saw the son of the defendant Whitely, who showed him a bookcase, containing about 150 books, which he said was the library of the society. One or two Rev. Gentlemen whose names appeared on the circular of the society, on being written to, replied that they had no connection with the society.

Mr. Lewis having briefly addressed the bench, pointed out there was not the slightest foundation for the charge against his client. The magistrates dismissed the prisoners.

A balance sheet appended to the circular, showed that during four years the society had collected over £600, at the trifling charge of only £552 for Agent's and Collector's expenses.

Kentish Gazette 9 October 1855

Two persons, giving their names as Thomas Whately aril Robert Parkin, were had before the magistrates last week, charged with obtaining under false pretences 10s. from Mr. Breach, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoners represented themselves as belonging to a society called the “Sailors' Improvement Benefit Society.” They were remanded. From inquiries since made it appears that they collect between £500 and £600 per annum, which their balance sheet shows to be expended on the agents, who comprise only Whately and his son. The former, who is in inferred as embracing in himself directors, secretary, treasurer, &c., is quite notorious in the profession, and is believed to have visited Dover for the levying contributions from the benevolent. He is said for the last ten years to have been pursuing his present course, first in connection with one society, and then starting another, as exigencies needed. The public are cautioned against gross impositions of this character; and if a little trouble were taken by those who are solicited for aid by strangers, a check would often be put to practices that have a tendency to stop the current of benevolence from really deserving channels.

Southeastern Gazette 9 October 1855

Local News

Monday: Before W. Major, J. Kelcey, T. Golder, W. Bateman, J. Kingsnorth, and G. Kennicott, Esqs.

William Whitely, dressed in the garb of a dissenting minister, and Robert Parkins, similarly dressed, were brought up in custody, having been arrested on the previous Saturday, charged with obtaining money under false pretences from several clergymen and gentlemen.

The defendants represented that they were agents for the “Sailors’ Improvement Society,” and were authorized to receive subscriptions. The ground of their apprehension was that there was no such society existing. After the magistrates had heard the evidence of several gentlemen they were remanded.

Friday: Whitely and Parkins were again brought up, having in the interim been confined in Dover gaol. Mr. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, Ely Place, Holborn, attended for the defendants. The court was thronged with respectable individuals.

Mr. Lewis wished to know who were the prosecutors, and on being informed that Superintendent Steer was asked what charge there was against the prisoners, as he was prepared with witnesses to prove the respectability of his clients and of the existence of the Society.

Superintendent Steer deposed that he proceeded to London, to the residence of the defendant Whitely; he saw no name on the door indicating the name of the society; it was a bookseller’s shop. He saw the son of Whitely, who showed him a room which he said was the office; he saw the library, which contained about 200 books. Witness was proceeding to state what Mr. Whitely, jun., said, but was stopped by Mr. Lewis.

John Nicholas Sibeth, gentleman, residing at No. 2, Bouverie Villas, deposed: The defendants came to me and exhibited to me a book containing a list of subscribers to a society, the name of which I could not recollect. I thought they were belonging to the town, and I gave them a guinea. Afterwards they talked of tlie salubrity of the air and fine hotel, &c., and I advised them to go and see Mr. Breach, the proprietor, and I would speak to him about them. I don’t recollect telling them to use my name.

James G. Breach deposed: I am the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. Defendants came to me and said they were sent by Mr. Sibeth; they wanted to go and solicit subscriptions from the visitors in the hotel, which I refused, and as they were so importunate I gave them 10s. to get rid of them.

Miss Martin also proved that the defendants called upon her for the Sailors’ Improvement Society, and she gave them 5s., for which they gave a receipt.

From the papers taken from the defendants, it appeared that the balance sheets showed that out of £432 5s. 4d received for subscriptions, about £390 went to the 7 paid agents.

The name of the Rev. B. C. Sayer, of the Rectory, Shad-well, also appeared-on the printed papers, but that gentleman, on being written to, denied belonging to the society; he only knew one of the defendants, from his living opposite his house at Shadwell.


Mr. Lewis argued that there was no case for him to answer. The defendants had not been guilty of using any false pretence; they had merely solicited subscriptions like any other agents.

The magistrates, having consulted together, said as there was not sufficient evidence to send the case for trial, the defendants must be discharged. The defendants then left the court accompanied by their friend.

Kentish Gazette 11 December 1855

The corporation had prepared an address for presentation to the King of Sardinia before his embarkation, but in consequence of his hurry to get, to save the tide, at Boulogne, his Majesty was prevented receiving the address with the usual ceremony -the Mayor and Town Clerk only being presented at the top of the grand staircase, at the Pavilion, as the King passed out on his way to the Quay. The King graciously received the address, although in a great hurry, and the Marquis d’Azeglio, speaking for him (in English) said, that his Majesty was highly pleased with the reception he had met with, and the attention shown him. He regretted that time did not permit him to reply to the address, hut he would do so from Paris.


Folkestone Chronicle 28 June 1856

Same day, at 3 o'clock :- Before the Mayor, S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major and J. Kelcey esqs.

Augustus Hastier, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, was brought up in custody of sergeant Fleet, charged with having absconded from the hotel, and having stolen certain monies to the value of £1600, the property of a gentleman named Alfred De la Motte who was staying at the hotel.

Joseph Ollivier sworn as interpreter.

Alfred De la Motte, being sworn, deposed – I am an independent gentleman residing at Paris. I came to the Pavilion Hotel on Sunday afternoon last, about half past 2, on my way to London. I had in my possession 430,000 francs, more or less. I had made no arrangement with Mr. Breach about it. I gave it to John Francis Bond, a waiter in the hotel, on Sunday evening. There was a large portfolio containing money to the value of 385,000 francs, in French notes of 1,000 francs each: it was locked. I had a sac or courier bag containing about 12,500 francs in value, in gold, English bank notes and Post Bills, and a few French notes. I do not know the amount exactly; I had not counted it when I put it in. The gold was in English coin, sovereigns and half sovereigns. I had in the sac about 35,000 francs in notes, or about £1500. I gave both the sac and portfolio to Bond (who acted as my interpreter, Mr. Breach not speaking French). Bond went and sought Mr. Breach, and when he came in I told him there was a considerable amount of money in them, and that I did not wish to keep so much in my room, and wished him to take charge of it. Mr. Breach took it, and they both went away. Both the sac and the portfolio were locked. I had no further conversation with Mr. Breach then. On the same evening, or the next day I saw Mr. Breach; he told me he was going from home, and said if you want your money today or tomorrow, I will give it you, but if you should want it after my departure you must apply to Mr. Hastier, and he will give it to you. Hastier was not there then. Mr. Breach told me Hastier was his representative, and it would be just the same as if he was there himself. He did not tell me where the money was placed. Mr. Breach left by the eight o'clock express train on Tuesday morning. On Wednesday morning I asked Mr. Hastier for my money, as I had an intention of going to Dover and thence to London. He said if you wish it I will fetch it directly. Soon after I saw him again and told him that I had altered my mind, and as I was going to Dover in a small boat I did not wish to take it with me, and wished him to take charge of it until Thursday. I started for Dover about one o'clock on Wednesday, in a small four-oared boat, and left Dover on the 2 p.m. train on Thursday, coming direct to the Pavilion Hotel. When I returned I asked for Hastier, and was told he had gone to London during the night. I waited until about three o'clock on the Thursday afternoon but he did not return. They showed me a telegraph message from him which stated he should be back by half past 2. I waited about half an hour before anything was done. I then went to Bond, as he knew my position. Fearing that the money would not be recovered by the next day, I wished the house to be searched. I sent for the housekeeper and asked for this to be done, requesting them to force the locks and offering to pay the expenses. Search was made and in a small cupboard the bag was found, but I was not present. I think it was Bond who showed me the bag, and found that it had been cut open.

There was a silk purse full of gold in it, none of which was missing. But there were no notes, they had all been abstracted. The purse was twisted and knotted in a peculiar manner, so that no other person could undo it and do it up again the same but myself. They gave me the portfolio, which was not touched, and on opening it, found that nothing had been removed from it. All my French money was there. It was quite full of notes, &c. I am in the habit of carrying my money in bundles of notes of 10,000 francs each, and by the respective Nos. written on the bundles, and the peculiar manner of pinning them together, I identify the notes (produced) as part of my property. I had 28 notes of 1,000 francs each. One packet I cannot identify, but I think they might be at the bank in Paris. I had ten £5 and one £10 Bank Of England notes, and I believe those produced are the same which I got changed in Boulogne on Sunday morning by an Englishman named Pay, residing on the quay at Boulogne. All my English notes which I received from Pay were put in the sac; and were marked by him, with the exception of 1 or 2. Those I retained, were not marked by Pay. The rest I received from Pay himself at his house. The two bank Post Bills, value £50 each, I received from Monteau in Paris. Those produced I believe are the same.

Various other notes, Post Bills, and Bills of Exchange were identified as those which the prosecutor had received from a person named Chaigneau, living in the Rue de la Paix, Paris.

Examination resumed – The prisoner knew there was a large sum in the portfolio and sac. I told him so myself on the Monday, when Hastier came to speak to me. He said “I have your money, and when you want it I will give it to you. There is a portfolio and a bag which Mr. Breach has put in my charge”. I said to the prisoner take great care of them, as they contain a large sum of money (describing the amount in each).

This closed the examination of the prosecutor, when the case was adjourned till eleven o'clock on Tuesday.

The prisoner was committed to Dover.

Southeastern Gazette 1 July 1856

Local News

Robbery at the Pavilion Hotel.

On Thursday afternoon information was received by the magistrates’ clerk, that a most extensive robbery had taken place at the Pavilion Hotel. Upon inquiry it appeared that a French gentleman, of large fortune, had arrived on Sunday evening, bringing with him several thousands of pounds, which he had entrusted to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the hotel, until he left. Mr. Breach having occasion to leave Folkestone for a short time, gave the money into the care of his manager, Mr. Augustus Hastier. Mr. Alfred de la Motte went to Dover, and on his return asked for the money. The manager left the hotel at two o'clock that morning for London; he telegraphed down to say he should be home next day, which message arrived while the waiter Bond was conversing with Mr. de la Motte, who became uneasy about the money, and wished the place to be searched. A cupboard was broken open, and the bag in which the money was placed found there, but it had been cut open, and £1,500 abstracted in English and French notes. Telegraphic messages, with a description of the manager, were sent to all parts of the kingdom, and Superintendent Steer was dispatched to London to make enquiries, and Mr. Mark Richards (Custom-house agent) was dispatched to Boulogne, via Calais, to get the number of the notes; Sergeant Fleet was also sent to Dover to look out. As Mr. Richards left the train, he thought it would be possible Hastier might also be there, and watching, saw him come out muffled up, and at once gave him into custody, taking charge of the money. On searching him the whole of the notes were found upon him, and some loose cash of his own, a handsome bag, containing every requisite for the toilet, and a passport for Belgium.

On Friday, at three o’clock, the prisoner was brought before The Mayor, Wm. Major, S. Mackie, S. Godden, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey, and J. Kingsnorth, Esqs,, borough magistrates, when the following evidence was adduced:—

Alfred de la Motte sworn, through Mr. Olivier, interpreter: I am a private gentleman, residing in Paris. I came by the Folkestone steamer from Boulogne to Folkestone on Sunday, intending to go to London. I had with me a leather bag containing about 430,000 francs, but I could not exactly say how much. I made an arrangement with Mr. Breach about the money, through Mr. Bond, the waiter. I gave him the bag, and he told Mr. Breach, interpreting my words, that he was to take charge of it, that it contained about 430,000 francs, and that I did not wish to have such a large sum by me in my room. The money was contained in a leather bag, and enclosed in a portfolio, and no one could open it but myself. The notes were English and French, the latter of 1,000 francs each, with a quantity of sovereigns and half-sovereigns. Next day Mr. Breach told me that he was going from home, and that he had given the money to his manager, Mr. Hastier, whom he introduced to me. I told him what it contained, and he said I could have it when I wanted it. Having an intention to go to Dover I asked for the money, but as I was going in an open boat I thought the money would not be safe. I returned from Dover on Thursday afternoon, at 2 o’clock, and asked for my money, when I was told that Mr. Hastier was in London. Feeling uneasy about it, I asked them to search the house and break open locks, and I would pay expenses. At this moment a telegraphic dispatch came, saying he would return next day. A cupboard was opened, and the bag was found, but the notes were gone; the portfolio was not broken. Nearly all the notes produced I can identify as those I left in the bag.

The prisoner (who appeared to be very downcast and was leaning on the dock) said that when the matter was explained there would be no occasion to proceed further with it. He was then remanded to Tuesday next.

The prosecutor was most anxious to forgive the prisoner, and said he would freely give him the money. This, however, did not occur in court, but previously. He agreed, however, to be bound over in £1,000 to appear at the sessions next Friday, to prosecute.

Singular Disclosures. Since the examination of Mr. Hastier, some very curious circumstances have come to light respecting the money brought over by the prosecutor. After the prisoner had been conveyed to Dover gaol, Mr. Mark Richards, custom-house agent (and to whom great credit is due for the vigilance he exercised in apprehending the prisoner at Dover) was employed by Mr. de la Motte to go with a lady, then supposed to be his wife, to London, with the money, and to place the same in the hands of Messrs. Rothschild, for investment. Mr. Richards proceeded there, but the money was declined, and they returned to Folkestone. These suspicious circumstances induced Superintendent Steer to telegraph to London, making enquiries, and particularly as the sister and uncle of the prosecutor had arrived from London, having been in search of him there. They stated that Mr. de la Motte had had the money entrusted to him in France to invest in French securities, but that he had brought it to England and also another man’s wife, and they wished him to be apprehended. Mr. Hart, the magistrate’s clerk, having been consulted, could not advise that course and soon afterwards, Saunders, one of the Detective force from London, arrived, having been deputed by Sir Richard Mayne, commissioner or police, to make enquiries; it was ultimately agreed that the balance of cash, about £15,000, should be sealed up and deposited in the joint names of Mr. Hart and Mr. Saunders, and taken to the French Embassy, there to await the issue of events. Mr. de la Motte still remains at the hotel, possibly till the final examination of the prisoner.

The affair has created some sensation in the town, and it is generally believed that the prosecutor has made the prisoner aware that he was not the owner of the property, and that, as he was not returning to the hotel till Friday he would by that time have been out of the country. Prosecutor, however, returning on Thursday, the whole affair was discovered and the delinquent apprehended. We believe that very great exertions were made by Mr. Hart his clerk (Mr. Davidson), Superintendent Steer, and Sergeant Fleet, to trace the prisoner and recover the money. The prisoner Hastier did not attempt to change the notes so that no clue could be obtained, and he sent a stranger to the station to telegraph to the Pavilion station when he proposed returning; on the same evening he made for Dover, a route it was hardly likely he would take, being well known and recently manager at the Lord Warden Hotel, Mr. Richards particularly deserves a handsome reward for
His vigilance in the apprehension of the prisoner and the recovery of the money.

Folkestone Chronicle 5 July 1856

Tuesday July 1st :- Before the Mayor, S. Godden, S. Mackie, W. Major, W. Bateman. J. Kelsey esqs., and Captain Kennicott.

Augustus Hastier was brought up on remand from Friday last, for the robbery at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Lewis of the firm Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place, Holborn, attended on behalf of the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis demanded the privilege of cross-examining Mr. De la Motte, on the evidence given by him on Friday last. This being refused, Mr. Lewis said, from circumstances which had come to his knowledge, he might not have another opportunity of cross-examining this gentleman.

Sergeant Fleet said he had investigated the case, and in order to complete it he must ask for a further remand.

This the clerk to the magistrates advised, as the case was so incomplete, there not having been sufficient time to procure the necessary evidence. The magistrates having consulted for a short time, again remanded the prisoner till Tuesday next, at 11 o'clock.

Mr. Lewis then applied for some portion of the money, found upon the prisoner, and which he could prove was his own property, to be given up to him for the purposes of his defence, but this the magistrates agreed they could not allow.

Southeastern Gazette 8 July 1856

Local News

The Pavilion Hotel Robbery.—On Tuesday last, Auguste Hastier, late Manager of the Pavilion Hotel, was brought before the sitting magistrates for re-examination, charged with stealing £400. Mr. Lewis, of the firm ot Lewis and Lewis, of London, attended for the prisoner. After some consultation, the prisoner was remanded to Tuesday (this day.) It is generally thought that a special sessions will be held by the Recorder, and the prisoner tried here.

Folkestone Chronicle 12 July 1856

Tuesday July 8th :- Before J. Tolputt esq., Mayor, S. Mackie, G. Kennicott, S. Godden, W. Major, W. Bateman, J. Kelcey and J. Kinsnorth esqs.

Augustus Hastier was brought before the bench on remand, for re-examination, charged with robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone. Mr. Lewis, of the firm Lewis Brothers of Ely Place, Holborn again attended for the defence. No solicitor was present to support the charge.

John Francis Bond deposed he was a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, and remembered Mr. De la Motte coming to the hotel on June 22nd; he came by the Boulogne boat, about a quarter past 2; it was a Sunday. He wished to have a sitting room and bedroom on the first floor. He then said he wanted to see Mr. Breach to deposit some money. The witness took him to Mr. Breach, with a bag and portfolio, (the bag was quite full of something). The witness saw some bank notes put in the bag; there were some Bank Of England notes and some French bank notes; the bag was locked before it was given to him. Did not see the portfolio opened. The bag appeared heavy. Witness did not see any coin. Gave both bag and portfolio to Mr. Breach. Mr. De la Motte went with him, and they were handed over in his presence; the prisoner was not present at the time. Mr. De la Motte told witness to tell Mr. Breach that they contained gold and notes; witness interpreted for him. Mr. Breach left home on the Tuesday, and witness had no instructions about the money until the following day, when Mr. De la Motte went to Dover. He told witness he should not return until the following day, and he wished to see the prisoner. They left the hotel and met prisoner on the beach, and witness handed Mr. De la Motte's keys to him. (The witness was about to give a conversation that passed, but Mr. Lewis interposed, and said it was proposed to give as evidence a conversation that took place; now as both parties who heard that conversation were present, and one of them would be examined as a witness, he held it was more to the purpose to elicit that conversation from a principal rather than a witness; he should therefore object to this witness stating the conversation that took place).

Mr. Hart advised the magistrates to accept the witness' evidence.

Mr. Lewis said there was an act of Parliament expressly to prevent magistrates' clerks from being advocates, and strongly condemned the practice.

Examination continued – Mr. De la Motte gave his keys to witness, who handed them to prisoner; did not give the message, Mr. De la Motte being there himself. On the Thursday Mr. De la Motte came back from Dover, about half past 2. Witness saw him in his room, and he immediately asked him about his money. Witness told him that the prisoner had gone to town by the 2 o'clock a.m. mail train. Witness made enquiries, and found that no message had been left for Mr. De la Motte, who became very anxious about his money, and suggested that locks might be opened; if he could but see it he would be satisfied. Witness consented, with the other principal servants, and the result was that a cupboard was opened by a locksmith, who picked the lock, and witness took out the bag and portfolio, the same as Mr. Breach received.The bag was cup, and all the top part of it was emptied; there were no notes in it. Mr. De la Motte was called in immediately. The portfolio was also there, but apparently not opened. Witness showed Mr. De la Motte the bag, and he immediately remarked it had been cut. He took out his keys and opened the bag, and also the portfolio. There were a number of sovereigns at the bottom – about 485. The portfolio, Mr. De la Motte said, had not been opened. Saw a large number of bank notes in it. The prisoner was not present when this took place. Mr De la Motte gave a receipt for the money left to the housekeeper of the Pavilion. Measures were afterwards taken to recover the missing money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – After the conversation on Wednesday, recollected having one with the prisoner on the Monday about the gentleman who had arrived on Sunday. Witness did not remember that prisoner said Mr. De la Motte had given him (prisoner) some money. Would not swear that prisoner said nothing about it. He (witness) told the prisoner that the gentleman had given him as much gold as he could carry. Had some conversation with Mr. De la Motte about exchanging the money for him; offered £39 2s. for every 1,000 francs. Prisoner did not tell Mr. De la Motte he could get better exchange in London than that offered by witness. Believed the conversation ended there. After the money was counted, Mr. De la Motte stated that he had lost from £1,400 to £1,600 or about 35,000 francs. When Mr. De la Motte was pressing for his money, witness, for the first time, heard of the serious amount of the whole, about 400,000 or 500,000 francs. The bag produced was stuffed at the top with notes; could not say if they were in the divisions. Mr De la Motte took the notes from separate packets and pressed them into the bag; they were not pinned together. Mr. De la Motte's hand passed from his pocket to the bag more than twice; his hand was moderately full each time.

By the Bench. – The cupboard was relocked after Mr. De la Motte had his money.

James Gaby Breach deposed he was proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner was manager of the hotel, and had been so for three months. On Sunday, June 22nd, the witness Bond came to him with a gentleman, having a bag and a portfolio. The gentleman was Mr. De la Motte; the bag produced was the one given to witness. Bond put the bag and portfolio in his hands, and told him they contained money, which he was requested to take car of until Monday. Mr. De la Motte told witness (through Bond) that the bag contained gold, and the portfolio notes of the Bank Of France, and there was much in value. Witness took them and locked them up; no-one knew where they were put. Later in the day the prisoner gave witness two rolls of bank notes, one of the Bank Of England, the other of France; the French notes were pinned together. The prisoner did not know how much money there was; he told witness they were as the gentleman had given them to him. Witness counted the notes, but could not recollect if there were 38 or 39 1,000 franc notes; there were 65 £5 Bank Of England notes. The prisoner was not present when the notes were counted. Witness kept the notes in his possession until the following day, when, going home for a week, he told the prisoner there was a considerable sum of money deposited with him by the gentleman in No. 21, and that on the following morning he should have possession of the money. When the prisoner gave witness the notes he (witness) remarked to him that the gentleman had already deposited a great amount of money with him. On the following morning (Tuesday) witness called prisoner into his private sitting room, unlocked a cupboard, and took the two bundles of notes given him by the prisoner, and put them into the drawer in the cupboard: there was a nest of drawers that the door enclosed. Witness then showed prisoner the portfolio and the bag of money, which were in the cupboard, but forgot whether they were taken out, drew the prisoner's attention to them, locked the door, and gave him the key. Told the prisoner to ascertain if the gentleman would take the money away that day, if not, the prisoner was to take the money to the bank, and deposit it there, as he (witness) did not like the responsibility of having such a quantity of money, it being more than he liked. Witness did not say which bank, but it was understood that he meant the bank in Folkestone, there being only one here. Witness added he did not like the manner in which the money was brought to him, and wished it taken away, as he understood he was only taking care of it for one night. Witness also told him that if anything occurred he was to telegraph to him, as he would travel too fast for a letter to overtake him. This had reference to the general business of the hotel of sufficient importance to communicate. Witness left by the 8 a.m. express train, and received a telegraphic message in Dublin, on the following Saturday, about 8 p.m., the first communication from Folkestone. On witness' return he found the cupboard locked, but was informed it had been opened, and the money removed, and the receipt was now put into his hands. Witness afterwards obtaine the key of the cupboard from the police; he then opened the cupboard, and found the rolls of notes, &c., were gone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Prisoner had been in his employ about 3 months; he had been manager of the Lord Warden at Dover for 2 years previous. Witness told the prisoner what the proprietor of the Lord Warden had told him respecting him. The proprietor might have told him what his duties had been, but he had not been told that he had entire control of the money department. The money was brought to witness by the prisoner between 8 and 9 o'clock on Sunday evening. Could assign no reason why he did not count the money given him by the prisoner: it was the confidence he had in the prisoner that induced him to receive it without counting it. Witness afterwards counted it, but not in prisoner's presence. If there had been fictitious money, or lead, he should have placed it where he did. Might have told the prisoner to be careful of the Frenchman, as he did not like the way in which the money had been deposited, it appeared such a careless way of doing business. When the money was deposited by Mr. De la Motte he might have named there was upwards of £400 in gold, but that the other was of the most value. Witness counted the notes given him by the prisoner, and was quite sure there were 38 or 39 French ones. The notes the prisoner gave him he kept in his own possession till the morning of leaving, when they were put into the cupboard with the bag and portfolio. Between the Sunday and the Monday the money was put in a private drawer by night, but was kept by witness about his person in the daytime. When witness was about to leave he re-deposited the money with the prisoner that he received from him, and showed him where the other was deposited, and gave him the key of the cupboard. Between the Sunday and Tuesday that witness kept the key, it was never out of his possession the whole time. Others had access to that room at all times; the outer door is never fastened. Never heard that the gentleman had other valuable property in the house.

From a question here put by the clerk to the magistrates, Mr. Lewis again addressed the bench, and said he must again press upon the bench that the magistrates' clerk must not be allowed to act as an advocate; he might look and appear very innocent, but he was afraid he was not so.

Cross-examination continued – Witness meant by his last answer to imply that he put the notes into the cupboard, and gave him the key. He meant by this that he redelivered the money he had received from him. Witness did not know whether any letters had been received for the prisoner since his return, but he understood letters had been received, addressed to the prisoner, and he had been told they were given to Mr. Hart.

John Coram deposed he was superintendent of the Dover police. He was sent for on the 22nd June by Mr. Wheeler, the proprietor of the Lord Warden. The witness went and was informed that a telegraphic message had been received from Folkestone. While in conversation a person came and said the prisoner was at Galantie's Hotel in Dover. I went to the hotel. On being informed there was no officer there, he entered one of the rooms and found the prisoner in company with a custom-house agent from Folkestone, named Richards. On entering the room witness apprehended the prisoner, but before he could charge him, Richards said it was all right, that Mr. Hastier was going back to settle the matter. Witness enquired what he meant, when witness said there was no charge against him, and that everything would be amicably arranged, and that he had the property in his possession in a bag. Witness asked Richards if he was a constable, when he said he was, and also a commission agent. Witness had doubts about it, and pressed Richards for a direct answer, when he said he was not a constable. Witness then required possession of the property from him, Richards however handed the bag to sergeant Fleet who was also present. Witness detained the prisoner about two hours and ultimately locked him up at the station, prisoner was searched and there was found on him five £5 Bank Of England notes, £5 6s. in gold and silver, two 20 franc gold pieces, a Tuscan lottery ticket, a passport, a railway through-ticket, a gold watch and key with small compass attached, all these articles were afterwards given up to sergeant Fleet.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Witness was fetched by Mr. Way, station master, Dover station, to Galantie's Hotel. When witness got there he was told they had sent for a fly to return to Folkestone. Some person in the room said this. The prisoner and Richards were the only persons in the room when he went in. The landlord of the Inn followed, and Fleet came close after. Witness waited 2 hours because some persons were coming from Folkestone, one named Davidson, and another named Palmer, when everything would be arranged. When Davidson arrived he told witness that the matter was going before the magistrates, where he would prefer a charge of stealing or embezzling £1,600. No-one signed the charge sheet. This occurred after the prisoner was in custody, and after Richards told him no charge would be preferred. Witness would have detained the prisoner without the conversation between Davidson and himself. Would have detained him till he had seen the person to whom the property belonged. Was not present when anything else was said about a settlement. Ten minutes elapsed after Davidson arrived before the prisoner was locked up. Davidson wanted the prisoner to be taken before the police at Folkestone. The prisoner was ultimately locked up about 2 a.m.

Mr. Steer the superintendent here applied for another remand until Tuesday next.

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench requested that a portion of the money found on the prisoner and not owned, might be handed over to him for the purpose of the prisoner's defence.

A female witness, we understand from London, was bound over in the sum of £100 to attend and give evidence on Tuesday next.

Southeastern Gazette 15 July 1856

Local News

Sessions Hall, Tuesday: Before the Mayor, W. Major, S, Mackie, S. Godden, J. Kelcey, W. Bateman, J. Kingsnorth, and G. Kennieott, Esqs.

The Pavilion Hotel Robbery.—Auguste Hastier, late manager at the Pavilion Hotel, was brought up from Dover gaol, for re-examination, charged with stealing £1,500
The hall was numerously attended by the inhabitants, anxious to hear the proceedings.

Mr. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, of London, attended for the prisoner.

John Francis Bond examined: I am a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel. Mr. de la Motte came to Folkestone on Sunday, June 22nd, by the Boulogne steamer, at about half-past 2; he wished to have a bed-room and sitting-room, which I gave him on the 1st floor. He then told me he wished to see Mr. Breach, the proprietor, to deposit some money with him, I took the money (in a bag) and a portfolio to Mr. Breach ; it was a leather bag, and appeared quite full. I partly saw it crammed with notes, which he took out of different pockets. The bag appeared very heavy. Mr, de la Motte went with me, and I handed the articles to Mr. Breach in his presence; prisoner was not present. Mr.de la Motte told me to translate to Mr. Breach his request, which I did, that he should take charge of it, as it contained notes and gold. I heard no more about the money until Wednesday, the 25th. Mr. Breach left home on the 24th. I had no direction about the money from Mr. Breach. On Wednesday Mr. de la Motte was going to Dover, and said he would be back on Thursday. He asked me to see Mr. Hastier, whom we found sitting on the beach. I handed the keys of Mr. de la Motte's apartments to the prisoner on Thursday. Mr. de la Motte returned, he came by the 2 o’clock train from Dover. As soon as I had seen him to his room, he asked me for his money. I told him Mr. Hastier had gone up by the 2 o’clock mail train that morning. I made enquiries, and found that no message had been left. I then went to Mr. de la Motte, and asked him to wait until 4 o’clock. While I was talking a message came down from London, that the prisoner would not return till next day. Mr. de la Motte being very impatient, and offering to pay for breaking open any locks, I consulted 4 or 5 of the other servants, and we decided to break open a cupboard in No. 1 room. It was my suggestion. Mr. Francis’s man “picked” the lock. I opened the door and took out the bag; it was cut, and the top part was empty; there were no notes in it. 1 then called Mr. de la Motte, and ne unlocked the bag and also his portfolio. There was a large lump of sovereigns at the bottom of the bag. I assisted to count sovereigns; there were 485, as near as I can recollect. The portfolio had not been touched. I saw a number of French bank notes. We took a receipt for the rest, and then handed the money to Mr. de la Motte. The housekeeper (Miss Pollock) had the receipt. Goldsmith and Leggatt (waiters) were present.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—No conversation took between me and any other persons about the money between Sunday and Tuesday. I do not recollect the prisoner stating that Mr. de la Motte had given him money. I had some conversation changing some French money with Mr. de la Motte. I offered £39 5s. for a 1000fr. note. I limited it to taking 10,000fr. I told Mr. de la Motte he would get a better exchange in London. He told me that the bag contained about 400,000 or 500,000 francs when we were searching for the money. The notes were pressed into the bag with the hand.

James Gaby Breach, examined: I am the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. Prisoner was manager in my establishment about three months. On Sunday afternoon, 22nd June, Bond came to me with Mr. de la Motte, who, he said, wished me to take care of portfolio and bag, containing money, until Monday. Mr. de la Motte also told me they contained gold and notes, and were very valuable. I locked them up; no one knew where I put them. Later in the day the prisoner gave me two rolls of notes; one was French, the other English; the French notes were pinned together. I asked him how much money there was, and he said they were in the same state as when he received them. I counted the notes; there were 38 or 39 French notes of 1,000fr. each and £65 in English notes. I had a memorandum of them, which I cannot find. I did not count them in the prisoner’s presence. I kept them in my possession. Nothing more occurred until the following day, when told the prisoner I was going away for a week. I told him I had a considerable sum of money deposited with me by the gentleman in the No. 21 room, and that on the following morning I would hand over the money to him to take care of. I recollect that when the prisoner gave me the notes, I said that the gentleman had also deposited a large sum of money with me. On Tuesday morning, before 8 o’clock, I called the prisoner into my sitting-room. I unlocked the cupboard, took out the bundle of notes, and put them into the drawer of the cupboard, which is enclosed. I showed him the portfolio and the bag of money which were in the cupboard, and I particularly drew his attention to them. I then locked the cupboard door and gave him the key. I told him to ascertain from the gentleman whether he was going to take it away that day; if not, to take it and deposit it in the bank, in the same state as I left it, as I did not wish it to be left in the house. I did not feel comfortable in going away and leaving such a sum of money in the louse, as it was throwing considerable responsibility on those I left behind. I said I did not like the manner in which the money was brought and left with me, but I did not expect to keep it for more than one night. I told the prisoner to telegraph me if anything particular occurred. I received a telegraphic message in Dublin on Saturday evening, at about 8 o'clock, to return home. When I returned I found I could not open the cupboard. I got the key from the police officer Fleet, and found that both bag and portfolio were gone.

Cross-examined—The prisoner was formerly manager at the Lord Warden Hotel; he did not tell me he conducted all the money transactions there. I had other strong recommendations with him, and I had no reason for doubting him. It was the confidence I had in the prisoner that induced me to receive the notes from him as I did, without counting them. If the bag had contained lead or fictitious paper, I should have been placed in a position of great difficulty. I think it likely I said to the prisoner “Be careful of the Frenchman”. I did not like the way in which the money was left; there appeared so much carelessness about it.

By the Mayor: The prisoner gave me no guarantee or sureties.

John Coram, superintendent of the Dover police, examined: I was sent for on the 25th last month, by the proprietor of the Lord Warden (Mr. Wheeler), who told me that he had had a telegraphic message from Folkestone to get Hastier stopped for stealing £1,600 from Mr de la Motte. While I was there a person came and told me that the prisoner was at Galante s, and had been stopped by a person, but there was no officer present. I went there, and saw the prisoner in company with a Custom-house agent (Mr. Richards). On entering the room I told Mr. Hastier he must come with me. Before I could state the charge, Richards said “lt is all right. He is going back with me to Folkestone”. I asked mm what ne Meant; he said everything would be amicably settled, and there would be no charge against the prisoner, and also that he had got the property there (holding it in his hand.) I asked him if he was a constable and he said he was. I had my doubts and cautioned him; he then said he was not. I told him as he was not a constable he must deliver the property up to me. He refused to do so, and handed it to Sergeant Fleet, who was also present. I took the prisoner to the police-station, and found a quantity of property on him, which I have since delivered up.

At this stage of the proceedings, upon the application of Supt. Steer, the prisoner was remanded to Tuesday, at 11 o clock. Upon the application of Mr. Lewis, £25 was ordered to be given up to him for the prisoner’s defence. The prisoner looked very dejected, and appeared to feel his degraded position.

Folkestone Chronicle 19 July 1856

Tuesday July 15th – Before J. Tolputt, esq., Mayor, G. Kennicott, J. Kelcey, S. Mackie, W. Major, S. Godden and W. Bateman esqrs.

Augustus Hastier, charged with the robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, was again brought up on remand from Tuesday last, for further examination. Mr. Lewis again attended on behalf of the prisoner.

The first witness examined was Emily Hamilton, who deposed that she had known the prisoner 2 years, and that she had last seen him about 5 months since. (Some objection was made here by Mr. Lewis to a question regarding some letters). The witness here fainted in court so that her examination could not be proceeded with.

The next witness called was William Smith, who deposed that he was a detective officer in the Metropolitan Police, and that on Sunday, 30th June, he went to the lodgings of Miss Hamilton, Hanover Place, Pimlico, and asked her if she had hear from Hastier lately; she said she had. Asked her if he could see the letters. She answered “Yes” and gave them up. The two now produced are the same witness received. They had remained in his custody since then.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis, - She told me she had been in the habit of receiving letters from Hastier. She showed me more than the two produced; I only asked for them. Did not read any of the letters she had received. There might have been about 100 more in a bundle; did not take charge of them.

The witness Hamilton returning into court, her examination was resumed. – She desposed that the letter (No. 1) handed to her she received by the post on Wednesday 25th or 26th June. It was in the prisoner's handwriting, and in the following terms:-
Pavilion Hotel,
Wednesday
Dearest Emily; - When you receive this note send me the following telegraphic message and I will settle with you when in town. Yours ever,
A. Victor.
“From Hamilton, London, to Mr. Hastier, Pavilion, Folkestone”
“Come up immediately, I must see you; urgent”

Sent a telegraphic message as required from an office in Westminster, according to the instructions in the letter received from the prisoner, and in the same words as the letter produced. Did not see the prisoner in London, nor till she saw him here. The second letter produced witness received after she had written to know if the telegraphic dispatch had reached him. The answer was received about 3 days after, and was in the following terms; -
June 27th
I must pray you, my dearest Emily, not to write to me any more until you hear from me, for your letter would not reach me. You will hear from me in a few days, and believe me ever yours.
Victor,
In haste.

Did not keep a copy of the letter she wrote. The letter came in reply to the one written to Hastier. The letter was in the handwriting of Hastier.

Cross examined by Mr. Lewis – Had never seen Hastier write. This was the first telegraphic dispatch of a similar kind she had received from him. Never had telegraphed that she would receive him. She might have written in reply. Had written to him many times. Never received a visit from Hastier in consequence of letters written to him. Hastier did not visit the witness in consequence of the telegraphic message. In March or April 1855 the prisoner did visit the witness in Church Street, London. Could not say if that visit was in consequence of a telegraphic dispatch. Witness visited Dover in consequence of a dispatch. Left Dover by the 3.20 train for London. (Witness here again fainted and was obliged to leave the court.)

Frances Pollock deposed she was housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel. Remembered Mr. Breach leaving Folkestone on Tuesday morning before the prisoner's departure. Prisoner left on the night of the 26th. Saw him about 11 o'clock in No. 1. (Mr. Breach's private sitting room). Prisoner said he was to leave for London on the mail train at 2 a.m., from the upper station. Witness was surprised, and said to the prisoner, “am I to be left alone when Mr. And Mrs. Breach are both away – a poor little nervous housekeeper – I shall feel as if all the bricks in the house are falling on my head”. Tried to persuade the prisoner to stay till the morning; thought the matter was not of much importance. The prisoner said he would lie down on the couch until the train left – he had had a telegraphic dispatch and must go. The prisoner requested witness to get up early, so as to keep the other servants out of mischief. Noticed the prisoner was very agitated, and asked him if he was unwell. Witness left the prisoner in the room and retired to rest about 12 p.m., and came down again about half past 8. Before she left her room she received a telegraphic dispatch from the prisoner, which she destroyed – thought it of no consequence – it merely informed her where she could find the key of Mr. De la Motte's room to give him in the morning. It was from Mr. Hastier. Witness was directed by it to give the keys to Mr. De la Motte only. This was on Thursday morning. Received another telegraphic dispatch about 3 p.m. from the prisoner, as follows : -
“Hastier, London, to Miss Pollock, Folkestone”. “Cannot come down tonight. Will be at Folkestone by first train tomorrow morning”. Mr. De la Motte did not return till about half past 2. She gave him his keys after receiving the message. Mr. De la Motte enquired if prisoner had returned, and was very anxious about his money. Witness told him she knew nothing about any money, but it would be all right when prisoner returned later that night or the next morning. Mr. De la Motte was very excited, and said it was a large sum of money. Witness told him if she knew where it was she could not give it to him; to which he answered if he saw it he would be satisfied. Witness and the principal waiters then consulted together, and they agreed to search for the money. Bond, the waiter, suggested that if the money were anywhere it must be in No. 1 (Mr. Breach's private room). A locksmith was then sent for and the lock of an escritoire in No. 1 was picked; inside was a portfolio and a courier's purse. Bond felt in and thought the money was all right, and immediately called Mr. De la Motte, who opened the portfolio, and found the money all right. The purse was found cut. Could not understand what Mr. De la Motte said, but was told that notes had been abstracted and the gold left.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - Mr. De la Motte took the money away, put the gold in little piles, but did not count it in witness' presence. Mr. De la Motte gave witness a receipt for the money. Mr. Davidson was present. Mr. De la Motte did not take the money away before the receipt was given. Believed she had received the receipt from Mr. Bond's hand. It was an error when she said Mr. De la Motte gave her (witness) the receipt; an hour had passed since the discovery of the money and the giving of the receipt. Could not say if any other person beside Mr. De la Motte had counted the money. After the receipt was given nothing further was done. Prisoner had had a conversation with witness regarding some articles of vertu, which Mr. De la Motte had shown him in his room. The prisoner told witness Mr. De la Motte had filled his (prisoner's) pockets with money, prisoner named a gold basin and ewer that Mr. De la Motte had shown him, and also some pictures. Prisoner did not say that Mr. De la Motte had “done the custom house officers”. With reference to the “telegraphic message” first received, it was not written on half a dispatch paper, did not sign for the same, it was given to witness by “Sarah”, one of the still room maids. Did not recollect how the paper was folded, it was addressed to witness on the outside, formed an opinion it was a telegraphic message from the appearance of it. Could not recollect by whom it was signed. Cannot remember if it was signed by Hastier or not. The second telegraph message was folded and in an envelope, but could not recollect if the first was in an envelope or not.

William Bevan deposed, he was one of the night porters at the Pavilion Hotel. On the 28th June was on duty at about half past 11 p.m. Mr. Hastier was on the lawn. Afterwards found he had gone to bed, saw a light in his room. This was about 12 p.m. Half an hour after Mr. Hastier had directed witness to get him a fly for the upper station, as he was going to London by the mail train at 2 a.m. He went into No. 1 (Mr. Breach's room), soon after Mr. Hastier came out and asked for a sheet of brown paper. Mr. Hastier gave witness the key of No. 19 (his office) and asked him to give it to the housekeeper in the morning. At half past one Mr. Hastier left in the fly, had not seen the prisoner since, till now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - It was not unusual to see a light in Mr. Hastier's room at 12 p.m., he generally went to bed at that hour. Prisoner told witness to call Miss Pollock at 7 o'clock in the morning, he answered it was all right she was booked.

Cross examined by the bench: - When the prisoner left the hotel he had a small brown paper parcel in his hand, he was dressed in his usual clothes.

Francios Miland Chaigneau being now about to be examined, Joseph Ollivier was sworn interpreter. Mr. Lewis addressing the interpreter said he understood at the last examination he had not interpreted correctly; he therefore cautioned him as he (Mr. Lewis) had now a check on him.

Francois M. Chaigneau deposed he was a money changer, residing at No. 32, Rue de la Paix, in Paris. Knew nothing of Mr. De la Motte. Recollected seeing him on the 20th of June at his (witness') place of business. This was Friday. He then requested to have English money for bank post bills, because they came from an agent and he was afraid they were bad ones. Witness gave change for them in French bank notes to the value of £200; there was no gold given in the change. Possibly he might be able to know the money given in change. Could not identify the English bank notes but identified an Irish bank note or bill now produced for £20; an order for £5 on the Glasgow bank; a circular note on the National Bank of Scotland for £10, dated 18th June, payable at Glynn & Co., London, or what is known as a letter of credit. Knew the notes being produced as being the same from his signature being endorsed on the back, and from the entry in his book. Remembered the circumstance of giving those notes in change, it being the last transaction he had had that night. The book he now produced was the book in which the business done every day was first entered.
(Some remarks being made on the case, the Mayor said the bench only wanted to be put right on the matter. Mr. Davidson, clerk to the magistrates' clerk, here started up, and addressing the bench, said he wanted no putting right, he was always right)

Examination continued: - The circular letter or note was taken by the witness the same evening, the 13th June, in the way of business. The particular entries referred to in the book produced were made by the witness himself. He was certain he gave the notes produced to Mr. De la Motte, as they were in the show case in the window of his place of business; one of these had been placed in the case but a short time before.
(Another discussion here took place, when Mr. Lewis interposed, and remarked that Mr. Davidson should not take upon himself to interfere in the manner he had done. He (Mr. Davidson) had addressed the bench in a very impudent manner; and he (Mr. Lewis) understood that all the witnesses had been examined by Mr. Hart previous to coming into court, without he (Mr. Lewis), as the attorney for the prisoner, being there. Mr. Hart, the clerk to the magistrates, explained that Mr. Lewis had interposed and created confusion by irrelevant remarks being introduced into the case before the bench).

Examination continued: - The £5 and £10 Bank Of England notes produced were there all day; that is to say, from the time they were purchased. Witness could not say whether from 1, 2, or 3 o'clock on that particular day. The £20 Bank Of Ireland post bill produced was the last purchase witness had made that day.

Mr. Lewis declined to cross-examine this witness.

Herny Pay deposed that he resided at No. 84, Rue de Boston, Boulogne sur Mer; he was by profession a money changer. On 22nd June, Mr. De la Motte came to his place of business and requested change for French money into English. The amount changed was £328. Witness gave him part in notes and part in gold. There was a Bank Of England note for £100, one for £50, and £85 in five and ten pound notes, principally five pound notes of the Bank Of England, the remainder was in sovereigns and half sovereigns; could identify the £100 note produced but not the smaller ones. They were all stamped at the time he gave them to Mr. De la Motte. The notes were stamped with the witness' name; the stamp was coloured blue, (stamp produced) inscribed “H. Pay, House Agent, 84, Rue de Boston, Boulogne sur Mer”. No-one could have stamped them except witness as he kept no clerk; there was no date on the stamp. Had not the slightest doubt but that the notes produced were the same as given by witness to Mr. De la Motte.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - Was not in a larger way of business; had not used the stamp long; might have used it for 3 or 4 months; could not tell how many notes he had stamped in that time; always stamped the notes paid to private persons. If the notes produced had been shown to him in Boulogne, he should not be able to tell to whom they had been paid, nor how recently they had been in his possession – all witness could say was that the notes had been stamped by him and had been in his possession. Was requested to attend as a witness by Mr. Hart. Mr Hart had asked witness if he had sold any notes. Mr. Davidson had first written a note to witness to attend the examination – had seen Mr. Hart in Boulogne the day before yesterday; had had no conversation with Mr. Hart about this business. Mr Hart had called at his place of business yesterday, but witness was not at home. Saw Mr. Hart go on board the Folkestone boat. Had not seen Mr. Hart today before coming to the court, but saw Mr. Davidson who said nothing to witness.

Mr. Chaigneau re-examined: - The superintendent of police requested him to attend today. Mr. Hart came to his place of business and showed him the notes. Mr. Hart saw the entries made by witness. Mr. Hart spoke but the policemen were present. The conversaition was in English in the presence of witness' wife. Witness' wife was an Englishwoman.

Mark Richards deposed he was a custom house agent residing at Folkestone. On June 26th witness was at the Pavilion Hotel in conversation with Bond the waiter, had been informed of what had taken place and offered his services. Mr. Hart and Mr. Davidson came past at the time and wished someone to go to Boulogne to get the number of some notes. No person was at this time in custody for the robbery. Witness offered to go. On which he was introduced to Mr. De la Motte, who gave witness the name of a commissioner in Boulogne. Witness was to proceed via Dover to Calais and thence to Boulogne and back to Folkestone. Witeness asked if he met prisoner on the way what should he do with him, was told he should take him into custody and bring him back. This was on the day the robbery was discovered. Bond had told witness Mr. Breach had been robbed. The witness then went to the Junction Station to go to Dover by the mail train at 11 p.m. Witness looked through the carriages at the Junction too see if the prisoner was in the train, but did not see him. Proceeded to Dover by that train; before the train stopped at Dover witness got out on the platform and saw the prisoner going towards the door. Did not see the prisoner get out of the train. Witness stepped up to him and said “Mr. Hastier, you must go back to Folkestone with me”, thought he touched him, prisoner replied “Must I? Then I shall go back in the morning”. Witness answered “You must go back tonight”, upon which Mr. Bayly, who was with witness, stepped up and said “I suppose you don't want force to be used”, this was said to the prisoner. Prisoner immediately without witness asking him handed the bag he had in his hand, it was a small leather bag. The witness and prisoner walked on together to an hotel and witness told him he might have a fly to go back to Folkestone. Prisoner mentioned an hotel at the top of the town where flies could be obtained, but ultimately they went into Galantie's Hotel. On entering the prisoner asked the landlord if he could send to Packham's for a fly, and also ordered a room into which they all went. Witness then wrote a telegraph message to send to Mr. Hart at Folkestone. An answer was returned that Mr. Davidson was coming in a fly with Mr. Palmer. Shortly after a personn entered the room who gave his name as Mr. Coram, who spoke to the prisoner. Sergeant Flint of the Folkestone Police came in at the same time. Witness did not hear what passed between the prisoner and Mr. Coram, but the prisoner said “I am in the custody of Mr. Richards”. Mr. Coram spoke to witness, who replied he had no doubt he was a policeman, but not knowing him he refused to give him the bag prisoner had given him. Sergeant Fleet stepped up and said “You know me as a policeman”, and witness gave the bag to him. Witness had not opened the bag but the prisoner had, and had taken out a pocket handkerchief. There was no key to it; it opened with a spring. Witness returned to Folkestone by the mail train at 2 a.m. Witness on the way from the station charged prisoner with taking the money away, to which the prisoner answered how it came about. Witness told the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte had returned and had insisted upon seeing his money, and that he (prisoner) was suspected of having run away with it; that telegraphic dispatches had been sent to almost every port to detain him if he attempted to embark. The prisoner made an observation that it was his own fault, and that he had been a great fool and he must bear the consequences of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: - The last observation was made while they were on the way to Galentie's Hotel. No-one was present when the prisoner made the observation “I am a great fool”. Prisoner also said “I don't know how it was, but I could not resist the temptation”. Bayly at this time was gone to the station with the telegraphic message. Mr. Galantie was in and out of the room during this time. Witness looked into all the carriages at Folkestone. Knew Mr. Taglioni, the father of the danseuse; did not see him in the train at Folkestone: saw him at Dover. Prisoner, when first seen by witness, was walking with a gentleman. Hear the prisoner wish someone goodnight as witness was going up to him; did not know if it was the Station Master. Witness spoke to Mr. Hipgrave, the commissioner of the Lord Warden Hotel, but did not recollect the prisoner speaking to him. Never told the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte had sent him to look after him. Had no recollection of saying anything about a fly before Bayly came up. The prisoner lit a cigar at the Dover Castle Hotel. The prisoner had given witness the bag before the corner was turned at the end of the station. Bayly was walking on one side of the prisoner, and witness on the other at the time the cigar was lit. A proposal was made that they should come to Folkestone in a fly. Witness thought Bayly proposed to come by the train. The prisoner, however, proposed to come by a fly. Witness told prisoner he might go to any hotel he liked; the Shakespeare was proposed as it was near to Packham's, where a fly could be obtained. Never told the prisoner that it would be all right – that no charge would be preferred. Witness told Coram the prisoner was going to Folkestone with him. Coram never asked witness what he meant by “all right”. Never said all would be amicably arranged, and that no charge would be preferred against him. If Coram had sworn that it is false. (Sensation in court). Witness stayed at Galastie's till the arrival of Mr. Davidson. They began talking about the technicalities of law, which witness did not understand. Mr. Davidson said a charge would be preferred against the prisoner, and it would save expense if it was done at Folkestone. Coram asked the question as to whether a charge would be preferred at Folkestone; but previous to that the prisoner had said to Coram “You don't want to prefer a charge against me if I go back to Folkestone”. Witness had been a customs agent about 2 years; had never been in the police. Told Coram he was a constable. Witness supposed himself a constable while he had the prisoner in his charge. Never had been a constable at any time. (Mr. Lewis here recommended the witness, on any other occasion, to call himself “an amateur theif-taker”, as he (Mr. Lewis) liked things to be called by their proper names.)

The witness here added to his evidence – When the prisoner said he was very sorry for doing what he had done, witness told him that Mr. De la Motte had said he would rather have given him the money than it should have happened.

The magistrates here decided to adjourn the case till Wednesday, July 16th.

From the report of the examination of Hastier being so voluminous, and with a desire to give our readers a full report, we are compelled to defer the second day's examination until next week.

Southeastern Gazette 22 July 1856

Local News

The final examination of Auguste Hastier took place on Tuesday last, before a full bench of magistrates; the examination lasted two days. At the late hour we received the report, we are unable to give the evidence, but as the trial will shortly take place, we shall give a full report of it then.

The Special Sessions to be held by the Recorder for the trial of Auguste Hastier, for the robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, is fixed for the 30th July. The trial is likely to last two days.

Folkestone Chronicle 26 July 1856

The adjourned examination of Auguste Hastier, which was resumed on Wednesday, 16th inst, (continued from our report of last week), took place before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, J. Kelcey, W. Major, W. Bateman, S. Godden, G. Kennicott and S. Mackie esqs.

The interest in this protracted inquiry continued unabated. Several ladies who sat through the hearing of yesterday were again in attendance, having taken their seats before the bench was occupied, and expressed a quiet determination to see, as it is popularly called, “the end of it”.

William Fleet, police sergeant, repeated his evidence in chief, as deposed to at the first hearing, and fully reported in our columns, and was cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Went from Folkestone to Dover about 7 o'clock on Thursday, the 26th of June. Was watching the steam boats when the mail train arrived about 11 p.m.; saw the boats start. It was 20 minutes past 11 when witness first heard of the prisoner being in Dover; saw the prisoner first about 12 o'clock. It would take 5 minutes to go from the pier to Galantie's Hotel. When witness first saw the prisoner Mr. Richards was with him. Mr. Galantie followed witness and Mr. Coram into the room. Heard Coram tell Hastier he must go with him; Hastier replied “no, I am going to Folkestone with Mr. Richards”. Richards answered “That is quite right”. Witness thought a Mr. Palmer came into the room with them; to the best of witness' recollection no other person was present; saw Bayly there afterwards. Upon his solemn oath, did not recollect seeing a person asleep in the corner of the room. Will swear he had no conversation respecting an engineer. Cannot say whether Bayly came into the room alone; did not recollect Bayly coming in to the room; Bayly was not in the room when witness first entered; could not say if Bayly came into the room alone or not. The room was a small parlour. It was unlikely for a person to be in the room without witness seeing him. Bayly came into the room and said something about a fly. Bayly belongs to Folkestone; does not know what Bayly is; has seen him with custom-house officers. Does not know (why) he went to Dover. Does not know if Bayly took any part in the matter after Mr. Coram came into the room. When Richards said it was all right, Coram asked him what was all right; Richards replied they were going back to Folkestone. Heard nothing about the matter being “amicably settled”, or that “no charge would be preferred”. Heard Richards tell Coram he had property in the bag. Arrived at the Union about 12 p.m.. There was a dispute between Coram and Richards as to who should have the prisoner. There were several persons in the room during the time. The bag was on the table a great part of the time – witness leant upon it. Witness carried the bag to the police station. Witness came to Folkestone during the time. On his return the prisoner was searched and property given up to witness. Prisoner was left in Dover in custody. Witness brought the bag to Folkestone; came over in a fly. Stopped at one place on the road; did not go into any house. It took the witness till 4 o'clock to search the prisoner and count the money. Witness then went into the Lord Warden and waited for the train. The bag was in witness' possession the whole of this time. Prisoner never expressed any wish to stay in Dover; on the contrary, he rather wished to come to Folkestone. On witness' arrival at the Union, believed the prisoner said he had sent for a fly to go to Folkestone. Was present when Mr. Davidson arrived. Thought he had heard the prisoner ask if any charge would be preferred. It might have been Richards that asked the question. Mr. Davidson answered, “Oh, yes, I will charge him, or give him in charge”. When the prisoner was searched, made a memorandum of what was found on him. Prisoner seemed surprised when Davidson said he would charge him, and wrote something in his pocket-book. Witness had had possession of the book ever since. Witness entered what was found in the bag; the paper produced was the original memorandum. Witness did not go to Mr. Pay's, at Boulogne. Went to the witness Chaigneau's house, in Paris. There was a difficulty in obtaining the number of the notes. Conversed with Mrs. Chaigneau in English; Mrs. Chaigneau spoke to her husband in French; part of the conversation was translated to witness. Witness told Mrs. Chaigneau her husband would be wanted in Folkestone, and that he must bring his book with him, and he said he would come. The difficulty was he (Mr. Chaigneau) could not speak English. Witness did not go to Paris alone – Mr. Hart went with him to advise him, and to speak French for him.

The witness here added to his examination in chief – That on the morning of the 27th, on his way from Dover with the prisoner in a fly, he said to witness, “if Mr. De la Motte declines to prosecute will Mr. Breach do so?”; witness answered he thought he would. Prisoner then said “I don't think he will, but if he does it will be in consequence of his establishment: but whether he does or not my character will be gone – time will only retrieve it and that not in this country. I must try some other; but it is not for myself I care, it is for my friends”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Nothing had occurred to cause prisoner to say this to him. Did not recollect Mr. Hart's name being mentioned. Did not think the prisoner said it was wrong for Mr. Hart to act so harshly against him. This concersation took place after the charge was made against him by Mr. Davidson. The prisoner said nothing further about Mr. Hart, but he did about Mr. Breach – he said it would be an injury to the establishment. Witness did not caution the prisoner that anything he might say would be given in evidence against him. Witness told prisoner he was under a mistake in saying Mr. Coram had entered the room first: the prisoner said he was under the impression he had done so. All this was said without witness having cautioned the prisoner.

Angus Mackay Leith deposed he was manager of the National Provincial Bank, at Folkestone, and that no money had been deposited with him in a portfolio or bag.

Mr. De la Motte was re-examined, and repeated (through an interpreter) the evidence he gave at the first examination.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis – Witness resided at No. 7, Rue Trudon. Carried on business there for himself and friends. Witness' occupation was to buy and sell valeur. Was not a commercial man. He worked with his money. Could not tell better what he was; he had what belonged to him and lived on it. Could not say how long he lived at the Rue Trudon, but thought about 6 or 7 months; resided previously in the Faubourg, St. Germains. He bought valeur and sold them again; by this he meant everything that has a value, and is represented by paper, the paper now shown to witness was a receipt for the sale of some French Rente, it was his own; another paper was a receipt given by a broker for the sale of shares in the Credit Mobilier sold in Paris, it was his own. The whole of the money belonged to himself or somebody else, but that was business of the advocate: the money had come legally into his own hands, it was his own or those to whom he owed anything, friends had given him money to make profit of, and share with the witness, to whom he had given receipts; some might not have had receipts, (this witness showed an evident reluctance to answer the question put in cross-examination).

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench said by a recent Act of Parliament the evidence given at a preliminary enquiry like the present could be put in as evidence on trial, therefore the bench would see the necessity of his strictly cross-examining the witness.

Cross-examination continued – The money he had with him was about being deposited at Rothschild's in London. Witness had not been called upon to pay the money to any person before he left Paris. Came to England to deposit the money himself; could have done so without coming. There had been no legal proceedings commenced against him before he left Paris; is not a bankrupt by the French laws; has a friend who resides at Paris, 62, Rue Chasse de Autin, her name is the Baroness de ------, had however telegraphed to her in the name of Stewart, it was not arranged before witness left Paris to do so, he had sent a telegraph to this person by Hastier. Can play billiards, played on the Monday night. Did not send Hastier to get £5 from that deposited with him. Hastier lent him £5 which he (Hastier) had borrowed from another servant in the Pavilion. Never asked Hastier to go to London in a special train, and that he (witness) would pay for it. Had asked permission of Mr. Breach to take Hastier to London to act as interpreter for him, Mr. Breach refused to let him go. He afterwards wished Bond to go, this was for the purpose of depositing his money. Witness counted his money in Paris, had then 15,000 francs in English money, he also received 15,000 francs in English money in Boulogne. Did not count his money at the Pavilion, he only looked at it and thought it was right by the sight, gave the money to Bond in his sitting room; he could not tell the exact amount he had when at the Pavilion. Had money in all his pockets. Hastier did not ask him on Sunday what he was going to do with all that money; did not recollect a conversation having taken place between Hastier and himself on the Sunday night; recollected Hastier coming into his room respecting a telegraphic dispatch, (witness here went into calculation to prove the amount of his loss which he estimated as being about 75,875 francs). Could not tell nearer that 1,000 or 2,000 francs because of various petty amounts he had expended. This closed the case against the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis addressing the bench said he supposed the bench had made up their minds to commit his client, he should therefore not take up the time of the court needlessly but would reserve the ample defence he had for another opportunity.

The prisoner having been cautioned in the usual way said that the greater part of Mr. De la Motte's evidence was false, and that part of Richard's was incorrect. The prisoner was then committed for trial, and the witnesses bound over to attend and give evidence. Mr. Breach being bound to prosecute, and the witness De la Motte was bound in the sum of £1,000 to attend and give evidence.

To the editor of The Folkestone Chronicle:

Sir, - In the report, in your last impression, on the proceedings before the magistrates on Tuesday week, touching a charge against Auguste Hastier, for an alleged robbery at the Pavilion Hotel, I am reported to have said that “I wanted no putting right – I was always right”. As such an observation by anyone making it must subject him to much ridicule, I beg you will allow me to state what actually occurred. In the examination in chief of Mr. Chaigneau, of Paris, he was interrupted by remarks from Mr. Lewis, which the latter was clearly out of order in making. I objected, and Mr. Lewis appealed to the magistrates, and after some conversation, I read from a previous part of the deposition what the witness had stated, (and which he then re-affirmed), and it was admitted on all hands, and especially by the witness, that there was no foundation for the interruption. I was about to proceed with the deposition, when an observation to Mr. Lewis fell from the Mayor to the effect that “all was right – that we only wanted to be put right”. I, knowing that it was purely a mistake or mis-recollection of Mr. Lewis, immediately stood up and observed “I beg your pardon, Sir, we did not want any putting right – we were right”. Now, what a difference there is between these words, and those in your report. I simply did not wish the public, or the prisoner, to be under the impression that either his interests, or the ends of justice, were furthered by continued interruptions, which were equally unjustified by law, and wholly uncalled for.

Yours, most obediently,

Thomas A. Davidson

Folkestone Chronicle 2 August 1856

A special sessions was holden at the Guildhall, on Wednesday last, July 30th, before J.J. Lonsdale esq., the Recorder, J. Tolputt esq., (Mayor). S. Mackie, W. Bateman, W. Major, J. Kelcey, G. Kennicott, and J. Kingsnorth esqs. Were on the bench.

These special sessions were held for the purpose of trying Auguste Hastier, the late manager of the Pavilion Hotel, on a charge of stealing £1,500, the property of Alfred De la Motte.

The Recorder, in addressing the grand jury, said he was sorry for the occasion that induced him to hold these sessions. They, the grand jury, had no doubt heard of the prisoner who was there to take his trial. He however need not detain them long, but would offer briefly a few remarks on the case that would be brought before them. The bill of indictment to be laid before the grand jury contained three counts: - 1st, for stealing £1,500 the property of James Gaby Breach; 2nd, for stealing £1,500 the property od Alfred De la Motte; and the 3rd, for stealing £1,500 from the same J.G. Breach, the prisoner being then a servant of the said J.G. Breach. The grand jury however, in considering this case, had more particularly bear in mind that the tracing of any portion of the property stolen to the possession of the prisoner would be sufficient for them to return a true bill. By a recent Act of Parliament the foreman of the grand jury was empowered to administer the oath to witnesses to be examined before them, but he would impress upon the foreman to be very careful at to the manner in which the oath was administered. He (the Recorder) had now been a County Court Judge for a year and a half, and he had had sufficient experience in that time to observe that the sanctity of an oath was not regarded with that reverence it ought to command. The learned Recorder then desired the grand jury to withdraw and consider the bill to be brought before them.

Some delay arose to the grand jury by the bill of indictment not being prepared properly; the time of the jury and court being wasted while the counsel and solicitors were arranging a new form of indictment. This being handed to the grand jury they very shortly returned a true bill.

Mr. Sergeant Perry and Mr. Biron appeared to support the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Robinson, instructed by Mr. Lewis, of Ely Place, Holbord.

On the prisoner being called upon to plead, he in a loud and confident tone answered “Not Guilty”.

Mr. Sergeant Parry then opened the case by observing that he had the honour to appear before the court to conduct the prosecution, assisted by his friend Mr. Biron. He begged the jury to dismiss everything from their minds that they might have heard out of doors, and be guided entirely by the evidence that would then be adduced. The prosecutor would be Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, and the prisoner Auguste Hastier was the manager. He would be indicted under three counts as the learned Recorder had explained to the jury. The prisoner had committed a serious crime in a crafty manner, and he was happy to say one not common to his class, (that of a waiter) who he (Mr. Parry) must bear testimony were generally most trustworthy persons. The prosecutor had received a most excellent character with the prisoner, and reposed the most implicit confidence in him.The circumstances of the case were briefly as follows: Mr. De la Motte, the gentleman who had lost the money, it appeared had arrived at the Pavilion Hotel on June 22nd, by the boat from Boulogne; he then saw Bond, a waiter, and spoke to him about a large sum of money which he (De la Motte) had in his possession, and which he wished to deposit for safe custody with Mr. Breach. He ultimately saw that gentleman, and deposited with him notes and gold amounting in the whole to about 485.000 francs, amongst which were one or two bank Post Bills, which he, Mr. Parry, desired the jury particularly to remember, as they would be positively identified, and be the chief means of bringing the robbery home to the prisoner. Mr. De la Motte would be brought before them in custody, he was an agent on the Bourse at Paris, and had in his possession a large quantity of money, the property of several persons, his clients. A crisis came in the money markets, and De la Motte being unable to meet his creditors, came to this country with this large sum of money which would now be given up, and he might add that Mr. Breach was personally liable for the loss Mr. De la Motte and his creditors might suffer from the robbery that had been committed. It would appear from the evidence that Mr. Breach being about to go to London, entrusted the money that had been deposited with him to the custody of the prisoner, giving him instructions that in the event of Mr. De la Motte not claiming it the next day he should take it to the bank and deposit it there. This however he did not do, but on a day or two after Mr. Breach's departure, he left Folkestone by the 2 a.m. train and did not again return. Mr. De la Motte being anxious about his money a consultation took place amongst the principal servants of the hotel, and the result was that a cupboard was opened where the money had been deposited, and it was then discovered that a robbery had been committed. Suspicion at once fell on the prisoner, and means were immediately taken for his apprehension, which was ultimately effected at Dover by a witness named Richards, who would be examined before them. The learned Sergeant then concluded his address and called Alfred De la Motte, who was examined, through an interpreter, by Mr. Biron. The substance of his evidence, which has already appeared in extenso in our columns, was to the effect that he had brought a large sum of money from Paris to the Pavilion Hotel, which he had deposited with Mr. Breach, and that in the absence of Mr. Breach and the prisoner he, becoming anxious about it, had had the place where it was deposited opened, and found he had been robbed of a sum of 75,000 francs, or about £3,000.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was now a prisoner in the Queen's Bench – went from Maidstone Gaol there; was apprehended on Thursday last. When at home was an independent gentleman, but was not so now. (A laugh). Was not in debt when he left France, but was so now from being robbed. His accounts were not in order so therefore he left. He brought with him about £19,000. Had stated at first it was £1,600 he had lost, but now found it was nearly double that amount. Had had conversations with the prisoner, and showed him several valuable articles he had with him, and also some pictures. Witness had a conversation with a waiter named Bond with reference to the amount of exchange he would give for French money.He had offered him £39 5s, being a discount at the rate of 15s. for every 1,000 francs. Prisoner told witness that Bond had asked too much, and that he would write to London and ascertain the amount he could get there for every 1,000 francs. Witness had heard that the prisoner had received a letter from Speilman, a money changer, with reference to this matter. Had played at billiards with Hastier; did not borrow £5 from him. Had asked prisoner to go to London with him to deposit his money at Rothschild's, which Mr. Breach would not allow. Wished Bond to go with him after Mr. Breach had left home, but prisoner would not allow him to go. Had received 510,000 francs in Paris, and had expended about 50,000, making the sum he deposited to be about 475,000.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – The money was now deposited by Mr. Hart at the French Embassy. The arrest he was under was a civil, not a criminal one.

James Gaby Breach, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, deposed he was proprietor of the Pavilion, and repeated the evidence which has already appeared, to which nothing new was added.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Had received a good character with the prisoner. He was peculiarly useful to him in his hotel, and had placed great confidence in him.

Francis Bond, examined by Mr. Biron, added nothing new to his previous statement, and was cross-examined by Mr. Robinson. – Had had a conversation with Mr. De la Motte about changing money; had offered £39 5s. per 1,000 francs. Had never received a letter addressed to the prisoner from Spielman's; would swear to it. The bag produced was the one given to him by Mr. De la Motte. Told Hastier that there was a great quantity of money in Mr. De la Motte's possession.

Examined by Mr. Parry – The bag produced could not have been torn by the weight of the gold, but in his (witness's) opinion had been cut.

Frances Pollock, housekeeper at the Pavilion, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, repeated her former evidence in chief, as given before the magistrates, and already reported.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Had heard from the prisoner that Mr. De la Motte was friendly with him. Mr. De la Motte, when the cupboard was opened, found out the cut in the bag. Bond took the bag out and gave it to Mr. De la Motte.

Francis Bond re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – The bag was cut when found in the cupboard.

Mark Richards, examined by Mr. Biron, also repeated his former evidence in chief as to the apprehension of the prisoner, and added that the prisoner told him at Dover that hi did not think it was Mr. De la Motte's money at all, and that he (the prisoner) wished that Mr. De la Motte had never come across the water, he did not know why he took it, he could not resist the temptation.

Cross-eaxmined by Mr. Robinson – Was a custom house agent. Volunteered to go to Calais. Made no arrangements as to being paid for going.Had stated in conversation in Folkestone what the prisoner had said to him regarding the money, but did not give it in evidence before the magistrates. The conversation with prisoner about the money took place in the street, Bayly is not present when this was said. Bayly is not here today. Did not tell the prisoner it would be all right. Never said in Coram's presence it would be amicably settled. Witness told the prisoner he was a very foolish young man; stated this before the magistrates. Never told the prisoner no charge would be preferred against him. Would not give up the bag till he had seen Fleet. Never saw Coram before. Did not know him. Stayed at Dover about three hours.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Went from Folkestone to go to Calais and then to Boulogne.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that the witness was an amateur police officer, who seemed more anxious that anyone else in this case, he (Mr. Robinson) thought it would not do him much good.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Did not know Coram; but gave up the bag to Sergeant Fleet. Coram shook hands with the prisoner and seemed to be on friendly terms with him, he also spoke to him in a low tone of voice, but the witness did not hear what was said.

Police sergeant Fleet, examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry, repeated his evidence in chief, as given at the examination before the magistrates, and added, that the prisoner after he was in custody said to him “had I not seen my folly you would not have caught me these three or four months”. He afterwards said “I am guilty to a certain extent”, this was after an answer to a question who would charge him, when Mr. Davidson said “that he would”. Witness here described the things found on the prisoner when searched.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Was Sergeant of police at Folkestone.Coram is superintendent of police at Dover. Told the prisoner the loss was about £1,600. The prisoner before he was charged said that he was going to Folkestone.

Alfred De la Motte, re-called and examined by Mr. Sergeant Perry – The two £5 notes and the bank bills, &c., produced, were pinned together by him, and were his; he had received them from Mr. Pay, of Boulogne. Believed the whole of the money found on the prisoner was his.

William Cook, examined by Mr. Biron, proved that the prisoner had a first-class return ticket from Folkestone to London, but could not identify the half produced as being part of the one so issued.

Framcis Macnamara Faulkner, examined by Mr. Sergeant Perry, proved the passport produced to be a Belgian one, and that it was vised on the 26th of June to enable the holder to pass through into Belgium.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson – Would have vised the passport himself for the prisoner if he had applied to him.

Mr. Sergeant Parry, addressing the bench, said that was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that he observed on the back of the bill of indictment the name of Coram, he would therefore call upon the learned Recorder to put Coram in the witness box, which his Honour having acceded to –

James Coram deposed he was superintendent of Dover police; had been so for six years. Had known the prisoner for about a year and a half. Was not on friendly terms with him, but saw him frequently in pursuance of his duty. Fleet and witness went into Galantie's Hotel together, when he apprehended the prisoner. Never shook hands with the prisoner, but went up to him and apprehended him at once, laying his hand on his arm. Had seen the witness Richards before; received money from him with respect to one or two warrants he had to serve when he (Richards) was at the Pavilion Hotel. Richards said no charge would be preferred.

Examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry – Went to the hotel about 20 minutes to 12 o'clock. Would have taken the prisoner into custody from the information received. When Davidson came he wished the prisoner to be taken to Folkestone, but witness would not accede to this.

Mr. Robinson then proceeded to address the jury in favour of the prisoner, and occupied about an hour and a half in the luminous and certainly ingenious defence, urging that there was no proof that the prisoner intended to steal the money of Mr. De la Motte, but though he might have taken it to London for the purpose of exchanging it as was requested by Mr. De la Motte and so profit by the exchange, he strongly condemned the conduct of some of the witnesses, and concluded by exhorting the jury that if they had a doubt, they would give his unhappy client the benefit of it.

The learned Recorder then proceeded to sum up the evidence, and said no defence was attempted to be made, except the assumption brought before them by the counsel for the prisoner, but which he must beg to remind them did not appear in the evidence at all: the sending to London for a telegraph dispatch to be sent to him was not consistent with innocence, the getting his passport vised also told strongly against him, the suggestion also of the counsel that the bag was not cut was not borne out in the evidence, but rather to the contrary; the jury must however dismiss from their minds every suggestion then given, and give their verdict solely on the evidence brought before them, if they had reasonable doubt about the guilt of the prisoner he hoped they would give him the benefit of it but not otherwise.

The jury then retired for about 10 minutes, and on their return into court delivered a verdict of “Guilty” but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy from his previous good character, and also believing that he had yielded to a sudden temptation.

Mr. Sergeant Parry addressing the learned Recorder said he was instructed by the prosecutor Mr. Breach, also to recommend the prisoner to mercy on precisely the same grounds that the jury had done.

The Recorder then, addressing the prisoner, told him he had been convicted on the clearest evidence of having committed a very serious crime. It was most painful to see a young man like him, possessed of his superior advantages of education, and from the situation in life he previously occupied, placed in such a degraded position. From the serious nature of the crime, which was a double robbery, not only of Mr. De la Motte, but also of his employer, Mr. Breach, a clearer case could not be, and he had the power to sentence him to 15 years' transportation; but taking into consideration the recommendation to mercy of the jury, and also that of Mr. Breach, he should pass a comparatively lenient one, which would be 3 years' imprisonment, with hard labour.

The prisoner seemed astounded at the sentence, and burst into tears. Great surprise was also manifested by a number of persons in the court, at the heavy sentence, considering all the circumstances of the case.

Southeastern Gazette 5 August 1856

Local News

Special Sessions.

On Wednesday last,, a. special sessions for this borough, was held at the Guildhall, before J. J. Lonsdale,Esq., Recorder, for the purpose of trying Augustus Hastier, 24, late manager of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, charged with stealing £1,500, the monies of James Gaby Breach, at Folkestone, on the 26th June.

The case appeared to excite considerable interest, the court being crowded during the trial.

Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Biron were for the prosecution; and Mr. Robinson for the prisoner.

The Recorder briefly charged the grand jury. He said he was sorry to have to call them together in this unusual manner, but he had no doubt that they were all aware that at the time when the usual sessions were last held, there was a case undergoing investigation before the magistrates, upon which they were unable to come to a conclusion. The prisoner in that case was therefore not committed for trial at those sessions. The case, however, was one of considerable importance, whether considered in relation to the amount of property alleged to have been stolen, or the position in life of the party accused of the theft; and these, circumstances, connected with others which appeared upon investigation, rendered it desirable that no time should be lost in having the person charged put upon his trial. The prisoner was charged under the 7th and 8th Geo. IV., c.29; and although the case was of the serious nature he had intimated, the jury would, he thought, find no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion upon the facts of the case. After some, further remarks with respect to the case, already familiar to our readers, the Recorder dismissed the grand jury.

The witnesses were ordered out of court.

Mr. Sergeant Parry stated the case. After begging the jury to dismiss from their minds whatever they might have previously heard with regard to the case, he proceeded to observe that the prosecutor was the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, one of the best-conducted establishments in Europe. Prisoner was employed by prosecutor as manager of the hotel, and the highest confidence was reposed in his integrity, having previously filled a similar situation at the Lord Warden Hotel, Dover, the duties appertaining to which he had discharged most satisfactorily. On the-22nd June last, a French gentleman named De la Motte came direct from Paris, via Boulogne, to Folkestone, where he took apartments at the Pavilion Hotel. Mr. De la Motte had a considerable sum of money in his possession, amounting to about 475,000f. (£19,000.) A. large proportion of the money consisted of notes, many of which were 1,000f. notes, on the Bank of France; besides a number of Bank of England notes, consisting of £5, £10, £15,£20, one£50, and one £100. Mr. De la Motte had also a large quantity of gold, in sovereigns and half- sovereigns ; a bank post bill on the Bank of Ireland for£20, besides other property of a miscellaneous character, several of which documents were subsequently found in the possession of the prisoner. He (the learned sergeant) should here state that Mr. De la Motte would appear as a witness before them in the custody of a civil officer of this country; because since he had been in England he had been arrested for debt. He had come over from Paris with this money, not with the intention of appropriating it to himself—for the money belonged to his creditors in France, and was now lodged at the French embassy; but being a large speculator on the French Stock Exchange, he had become embarrassed, and not being able to meet his engagements, he had adopted this course in order to regulate his affairs, and the money at the embassy would ultimately be distributed among his creditors. The property, which was placed in a portfolio, leather bag, and a sac, was handed over by Mr. De la Motte to the custody of a waiter named Bond, who gave it to prosecutor, and the latter placed the bag in an escritoire, which he locked. On the following day Mr. Breach left Folkestone, having previously handed over the custody of the property in the escritoire, with the key, to the prisoner, giving him at the same time directions to lodge the money in the Folkestone Bank, as he (prosecutor) did not like the responsibility of having so much money in his possession. On the following Wednesday, after Mr. Breach’s departure prisoner told Miss Pollock, the housekeeper, that he had urgent business to transact in London, and he must leave that evening. Miss Pollock remonstrated with him on the imprudence of leaving her alone at the head of so large an establishment, and prisoner, finding he eould not leave without some excuse, wrote the following letter to a Miss Hamilton, of Hampstead, an acquaintance of his:-

“Dearest Emily, When you receive this note, send immediately the following telegraphic message, and I will settle with you when I arrive in town”.

The message was to the effect that Miss Hamilton urgently desired to see him, and that he must come up directly. On receiving this message, Miss Hamilton immediately telegraphed to Folkestone, and prisoner accordingly went to London by the two o’clock train the following morning. The learned sergeant then proceeded to describe the circumstances attending the discovery of the robbery, and the subsequent arrest of the prisoner, the details of which are given in the evidence of the witnesses.

Alfred De La Motte, a deafer and speculator on the Paris Bourse, deposed to having arrived in Folkestone on the 22nd June last, with a large sum of money in his possession, amounting to about 475,000f., which was partly placed, in notes and gold, in a portfolio. Witness had also a portmanteau which contained from £60 to £80 English money, and a small amount of a French coin. In a sac he also had some bank and French and English notes. On arriving at the Pavilion, Folkestone, witness gave the bags to a man named Bond, who gave them to Mr. Breach, the proprietor of the hotel. Witness on the same day was informed that prisoner knew French, sent for him, and had some conversation with him; subsequently giving him 40,0000 francs in French notes, for the purpose of being given to Mr. Breach. On Wednesday witness, told prisoner that he was going to Dover, and that the next day he should return; and that he had deposited some money with Mr. Breach. Witness went to Dover and returned on Thursday, enquired for his money, and learned that Mr. Hastier had left Folkestone. Some of witness’s money, amounting to 394,000 francs, was then given up to witness; about 75,000f. were missing.


Cross-examined bv Mr. Robinson: Witness had since been arrested for debt, and was taken from Maidstone gaol to the Queen's prison. Was an independent gentleman at the time he gave hiss depositions before the magistrates. The reason why he left France was that his accounts were not in order, and he came to England in order to regulate them. Witness did not recollect what amount he had stated was stolen. On the day after his arrival witness had several conversations with prisoner; he took him into his room and showed him some pictures, a vase (silver-gilt,) and other things belonging to him (witness). Witness enquired of Bond, a waiter, what he could get for exchanging, and was told £39 5s. for 1OOOf., the discount being 15s. Witness thought Bond asked too much, and was told by Hastier that he could get more money, at a less discount. Would swear that he told prisoner he should be back on Thursday from Dover. Had a conversation about getting more money for the notes with Hastier, and the latter wrote to London on the subject. Played at billiards with prisoner, and told him to get £5 for him of the proprietor of the hotel, which prisoner obtained for him, and witness returned it next morning. Witness asked Mr. Breach to allow Hastier to go to London with him, to deposit the money with the Messrs. Rothschild. He afterwards requested that Bond might go. Received from the Bank of France 510,000f, That was all received. The evening before he left he received two bills, one for 310,000f., and the other for 200,000f., upon which he paid away to various persons the sum o about 40,000f., the amount remaining being 475,000f.

By Mr. Parry: About 390,000 francs were deposited with Messrs. Rothschild about twenty days before his arrest.

James Gaby Breach, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, deposed to the prisoner being in his employment as manager. Before this occurrence he had been in witness's service for about three months. Remembered Mr. De la Motte coming to his house on the 22nd June; a portfolio and a bag were deposited with witness, containing a large amount of money. Witness deposited the money in an escritoire in No. 1 room. Witness also took charge of a number of notes, which were placed in the escritoire. Witness told Hastier he was going away for a week, and that he had a large amount of property belonging to the French gentleman, which he should hand over to prisoner, which he did on the succeeding day, giving him the key to the escritoire. Witness also told him to deposit the money in the bank, as he did not like having so much money in his possession. On his return home witness found that prisoner had been apprehended. Witness did not receive an intimation in Dublin that the robbery had taken place.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson: I placed the utmost confidence in the prisoner. I had a very high character with him.

John Francis Bond, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed to receiving a bag and portfolio from Mr. De la Motte on the 22nd June; also some money, which witness gave to Mr. Breach. On the succeeding Thursday, witness assembled about half a dozen of the principal servants, and in their presence the cupboard was opened where the property had been deposited, and the top of one of the bags was found to have been opened, and some of the notes abstracted. Witness did this at the request of Mr. De la Motte.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson: Did not receive a letter for the prisoner on Thursday or Friday from Messrs. Spielman, bankers, of London. Was present at the examination of the prisoner before the magistrates. Mr. De la Motte, on his return from Dover, immediately said “Well, Bond, about money?” Witness said he would go and inquire, and afterwards, on telling him that Hastier had gone to London, De la Motte requested that the cupboard should be opened. He told Hastier that one of the bags was so heavy that he could hardly carry it.

Frances Pollock, housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed: On Wednesday, the 25th June, prisoner told witness about 10 p.m. that he was going to London, Mr. Breach having left on the previous day. Prisoner said he should go by the mail train at 2 o'clock, and witness remonstrated with him, as he master and mistress were absent. Prisoner, however, persisted in going, as he alleged it was of importantance that he should be in London early in the morning. Prisoner said he would return in time for dinner next day. On Thursday witness received a telegraphic message from the effect that he could not come down that night, but would return on the following morning. Mr. De la Motte returned on Thursday, and the escritoire was broken open, when a bag was found to have been cut and notes extracted.

Cross examined by Mr. Robinson: Prisoner was on friendly terms with Mr De la Motte. Bond took the bag out of the escritoire, and found it was cut.

Mr. De LaMotte, re-called by Mr. Robinson: Before going to Dover witness asked Hastier for his money, but on subsequent reflection he determined on not taking it, as some accident might happen.

By Sergeant Parry: Before going to Dover witness searched for several hours for Hastier and found him on the beach. Never authorised the prisoner to carry any notes for him to London.

Mr. Bond, re-called by the Recorder: —The bag was perfect when given into my custody.

William Beavan, night porter at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed to prisoner’s having told him to fetch a fly for him on the night of the 25th June, about half-past 12. The fly was obtained an hour after. Witness found him in No. 1 room. Prisoner said he was going to London, and that he should leave by the 2 o’clock train.

Emily Hamilton, of Hampstead, deposed to receiving a letter from the prisoner on the 25th June, and in consequence of this letter she sent the message as requested. Was quite unaware for what it was required. Sent it off between 6 and 7 on Wednesday evening. Did not see prisoner on Thursday. Wrote to him afterwards, and received an answer.

Cross-examined: Had telegraphed to the prisoner before, and received replies.

Mark Richards, a Custom-house agent, Folkestone, deposed to starting for Boulogne via Dover, on the 26th June. He jumped out of the train at Dover, and looked at the passengers who were coming out of the railway station. Witness then saw prisoner coming towards the door. He bade someone good night. Witness immediately stepped up to him, and after informing him of the suspicions excited at his absence, and also about the robbery, he told prisoner he must go back with him to Folkestone. Prisoner said “Must I?”, and on witness replying in the affirmative he said that he would return in the morning. This, however, was not acceded to, and he was taken into custody. Prisoner subsequently gave up a leather travelling bag to witness. Witness told prisoner that telegraphic messages had been forwarded to all the principal ports and towns to arrest him on the charge of the robbery Prisoner told witness that he did not think the money belonged to Mr. De la Motte; that he could not resist the temptation of taking away the money; and that he wished De la Motte had not come over the water. Superintendent Coram came into the hotel at Dover, where they had retired, and took the prisoner in charge.

Cross-examined: I did not, in evidence before the magistrates, state what I have above related. I did not say in Coram’s presence that no charge would be preferred against the prisoner. Prisoner would not give up the bag until I saw a police officer. I paid for whatever refreshments we had at Dover.

By Sergeant Parry: It was by accident that I met the prisoner. I was to go to Boulogne in order to find out the number of the notes. Had been told that the escritoire had been opened before he started on his errand. Did not bring the prisoner back himself. The bag was given up to Fleet, the constable of Folkestone.

Police-Sergeant Fleet deposed to having heard of the robbery on Thursday afternoon, the 26th June, about 5 o’clock, and to going to Dover the same evening. Found prisoner in custody at Galantie’s Hotel Mr. Richards was also there. A black leather bag was handed to witness by Mr. Richards. Witness told prisoner the nature of the charge, when he said “l have handed over the money to Mr. Richards; it is in the bag.” Prisoner said “Had I not seen my folly, you would not have caught me for two or three months.” He also said “I am guilty, to a certain extent.” Prisoner said “Who is to charge me?” A Mr. Davidson said “Mr. Breach is out, but I will charge you.” Coram searched prisoner in my presence. On his person was found a passport (produced) for Paris, a through ticket to Paris, (issued at the Regent Circus, and available for 7 days), a half ticket (first class return ticket from London to Folkestone,) five £5 notes, a pocket-book, &c. In the bag was the telegraphic despatch already referred to, 28 one thousand franc notes, pinned in a particular manner, two lots of 10 notes each, pinned together and the remainder loose; two bank of England post bills for £5 each, 23 £5 bank notes, 9 £10 ditto, and a bank post bill on the Bank of Ireland for £20, &c.

Francis Mc.Chaigneau, a money changer of Pans, deposed to having changed some money for Mr. De la Motte, in June last. Witness identified various notes and securities which he had given to Mr. De la Motte, and which were found in the possession of the prisoner.

Henri Pay, money changer of Boulogne, deposed to changing some money to the amount of £328, for Mr. De la Motte, on Sunday the 22nd June last. The transaction was entered in a book by his wife, under his (witness’s) own direction, and in his presence. The notes (produced) bore his stamp of that day. Could not swear that the notes produced were the same.

Mr De la Motte, re-called by Sergeant Parry. The five £5 notes, and the post-bills produced, are part of the property stolen from me. Witness had pinned them together in a peculiar manner.

William Cook, night watchman, in the employ of the South Eastern Railway, identified various tickets found on the prisoner.

Francis M. Faulkner, French consul, of Folkestone, identified the passport found on the prisoner visaed for France to Belgium. It was dated 26th June.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

At the request of Mr. Robinson, Superintendent Coram was put in the box. He deposed that he had known prisoner for about a year and a half. On Thursday, 26th June, witness saw the prisoner at Gallantie’s hotel, in company with Mr. Richards. The latter said it would be “all right,” and that the matter would be amicably settled.

By Sergeant Parry: Heard of the robbery about twenty minutes to 12. I should have taken him into custody had I seen him. Afterwards he was given in my charge, but I gave prisoner up on the order of the magistrates.

Mr. Robinson then addressed the jury at considerable length on behalf of the prisoner, characterising the prosecution as vindictive and harsh, and calling in question the unsupported testimony of Mr De la Motte, whose character was, he alleged somewhat questionable, while the character of the prisoner had been unblemished up to the time of this unfortunate occurrence. The learned gentleman also discanted at some length on the fact that prisoner had not taken the whole of the property (£19,000) which he might very easily have done, and have started for an outport where he was entirely unknown, instead of going to Dover where he was well known. He also affirmed that the prisoner had gone to London merely for the purpose of getting a liberal discount for the notes.

The Recorder then summed up, and the jury, after an absence of about ten minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy, on account of the great and unusual temptation to which the prisoner had been exposed.

The Recorder, in passing sentence, said he could have sentenced the prisoner to fifteen years’ transportation, but under the circumstances, and taking into consideration the recommendation of the jury, the prisoner would receive a more lenient punishment. The Recorder then sentenced him to three years’ hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 27 September 1856

Local News

It has been suggested to us by a correspondent from the Great Western Hotel, Paddington, that as Mr. Giovanni, late manager of the Pavilion Hotel (which he left for the Great Western) was for a long time a resident here, and well known by most of our readers, it might be interesting to his friends to know that a handsome testimonial was presented to him the other day, on quitting that hotel, by all the servants of the establishment. The testimonial consisted of a chased silver inkstand for himself, and a handsome gold bracelet for Mrs. Giovanni, as a mark of the esteem in which they were held by all, and of the appreciation of their kindness and consideration towards them. The whole of the servants were assembled on the occasion, and the oldest of them deputed to present the testimonial with a suitable address.

Folkestone Chronicle 31 January 1857

Local News

Our readers at a distance will learn with equal regret to that manifested in the town that the excellent proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Mr. J.G. Breach, is about to quit that establishment, which his superior management has rendered so universally celebrated. The uniform courtesy and kindness of this gentleman have gained for him the esteem of all his fellow townsmen, and his munificent contributions to all benevolent purposes, both public and private, will be greatly missed, unless we should be fortunate enough to include him among our permanent or temporary residents.

Folkestone Observer 15 July 1865

Monday July 10th:- Before the Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Daniel MacDonnell, a tailor, who appeared with his face covered with blood, and his left eye dreadfully contused, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Sunday night.

Police constable Swain said that the defendant was brought to the station house and given into his custody, and he was then drunk, and unable to stand upright.

Superintendent Martin explained that defendant had been put out of the Pavilion Hotel, after which he fell down and cut his face against the pavement. Constable Reynolds took him into custody and he had met with an accident and was unable to attend and give evidence.

The bench said that as defendant appeared to have been punished already they should discharge him.

Folkestone Chronicle 28 October 1865

Extensive Jewel Robbery At The Pavilion Hotel

This day week it was discovered that a large quantity of jewellery, in value estimated at £1,500, had been stolen from a drawer in the apartments of the Dowager Countess of Dunraven, at the Pavilion Hotel, where she has been staying for some time past. Information was at once given to the police and detectives placed on the alert, but no clue has as yet been obtained as to the perpetrator of the robbery.

Southeastern Gazette 31 October 1865

Local News

A very serious robbery of jewels took place at the Pavilion Hotel about the end of last week. The Dowager Countess of Dunraven has been staying at the hotel during the summer with her youngest son. On Saturday afternoon week, on returning from a walk, she missed a large portion of her jewels, including several articles of more than market value because of their being heirlooms, wedding presents, &c. The jewellery stolen had been kept in a drawer, and been seen two or three days before the discovery of the robbery. Mr. Doridant was on the continent, but immediate proceedings were taken for the detection of the thief, and our local police have been aided by London detectives. Nothing, however, is yet known. The Hon, Windham Quin, the invalid son of the Countess Dunraven died on Tuesday.

Folkestone Observer 18 May 1866

The Pavilion Hotel

The Dover News says a change in the proprietorship of this establishment has recently taken place. Mons. Doridant retires upon a handsome fortune. He is succeeded in the proprietorship by a Mr. Edwards. The transfer is said to be a very costly affair, involving in the purchase of the lease, furniture, and goodwill an outlay of some £30,000. We may add that Mr. Edwards was formerly in the wine trade.

Folkestone Observer 28 September 1866

Tuesday September 25th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

Vincent Brown, a well dressed man, lately employed at the Pavilion Hotel, and described on the charge sheet as “aged 20, cook”, was charged with feloniously stealing £8 10s.

George Peal, brickmaker, living at No. 5, Bayle Street, said: Prisoner lodges in my house. He came to lodge with me a fortnight ago last Saturday. He occupied a bedroom – a little back room. He went away on Saturday afternoon. He came back on Sunday morning, but I did not see him then; the wife saw him. He went away about four o'clock on Saturday. He returned on Saturday morning about eleven or twelve o'clock. On Sunday morning about eight or nine o'clock, while he was absent, I discovered I had lost £8 odd from the box in the room upstairs that I slept in. It is a large square box, three feet long. My wife locked the box on Thursday night. It is a clothes box. I keep a small box in it also, in which I keep money. I went to the box on Sunday morning to put in some gold and silver that I had taken on Saturday, and I them missed £8 10s or £8 12s – I can't say exactly. I last saw the money on the Sunday morning before, when I went to put money in. My wife had taken three sovereigns out to pay for a pig, and so it might be pretty well all silver that was left. £3 10s was in a bag in a corner, to pay my rent, which I had taken from my lodgers. On Sunday, or Saturday week – I can't say which – I took £8 in gold and silver from a drawer and put it in the box, where there was already the small bag of £3 10s in silver. It was on Thursday night, after nine o'clock, that I sent my wife upstairs for the £3, and she came down and put the money into my hand in the shop. The clothes box was locked, but I can't say whether or not the key was taken out. My bedroom door was not kept locked. My bedroom was just above prisoner's on the next floor. I live in the lower part of the house. Prisoner might go to my bedroom, and neither my wife nor me know it. I have one other lodger in the house. He occupied the bedroom next to ours, at the top. There is a little boy in the house besides, twelve or thirteen years of age. Prisoner told me he had been getting up balls on the camp. When I discovered my loss In came to the station and told a policeman about it. I did not see prisoner on Sunday morning. The little boy saw him. I saw him yesterday morning at ten minutes or a quarter past twelve. I saw him under the Cheriton arch, and I held up my hand to him and told him I wanted him to come along with me. He said “Alright, I'll come”. I told him about the money, coming along. When he wanted to know what was the matter, I told him I had lost the money. “I am sorry for that” he said. Then I told him I thought he must have it. He said “I can't tell how you came to pick upon me”. “Do you think”, he said, “If I had had your money, I should not have said, when you came to me “Now, I had your money, I know, and I'll pay you back when I can””. He came to the police station with me, but another man was with me, and I gave him into custody. When in the market place he said “Now don't I look well with all these people looking at me? I'll make you pay for this, or I'll punish you”.

Mary Alice Peal, wife of last witness, said: I went to the box on Thursday night, and I saw the money in the small box in the clothes box. I took three sovereigns out of it. I don't know how much money was left. I can say that there were several pounds in it. The little box was not locked. I locked the large box, but I don't know whether I left the key in it. My husband found they key in it on Sunday morning when he went upstairs. We keep the key on a string tied to the handle of the box at the side. The prisoner left my house on Saturday about four o'clock. I was in the back room and saw him go out. He did not sleep in the house on Saturday night. He returned on Sunday morning between eleven and twelve. He had been absent before all night during the time he had lodged with me. On Sunday morning when he came in he said “I did not come home last night. I slept at Dover”. I only said “Oh!”. He told me not to cook his breakfast or dinner; he was going to his cousin's for breakfast and dinner. He went upstairs and fetched a book, and came down directly and left. He was not in the house two minutes. I stood against the door to look for someone, but as I could not see anyone I went out. I told my brother to see which road he took. He did not return to sleep on Sunday night, but he came in about half past eleven on Monday morning. He asked me how much he owed me. I told him three shillings. He gave me half a crown. I said “That is not enough”, and he then gave me half a sovereign, to take for his meat and lodging out of it. I took three shillings for his lodging, but not for his meat. He then gave me a two shilling piece and two sixpences to pay for his washing. He then went upstairs and dressed, and went out. I did not see him go out.

James Standing, an intelligent boy twelve years old last April, said: Mrs.Peal is my sister. I was at home last Sunday morning between eleven and twelve when the prisoner came there. My sister told me to follow him and see where he went. He went down by Grace Hill, and up Mill Lane, and by the side of the low school he stood still and looked around and saw me. When he saw me coming he ran away, and I did not see him afterwards. I ran after him but lost sight of him. I mean up there by the side of the British School.

Superintendent Martin said: About half past twelve yesterday I came into the police station and found the prisoner and prosecutor in the reserve room. The prosecutor accused the prisoner of stealing £8 from a box in his bedroom. I then said to the prisoner “You hear what the charge is. You must be cautious what you say. What money do you have about you?”. He immediately put his hand in his pocket and pulled out a portmannaie. I asked him what sum he had got, and he said he did not know. I then opened the portmonnaie, and found three sovereigns, half a crown, three shillings, and two sixpences. In his waistcoat pocket he had two gold finger rings, and in his coat pocket a bunch of keys.He denied all knowledge of the robbery. The prisoner was detained.

Prisoner said that on being asked a second time by the Superintendent, he said he had three pounds and some silver.

Committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, but an offer was made to accept bail. When the prisoner said no-one down here knew him, he was then taken to Dover jail.

Folkestone Chronicle 20 October 1866

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday October 17th:- Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Vincent Brown, 22, man cook, was charged with stealing £8 10s, the property of George Peal, in his dwelling house, at Folkestone, on September 21st, 1866. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

The petty jury having been sworn, the following evidence was adduced in support of the charge:

George Peal: I am a brickmaker. I know the prisoner, who lodged at my house. He came on the 8th September, a Saturday. I live at 5, Bayle Street. He occupied the back room on the middle floor. He lodged with me a fortnight and a day or two. Prisoner often slept out. A gas pipe layer named Arnold also lodged with me. He slept in a room next to mine, on the top floor, above the room the prisoner occupied. One was to the right, and the other was to the left of the staircase. Whilst the prisoner was lodging at my house I lost £8 10s. from a square box in my bedroom. The money was in a little box. The large box was kept in a corner of the bedroom, furthest from the door. The large box I kept locked. The key was tied to the handle at the side of the box. I last saw the money safe in the box on the 16th of September, on a Sunday morning when I counted it, and put some more to it. It was pretty much all silver. I don't suppose there was a terrible sight of gold, as my wife brought me three sovereigns from it the night before. I sent her for the three sovereigns. I knew there was £3 10s. in silver in a little bag, kept for the rent, and £8 besides. There might have been two half sovereigns besides the three sovereigns she brought me down. I first missed the money on Sunday morning, the 23rd. I went to put some more money in the box, and found the key of the big box in the lock instead of hanging by the side. I looked in the little box and found it empty. Prisoner could not get into my room without going upstairs. There was another lodger and a little boy who slept with him. It was my wife's brother. The boy is a good boy for what I know. I have no reason to suspect him. Arnold is respectable as far as I know. He never went into my room. I never found the prisoner up the stairs away from his room. On the night of Saturday the 22nd prisoner did not sleep at home. He said he had been to a cousin's at Dover. He had been absent several times – nearly half the time he lived with me. I did not go to the box from the time my wife fetched down the £3, to the time I missed the money. I never looked to see if the key was there. I gave information to the police, and looked for the prisoner. My wife told me prisoner had been home on Monday. I saw him on Monday, the 24th, under the Cheriton arch about a quarter past twelve. He was walking along the road. I held my hand up to him, called him, and told him I wanted him. He said “All right. I'll come”. He came to me at once. I told him I had lost mu money, and I told him I thought he must have had it. He said “I am sorry for that. Do you think if I had your money I should not have said “I have had your money and will pay you back when I can”?. I can't think how you came to pick on me”. When in the market he said he would make me suffer for this, because a crowd of people were looking at him. Prisoner walked voluntarily to the station house with me and my wife's father. I gave prisoner in charge. He did not object to going to the station, and when I charged him with stealing the £8 10s., he said nothing. The lad is just turned twelve, and is here. I have never had occasion to find fault with my wife for spending too much money, but rather t'other way. (laughter)

The Recorder: Do you mean she does not spend enough?

Prosecutor: Neither of us put our hands on prisoner.

Mary Alice Peal: I am wife of prosecutor. On Thursday, September 20th, my husband sent me to get some money out of a box in the bedroom. He sent me for £3. The key was on the handle of the box, not in the lock. I took out $3 in gold; the rest was pretty much all in silver. I don't think there was much gold left. I went up in a hurry, and I am not sure that I did not leave the key in the lock; I might have left it in as it was found in on the Sunday morning. I never did so before, but always locked the box. I never saw the prisoner near my room. Prisoner did not sleep at home on Saturday night, but came in between 12 and 1 on Sunday and told me not to cook his dinner as he was going out. He went upstairs to get a book and went out again. I said nothing to him about the loss of the money because I was there by myself and was afraid to do so. Prisoner came in again about 12 on Monday and asked me what he owed me. I told him 3s. and he gave me half a crown. I told him that was not enough and he then gave me half a sovereign. I gave him the change. He also gave me 2s 6d for the laundress. He took the money from his pocket. He gave me a sovereign on the Thursday previous. The day before he borrowed 4s. to pay for his boots. He said he was employed in cooking for a ball on Shorncliffe Camp. He said he was to have £3 for it. It was the same week, before he game me the sovereign to change. The ball had taken place before the money was missed. It was before he borrowed the 4s., which was repaid out of the sovereign. He did not tell me where he got it from. After prisoner paid me the 3s., he dressed and went out. I said nothing to him about the money being missed because I was afraid he would go right away if I did. Someone followed him; it was my husband's mother, Mrs. Peal. On Sunday morning I sent the little boy to follow him.

James Standing, a lad 12 years of age: The last witness is my sister. I recollect Sunday morning, 22nd September. That morning my sister told me to follow prisoner and see where he went. I did so. He went down Grace Hill, up Mill Lane, and when near the new school he saw me and ran away. I ran after him but lost sight of him. I know Arnold and slept in the same room as his. I have been in my sister's bedroom, but never saw the key in the box. I am sure the prisoner saw me because he turned round and looked. I don't know whether he cannot see persons at a distance.

William Martin: I am Superintendent of Borough Police in Folkestone. On the 24th September I went into the station house and saw the prisoner there. Prosecutor and one of the constables were also there. Prosecutor accused prisoner of stealing £8 from a box in his house. I cautioned prisoner and asked what money he had about him. He made no reply, but pulled out the portmonnaie I now produce. I opened it and found three sovereigns in a compartment, one half crown, three shillings and two sixpences. Prisoner denied all knowledge of the robbery and he was detained. We found on him a bunch of keys and two gold rings. The portmonnaie is a new one.

This was the case.

In his defence prisoner said he could account for the money he had. I received £10 8s 3d from the Pavilion. I went to the prosecutor's house the same night. For getting up a ball dinner on the Camp, Captain Talbot gave me £2 4s 6d. For getting up a ball dinner I had £1 5s. I have summoned no witnesses to prove this, but my letters will show that I did get up the ball dinners. The reason I borrowed the 4s was because I did not wish to change a £5 note which I received from the manager at the Pavilion.

The Recorder, in summing up, reminded the jury of the offence, which (at the discretion of the Court) could be punished with 14 years penal servitude, and said it was for the jury to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him. When the money was missed the prisoner was away from the house, but on enquiry he found that he was frequently absent, which did away with any little suspicion which might attach to him on that account. The next thing was the evidence of the lad, who said that the prisoner ran away when he saw he was being followed. Nothing had been said about it, but they jury could see that prisoner wore glasses and was near-sighted, and it might be could not see a person at six or seven rods distance. His running at that time, if they believed the lad, might only have been a coincidence. There were these strong facts in his favour, that neither prosecutor nor his wife could speak of any gold having been taken, and he had never been seen beyond his own room. Where other persons might have had access to the money the evidence ought to be very direct and conclusive to fix the theft on any single person. If they thought there was any reasonable doubt, they should give the prisoner the benefit of it.

The jury consulted, and the foreman had collected the opinion of his fellow jurors, and was waiting till the Recorder had finished his perusal of some letters and papers belonging to the prisoner, when the Recorder told the jury that the prisoner had, of his own act, asked him to look at the papers, and it was only right to tell them that they showed his habits to have been very extravagant.

The jury, after hearing this, requested to retire, and after an absence of about five minutes they returned and found a verdict of Not Guilty.

Prisoner thanked the jury for their verdict, and was about to make a speech, when the Recorder told him he had better say nothing, but go.

This ended the business.

Before they were discharged the foreman of the Grand Jury called attention to the inaccuracies in the calendar. In this case prisoner was charged in the indictment with stealing £8 10s.; in the calendar it was £8.

Folkestone Observer 20 October 1866

Quarter Sessions

Wednesday October 17th:- Before J.J. Lonsdale

Vincent Brown, 22, mancook, imperfectly educated, was placed in the dock and arraigned on an indictment for stealing £8 10s, the property of George Peal, from his dwelling house, at Folkestone, on the 21st September last.

George Peal, sworn, said he was a brickmaker. He knew the prisoner, and he came to lodge in his (witness's) house on Saturday the 8th of September. His house was No. 5, The Bayle, and prisoner occupied the back room on the middle floor. He lodged there for a fortnight and a day or two. He came in on Monday the 24th September for the last time. He had not slept there every night up to that time. A gas-pipe layer named Arnold also lodged in the house, and slept above prisoner's room, in a room next door to witness's room, at the top of the house. There is no door from Arnold's room into witness's room, but the rooms are both on the same landing. While the prisoner lodged in the house, witness lost £8 10s, which was kept in a square little box inside of the clothes box. The clothes box was kept in a corner of the room. Not under anything, nor near the door. The big box was kept locked, and the key was tied to the handle by the side of the box. Last saw the money safe in the box on Sunday morning, the 16th of September. Was putting some more to the money on that morning. It was in both gold and silver. On Thursday night, the 20th, his wife brought three sovereigns out of the box, witness having sent her for that amount. Did not recollect how much gold and how much silver was in the box before the wife brought the three sovereigns. There was £3 10s in silver in a bag in the corner for the rent. There might have been a half sovereign or two among the money, besides the three sovereigns. First missed the money on Sunday the 23rd, when he found the key in the lock of the large box. The little box was quite empty. The prisoner could get from his room to witness's room only by going up the stairs. The wife's brother, a little boy, was also in the house and he slept with Arnold. Had no reasons to think that he was not a good boy. Arnold was a respectable man; knew nothing against him; never found prisoner upstairs beyond his own room. When witness found the money was gone he went to the station and informed the police. Prisoner did not sleep at home on the Saturday night previous. He said he had slept with his cousin at Dover. Should think he had slept away from the house nearly half his time. Had not been to the box between the wife fetching the three sovereigns and the discovery of his loss. Prisoner came in on Sunday morning after witness had been to the Folkestone station. Did not see him till Monday; only heard from his wife that prisoner had been at the house on Sunday. He had been at the house on Monday morning while witness was away. Saw him under the Cheriton Arch about ten minutes or a quarter past twelve. Held up his hand to prisoner and said he wanted him. Prisoner came over to him at once, and witness said he had lost his money and thought he (prisoner) must have had it. Prisoner said “Do you think if I had it I should not have said to you when I came over “Well, I know I had your money and I shall pay you back?””. In the market place, underneath here, he said “Don't I look pretty here, with a lot of people about? I'll make you suffer for this”. Witness's wife's father was with him and prisoner came along quietly. Gave him in charge at the station for stealing £8 10s, and prisoner said nothing. The wife's brother is turned twelve years of age. Never found occasion to find fault with his wife for being extravagant. T'other way (laughter).

Cross-examined: Did not say that the other man put his hand on prisoner. Had asked him to assist before prisoner came up, but did not know if prisoner heard it. Witness was on one side, and prisoner on the other. Neither of them put his hand on prisoner.

Mary Alice Peal, wife of last witness, recollected her husband sending her to get some money out of the box in her bedroom on Thursday the 28th of September. He sent her for £6. The key was on the handle of the box. Did not see how much gold was left in the box. Did not think there was much gold left. Went upstairs in a hurry and is not sure whether she left the key in the box or not. Found it in the lock on the following Sunday, which was the only reason for thinking she might have left it in. Never left it in the box before. Had never seen the prisoner up the stairs near the room door. Prisoner did not sleep at home on Saturday night. He came in between eleven and twelve on Sunday morning, just as her husband had gone out. Her husband had told her of the loss of the money before that. Prisoner told her not to cook any dinner; he had slept at Dover. He went upstairs and immediately came down again with a book. Witness said nothing to him, as she was alone, and afraid to speak. He came in again on Monday morning, while witness's husband was at work, and asked what he owed, and witness said 3s. He gave witness 2s 6d and witness said that was not enough. He then gave her half a sovereign, which he took from his pocket. He then asked what he owed his laundress, and witness said 2s 4 1/2d. He then gave her money for that out of the change to the half sovereign. Prisoner gave her a sovereign to change on the Thursday, the day she brought down the three sovereigns. On the day before, the Wednesday, he borrowed 4s of witness to pay for his boats. Prisoner said he was getting balls up on the Camp. He said he was to have £3 for getting up the dinner. The ball took place before the money was missed, and before he borrowed the 4s. Lent him the 4s. He told witness to take the 4s out of the sovereign he had given her to change. On Monday, after he paid the money to witness for the rent and laundress, he dressed and went out, leaving his things in the house. Did not mention to him the loss of the money because she thought he would go right away altogether if he did. Her husband's mother saw him go out, and then followed him. On Sunday morning sent a little boy to follow prisoner.

Cross-examined: Prisoner said Capt. Talbot would give him £3, not £2.

James Standing, 12 years of age, brother to last witness, recollected on Sunday morning 22nd September his sister told him to follow prisoner, and see where he went. He went down Grace Hill and up Mill Lane, and up near the new schools, prisoner looked round, and seeing witness coming, he ran away. Witness then lost sight of him. He was about seven or eight rods off when he began to run. Slept in the same room with Arnold. Had been in his sister's bedroom once or twice. Never saw a key in the box there.

Cross-examined: Prisoner did not go into the wooden church.

William Martin, Superintendent of police, said he came into the police station about half past twelve on Monday the 24th of September, when prisoner was there, with the prosecutor and one of the constables. Prosecutor accused prisoner of stealing £8 from a box in his house. Said to the prisoner “You hear the charge against you. You must be cautious what you say. What money have you about you?”. He made no reply, but put his hand in his pocket and took out the portmonnaie now produced. Asked what money was in it. He made no reply. Found in one compartment of the portmonnaie three sovereigns, in another compartment were three shillings and a sixpence.

This was the case for the prosecution.

The prisoner then said he could account for what money he had had. He came from London to the Pavilion Hotel where he was employed by Mr. Doridant. He was there for seven weeks and was paid monthly. At the expiration of the first month they gave him £3. The day he left they gave him £7 8s 3d. What was the amount of silver he could not say. On the following evening that he left the hotel he went into prosecutor's house. When he left the hotel, Mr. Farrant, the manager, gave him a card for Captain Talbot of the Royal Artillery, and said that there were balls coming off on the Camp, and he thought that he (prisoner) was quite capable of doing them. He went up there and got engaged, and they gave him at first 35s, but when the ball was over they gave him £2 4s 6d. Captain Talbot gave him a recommendation besides, which he thought was in court. After the ball was over he spoke to Captain Talbot about a ball of the 10th Battalion, and asked him if he could do him (prisoner) a service by recommending him. He said “With that recommendation I have given you, you had better go over and see the cook or messmaster”. Accordingly he went over and saw the cook, who arranged with him to go there for two days, but he did not know the date of the ball. The cook afterwards sent him a letter to go over to the Camp the same day, as the ball was the same evening. Accordingly he put his cap, jacket &c., in his pocket. In the evening the cook gave him £1 5s. He had summoned no witness to prove these statements, but he had a testimonial from the Camp, and a letter asking him to go and do these balls.

The Recorder reminded the prisoner that a witness that a witness said he had borrowed 4s of her.

Prisoner said the reason he borrowed that 4s was that he had lent a friend of his here some money, who had promised he should have it, and he had a £5 note which he did not wish to change. That £5 note he had from Mr. Farrant, the manager.

The Mayor, on being appealed to, said he believed what the prisoner had said was perfectly true, because his wages as second cook were rather high.

The Recorder then summed up the case to the jury, remarking that the offence charged was a very serious one, an offence for which the prisoner was liable to have fourteen years penal servitude. The evidence in such an offence ought to be very valid. The evidence was that the prisoner slept away, but the prosecutor said it was not the first time that the prisoner slept away, which did away with that little suspicion against the prisoner. The next thing was, if they believed the boy, he was told on Sunday morning to follow the prisoner, and he had said he followed the prisoner and the prisoner turned round and saw him, and when he saw him he turned round again and ran away. The prisoner wore spectacles, and he might not have seen the witness. The other thing against the prisoner was that when he paid his bill he pulled out a half sovereign, but he had previously had a sovereign. He had three sovereigns on him when searched, but there was this strong fact in the prisoner's favour – that neither the prosecutor nor his wife, when the three sovereigns were taken out of the box can speak to more than half a sovereign being left there. There might have been two half sovereigns, but they did not go much beyond that as to gold. The prosecutor and his wife had told them that they never saw the prisoner above his own room, and that there was another room on the same floor as theirs in which another lodger slept. The only facts that showed a suspicion against him were his going away – which was not the first time -, his running away from the boy, and his pulling out a half sovereign. The evidence ought to be very clear, and if the jury had a doubt, they should give him the benefit of any doubt.

The jury then consulted in their box, and the papers to which the prisoner had referred in his defence were brought into court and examined. Among them were several bills for cab hire &c.

The Recorder then drew the attention of the jury to the papers, among them a bill for a fly to Beachborough and back for £1, another fly bill £1 13s, a third fly bill £1, &c. &c. There was a good deal of money gone there, the jury would see.

Prisoner: Yes, sir, but when I came down I had money with me besides what I had at the hotle.
The Recorder: It is my duty now, gentlemen, to tell you, as he has referred to these bills, that all these bills show that his habits were very extravagant.
Prisoner: I came down here on both pleasure and work.
The Recorder: Gentlemen, I leave the case now with you. They are his own papers, and they certainly show that his habits were very extravagant. The money had been got rid of, you know, but if you have any reasonable doubt, give him the benefit of it.

The jury retired, but in a few minutes returned with a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.

This closed the business of the court.

Folkestone Observer 14 December 1867

Editorial

We have a pleasant fact to announce to the town – that the Pavilion Hotel will almost immediately pass into other hands, and Monsieur Doridant, ridding himself also of the lately purchased estate, will retire to Mentone, there to spend the remainder of his days in the quiet of his family and the respect of his neighbours.

The fact is pleasant to the town, because it may be hoped that once again our important personages, having no modern representative of the Israelite object of worship, will raise themselves into self-respect and the respect of the townsmen who are no longer important.

It is a pleasant fact, also, because we may hope that, as in the days of Mr. Breach, the trade of the town may be benefitted by the trade that is done at the hotel, and that Mr. Edwards, the incoming lessee, will not strain to the utmost, by resorting on every occasion to the London wholesale markets, his advantage as a large consumer.

Nor will the Town Council be subjected during the next twelve months to the growing swagger, which in it's last exhibition defied them to meddle with the hotel in it's sewerage or it's rating without an Act of Parliament – no sensible relief, perhaps, to the meek Pavilion-fed councillors, but a matter of some consideration to their constituents outside the council room.

Then, too, it saves some unpleasant labours contemplated for next November, and the representation of the East Ward will now be wholly changed almost without exertion, for if the Don goes, Sancho cannot possibly be endured.

Sundry other causes for rejoicing might be enumerated, but we hasten to terminate our relations with Monsieur Doridant by stating that the separation we do not lament is imminent, and that invitations to the farewell ball on Friday next are already issued.

Note: The reference to November was in relation to the election of the Town's Mayor.

Folkestone Observer 21 December 1867

Editorial

Mr. Doridant gave a farewell party on Thursday and ball on Friday (yesterday) to his immediate friends, prior to his giving up the hotel and retiring to Mentone. Mr. Edwards, late of the Salisbury Hotel, Salisbury Square, Fleet Street, London, enters into possession in a few days.

Our announcement last week of the transfer of the hotel took the town by surprise, and many were incredulous – most of the unbelievers having no positive ground for unbelief, though a few, who were cognisant of certain proceedings between Mr. Doridant and the South Eastern Director, and, especially of a recent interview with the Board, justified their doubts by questioning the consent of the Directors to release Mr. Doridant from his tenancy. Mr. Doridant's recently purchased estate at Hawkinge is not yet disposed of, though an offer has been received for it within £400 or £500 of the price asked.

This is a miserable collapse of Mr. Doridant's ambition. With all his good fortune in acquisition of money, he has been as remarkably deficient in capacity to take up the life of an English gentleman among English gentlemen as in understanding the character of our English institutions and of the English press. Essentially French – French bourgeois, in all his ideas, he is incapable of thinking as an Englishman, or of appreciating things that are distinctly English; and though, as amongst the blind, the one-eyed is king, so here, in a town that has in it no native root of gentility, the moneyed man, for his money, is accepted as the representative of a gentleman, yet among ancient families whose root of gentility was struck in English soil ages since, Mr. Doridant's pretensions to genteel life were ignored, and after a brief twelve months' struggle he retires, even from England. We do not pretend to mourn his retirement. Let Mr. Doridant leave us, with the regrets, doubtless, of the haunters of the Pavilion, but to the satisfaction of the town at large.

Folkestone Chronicle 11 January 1868

Pavilion Hotel

Arrangements were concluded on Tuesday last for transferring the lease of this important hotel to Mr. Edwards, and as soon at the valuation and other necessary preliminaries are executed the new landlord will take possession. Although Mr. Doridant leaves the hotel, he will not necessarily absent himself from Folkestone, reserving to himself as a summer residence for occasional visits to Folkestone his own private establishment on the Marine Parade.

Folkestone Observer 11 January 1868

Editorial

When, less than a month since, we said “We have a pleasant fact to announce to the town – the Pavilion Hotel will almost immediately pass into other hands, and Monsieur Doridant, ridding himself also of the recently purchased estate, will retire to Mentone, there to spend the remainder of his days ........ we hasten to terminate our relations with Monsieur Doridant by stating that the separation we do not lament is imminent” – when, we say, that on the 14th ultimo we unveiled a jealously guarded fact of interest to the town, all the newspapers of the county were called into requisition by the haunters of the Pavilion to deny, blankly, or circumstantially, or with a qualification – the denial becoming less peremptory with the lapse of days – all that we had said. And yet on Old Christmas Day – the day to which we pointed, though without naming it – the gentleman whom we named as the future lord of the Pavilion became it's actual master. The fact is announced on the authority, we believe, of a friend of Mr. Doridant's, a dignitary of the town, that “Arrangements for the transfer of this hotel to Mr. Edwards were made on Tuesday evening last, and in the course of a week or two that gentleman will take possession. We are very glad to be able to say, however, Mr. Doridant does not give up his pretty private residence in Marine Parade, and will retain his seat on the Town Council. Although Mr. Doridant now retires from business it is well known that it is not the profits of the Pavilion, large though they may have been, that has enabled him to do so, but his succession to the family estate in France. The fortunate investment of a legacy provided the purchase money of Mentone”.

“Pretty private residence” indeed! The corner house of a row of lodging houses, and which has hitherto been used by Mr. Doridant merely as a supplement to the hotel, whose lawn it immediately adjoins. If the hog-head cook whose portrait used to face the title pages of cheap editions of Dean Swift's “Advice To Servants” were to appear among us as a man of wealth, not a few would prostrate their souls before him too as before Monsieur Doridant, and talk of his pretty private residence, family estate (Mercy upon us! Do we not all know the hole of the pit from whence he was digged?), and so on.

Now as to the legacy, let us say that it is four years since, before the legacy story was dreamt of, that Mr. Doridant, feeling his wealth increase, attempted to set up for a private gentleman – that he was looking out for “an estate of £20,000 with a house on it; he did not care if it was an old house, but it must be a large house where he could entertain his friends when they called on him”, that four years since, or more (for both the facts have been in our possession that length of time, and from sources outside this town), Mr. Doridant offered £17,000 for Mr. Morris's estate at Sandgate. The legacy indeed! To say nothing about a certain £5,000 that could not co-exist with the legacy, we may point to the Mentone purchase fund (surely it is not intended to say that “Mentone” in it's entirety has become a Doridant appanage), even apart from the Pavilion revenue, when we remind all who two or three years since had conversation with Monsieur Doridant, of the building operations at Mentone on the line to be taken by a railway, which were pushed on in hot haste, and which were ultimately taken by the Railway Company, on compensation.

But we are tired of Monsieur Doridant; we would not have thrown these words after him, but first of all to point to the verification of that which we had said, and which had been so positively, and then so cunningly denied; and secondly, to reprove again, and we hope for the last time, that undignified – unmanly, we would say, if, unfortunately, humanity were not capable of the vilest grovelling – prostration of our public men before mere wealth, wealth unassociated with anything that in their callow days mankind are taught to admire; that anxious snobbism that has it's highest happiness in fawning and being patronised. Faugh! Mr. Doridant will not long trouble us, nor his seat on the Council. Our late chief publican's residence will henceforth be Mentone.

Folkestone Observer 18 January 1868

Editorial

In the exercise of our vocation last week, we treated somewhat contemptuously, as Niebuhr treated the history of the founders of Rome, those fables that were beginning to encrust the history of the man whom our civic magnates have lately delighted to worship; and we called upon those gentlemen whom the town really has honoured to do honour to themselves and to the town. Sorry are we to say that the call was in vain, for on the very next business day, at the invitation of that expiring Councillor, Mr. Fitness, the Council, in General Purposes Committee assembled, considered the propriety of inviting Mr. Doridant to a dinner, for the reason (!) simply that the Observer had laughed at the pretensions set forth for him, and had given some incidents of his career, not in themselves opprobrious, but which they would have preferred to have been kept from public observation. Such a proceeding is not distasteful to the Observer, for, notwithstanding much provocation thereto, these columns have as yet contained no review of the three Mayoralties of Mr. Doridant. We have been content to let him pass into the natural insignificance that attaches to such a character as his when no adventitious circumstances surround him. It is true that we did announce his approaching departure, and congratulate the town thereupon; and beyond that we should not have proceeded, had not the fulsome flatterers of the man, who has nothing to which flattery can attach but his wealth, blundered into ubiquitous denial, and malignant lying. Let them blunder on; the man whose second Mayoralty opened with a Sunday drinking row at his own table, and closed with a Sunday fight in his kitchen on which the magistrates were called to adjudicate, has very small honour to gain from canvassing of his Mayoralties, and we pledge ourselves that if challenged to do it in the form indicated they shall be canvassed.

We have dealt with Mr. Doridant as a public man, or in his acts affecting the public welfare – and thus only; and if the public men of the town think that it is to the advantage of themselves and of the town that unsparing and just criticism shall follow the occupant of the civic chair, they may have the same by challenging it, either for Mr. Doridant, or any successor of his.

Local Intelligence

The inmates of the Pavilion have raised a subscription in order to present Mr. Doridant with a testimonial.

Folkestone Chronicle 15 February 1868

Presentation

The employees of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, determined to present Mr. Doridant, on his relinquishing the hotel, with some memento of their long association, set on foot a subscription among themselves with that object, and within two hours of it being mooted they raised sufficient to enable themselves to purchase a large and very handsome Tureen, weighing over 100 ounces, which was presented to Mr. and Mme. Doridant on Monday evening at the hotel, the occasion being the birthday of their little son. Mr. Quiddington, the manager, with all the servants of the establishment having assembled in one of the saloons, requested the attendance of Mr. and Mme. Doridant, who were entertaining a few friends, and upon their coming in with their friends, Mr. Quiddington stepped forward and begged their acceptance of the tureen, at the same time reading the following address, and presenting each of them with a copy of it, which had been very neatly printed on white satin:-

To Mons. And Mmme. Doridant

Respected Sir and Madam,
We find with much regret that you are about retiring from business, and we cannot permit such an event to take place without expressing our gratitude for you kind and generous consideration at all times, and our deep sorrow at parting.

We, the undersigned, beg to offer you this tureen as a proof of our attachment to you, and as a remembrance of the event which separates us from an excellent Master and Mistress.

That you may be blest with health, long life, and happiness, with your little son, is the sincere prayer of your faithful and humble servants. (Here follow the signatures, 76 in number)

The inscription on the tureen was as follows:
Presented to Mons. and Mme. Doridant on their leaving the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, by their servants, as a token of regard and esteem.

Mr. Doridant, who was very much moved, replied that he did not expect so valuable a memorial from his servants, and but for the manner in which it was presented, would certainly have refused it. If it had been a gold pencil case, or something of that sort, he should have been quite satisfied, but he was now quite overcome by their kindness. Every person must make his own place in the world, by his ability, and he wished every one of them might do as well as he had done. It was not his position or his fortune that caused him to retire, but the delicate health of Mrs. Doridant. He did not like changes, and some of the servants had been in the house 20 or 30 years, which showed that they were good servants, and that it was a good house. After again thanking them for the expression of good will, he asked them all to drink the good health of little Charlie. A first rate supper was provided for them in the servants' hall, to which they repaired, and after justice had been done to it songs and toasts were given, and the party did not break up till after two o'clock, having thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

Folkestone Observer 15 February 1868

Editorial

The Folkestone Chronicle has a special vocation for denial – something like a Pavilion retainer for special assertion. During Mr. Doridant's second Mayoralty a dinner ticket reached the Chronicle office one Wednesday for a dinner on Thursday in the following week. A penal year and a half had passed since such an invitation had been received there, and it was more than a fortuitous circumstance, we may assume, that on the Saturday intervening between the receipt of the ticket and the receipt of the dinner, the Folkestone Chronicle contained a denial of a certain not very creditable letter asserted by the Observer a week before to have been sent by the Mayoral lord of the Pavilion. The dinner was over when the Observer came out next week with a repetition and enlargement of it's assertion; and the dinner being over, the pugnacity of the Chronicle had evaporated, and no further denial was given.

So, too, when in December last the Observer intimated the approaching transfer of the Pavilion Hotel from Mr. Doridant to Mr. Edwards, the Chronicle gave a point blank denial; and yet already Mr. Doridant has ceased to be landlord of the Pavilion and Mr. Edwards reigns in his stead – though, to be exact, we must say that there is a more than trifling difference between the two valuations, which is not yet settled.

Then, more recently, the Observer asserted that the increased yearly rent to be paid to the South Eastern Company by the new lessee of the Pavilion was £500 – and the Chronicle copied the paragraph. But last week that paper came out with the following disclaimer – “We desire now to contradict that erroneous statement, as we have been informed on the best authority that Mr. Edwards enters upon his new undertaking on precisely the same terms as Mr. Doridant relinquishes it, for the remaining ten years of the term of his lease”. This statement may be true, and we care not to know whether it be true or not. The original statement was made by the Observer on the authority of a person only less interested in the future rental of the Pavilion than Mr. Edwards himself. We do not care to maintain that authority; and at the same time we do not accept as of any weight whatever the denial of the Chronicle, for there is a very evident reason why the rental of the Pavilion should be publicly stated at a figure much below it's actual amount. Even under the old rental, as paid by Mr. Doridant, the Pavilion escaped a very large proportion of the rates which it ought to have contributed to the town, and if the rental is publicly known to be increased to £2,500 or £3,000, there can be no hope that the Pavilion can be rated at £1,140 a year, the other ratepayers of the town continuing to be rated at four-fifths their rentals. It is the Pavilion's advantage which lies in the fact being as last stated in the Chronicle that utterly vitiates the credibility of the Chronicle in making it's assertion. It may be as stated, and it may be otherwise, and the probabilities either way are not increased by the statements or by the silence of the Folkestone Chronicle on the matter.

All the other ratepayers of the borough have to pay more because the lessee of the Pavilion pays less. There can be no difficulty in ascertaining the rental for the purpose of assessment for rating; the Assessment Committee of the Poor Law Guardians have extraordinary powers as to documentary evidence, and there are documents very easily within their reach on which they can found a fair and equitable assessment; and if the Assessment Committee continue to suffer so unjust an inequality to exist, it will become a subject for consideration whether an appeal should lot be made to the Poor Law Board.

Folkestone Chronicle 28 August 1869

Tuesday August 24th: Before S. Eastes, J. Gambrill, J. Clark, and J. Tolputt Esqs.

The court was crowded chiefly with visitors from the Pavilion Hotel.

Theophile Alexandre Gohier was charged with stealing certain articles from the Pavilion Hotel on Monday morning last.

Henry King, a barrister, said: I am staying at the Pavilion Hotel. On Sunday evening I occupied a private room, No. 39 on the second floor. I was disturbed soon after four o'clock on Monday morning by a noise, and on rousing myself I saw the figure of a man by my bedside. I jumped up and said “Who the Devil are you?”, and the man glided out of the room. I jumped out of bed, ran outside the door, and saw him retreating along the corridor, disappearing about the centre of it, on the right hand. I made a great noise shouting “Friends” and “Porter”, and lots of people came out. It was not light, but there was a dim light. I searched my room, and missed my gold watch with two gold chains attached, a gold pencil case, (one chain was a neck curb, the other an Albert, with a seal attached), a silver fusee case, and my purse, with £6 in gold, and 22s. or 23s. worth of silver, to the best of my belief. The purse was a green and brown knitted silk purse with gold slides. My bedroom door was not locked. A chair was placed against it, but I am a heavy sleeper and I did not hear it pushed away. About the middle of the day I saw my property in the hands of Supt. Martin. That now produced is mine. I identify it by it's general appearance. The value of the property stolen was about £60.

Charles Badois having been sworn, interpreter, translated the evidence to the prisoner, who did not cross-examine any witness.

William Frederick Goldsmith, head waiter at the hotel, said prisoner came to the hotel three or four days ago, occupying room 55 on the second floor, nearly close to that occupied by prosecutor, in the centre of the corridor on the right. On Monday morning prisoner paid his bill to go by the 9 a.m. train.

Supt. Martin said: Yesterday morning I was sent for to go to the Pavilion, and from information received I watched prisoner's room. He left it soon after eight o'clock, and I saw him leave the hotel. I directed a constable to watch him, and going up to his room, examined it. In a black bag I found those (thieves) tools produced, which made me suspect prisoner. The tools are a pair of key nippers, and of cutting nippers. I afterwards went to the railway station, and apprehended prisoner just as he was leaving by the nine up train. I searched him in presence of Inspector Burr of the railway police, and found the purse with the watch and chains inside his left hand breast pocket, the fuse box and pencil case in his waistcoat pocket. They were afterwards identified by prosecutor as his property. Another gold watch, knife, portmonnaie with £3 in gold and 12s. 6d. in silver, and a snuff box in one trouser pocket, and 10s. loose in another trouser pocket. 20s. was returned to me by the South Eastern Railway Company as cash put down to pay for his ticket. An hotel bill was in his pocket. I charged him with stealing the articles from the hotel. He made no reply. I think prisoner understood what I said, although he is not an Englishman, for he has since spoken in English to ask for food.

Prisoner was then formally charged with stealing the articles mentioned, and having been cautioned said he had only been in England six weeks. He was a stranger here, and knew no-one that he could call as a witness to character. He acknowledged himself guilty of the crime imputed to him, and he was committed for trial at the ensuing Quarter Sessions for the borough.

Prosecutor applied to have the articles given up into his possession, as they were the daily necessaries of existence, but the Bench was unable to comply with his request.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1869

Tuesday, August 24th: Before S. Eastes, J. Tolputt, J. Gambrill and J. Clark Esqs.

Theophile Alexandre Goleier, alias Lion Antoni, was charged with stealing a gold watch, two gold chains, one gold pencil case, one silver fusee box, and one knitted silk purse with gold slides, and £7 3s. in money, the property of Mr. Henry King, being of the value of £60. The prisoner being a Frenchman, Mr. Charles Badois was sworn interpreter.

Mr. Henry King said he was a barrister, of No. 5, Paper Buildings, Inner Temple. He was now staying at the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, occupying room No. 39 on the second floor. A little after four o'clock on Monday morning he awoke and saw the figure of a man by his bedside. He jumped up and said “Who the devil are you?”. The man glided out of the room. He jumped out of bed and ran outside the door and saw the man retreating along the corridor, and ultimately disappearing about the centre. He raised an alarm and several people came. He missed the property from the room he slept in. The door of the bedroom was not locked; there was a chair against it, but being a heavy sleeper he did not hear it pushed back. The property produced was that lost.

Mr. William F. Goldsmith, head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed to the prisoner occupying No. 55 on the second floor at the hotel; that room is nearly central.

Superintendent Martin said from information he received he went to the Pavilion Hotel and watched the prisoner go out. He then went to the bedroom he had occupied, and in a black travelling bag he found a pair of key nippers for opening doors, and a pair of nippers for cutting gold chains. He went to the Lower Railway Station just as the nine o'clock up train was starting. The prisoner was at the ticket box and asked for a ticket for London. He then went to the prisoner and told him he was suspected of committing a robbery at the Pavilion Hotel. He made no reply, but shook his head. Witness then took him into the ladies' waiting room and searched him in the presence of Inspector Burr, of the Railway Police. The property produced was found on him. The prisoner spoke English at the police station.

The Magistrates committed the prisoner for trial at the next Borough Quarter Sessions.

Southeastern Gazette 30 August 1869

Local News

Theophine Alexandre Gohier was charged on Tuesday, at the Police Court, before Silvester Eastes, James Tolputt, J. Gambrill, and John Clark, Esqrs., with stealing from the Pavilion Hotel a gold watch, two gold chains, a gold pencil case, a silver fusee box, and a silk purse with gold slides, containing £6 in gold and 23s. in silver the property of Henry King, on the 23rd instant.

Prosecutor said: I am a barrister-at-law, and am staying at the Pavilion Hotel. I was there on Sunday evening last, and occupied room No. 39 on the second floor. Something caused me to wake a little before four o’clock, when I was conscious of the figure of a man standing by my bedside. I jumped up in bed and said, “Who are you?” or rather “Who the devil are you?” (laughter) and the man went out of the room.
I got out of bed, and saw the man retreating along the corridor, and go into a room about half way down it.I made an alarm and gave information to the landlord, Mr. Edwards.

Supt. Martin deposed that having received information of the robbery, he on Monday examined the prisoner’s bedroom while he was out, and found in a bag two nippers—one evidently used for opening doors and the other for clipping chains. He afterwards saw the prisoner at the railway station, and watched him take a ticket for London. He then took him into custody, and found on him most of the property stolen.

The prisoner, who is a Frenchman, had the evidence interpreted to him by Monsieur Bandoit. He said nothing in answer to the charge, and the magistrates committed him for trial at the next quarter sessions.

Folkestone Chronicle 9 October 1869

Quarter Sessions

The usual Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the borough were held yesterday before the learned Recorder J.J. Lonsdale Esq., who in his charge to the Grand Jury referred to various changes in the law during the past session, and as they are important, and the demand on our space this week prevents our giving them, we shall probably do so next week. There was only one case for trial, that of Theophile Alexandre Gohier, alias Leon Antoni, for stealing on the 23rd August, at the Pavilion Hotel, a gold watch, two gold chains, a gold pencil case, a silver fusee box, a slik purse with gold slides, and £7 3s. in money, the property of Henry King, a barrister, staying at the hotel. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude.

Folkestone Express 9 October 1869

Quarter Sessions

Friday, October 8th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Theophili Alexandre Gohier, alias Leon Antoni, 30, described as a Commercial Agent, was charged with stealing on the 23rd of August last a gold watch, two gold chains, a gold pencil case, a silver fusee box, a silk purse with gold slides and containing a sum of £7 3s. in money, altogether of the value of £60, the property of Mr. Henry King, a gentleman temporarily stopping at the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner pleaded Guilty. Mr. C. Badois acted as interpreter in this case, the prisoner affecting to be unacquainted with the English language.

The circumstances attending this case were published by us in our Police Report. The prisoner passed himself off as a gentleman and put up at the Pavilion, where he effected the above robbery, but was captured by Supt. Martin.

The learned Recorder, in passing sentence, said he had no doubt that the prisoner had been in the habit of committing these crimes, and he must therefore pass the severe sentence that he be kept in penal servitude for five years.

Southeastern Gazette 11 October 1869

Quarter Sessions

The usual Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the Borough were held on Friday, before the learned Recorder J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Theophile Alexandre Gothier, alias Leon Antoni, for stealing on the 23rd August last a gold watch, two gold chains, a gold pencil case, a silver fusee box, a silk purse with gold slides, containing a sum of £7 3s. in money, altogether to the value of £60, the property of Mr. Henry King, a gentleman temporarily stopping at the Pavilion Hotel.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. C. Badois acted as interpreter in the case, the prisoner affecting to be unacquainted with the English language.

The prisoner passed himself off as a gentleman, and put up at the Pavilion, where he effected the above robbery, but was captured by Supt. Martin.

The learned Recorder, in passing sentence, said he had no doubt that the prisoner had been in the habit of committing these crimes, and he must therefore pass the severe sentence that he be kept in penal servitude for five years.

Folkestone Express 23 December 1871

Thursday, December 21st: Before T. Caister and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

James Smith, a tall fellow, evidently an old soldier, was charged with begging on Wednesday.

Richard Pilcher, a porter at the Pavilion Hotel, said: About half past eight o'clock last evening prisoner came to the front door of the Pavilion Hotel and said a gentleman had told him to come there, but he did not know his name, but that it was no business of mine, and used very abusive language. He afterwards said the gentleman's name was Capt. Fisher. I told him there was no gentleman of that name staying at the hotel, but if he would come down again in the morning I would make enquiries. He then asked for some coppers to help him for the night, which I refused to give him as he was very tipsy. He was going towards the coffee room and said he would see the mistress. I told him he would get me and also himself into trouble. He then made at me as if he was going to strike me. I then got him out of the house and he walked up and down the front, obstructing the visitors, and was very abusive. I then fetched a policeman and gave him into custody.

Prisoner: A gentleman told me to go to the hotel. I did not beg.

P.C. 8: Prisoner was drunk when received into custody.

Prisoner: A gentleman told me he would give me money to pay my lodgings and my fare to Canterbury.

Supt. Martin: Prisoner has been here all the summer.

P.C. Hogben was called, and said prisoner was about Folkestone in the summer, and he had instructions to watch him.

Prisoner: I have only been here two days these last twenty years.

Mr. Caister: It is of no use you denying being in the town. I have seen you myself several times.

The Clerk: How do you live?

Prisoner: By selling a few things. I have no wish to live by begging.

The Bench: You are committed to Dover gaol for 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Chronicle 7 September 1872

Wednesday, September 4th: Before The Mayor, Col. Crespigny, T. Caister, J. Kingsnorth and W. Bateman Esqs.

The Pavilion Riots

Richard Mercer was charged with assaulting P.C. Smith on the 2nd inst., while in the execution of his duty.

Mr. Minter appeared to defend the prisoner, who pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

P.C. Smith said that he was on duty outside the Pavilion on the 2nd inst., when his attention was called to a crowd in front of that place. He saw the prisoner there along with twenty or thirty more. He heard someone shout out “Let him have it”. He turned round immediately, and saw the prisoner, who kicked him in the leg and struck him on the shoulder. Prisoner tried to throw him on the ground, and he (witnessw) said “All right, I know you”.

Mr. Minter said he must ask the magistrates to adjourn this case, as he had not had time to procure witnesses for the defence. The prisoner had no opportunity to consult him, and persons would not care to come forward to give evidence, unless summoned to do so.

After a consultation among the magistrates the Mayor said the Bench considered the application ought to have been made before P.C. Smith had given his evidence, and the Bench must decline to grant it.

P.C. Smith, cross-examined, said: It was about twenty minutes to twelve when the assault occurred, and I saw the prisoner when I first went there. He stood outside the Pailion about ten minutes. The prisoner was close by me in the middle of the crowd. He pushed on to me.

P.C. Sharp said he was on duty at the Pavilion on the night in question. He did not see the prisoner there. There was a great number of people, and much noise and shouting, and a great disturbance for a time.

Mr. Minter said, in defence, that he regretted that his application for an adjournment had not succeeded. On other occasions, when making a similar application, he had not been met with the observation “Wait and see what the prosecution has to say”. The evidence, however, that had been produced had quite failed in substantiating the charge that had been made. He would ask the Bench to look at the circumstances: Smith said he had been kicked on the calf of the leg by Mercer. How little reliance could be placed on such evidence was manifest, when Smith said that Mercer rushed on to him, and that he (Smith) turned round and faced the prisoner. How, then, could he kick him on the calf of the leg if Smith was facing Mercer? The fact was that Mercer was pushed in by others in the crowd, and accidentally pushed against the shoulder of the police constable. Mercer had been brought before that Court before, and that had operated on the minds of the police on the principle of “Give a dog a bad name and hang him”. Other persons were concerned in this riot, and it was astonishing that they were not there that day, but the fact was the police intended to make the prisoner the scapegoat. Evidently there was a riot, and in the affray the police constable was struck, but there was no evidence whatever in proof that this had been done by the prisoner.

The Court was then cleared, and at the expiration of about twenty minutes was re-opened.

The Mayor, addressing the prisoner, said the magistrates were determined to put down these disturbances, which seriously interfered with the quietude and peace of the town, and tended to drive away visitors. The assault upon the police had been proved, and the Bench intended to visit on prisoner the severest sentence of the law, and he would be committed to six months' imprisonment in Dover gaol, with hard labour.

The prisoner was then charged with assaulting William Pett, waiter at the Pavilion.

William Pett said that between eleven and twelve o'clock he was standing outside the Pavilion, when he received a severe blow by one man, and was partly knocked down by another. The head cook and porter came to his assistance.

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion, said he was on the scene of the disturbance when he heard someone exclaim “Here, Sir Roger Tichborne, let the b------ have it”. He saw two men rush at the last witness. One struck him and ran away, and the other also gave him a blow. It was too dark to distinguish the men, whom he did not recognise.

P.C. Hogben said he was on duty near the Pavilion on Monday evening, when he heard a number of people shouting and making a great noise. He saw Spurgeon leaving the hotel and going towards the harbour. He heard some scuffling, and a threat used against Petts by Mercer, who struck him on the head and ran away. He did not hear Petts say anything to Mercer to provoke him. Immediately after Mercer had said “Drop the ------ one”, he struck him a blow. He went towards him a second time in a fighting attitude, and then ran away.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, to commence at the expiration of the first sentence.

Folkestone Express 7 September 1872

Editorial

The proceeding of our local Justices in the case against the man Mercer, reported in our columns, will not, we fear, give the public a notion that the man had the fair play which his advocate asked for, being unintentional no doubt on the part of the Magistrates, but displaying an utter want of knowledge of the first principles of justice. The man was apprehended on Tuesday upon a warrant, charged with assaulting the police in the execution of their duty, and brought up before the Magistrates the next morning at 11 o'clock. An adjournment was asked for by the prisoner to enable him to produce his witnesses, but the Magistrates refused this most reasonable request because the application was not made until after the police constable had given his evidence. A more absurd reason was never given. The prisoner being in custody, the Magistrates were bound to take evidence to justify an adjournment. The public do not look for or expect that the Great Unpaid should be possessed of any knowledge of the law, but it is supposed that common sense should prevail. In this instance it was wanting to a lamentable extent, not only in refusing the application for adjournment, but in pronouncing a sentence of merciless severity upon the prisoner of six months imprisonment with hard labour, which the facts of the casem as proved, did not warrant, and which we believe to be illegal.

Wednesday, September 4th: Before The Mayor, Col. Crespigny, F. Kingsnorth, T. Caister and W. Bateman Esqs.

Richard Mercer, carpenter, of Folkestone, was charged with having assaulted P.C. Smith in the execution of his duty on the 2nd of September, at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Minter appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Complainant deposed that he was on duty at the time named in front of the Pavilion Hotel, and his attention was called to a large crowd. The prisoner was along with twenty or thirty others. He heard some shout out “Let him have it”. He turned round and the prisoner kicked him on the calf of the leg and he was hit on the shoulders, and the prisoner tried to throw him on the ground and then ran again into the crowd.

Mr. Minter asked the Bench to adjourn the case as his client had not had sufficient time to be prepared with witnesses.

After a brief consideration the Mayor refused the application.

Complainant, in being cross-examined, stated that he saw defendant's hand upon his shoulder. The crowd pushed a great deal. Defendant was pushed on to him.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated the evidence with regard to the disturbance.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench at some length, calling their attention to the fact that his client was unfortunately pushed upon the policeman by the crowd, and therefore the charge entirely failed, more especially because they were in such a position that his client could not have kicked the policeman as stated. If the case had been adjourned he meant to show that Mercer did not interfere with the police. The police had acted on the principle of “Give a dog a bad name and hang him”. They had not charged him with being riotous, nothing of the kind, because it was more convenient for the policeman to swear that he was kicked and received a blow on the shoulder. The defendant was unable to tell them his story and the Bench, by the course they had taken, had prevented him producing testimony in his favour.

After a deliberation of some twenty minutes, during which time the public were turned out of Court, the Mayor said the prisoner had been found Guilty of a serious charge and the Magistrates were determined to put a stop to such conduct, and therefore punished him in the full penalty of six calendar months imprisonment with hard labour.

The same prisoner was then further charged with assaulting William Pett, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, between 11 and 12 o'clock on Monday evening.It appeared from the evidence that complainant was knocked down the steps, but the cook came to his assistance and rescued him.

George Spurgeon, clerk at the hotel, and P.C. Hogben gave evidence that the assault was committed by the prisoner.

The Mayor sentenced the prisoner for this offence to two calendar months' hard labour in Dover gaol, to take effect at the expiration of his first sentence.

Southeastern Gazette 10 September 1872

Local News

The “Pavilion” Riot

At the Police Court, on Wednesday last, before the Mayor, Col Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Kingsnorth, Esq., and W. Bateman, Esq., Richard Mercer, a notoriously bad character, was charged on a warrant with creating a disturbance in front of the Pavilion Hotel, and assaulting P.C. Smith in the execution of his duty. Mr. Minter appeared to defend, and asked for an adjournment of the case, a request the bench declined to comply with.

P.C. Smith stated on oath that he was in front of the Pavilion on the night of the 2nd inst., when a large crowd had assembled. He heard some one shout “Let him have it” He turned round and immediately the prisoner kicked him in the calf of his leg, and struck him on the shoulder.

Mr. Minter, in defence, said that Mercer was present, but was notin any way concerned in the riot, andin this case was made the scapegoat.

The defendant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

The prisoner was further charged with assaulting William Pett, waiter at the Pavilion, and was sentenced to two months’ hard labour, to commence after the expiration of the first sentence.

Southeastern Gazette 17 September 1872

Local News

The New Licensing Act

A renewal of the late disturbances was anticipated on Saturday evening last, and a strong cordon of policemen was thrown across the road opposite the Pavilion Hotel. The police dispersed all persons congregating in the neighbourhood, and there was no disturbance, the example of Mercer having apparently had a salutary effect. On Sunday and Monday evenings the policemen were again stationed in the neighbourhood, but had no occasion to exercise their authority, the town having resumed its wonted quietude.

It is stated that the hours of closing will shortly be extended to half past eleven throughout the week, twelve on Saturday, and eleven on Sunday.

Folkestone Chronicle 21 September 1872

Tuesday, September 17th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Mary O'Driscoll was brought up in custody, charged with stealing one sheet from her master, Mr. J. B. Edwards, of the Pavilion Hotel, on the 16th instant, value 7s.

Mary Littlewood said she was housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel, where the prisoner was a servant. She searched her bedroom on Monday afternoon with Mr. Edwards, and in her bed she found a linen sheet cut up, which belonged to the men-servants' beds in the hotel. The sheet produced by P.C. Hills was the property of Mr. Edwards. She asked the prisoner, who was present, how she came to cut up the sheet, and she replied that it was her property. The prisoner had been in the hotel about 8 months.

Cross-examined by prisoner: The sheet was in pieces on the bed when I first went into the room. When I went into the room the second time, prisoner had put part of the sheet into her box and I took it out.

Harriett Cornish, linen keeper of the hotel, said the sheet produced belonged to Mr. Edwards. It was marked “Pavilion Hotel” in red letters. The prisoner had nothing to do with the linen, except coming to her for it to put on the beds.

P.C. Hills deposed to apprehending prisoner, who said at the time that it was her sheet.

The prisoner, electing to be tried under the Criminal Justices Act, and pleading Guilty, was sentenced to two calendar months' imprisonment with hard labour.

The same prisoner was also charged with stealing four pocket handkerchiefs of the value of 2s.

Charles Preston, waiter at the Pavilion, being sworn, said he had missed several pocket handkerchiefs from his bedroom, and saw them on Monday afternoon in the prisoner's bedroom. They are the same as now produced, and the name is marked on them.

P.C. Hills, who apprehended the prisoner in this charge, said at the time she said they were her property.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 21 September 1872

Tuesday, September 17th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Gambrill Esqs.

Mary Ann Briscoe, one of the servants at the Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing four pocket handkerchiefs, the property of Charles Preston, waiter, on the 16th September. The prisoner was also charged with stealing a bed-sheet, the property of her master.

Charles Preston deposed that the prisoner was servant and housemaid at the Pavilion Hotel, where he was employed as waiter. He missed four pocket handkerchiefs about a month ago, but he could not say exactly. He missed them out of his bedroom. He saw tham yesterday in prisoner's bedroom. He was going into the room, and on the drawers was a box, which he knocked over, and in which he saw the four pocket handkerchiefs. He took the box and showed it to the head waiter and asked him what he had better do, and he told him to put them back again. He valued them at 2s.

P.C. Hills stated that he was called to the Pavilion Hotel, and the prisoner given into custody on another charge. He took charge of the pocket handkerchiefs produced. He charged her with stealing them at the Pavilion Hotel and also at the Police Station, and she said they were hers.

Prisoner said she was Guilty of having the property in her possession, but it was not with intent to steal.

The Magistrates' Clerk put the usual questions to the prisoner, who thereupon pleaded Guilty, and wished the Bench to dispose of the case.

The second charge was then gone into.

Mary Littlewood, housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed that the prisoner was employed at the hotel as “Basement Woman”. She (witness) searched her bedroom with Mrs. Edwards and found the sheet and things produced. The parts of the linen sheet were outside the prisoner's bed, but not concealed. It belonged to one of the men servants' beds in the hotel. She could identify it. When she made the search she asked the prisoner how she came by it, and she said it was her property. She had been in the hotel eight months. The value of the sheet was 7s. She took the remainder out of the prisoner's box, but when she first went up into the bedroom the sheet was all on the bed.

Harriett Cornish, linen-keeper at the Pavilion Hotel, stated that she could identify the sheet by it's quality and make. It had been marked with a stamp – “Pavilion Hotel” – but it was not to be found. She valued it at 7s. She found one missing, but she could not say how many more there were, as some were at the wash and some in use. Prisoner had no right with the sheet in her room and had no occasion to take it there.

P.C. Hills deposed to taking the prisoner into custody.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and desired the Bench to settle the case. She then stated that the sheet was upon one of the mens' beds, but it was set on fire and the blankets and sheets were burnt. The servants went to take the sheet to burn it in the copper, and Mrs. Tombs went round to see if they were burnt, and she was asked to destroy the things. She (prisoner) told her that she was afraid to destroy them as she could not get any more, and told Mrs. Tombs that she had better go to the housekeeper. The housekeeper came down afterwards and saw the things in her room. If she had herself reported the things she would have been looked upon as being very bad, but at the same time she had a right to have done so. She had been in the Pavilion nine months.

The Magistrates' Clerk asked if they had a fire there.

Harriett Cornish, linen-keeper, said that there were some things burnt, but they were brought to her.

Prisoner said the only witness she could bring was the man who had set fire to the bed. She knew nothing about how the sheet got cut up.

After a brief consideration the Mayor said the prisoner had been in a place of trust, and ought to have set an example to those about her. It was too serious a case for the magistrates to let go unpunished. She would be sent to Dover gaol for two calendar months' hard labour on the first charge of stealing a sheet, and on the second for stealing the pocket handkerchiefs she would have one month's hard labour at the expiration of the first term. There were other charges of theft against her, but which would not be proceeded with.

Prisoner was taken out of Court protesting that the articles she was convicted of stealing were her own.

Folkestone Chronicle 7 December 1872

Notice

Who will help?

A man, advanced in years, has a wife and 6 children, the eldest of whom (a girl) is alone able to support herself, having just got a place as a pupil teacher, the rest are in childhood. He is well known to the public as Manager of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, from 1845 to 1856, since when he has experienced nothing but losses, and now through the bankruptcy of a trustee his property is entirely gone, leaving him quite destitute. Particulars, if desired, and subscriptions received by the Honble. Mrs. B.J. Bingham, Shirley Lodge, Southsea, and Henry Lewis M.D., West Terrace, Folkestone.

Folkestone Chronicle 5 April 1873

Thursday, April 3rd: Before J. Kelcey, J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer and J. Clarke Esqs.

Thomas Syers was charged by Mr. Edwards with stealing a quantity of bread from the Pavilion Hotel, where he worked as a porter.

William Mortimer, waiter at the Pavilion, sworn, said tha prisoner was a porter connected with the Pavilion Hotel. After the boat came in on Sunday he saw the prisoner with half or whole of a loaf in his pocket. He was in the kitchen near the Refreshment room of the station. He told prisoner not to go out because he had some bread sticking out of his pocket. He did not see him leave the station.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Did not see you take the bread from the station.

Eliza Watkins said she was attached to the Pavilion Hotel in the capacity of a still-room maid. About half past five on the day in question she saw prisoner take some meat and bread from a shelf at the Harbour Station. His business there was to clear the things away. She saw the prisoner take the sandwiches off the plate on the counter. She asked him what he was going to do with them, and he replied he was going to give them to someone who would be glad of them. She had seen him cut sandwiches before. She saw him put the sandwiches in paper, and then place them in his pocket.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Did not hear you say that you took it away to bait a rat trap. The sandwiches were not left by visitors, as there was no business on that day.

This being the only evidence the Bench dismissed the case, as there was no evidence of felonious intention.

Mr. Edwards said that he was sorry to bring this case before the Bench, and he hoped the Magistrates would not think him severe, but the fact was that he had so many servants in his employ that he thought it his imperative duty to bring any cases of dishonesty before their worships as a protection to those servants who were honest.

Folkestone Express 5 April 1873

Thursday, April 3rd: Before J. Kelcey, J. Gambrill, J. Clarke and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Thomas Sayers, porter, was charged with stealing a loaf of bread, the property of Mr. Edwards, Pavilion Hotel.

William Mortimer, waiter, said he was in the kitchen at the Harbour Station on the arrival of the boat on Sunday afternoon, when he saw prisoner there with a loaf of bread in his pocket, and told him not to take it away. He did not see him leave the station, nor did he see him take the bread away, and did not know whether he left it or not.

Eliza Watkins, still room maid, said she missed some meat from a shelf in the still room on Sunday afternoon about half past five. Prisoner had no business in the still room except to clear away and to take the meat back to the hotel. She saw him put some pieces of meat in his pocket, and he said he was going to give them to someone who would be glad of it.

By prisoner: I don't know whether you took the meat away or left it. I have seen you get slices on other days, but not last Sunday. There were no pieces of meat left on the plates by the visitors on Sunday.

The Chairman said prisoner knew best what were his intentions, but the Bench did not think the evidence sufficiently strong to convict him and therefore he would be discharged, but he perhaps might consider himself fortunate.

Prisoner said there were pieces of meat left on the visitors' plates.

Mr. Edwards said he was sorry to have had to trouble the Bench, but having so many servants he was liable to be robbed, and it was only justice to the honest servants to bring the matters before their Worships. Although the value of the articles was trifling, the principle involved was serious.

Folkestone Express 22 May 1875

Tuesday, May 18th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Peter Seboo, of Jersey, who appeared to be deaf and dumb, was charged with being drunk and with begging by means of cards on the previous evening.

In answer to the charge of drunkenness, prisoner wrote on a slate “I got some drink given me by some sailors. If the Court will allow me, I will leave the town”. As to the second charge, he wrote “I was looking for people who understood French, as I was in France twelve years. I don't think anyone gave me anything”.

John Thatcher, porter at the Pavilion Hotel, deposed that the prisoner came to the hotel begging by a card on Monday night about eight o'clock. As witness saw the prisoner was drunk, he turned him out. Prisoner then showed his card to some visitors on the lawn, when witness pointed, and ordered him off the premises.

P.C. Joseph Willis proved apprehending the prisoner, who was drunk.

The prisoner did not deny being drunk, but said he did not remember anything about it.

He was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment for drunkenness, and fourteen days for begging, in both cases the imprisonment to be accompanied with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 18 September 1875

Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

James Hunt Angell, late a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing a pencil case, value 2s., the property of William Pike, another waiter at the same hotel, on the 9th ult.

Mr. J. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Prosecutor deposed that the prisoner left the Pavilion Hotel on the previous Wednesday. Some time in August prosecutor lost a pencil case from the pantry. H could remember working in the pantry on one occasion, when he left his pencil case on the bench. He returned in about ten minutes and found it gone. He enquired of the prisoner and others afterwards, but they said they had not seen it. On Wednesday the 8th inst. Mr. Spurgeon, the assistant manager at the Pavilion, shwoed prosecutor a pencil case, which he identified as his property. He knew it (the one produced) to be his property by the marks upon it made by his teeth, by the absence of the lead, and by a piece of dirt in the groove at the top. It was a present given to witness. On Wednesday, while the prisoner was having his dinner, prosecutor said “I've heard you have got a gold pencil case. Do you mind showing it to me?” He said “Certainly, I'll not show it to you”, and after putting his hand in his waistcoat pocket said “I've not got one. I did have a plated one once, but it's in my box”. Prosecutor afterwards went downstairs with prisoner and Mr. Spurgeon. Prisoner then opened his box, and after taking out a collar box, gave them leave to search the clothes. They did look, but did not find the pencil case, and prisoner then said he had not got it, and had not seen it since the Superintendent of Police searched his box the previous night.

George Spurgeon, assistant manager at the Pavilion, corroborated the prosecutor's statement as to the searching of the prisoner's box, and as to them not being able to find it. Witness was afterwards shown a pencil case by a servant named Challis, and prosecutor at once identified it as his property.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: We had a good character when we engaged prisoner.

Superintendent Wilshere deposed that on Tuesday week he saw the prisoner at the Pavilion Hotel in the presence of Mr. Edwards, the proprietor. Witness went to inquire about a cash box that had been stolen, and asked prisoner if he had any objection to witness's looking in the box. He said “No” and witness looked at it in the presence of Mr. Williams. Witness saw a pencil case in the box amongst the clothes, which prisoner said belonged to him, and witness handed it back. The following day, witness received a similar case (the one produced) from Mr. Spurgeon, and on Friday apprehended the prisoner on a charge of stealing the case. Witness showed him the case received from Mr. Spurgeon, when he said it was the one which was in his box.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I cautioned the prisoner before he made the statement that anything he might say might be given in evidence against him. After cautioning him I consider I had a right to question prisoner on the charge.

The prisoner was remanded till Wednesday for the production of further evidence. As Mr. Minter, his solicitor, did not appear on that day, the case was further adjourned till Thursday.

Thursday, September 16TH: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

James Angell was further charged on remand with stealing a pencil case, value 2s., the property of William Pike, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Jane Challis deposed that she was a servant living at Guestling, near Hastings. She had recently been living at the Pavilion Hotel, as servant, but left on Thursday. On that day she found a pencil case in a dust box in the hotel. Witness took it at once to Mr. Spurgeon. The dust box was near the room where prisoner slept.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: There are seven bedrooms on the basement near the dust box. The reason I looked in the box was because Mr. Spurgeon asked me if I had seen a pencil case. I replied that I might have swept it up in sweeping the bedrooms. All the waiters in the coffee room and table d'hote who do not sleep in the hotel wash and dress in the pantry, where prosecutor said he lost the pencil case. Eight or nine men used the pantry.

Alfred Back, head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said he was present on Tuesday week when prisoner's box was searched by Superintendent Wilshere, and the pencil case was found. He looked at it for five or six minutes, but witness did not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I was asked to come up to the court by the manager, not by the Superintendent of Police. The reason I say that Mr. Wilshere looked five or six minutes at the case is to clear the other waiters by seeing justice was done, as there had been a great number of robberies at the hotel. I did not want to fasten them on the prisoner to clear the other waiters. I was asked by the assistant manager to come here and corroborate the Superintendent. The cash box was missing, and the Superintendent came on Tuesday week and searched prisoner's box. The Superintendent turned over the clothes and found a pencil case and asked the prisoner where he got it from. Prisoner said it was his own, and to the best of my belief, said he had it some time. The Superintendent had it in his hand about six minutes, and that is what the manager asked me to come here and say. I think the Superintendent placed the pencil case in the box or put it in the prisoner's hands.

Mr. Minter submitted that there was not sufficient evidence to send the case for trial. He drew attention to the fact that the charge was probably brought against the prisoner because the cash box had disappeared and could not be found, and showed that the last witness had admitted that he was brought to Court to corroborate the Superintendent. After referring to the evidence in detail, Mr. Minter said there was not a scintilla of evidence against the prisoner.

The Chairman said Mr. Minter's remarks might have some effect with a jury, but the Magistrates were of opinion that there was a prima facie case against the prisoner and should therefore feel it their duty to commit him for trial.

Mr. Minter applied that the bail, if granted, be fixed in a moderate amount.

The evidence having been read over, prisoner, who reserved his defence, was formally committed to take his trial at the next Borough Quarter Sessions, bail being allowed, himself in £20, and two sureties in £10 each.

Folkestone Chronicle 30 October 1875

Quarter Sessions

Tuesday, February 26th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

James Hunt Angell, 28, waiter, on bail, was charged with stealing a pencil case, of the value of 2s., the property of William Pike, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Forbes Mosse prosecuted, and Mr. Minter defended.

From the evidence of William Pike, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, it appears that in September prosecutor lost a pencil case, which he left in bench in the pantry. He enquired of prisoner if he had seen it, who declared that he had not. He afterwards saw Mr. Spurgeon, the assistant manager, who showed him a pencil case, which he identified as his own by a mark near the point, caused by using it as a tooth pick, and by a black spot on the groove. On the day the pencil case was found he saw prisoner and asked prisoner to show him the pencil case he had, and he replied he had not got one, but that he did have a plated one, which was in his box. On going to his box with him, prisoner took a collar-box out and said “You can see for yourself”. No pencil case was found, and prisoner said he had not seen the pencil case since he had seen it in the Superintendent's hands.

Mr. Spurgeon, assistant manager of the Pavilion, deposed that on telling the prisoner that a pencil case was seen in his box, he said “Well, if it was there then, it is there now”. The pencil case produced was brought to him by Jane Challis, and when showed to the prisoner, he exclaimed “This is my pencil case”.

Supt. Wishere said that on Tuesday, the 7th September he went to the Pavilion Hotel and saw Mr. Edwards, and prisoner was sent for and he told him a cash box had been stolen. He was asked if he had any objection to have his box searched, and he said he had not. He (the Supt.), Mr. Edwards, and the head waiter went to prisoner's room, and prisoner produced a small tin which he took out of his large box. He (the Supt.) was searching for the cash box, not knowing anything about the pencil case. Among prisoner's clothes was found the pencil case produced, and he held it in his hands five or six minutes. He endeavoured to remove a black mark in the groove, which he could not. He (the Supt.) asked prisoner if it belonged to him, and he said he had had it four or five years, and he gave it back to him. On the following day the pencil case was brought to him by the assistant manager. He (the Supt.) apprehended the prisoner at the Randolph Mews, Bayswater. He gave him the usual caution, read the warrant, and asked him where the opera glasses were, which were in the box with the pencil case, showing him the case, and he said he had given up the opera glasses to the owner.

Jane Challis said she was in employ at the Pavilion in September. She remembered finding a pencil case in a dust box in the basement, which was similar to the one produced. Prisoner slept in the end room in the basement, about ten or twelve yards from where she found the case, which she gave to Mr. Spurgeon.

Alfred Back, head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said he was present when prisoner's box was searched and Supt. Wilshere found a pencil case. Prisoner said it was his.

Each of the above witnesses were severely cross-examined by Mr. Minter, and although the facts were not wrong, the drift of their meaning were shown to be considerably altered.

Mr. Minter, in a most able address, rebutted the facts produced against the prisoner, and showed the impossibility of his guilt, and in defence of character he called Mr. Charles Bateman, 14, Cambridge Street, Hyde Park, who said he was 13 years in service in Connaught Square, and that he had known prisoner eight years, he lodged with him four years, and he had always known him as an honest man.

After the Recorder summed up, the jury immediately acquitted the prisoner, a verdict that was received with considerable applause.

Folkestone Express 30 October 1875

Quarter Sessions

Tuesday, October 26th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

James Hunt Angell, 28, waiter, of imperfect education, pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of stealing a pencil case, value 2s., from a waiter named Pike at the Pavilion Hotel last September.

Mr. James Forbes Moss, for the prosecution, briefly stated the case to the Petty jury, and then called Edward Pike, who said: I am a waiter at the Pavilion Hotel. Some time about the middle of September last I lost a pencil case. I left it on the bench in the pantry at the hotel. There was no-one in the room with me at the time, nor was there on my return five or six minutes after. When I came back the pencil case was gone. I am certain I left it there.

The learned Recorder: When I left the pantry there was no-one there, nor was there anyone when I came back.

By Mr. Moss: I made enquiries among my fellow servants, and among them the prisoner, if they had seen a pencil case, as I had lost one. When I asked the prisoner he said “No, my boy, I have not”. On the 8th of September I saw Mr. Spurgeon, the assistant manager at the hotel, and he showed me a pencil case – the one now produced. I identify it by the marks of my teeth round the bottom, the absence of lead, and a black spot in one of the grooves as the one I lost. On the 8th of September I went to the prisoner in the pantry and said “I hear you have a gold pencil case. Do you mind showing it to me?” Prisoner said “Certainly not”. He then felt in his pockets, and said he had not got it, but also said “I did have a plated one once, but it is somewhere in my box now”. Asked him if he would come and look in his box after he had finished dinner, which he was having at the time. Mr. Spurgeon, prisoner, and myself went down, and the prisoner unlocked his box, took out a small tin collar box, which I searched, as well as his other box, but could not find the pencil case. Prisoner said he had not seen it since the Superintendent had it the night before, and supposed he took it away with him. Then went into the room where the box was searched the night before and looked about the room, but could not find the pencil case. I lost it after the prisoner came to the hotel.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Prisoner came the early part of September. I lost the pencil case about a fortnight after the prisoner came.

Mr. Minter: You say the prisoner came in September, and you lost the pencil case in August?

Witness: I made a mistake. Am not certain what month prisoner came into Mr. Edwards' service. Did not give him a description of the pencil case, but told him it was a gold one. I mean by the description the pattern of the pencil case. The pantry was used by the waiters for washing themselves. There was no-one there when I went in. I took the pencil case out to pick my teeth with, as I suffered with toothache. There is no-one but the waiters supposed to go into the pantry.

By Mr. Moss: I was not aware of the material of which the pencil case was made.

By the learned Recorder: I asked the prisoner on the day I lost the pencil case if he had found one.

Mr. G. Spurgeon, the assistant manager at the Pavilion Hotel was then called, and said: I know the prisoner. He was employed at the Pavilion Hotel, and came into our service on the first Monday in August, and left on Wednesday, September 8th. Before he left I spoke to him about a pencil case having been seen in his possession. At first he said he had not one, but on my saying it had been seen in his box the previous night, he said “If it was there then, it is now”. I went with Pike to search his box. He showed Pike a tin collar box, but the pencil case was not in that, nor in his clothes box. The pencil case was brought to me by Jane Challis. I swear this is the one. When it was brought to me I showed it to Pike, who said “This is mine”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I identify the pencil case by the teeth marks. I showed it to Pike and he identified it, and I then gave it to Superintendent Wilshere.

J.M. Wilshere, Superintendent of Police for the Borough, said: I remember on the seventh of last month going to the Pavilion Hotel. I saw Mr. Edwards. From information received I asked to see the prisoner, and then told him he had been seen leaving the Hotel with something under his arm. Asked if he had any objection to his box being searched. Mr. Edwards and the head waiter went with me down to prisoner's room. Prisoner unlocked his box and produced a small tin collar box containing a quantity of sundry articles, saying “This is the only one box I have”. I was searching for the cash box at the time, not the pencil case. I saw among his clothes the pencil case, which I had in my hands five or six minutes. I know it by what I thought was a piece of dirt. Asked prisoner if it belonged to him, and he replied he had had it five or six years, and I gave it him back. The next day a pencil case was brought to me by Mr. Spurgeon, and I got a warrant out and apprehended the prisoner at Randolf Mews, London.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I went to the hotel to search for a box of money, and told prisoner he had been seen leaving the hotel with something under his arm. There was no gas in the room where I searched the box; we had a single candle held over the box by the head waiter. I mean to say that I saw the flaw in the pencil case by the light of the candle. When I went to apprehend prisoner I took the pencil case out of my pocket and said “Where are the opera glasses that were in your box at the time I found this?”, and he replied he had given them back to the owner. I found prisoner at his residence, 9, Randolf Mews, London.

Jane Challis: I was in the employ of Mr. Edwards, but am now living at Guestling, near Hastings. I remember the prisoner very well. I found a great many things while at the hotel, but particularly remember finding a pencil case in a dust box in the basement. Prisoner slept on the left hand side and the end room of the passage. The room was about ten or twelve yards from the dust box where I found the pencil case, which I took to Mr. Spurgeon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The rooms are occupied by the kitchen people and waiters. I might have swept it up, but I do not think I did.

Alfred Back, head waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said: I was present when the box was searched.

By Mr. Minter: I did not say before the Magistrates that the Superintendent was examining the pencil case five or six minutes. I don't know what became of it after he looked at it. It is tru the Superintendent was talking and twiddling the pencil case in his hand at the same time.

Charles Pateman was called by Mr. Minter as a witness to the prisoner's character. He said: I have known him eight years. He has always borne the best of characters. He lodged with me four years.

This being the end of the evidence, Mr. Minter addressed the jury in the following terms: Mr. Minter, on addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, said that although he felt some anxiety in addressing the jury, it was not from any fear that he should be able to demonstrate the prisoner's innocence, but from a fear that his interests might suffer from his having to undertake the defence at a short notice, in consequence of the absence of counsel. The whole case rested upon Superintendent Wilshere's evidence as to the identity of the pencil case found by the housemaid with the pencil case seen by him in the prisoner's box. If the jury were not satisfied that the Superintendent's evidence was to be relied on on that point, then there was an end of the case, and he confidently asked the jury to disbelieve him, looking at the manner in which he had given his evidence relative to the alleged admission made by the prisoner in London, which, under cross-examination, turned out to be no admission at all, but were the Superintendent's own words put into the prisoner's mouth for the purpose of bolstering up a weak case. Mr. Minter proceeded to make further comments upon the conduct of the Superintendent, and said the case might do very well according to the understanding of the Superintendent, examined by the light of a solitary candle in the basement of the Pavilion Hotel, but would not bear examination by daylight in the Town Hall. He ridiculed the idea of the Superintendent having seen the speck of dirt upon the pencil case, and attributed his statement to the vivid imagination of a police officer anxious for a conviction, and concluded by calling upon the jury to give a verdict of acquittal.

The Recorder summed up the case, pointing out to the jury that unless they were satisfied the pencil case found by the housemaid was the same pencil case as seen by the Superintendent in the prisoner's box, they would be bound to give a verdict of Not Guilty. The Recorder censured the Superintendent for having questioned the prisoner, having no right to do so, and left it for the jury to say whether they believed the Superintendent had really seen the small speck of dirt on the pencil case, as alleged by him.

The jury acquitted the prisoner, at which there was applause in Court, which was immediately suppressed.

Southeastern Gazette 6 March 1876

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Pavilion Hotel, on Thursday evening last, before J. Minter, Esq., touching the death of Stephen Bowbrick, a painter aged 31 years.

William Solly said deceased was a painter, and lived at Sandgate. He was in the employ of Holden and Son, of Folkestone. He was 31 years of age. Witness saw him at work painting the cornice at the top of the Pavilion Hotel on Thursday afternoon. He was standing on a pair of steps, which stood on two planks, resting on the window sills. The window sills were about twelve inches wide and four feet in length. The height from the ground was quite 25 feet. Witness was working below deceased, and saw him fall. He slipped from the steps and was in the act of getting from the steps to the plank. He fell first on the corridor roof, and thence through the glass roof of the entrance hall. Witness with the assistance of the hall porter picked him up and brought him into the steward’s room. Witness believed that the plank and steps were perfectly safe to work upon.

Some further evidence having been given, the jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death.”

Folkestone Express 27 April 1878

Saturday, April 20th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Colonel De Crespigny, W.J. Jeffreason, James Kelcey and J. Clark Esqs., and Aldermen Caister and Sherwood.

John Adams, a tramping bricklayer, was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Pavilion Hotel when requested. He pleaded Guilty and was fined 5s. and 8s. 6d. costs, or seven days', and was committed in default.

Southeastern Gazette 5 September 1881

Local News

At the Police Court this (Monday) morning, Ellen Hodges, a servant at the Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing a diamond cross, valued at £600, the property of a Mrs. Saunders. £100 had been advertised in the public papers for the cross. Mrs. Saunders had been staying at the Pavilion Hotel and on her return home missed the cross. Every inquiry was made and on a close search being instituted at the Pavilion the cross was found behind a cistern in a paper box. The prisoner was subsequently seen to fetch the box away and when charged with the robbery said she had found it and intended keeping it and claiming the reward. She was remanded till Wednesday.

Folkestone Chronicle 10 September 1881

Monday, September 5th: Before J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Ellen Hodges, late a chambermaid at the Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing a diamond cross, of the value of £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, a lady who had been staying at this hotel, on the 4th August.

Mr. Minter, who prosecuted, in opening the case stated that in order to secure the attendance of witnesses from London, he should have to apply for a remand. It appears that Mrs. Saunders and her husband were staying at the hotel on the date named. From Folkestone she went to the Alexandra Hotel, London, when she discovered she had lost the jewel, and a communication was made to Mr. Edwards, who had the hotel searched, but the cross could not be found. Suspicion rested upon a person who was seen to go in and out of another room. The girl was watched, but nothing was found against her. The prisoner was observed to go into this room, and the place was thoroughly searched by a Mr. Tickell, when behind a cistern over the sink, where the knife box was kept, a little paper box was discovered. On opening it, the diamond cross was found there, with a silver spoon and some trinkets, which were no doubt stolen property. The box was taken down to Mr. Edwards, the cross taken out, but the box returned to the place where found in order to lay a trap for the thief. From a window looking into this room Tickell kept watch, and he saw the prisoner come in, raise the knife box, take something out, and she was immediately secured with the box in her possession. The box must have been hidden there by herself or some confederate. He believed she had a confederate whom he thought they could bring to justice. First of all, prisoner denied knowing anything about it, then she admitted she knew the cross was in the box. She said she did not intend to steal it, but wait for an offered reward. Then she told Mr. Spurgeon she was afraid to give it up for fear of being charged with the theft. It looked very much like stealing when she knew that a reward of £100 was offered for it's recovery, and prisoner admitted seeing an advertisement offering the reward. It transpired that she had intended to wait until the room occupied by Mrs. Saunders was vacant, and then having previously put the cross behind a chest of drawers, to get one of the other servants to pretend to find it, and to claim the reward. These matters would be gone into at the trial, and it would be necessary to ask for a remand, which was granted until Saturday.

Folkestone Express 10 September 1881

Monday, September 5th: Before J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Ellen Hodges, late a chambermaid at the Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing a diamond cross of the value of £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, a lady who had been staying at the above hotel, on the 4th of August.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prosecution, and in opening the case, prefaced his remarks by stating that he should have to apply to the Bench for a remand in order to obtain the attendance of witnesses from London. He proposed to relate shortly the facts of the case, and then call evidence sufficient to justify a remand being granted. From Mr. Minter's statement, it seems that the lady, Mrs. Saunders, and her husband stayed at the hotel for some time, and left on the 4th of August. The lady had a diamond cross, the value of which was £600, which she wore while at the hotel, and when she left she placed it, as she thought, in her jewel case. From Folkestone she went to the Alexandra Hotel, London, and on the 10th of August, when she wished to wear the cross, she found it was gone. She began to consider when and where she could have lost it, and telegraphed to Mr. Edwards of the Pavilion Hotel on the same day, informing him of her loss and asking him to cause a search to be made, and to make enquiries to see if it could be discovered. Search was made, and notice was given to everybody in the hotel, including the prisoner, of the loss, but the cross could not be found, and Mr. Edwards wrote back informing the lady of the result. Curiously enough, suspicion was raised against another person in the hotel, who was seen to go in and out a certain room. She was watched, but nothing was discovered against her. The prisoner also was seen to go into this room, and this induced Mr. Edwards to have the place thoroughly searched by a Mr. Tickell, when, behind a cistern over the sink, where the knife box was kept, Tickell saw a little paper box. He took it out, and on opening it the diamond cross was found there, with some other articles – a silver spoon, some little trinkets, and so on – which no doubt were stolen property, but with which he (Mr. Minter) need not trouble the Bench then. The box was taken down to Mr. Edwards, who took the cross out, but had the box returned to the place where it was found, in order that it might be ascertained who the thief was. There was a window looking into this room. A ladder was placed against it, and Tickell was instructed to watch. Presently the prisoner went in, raised the knife box, and took the paper box and it's contents. She was immediately secured with the box in her possession. Of course then they had caught the thief. The box must have been hidden there, either by her or some confederate, otherwise she would not have known it was there. He (Mr. Minter) had his own notion about it, and he believed she had a confederate, whom he thought they would be able to bring to justice as well. First of all the prisoner denied knowing anything about it. Then she admitted that she did know the diamond cross was in the box, but she did not intend to steal it, but to wait for the reward which was going to be offered for it. Then she also stated to Mr. Spurgeon, the manager of the hotel, that when she found it she was afraid to give it up for fear it might be said she had stolen it. Of course that statement would not hold water. It looked very much like stealing, when it was known that a reward of £100 was offered for the recovery of the cross. Prisoner admitted that she had seen the advertisement offering the reward. It appeared that she intended to wait until the room which Mrs. Saunders had occupied had become vacant, and then to get one of the other servants into the room, having previously put this diamond cross behind a chest of drawers, and pretend that she had just found it, and then claim the reward. Those matters would be gone into on her trial. Mrs. Saunders was in London, and also Mr. Streeter, whom it would be necessary to call as witnesses, and therefore he must ask the Bench for a remand.

He called Superintendent Rutter, who said he received the prisoner into custody on Saturday on a charge of stealing a diamond cross. The owner of the cross, Mrs. Saunders, was living at the Alexandra Hotel, London. She was a material witness, and also Mr. Streeter, jeweller, of New Bond Street. From information he had received he anticipated being able to connect the prisoner with the robbery of this diamond cross. She confessed she had the cross in her possession previous to it's being found behind the cistern. She said she did not intend to steal it. She found it behind the drawers. She said she intended to keep it in order to claim the reward.

The prisoner was remanded till Saturday.

Southeastern Gazette 12 September 1881

Local News

The Alleged Robbery of a Diamond Cross: At the Police Court on Saturday, Ellen Hodges was charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders.

Mr. Minter again appeared to prosecute, and for the information of those magistrates not present at the former hearing briefly narrated the facts of the case as already reported. He then called the following additional evidence:—

Theodore Sickell, who is employed at the Pavilion Hotel, said: I remember a letter coming from Mrs. Saunders stating that she had lost a diamond cross. The prisoner and another servant named Thomason were among those informed of the loss. I noticed Thomason going very frequently into the housemaid’s pantry. I received instructions in consequence to make a thorough search there, with the result that on Friday morning I discovered a paper box, containing the cross with several other articles, behind the cistern over the sink. I put the box back, and was directed to watch the room from a ladder placed outside a window. On Saturday morning, between 11 and 12 o’clock, I saw the prisoner come in and, getting up on the sink remove, a knife box, and putting her arm between the cistern and the wall take up the box. I immediately got down and questioned prisoner, who denied all knowledge of the box. On taking her to Mr. Edwards he asked her whether she knew what the box contained, and she said she did not. Afterwards she said “If I tell the truth will you believe me?'’ She said “I found the cross four or five days ago, after the people had gone, behind the drawers. I did not intend to steal it, and I was frightened to give it up for fear of being accused of stealing it.”

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion Hotel, said that after the prisoner had been taken into custody he was sent for by her, and she told him she did not steal the cross, nor did she find it as stated to Mr. Edwards, but she saw the cross in her bedroom in the possession of Thomason. She took it in her hand and looked at it and gave it back to Thomason, who took it out of the room. About a week after this time Thomasson told her where she had secreted it, and on the Friday on which it was found Thomason and her had agreed between them to get a third party in the bedroom the next time it was vacated, and then she (the prisoner) should take the cross from its hiding place and, taking it into the room, pretend to find it there, and then share the £100 reward which had been offered.

Agnes Thomason was next placed in the witness box, but on the Superintendent making a communication to Mr. Minter, that gentleman declined to question her on the ground that she perhaps might be placed in the dock herself.

Mrs. Saunders, the lady to whom the cross belonged, and Mr Streeter, jeweller, of New Bond Street, were next called, but neither answered to their names, although they had been summoned.

Mr. Minter said that was as far as he could carry the case that day. He rather anticipated that the absent witnesses would not come, from what they said when the subpoenas were served, but he was in hopes that in consequence of what was pointed out to them at the time they would feel it their duty to obey and to attend there. He believed Mrs. Saunders was going abroad. Mr. Edwards, who had directed the prosecution so far, and had now fulfilled his duty, would leave the matter in the hands of the Bench to deal with in such a way as they might think proper. He (Mr. Minter) suggested that it was a case for the Public Prosecutor, who, if he thought fit, could carry on the prosecution and compel the attendance of the witnesses. Mr. Edwards had delivered up the cross to Mrs. Saunders, who no doubt now did not care to trouble further in the matter.

After some further discussion as to the course which should be pursued the Bench adjourned the case until Saturday.

The prisoner wished to make a statement, but was strongly advised not to do so by the Clerk and the magistrates, and she accordingly desisted.

Folkestone Chronicle 17 September 1881

Saturday, September 10th: Before Alderman Banks and Caister, A.M. Watkin, M.J. Bell, F. Boykett, and J. Holden esqs.

Ellen Hodges was charged on remand with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders.

Mr. Minter again appeared to prosecute, and for the information of those magistrates not present at the former hearing, briefly narrated the facts of the case as already reported.

He then called Theodore Tickell, who said: I am employed at the Pavilion Hotel, in the service of Mr. Edwards. Prisoner was also employed there. I remember a letter coming from Mrs. Saunders, stating that she had lost a diamond cross. She had been occupying rooms on the first floor. Search was made for it, and the prisoner and another servant named Thomason were among the rest informed of the loss. The cross was ultimately found in the housemaid's pantry, and into this room I noticed Thomason go very frequently, and I received instructions from the manager to make a thorough search there, with the result that on Friday morning I discovered a paper box containing the cross, with several other articles, behind the cistern over the sink. It had been placed between the cistern and the wall, and I had to reach down to get it. After I had seen what was in it, I put the box back, and communicated with Mr. Spurgeon, the manager, and by the direction of Mr. Edwards, the proprietor, the cross was taken out and the box replaced. I was directed to watch the room from a ladder placed outside a window, and on Saturday morning between eleven and twelve o'clock I saw the prisoner come in, and, getting upon the sink, remove a knife box, and, putting her arm between the cistern and the wall, take up the box. I immediately got down and ran round and asked the prisoner what she had done with the box. She denied all knowledge of it, although I told her I had seen her with it in her hand. I left her in charge of a waiter, and went to report the matter to Mr. Edwards, who told me to bring the prisoner down to him. On taking her to Mr. Edwards, he asked her whether she knew what the box contained, and she said she did not. Afterwards she said “If I tell the truth, will you believe me?”. She said “I found the cross four or five days ago, after the people had gone, behind the drawers. I did not intend to steal it, and I was frightened to give it up for fear of being accused of stealing”.

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion Hotel, said last witness had informed him that he had discovered the cross, and witness took the diamond cross away and instructed Tickell to put the box back again with a watch. After the prisoner had been taken into custody he was sent for by her, and she told him she did not steal the cross, nor did she find it as stated to Mr. Edwards, but she saw the cross in the bedroom in the possession of Thomason. She took it in her hand and looked at it, and gave it back to Thomason, who took it out of her room about a week after this time. Thomason told her where she had secreted it, and on the Friday on which it was found, Thomason and her had agreed between them to get a third party in the bedroom the next time it was vacated, and that she (the prisoner) should take the cross from it's hiding place, and, taking it into the room, pretend to find it there, and then share the £100 reward which had been offered.

Supt. Rutter, of the borough police, who was present when prisoner made this statement, confirmed the version given of it by the last witness.

Agnes Thomason was then placed in the witness box, but on the Superintendent making a communication to Mr. Minter, that gentleman declined to question her on the ground that she perhaps might be placed in the dock herself.

Mrs. Saunders, the lady to whom the cross belonged, and Mr. Streeter, a jeweller, of New Bond Street, were next called, but neither answered to their names.

Supt. Rutter proved the service of summonses upon both directing their attendance here that day.

Mr. Minter said this was as far as he could carry the case that day, with neither of the witnesses down here. He rather anticipated that they would not come from what they said when the subpoenas were served, but he was in hopes that in consequence of what he pointed out to them at the time that they would feel it their duty to obey and to attend there. He believed Mrs. Saunders was going abroad. Mr. Edwards, who had directed the prosecution so far, and had now fulfilled his duty, would leave the matter in the hands of the Bench to deal with it in such a way as they might think proper. He (Mr. Minter) suggested that it was a case for the public prosecutor, whom he thought could carry on the prosecution, and compel the attendance of the witnesses. Mr. Edwards had delivered up the cross to Mrs. Saunders, who no doubt did not care to trouble further in the matter.

Ald. Banks: If she had not got the cross, she would have come forward to prosecute.

Mr. Minter: No doubt she would.

After some further discussion as to the course which should be pursued, the Bench adjourned the case until today (Saturday).

The prisoner wished to make a statement, but was strongly advised not to do so by the Clerk to the Magistrates, and she accordingly desisted.

Folkestone Express 17 September 1881

Saturday, September 10th: Before Aldermen Caister and Banks, M. Bell, A.M. Watkin. F. Boykett and J. Holden Esqs.

Ellen Hodges was brought up on remand, charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, at the Pavilion Hotel, on the 4th of August.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prosecution, and recapitulated the particulars of the case, which were given in our last. He then called the following witnesses in support of his statements:

Theodore Tickell deposed: I am in the employ of Mr. Edwards, of the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner was in his service also. I remember a letter about the loss of a diamond cross coming to the hotel from Mrs. Saunders on the 10th of August. Mrs. Saunders occupied rooms E and F on the first floor when she was staying at the hotel. On receipt of the letter search was made to see if the cross could be found. The prisoner and another servant named Thomason were informed of the loss. The cross was ultimately found in the housemaids' pantry under the following circumstances: I observed Thomason going into the housemaids' pantry very frequently, and I received instructions from Mr. Spurgeon, the manager, to watch the room. In consequence of what I observed I made a thorough search on Thursday morning, and again on Friday. On Friday I got up on the sink. There was a knife box on the top of a housemaid's box placed on the top of the sink on the left hand side. It was resting in the corner against the cistern and the wall. I removed it and looked down between the cistern and the wall, and found that cardboard box (produced). On taking it out and opening it I found a diamond cross, a spoon, and various other small articles. I put the box back and communicated with Mr. Spurgeon. I did not take the cross out then. By direction of Mr. Edwards it was taken out in my presence and the box placed back again in the position in which I found it, and also the housemaid's box. There is a window in the pantry, and by direction of Mr. Spurgeon, I placed a ladder so as to be able to get up to the window and watch. I watched on Friday, and again on Saturday. On Saturday I saw the prisoner come in about a quarter or half past eleven o'clock. I saw her get up on the sink, remove the knife box, and put her arm down between the cistern and the wall and take up the box now produced, which had contained the diamond cross. I immediately got down and ran round. The prisoner was still in the pantry, but she had not the box then in her possession. She had dropped it back again behind the cistern. When I got in she was standing still. I asked her what she had done with the box I saw her have in her hand. She said “I have not had a box in my hand”. I said “You have, because I saw it in your hand”. She said “I have not had a box in my hand”. I then went down to Mr. Edwards, leaving her in charge of another waiter who came at the time. Mr. Edwards told me to bring prisoner down to him. I went back to the housemaids' pantry to fetch the prisoner. I got up on the sink and took the box out in her presence When she got down she was asked by Mr. Edwards if she knew what was in the box. It did not then contain the cross. Mr. Edwards asked her if she knew it was in there. She said “I do not”. He asked her again, and she said the same. Then she said “If I tell the truth, will you believe me? I found the cross behind the drawers four or five days after the people had gone. I did not intend to steal it. I was frightened to give it up for fear you should accuse me of stealing it”. Mr. Edwards said it was her duty to bring it to the office.

Prisoner, on being asked if she had anything to ask, said she told Mr. Edwards she found the cross many days after the people had left.

Witness: I understood you to say four or five days. I don't think you said many days.

George Spurgeon said: I am manager at the Pavilion Hotel. Tickell showed me that box on Friday the 2nd September. I opened it with him in the pantry, and amongst the articles in it I found a diamond cross. I told Tickell to put it back behind the cistern and went down and told Mr. Edwards. I came back and took the cross out of the box and took it to Mr. Edwards, for fear anyone should take it away. By Mr. Edwards' direction I instructed Tickell to replace the box behind the cistern and to watch. I was not present when the girl was given into custody. Afterwards, when she was at the Town hall, she sent a message saying she desired to make a statement to me. The Superintendent gave her to understand it was a voluntary statement. I believe he cautioned her, but I can't remember the words he used. She then said “I didn't steal the cross, and I didn't find it as I stated to Mr. Edwards. I saw the cross in the bedroom in the possession of Thomason. I took it in my hand to look at it and gave it back to Thomason, who took it out of the room. About a week before this time Thomason told me where she had secreted the cross. On Friday, the day it was actually found, Thomason and I agreed between us that we should get a third party into the bedroom the next time it was vacated, and I should take it from the hiding place behind the cistern, take it into the bedroom, and pretend to have found it there at that moment and share the reward of £100 between us”. On hearing from Mrs. Saunders that she had lost the cross I made it known to the servants and to the prisoner and Thomason. I think the reward was offered on the Monday before the cross was found. It was advertised in several papers.

Superintendent Rutter was called, and said he received the prisoner in custody on Saturday the 3rd, on a charge of stealing the diamond cross. He received a message from the prisoner on Sunday for Mr. Spurgeon. He was present at the interview between prisoner and Mr. Spurgeon, and cautioned her that whatever she might say would be said voluntary, and would be taken down in writing and might be used as evidence against her on her trial. She then made the statement. He did not take the statement in writing. Mr. Spurgeon's version of it was quite correct.

Agnes Thomason was then called, and went into the witness box. Mr. Minter, however, said that in consequence of a communication he had received from the Superintendent he would not examine her.

Superintendent Rutter proved serving Mrs. Saunders, at the Alexandra Hotel, Knightsbridge, with a subpoena to appear at this Court, and also with a subpoena to produce the cross. The subpoena for Mr. Streeter's attendance he left with his manager in New Bond Street.

Mr. Minter said this was as far as he could go with the case that day. Neither of the two witnesses were present, and he rather anticipated they would not be, from what was said when the subpoenas were served. But he was in hopes, in consequence of what was pointed out to them at the time, that they would have felt it to be their duty to attend. He believed Mrs. Saunders was going abroad, and it would of course put her to great inconvenience to attend and prosecute in that case. That, however, had nothing to do with it. They were bound to follow out the instructions given by the prosecution in the case, and they had done all they could in the matter. He must therefore leave it in the hands of the Bench to deal with it in such a manner as they thought fit. There was a public prosecutor who had the power to take up the matter, and to direct and compel the persons who had been robbed to attend and prosecute, if he thought it necessary and proper. It might be that it was not for him to dictate, nor should he presume to do so, but he might suggest to the Bench that they could, if they were satisfied with the evidence placed before them that a robbery was committed – about which he presumed there could be no possible doubt – they had power to remand the case in order that the depositions might be sent up to the public prosecutor, leaving him to take such steps as he thought proper. Mr. Edwards had done his duty to himself and the public by proceeding thus far with the case, but as a private individual he couldn't proceed any further. There was only one piece of evidence omitted to be given, and he would call Mr. Spurgeon to prove that he delivered the diamond cross into the hands of Mr. Streeter on behalf of Mrs. Saunders, and Mrs. Saunders admitted to the Suprintendent that she had the cross.

Mr. Spurgeon was re-called and said by direction of Mr. Edwards he took the cross he received out of the box to Mr. Streeter, and delivered it up at ten o'clock on Saturday morning.

Alderman Banks: If the lady had not had the cross she would have come forward fast enough.

Superintendent Rutter said when he asked Mrs. Saunders to come as a witness she said “I have got the diamond cross, and I don't want to trouble any further in the business”.

Mr. Bradley said Mr. Minter could apply for a crown office subpoena.

Mr. Minter said he was afraid it would not be of any use because Mrs. Saunders would be on the Continent. Without her he could not proceed any further. Under those circumstances, it was a matter which he thought might be submitted to the public prosecutor, leaving him to take such a course in the matter as he thought proper. He added that it was only fair to the girl to state that from all the information they had been able to gather from every inquiry they had made, they felt that the prisoner, although guilty as an accessory after the fact, was not the original thief. They had not the slightest doubt about it. She was led into the matter afterwards.

Mr. Bradley said that under the Act of '79 he must report to the Public Prosecutor, and send up a copy of the depositions. It rested with the Public Prosecutor whether he took it up.

Mr. Minter said they had done everything they could and they were met with the refusal of those persons to attend. Having shown to the Bench that a crime had been committed it rested with others to carry on the prosecution.

It was then decided by the Bench to remand the prisoner until next Saturday. She said she could not find bail – she had no friends. She wished to make a statement, but the Magistrates' Clerk advised her to say nothing at this stage.

Southeastern Gazette 17 September 1881

Local News

We understand the Public Prosecutor has taken up the case of the alleged hotel robbery and will be represented at the resumed hearing today (Saturday).

Southeastern Gazette 19 September 1881

Local News

On Saturday, at the Borough police court, Ellen Hodges was again brought up on remand charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders.

Mr. Pollard, the solicitor to the Treasury, appeared on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, and, addressing the Bench, said he was sorry to say he could not complete the case owing to the absence of Mrs. Saunders, who was not well enough to be present. Therefore he would suggest that the evidence should be read over and signed by the witnesses, in order that their presence might not be required again. He had one or two questions to ask the witnesses, and their answers could be added to the depositions. He should then ask for a further remand.

The depositions were then read over by Mr. Bradley.

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion Hotel, said Mr. and Mrs. Saunders came to the hotel on the 4th August, and occupied E and F rooms on the first floor. The prisoner was engaged on that floor, and it was her duty to clean out the rooms after the people had gone. When the cross was found behind the cistern he examined it before taking it to Mr. Streeter in London. He would know it again.

Mr. Pollard here called upon Mr. Saunders, who was present, to produce the cross and that gentleman did so. Mr. Pollard then applied that the cross should be detained for the purposes of the trial, and, although Mr. Saunders objected, saying he would much rather take it back with him, the Bench granted the application and remanded the further hearing of the case until Saturday next, when Mrs. Saunders will attend.

Folkestone Chronicle 24 September 1881

On Saturday, at the Borough Police Court, Ellen Hodges was again brought up on remand, charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders.

Mr. Pollard, the solicitor to the Treasury, now appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, and addressing the Bench said he was sorry to say he could not complete the case, owing to the absence of Mrs. Saunders, who was not well enough to be present, and therefore he would suggest that the evidence should be read over and signed by the witnesses, in order that their presence might not be required again. He had one or two questions to ask the witnesses, and their answers would be added to the depositions. He should then ask for a further remand.

The depositions were then read over by Mr. Bradley.

Theodore Tickell, re-called, said the place where the housemaid's box was found above the sink was not the proper place for it.

George Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion Hotel, said Mr. and Mrs. Saunders came to the hotel on the 4th of August, and occupied E and F rooms on the first floor. The prisoner was engaged on that floor, and it was her duty to clear out the rooms after the people had gone. When the cross was found behind the cistern, he examined it before taking it to Mr. Streeter in London. He would know it again.

Mr. Pollard here called upon Mr. Saunders, who was present, to produce the cross, and that gentleman did so.

Mr. Pollard then applied that the cross should be detained for the purpose of the trial, and although Mr. Saunders objected, saying he would much rather take it back with him, the Bench granted the application, and remanded the further hearing of the case until Saturday next, when Mrs. Saunders will attend.

Folkestone Express 24 September 1881

Saturday, September 17th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Caister, Captain Crowe, R.W. Boarer, F. Boykett, and A.M. Watkin Esqs.

Ellen Hodges was again brought up on remand, charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, a visitor who was recently staying at the Pavilion Hotel.

It will be remembered that the prisoner was remanded in order that the facts of the case might be made known to the Public Prosecutor.

Mr. Pollard, Solicitor to the Treasury, now appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown, and stated that his friend Mr. Bradley had made a communication as stated above. He regretted that on the present occasion he should not be able to complete the case. Mrs. Saunders, the lady to whom the cross belonged, was unwell and unable to appear, but her husband was present, and he had brought the diamond cross. He proposed then to have the evidence already given read over, and to add a word or two to the examination of the witnesses so that there would be no necessity to ask for their further attendance, and then Mrs. Saunders would come down and prove the loss of the cross.

The depositions were then read over.

Theodore Tickell, was re-called, and in reply to Mr. Pollard, said he had never seen the box on the cistern before the 2nd September. It was the top of a housemaid's box. It was in consequence of seeing it there that he got on the sink.

George Spurgeon was also re-examined. He said: Mr. and Mrs. Saunders came to the Pavilion Hotel on the 13th of July. They left on the 4th of August. They occupied rooms E and F, bedroom and dressing room. Prisoner was housemaid on the same floor. Her duty was to keep the rooms clean, and when the visitors left to turn the rooms out and give them a thorough cleaning, removing the furniture. I did not notice that Mrs. Saunders wore any jewellery. When the cross was found I had a good look at it before I gave it to Mr. Streeter. I am sure I should know it again. To the best of my belief that is the same cross. I have no doubt whatever about it. I delivered it to Mr. Streeter himself on the 3rd of September.

Mr. Pollard said the cross was now produced, and probably seeing the necessity for the production of it at the trial, he did not know whether Mr. Saunders would have any objection to leaving it in the hands of the Superintendent of Police so that it might be produced on the trial.

Mr. Saunders: I would rather take it with me. Having found it, I do not want to lose it again. It can always be produced whenever it is wanted.

The Mayor: Would you have any objection to it's being deposited at the National Provincial Bank?

Mr. Saunders: I certainly should.

Mr. Bradley said: Mrs. Saunders has been served with a Crown subpoena, which she has treated with contempt, and she was liable to an attachment for her non-appearance. We have had trouble enough already, and I shall advise you to empower the Superintendent to retain it.

Mr. Pollard said if the lady would not attend voluntarily, she would be attached. It was impossible to complete the case without her evidence.

Mr. Saunders said he hoped she would be able to attend on Wednesday.

Mr. Bradley told Mr. Saunders that it was an error of judgement to give up the cross at all. If it had not been given up, they would have got Mrs. Saunders there.

The prisoner was then further remanded until Saturday.

Southeastern Gazette 26 September 1881

Local News

On Saturday Ellen Hodges, a domestic servant, who stands charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, at the Pavilion Hotel, was again brought up on remand, at the Borough Police Court, before the Mayor, Alderman Caister, General Cannon, Capt. Carter, and Messrs. J. Clark, W. J. Jeffreason, J. Holden, and F. Boykett.

Mr. Pollard, solicitor to the Treasury, again appeared on behalf of the Public Prosecutor.

Mrs. Saunders, to whom the cross belongs, now appeared, and said that in July last she was staying at the Pavilion Hotel, and was there about three weeks, leaving on the 4th August. During that time she wore a diamond cross, and placed it in her jewel box on the drawers in her bedroom. She afterwards left and went to the Alexandra Hotel, London, and having occasion to wear it on the 9th August looked for it in her jewel, ease, but found it not. She communicated with the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, and afterwards, at the suggestion of Mr. Streeter, of New Bond Street, £100 reward was offered for its recovery. On the 5th September she received the cross from Mr. Streeter, and paid the reward.

Nathan Clayton, manager to Mr. Streeter, proved the receipt by Mr. Streeter of the cross from Mr. Spurgeon, manager at tho Pavilion, and afterwards saw it handed to Mrs. Saunders. He did not know what became of the reward.

This was the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

An application of the solicitor on behalf of Mrs. Saunders for the return of the cross until the trial was refused.

Folkestone Chronicle 1 October 1881

Saturday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Gen. Cannon, Capt. Carter, Ald. Caister, J. Clark, W. Jeffreason, J. Holden, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Ellen Hodges, a domestic servant, who stands charged with stealing a diamond cros, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, at the Pavilion Hotel, was again brought up on remand.

Mr. Pollard, solicitor to the Treasury, again appeared on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, and the prisoner was undefended.

Mrs. Saunders, to whom the cross belongs, now appeared, and said: I am the wife of Charles Wickenden Saunders, of Nonning Hall, Penryth, Comberland. In July last I was staying at the Pavilion Hotel, and was there about three weeks, leaving on the 4th August. During the time I was there, I wore a diamond cross, which I kept in my jewel box on the drawers in my bedroom – F, on the first floor. After wearing it, I put it away in the jewel case, which was kept locked, and the key left in the lock. I afterwards left the Pavilion and went to the Alexandra Hotel, London, and having occasion to wear it on the 9th August, I looked for it in my jewel case, and found it gone. I communicated with the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, and afterwards, at the suggestion of Mr. Streeter, of New Bond Street, £100 was offered for it's recovery. On the 5th September, I received the cross from Mr. Streeter, and paid the reward.

Nathan Clayton, manager to Mr. Streeter, proved the receipt by Mr. Streeter of the cross from Mr. Spurgeon, manager at the Pavilion Hotel, and afterwards saw it handed to Mrs. Saunders. He did not know what became of the reward.

This was the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

An application by a solicitor, on behalf of Mrs. Saunders, for the return of the cross until the trial was refused.

Folkestone Express 1 October 1881

Saturday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Captain Carter, Alderman Caister, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason, J. Holden and F. Boykett Esqs.

Ellen Hodges was again placed in the dock, charged on remand with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Mrs. Saunders, late a visitor at the Pavilion Hotel.

Mr. Pollard, Solicitor to the Treasury, appeared to conduct the case on behalf of the Crown Prosecutor. He said that Mrs. Saunders, by dint of much persuasion, had been induced to attend, and he intended to call her and complete the case. He should either ask the Bench to commit the prisoner, or if she should plead Guilty, they might take into consideration whether they would deal with her summarily.

Mrs. Fanny Eliza Saunders was hen placed in the witness box, and in reply to Mr. Pollard she said: I am the wife of Charles Wickenden Saunders, of Nonning Hall, Penrith, Cumberland. In July of this year I was staying with my husband at the Pavilion Hotel for about three weeks. I remember the day we left. It was the 4th of August. During the time I was there I had a diamond cross, an article of jewellery which I was in the habit of wearing. It was kept in my jewel case, which stood on the drawers in my bedroom, F, on the first floor. I remember wearing it on the 19th of July. When I took it off, I don't remember putting it away, but I think I put it in my jewel case. I saw the cross again on the last day of July – the Sunday before we left. It was then in the case. I took it, then replaced it, I think. The case was left on the drawers as usual. It was locked, but the key was in the lock. We left on the 4th of August, and on the 9th I wanted the cross to wear. We were then staying at the Alexandra Hotel, Hyde Park, London. I looked for the cross in the jewel case, and missed it. I made a communication to the Director of Criminal Investigation, Scotland Yard, and afterwards, by Mr. Streeter's advice, an advertisement was inserted in the newspapers, offering £100 reward. On the 5th of September I went to Mr. Streeter's, and there received the cross I had lost. That is it now produced. I paid Mr. Streeter the reward.

Nathan Claydenn was next called. He said: I am manager to Mr. Streeter, jeweller, of 18, New Bond Street. I know Mr. Spurgeon, manager of the Pavilion Hotel. I saw him in London on the 3rd of September. He came to 18, New Bond Street. I saw Mr. Spurgeon hand Mr. Streeter the cross produced. I was present on the 5th September when the last witness came to Mr. Streeter's, and I saw him give her the diamond cross. I do not know what became of the reward. I was not present when Mr. Streeter gave any of it away.

This was the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner, who pleaded Not Guilty, was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

In reply to the question as to whether she had anything to say, she answered “I had better tell you all that I know about it”.

Mr. Bradley informed her that whatever she might say would be evidence only against herself, and not against any other person, and she decided not to say anything.

An application was made by a solicitor, on behalf of Mr. Saunders, that the cross be handed back to the owner.

Mr. Pollard said it was a question for the Bench entirely, and he did not know whether the fact of Mrs. Saunders having appeared and given her evidence would make any difference in their judgement, or whether, looking to the difficulty they had in getting Mrs. Saunders to come, and that she would not come until they had possession of the jewel, that would deter them from making any further order. There was no doubt any Bench of magistrates had the right, which was invariably exercised, to impound anything produced in evidence to ensure it's production, and very properly so, because in a case of forgery, for instance, the forged documents might not be forthcoming.

The Bench decided that the cross should not be given up to Mrs. Saunders.

The solicitor then asked that it might be given into the hands of Mr. Clayden, Mr. Streeter's manager, who was a responsible person, and used to the custody of articles of value.

The Bench, however, refused to accede, and ordered the jewel to be retained by the Superintendent of Police.

Folkestone Chronicle 22 October 1881

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 17th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

The only case for trial was that of Ellen Hodges, a domestic servant, who was charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Charles Richardson Saunders.

Mr. Stuart Sankey, instructed by Mr. Pollard, solicitor to the Treasury, prosecuted, and the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended.

Fanny Elizabeth Saunders said in July last she was staying at the Pavilion Hotel with her husband, and whilst there wore a diamond cross. She was in the habit of keeping it in her jewel case, which she kept on the drawers in her bedroom. She last saw the cross, now produced, on July 31st, when she put it away in her jewel case and locked it up, leaving the key in the lock. On August 9th, at the Alexandra Hotel, London, she discovered that the cross had been taken, and she immediately telegraphed to the Pavilion stating her loss. She also communicated with the authorities at Scotland Yard, and inserted advertisements in several newspapers, offering £100 reward.

Theodore Tickell, a waiter at the Pavilion, said prisoner was employed there as housemaid, and it was part of her duty to keep the rooms occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Saunders in order. He remembered a letter coming to the Pavilion Hotel respecting the loss of the cross, and on Friday, September 2nd he made a search for it in the housemaid's pantry. He got up on the sink, and, removing the top of a housemaid's box, saw between the cistern and the wall a cardboard box, which he took up, and found it to contain the missing cross. He communicated with the manager, who, taking the cross out, caused the box to be replaced. Witness was set to watch through a window, and on the following day he saw the prisoner come in, get up on the sink, and reach the cardboard box down. He then came round to the room and asked prisoner what she had done with the box, but she denied all knowledge of it. On being taken down to Mr. Edwards, the proprietor, she at first denied all knowledge of the box or it's contents, but afterwards said she found the cross behind the drawers after Mrs. Saunders had left.

George Spurgeon, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, gave corroborative evidence, and added that on being sent for to the police station, prisoner said to him that she did not steal it, nor did she find it. She saw the cross in the possession of Thomason (another servant employed in the hotel), who showed it to her, and arranged to get a third party into the bedroom and then pretend to find it, so that they might get the reward and share it between them. Witness took the cross to London, and left it with Mr. Streeter of New Bond Street.

Easton Clayton, manager to Mr. Streeter, proved the receipt of the cross and Superintendent Rutter gave corroborative evidence as to the prisoner's statement at the police station.

This completed the case for the prosecution.

Prisoner repeated her story of the cross having been shown to her by her fellow servant Thomason, she denied that she stole it, and said that it was arranged that they should put it in the room where it was lost, and that in the presence of a third party it should be found.

The Recorder, in summing up, strongly put before the Jury the fact that prisoner had told two different stories to account for her possession of the cross; also the fact that in spite of enquiries which had been made about the article, which she must have heard of, she persisted in keeping her knowledge about it to herself.

The Jury acquitted her, and the prisoner left the Court amid applause.

Folkestone Express 22 October 1881

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 17th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Ellen Hodges, 25, servant, was indicted for stealing a diamond cross, of the value of £600, the property of Mr. Charles Richardson Saunders, on the 4th of August. A second count charged her with receiving the said cross, knowing it to have been stolen. She pleaded Not Guilty. She was unrepresented by counsel.

Mr. Stuart Sankey prosecuted, instructed by Mr. Pollard, solicitor to the Treasury, and after briefly stating the facts of the case he called the following witnesses, whose evidence in full was so recently reported in our columns, that it is now only necessary to summarise it.

Mrs. Fanny Eliza Saunders, wife of the prosecutor, said in July she was staying at the Pavilion Hotel, and remained there until the 4th of August. She had in her possession the diamond cross produced. It was usually kept in her jewel case, which was placed on the drawers in her bedroom, on the first floor. She last saw the cross on the last day of July, when she replaced it in the jewel case. The case was locked and the key left in the lock, she believed. From the Pavilion Hotel they went to the Alexandra Hotel, London, and on the following Tuesday, the 9th of August, the cross was not in her jewel case. She at once telegraphed to the Pavilion, and also communicated with the authorities of Scotland Yard, and Mr. Streeter, the jeweller, and offered a reward of £100 for the recovery of the cross, which she next saw at Mr. Streeter's on the 5th of September.

Theodore Tickell, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said the prisoner was employed at the hotel as housemaid. It would be her duty to keep the room clean which Mrs. Saunders occupied. He could not say if she did so when Mrs. Saunders left. He remembered a letter coming from Mrs. Saunders on the 10th of August about the loss of the diamond cross. He searched for the cross on Friday, the second of September, in the housemaids' pantry. He saw a box on the top of the sink in a slanting position. He got up on the sink and removed the box, behind which, between the cistern and the wall, he found a cardboard box (produced). On opening it he saw something that glittered. He went to Mr. Spurgeon, the manager, who returned with him to the pantry, and in witness's presence took the cross out of the box. The box was then replaced, and also the housemaids' box. There was a window communicating with a storeroom adjoining this pantry, and by standing on the steps a person could see what was going on there. On Saturday, while he was watching, he saw the prisoner go in, and getting on the sink, put her arm down between the cistern and the wall, took out the box. He got down from the ladder and went round into the pantry, and asked her what she had done with the box. She daid “I have not had a box in my hand”. He replied “I know you have, because I saw it in your hand”. Another waiter came in, and witness went to tell Mr. Edwards. He then went back to the prisoner, and in the presence of the prisoner took the box out from behind the cistern. He took the prisoner and the box back to Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards asked her if she knew what was in the box. She said “I do not”. Mr. Edwards again asked her, and she made the same reply, but afterwards said “If I tell the truth will you believe me? I found the cross behind the drawers four or five days after the people had gone. I did not intend to steal it, but I was frightened to give it up in case you should accuse me of stealing it”. Mr. Edwards told her it was her duty to take it to the office.

George Spurgeon, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, said he knew that on the 4th of August prisoner turned ou the room which Mrs. Saunders occupied. On the 10th of August the fact of the loss of the cross was communicated to the prisoner. On the 2nd of September he opened the box produced in Tickell's presence. He found in it several trinkets and a diamond cross. He immediately communicated with Mr. Edwards, by whose direction the cross was taken out, and the box replaced in the position in which it had been found by Tickell, who was instructed to watch. On the 4th of September he went to the police station at the request of the Superintendent of Police, who cautioned prisoner. She then said “I neither found the cross, nor did I steal it. I saw it in the possession of Thomason”. Thomason was chambermaid and would have access to letter F bedroom. She said Thomason took it out of the room in her pocket, and they afterwards arranged to get a third party in the bedroom and then pretend to find it. She said Thomason had had it in her possession until within a week of that time. They arranged to share the reward between them. Witness took the cross to Mr. Streeter on the 3rd of September and left it with him.

Nathan Clayden, manager to Mr. Streeter, 18, New Bond Street, remembered seeing Mr. Spurgeon hand to Mr. Streeter the cross produced.

Samuel Rutter said on the 3rd of September he received the prisoner into custody. On Sunday, the 4th, she saw Mr. Spurgeon in his presence. He cautioned her that any statement she might make would be used in evidence against her. Mr. Spurgeon's statement as to what took place was correct.

The prisoner then made a statement to the following effect: She was not sure, but she thought it was on the last Tuesday in August, that Thomason called her and said she wanted her to help make the beds in letter E and F bedrooms. It was not her place to help, but she did go, as Thomason asked her. While she was in letter E room, she said to her companion “Oh, Thomason, I wish we could find that diamond cross”. Thomason replied “I wish you could, my girl”. Presently she said “Promise me, Ellen, that you won't tell any of the girls or the porters what I am going to tell you”. Prisoner replied that she would not, and after cautioning her a second time not to say a word about it to anyone, Thomason put her hand into her pocket and said “Here is the cross”. She said “Oh, Thomason”, and was very much overcome. Thomason said “Don't you be silly, and don't say a word to anyone. If you was to say one word you would only be suspected of stealing it”. Thomason then took her downstairs and gave her some brandy to revive her, and in the evening told her she had put the cross where it could not be found, and that she intended to hide it. On Friday evening Thomason went to her and told her that the people were going out of E and F rooms on Saturday morning, and wished her to go and get the cross. Then, so that there might be no blame attached to either of them, she (Thomason) would get one of the ladies' maids into the room to help her make the beds, while she (prisoner) was to pretend to have found the cross under the bed. She went to the pantry to get the cross, and as she was coming out Tickell asked her where the box was. She told him she had got no box, and he replied that he saw it in her hand. She made no further answer. She did not steal the cross.

At prisoner's request, Mr. Spurgeon stated that she went to the Pavilion Hotel on the 8th of June, and had conducted herself in a proper manner so far as he knew. They received a good character with her.

The Recorder the summed up, pointing out to the jury that even if there was a doubt in their minds as to the actual theft, there could be none on the second count, that of being an accessory, as her own admission showed that she was privy to the theft.

The jury retired, and after a short consultation returned into court and gave a verdict of Not Guilty.

The verdict was greeted with loud applause, which was repeated when the prisoner left the dock.

Southeastern Gazette 22 October 1881

Quarter Sessions

On Monday the Quarter Sessions for the borough were held at the Town-hall, before the Recorder, J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.

The only case for trial was that of Ellen Hodges, a domestic servant, who was charged with stealing a diamond cross, value £600, the property of Charles Richardson Saunders. Mr. Stuart Sankey, instructed by Mr. Pollard, solicitor to the Treasury, prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended.

Mrs. Fanny Eliza Saunders said that in July last she was staying at the Pavilion Hotel with her husband, and whilst there wore a diamond cross. She was in the habit of keeping it in her jewel case, which she kept on the drawers in her bed-room. She last saw the cross, now produced, on July 31st, when she put it away in her case and looked it up, leaving the key in the lock. On August 9th, at the Alexandra Hotel, London, she discovered that the cross had been taken, and she immediately telegraphed to the Pavilion, stating her loss. She also communicated with the authorities at Scotland Yard, and inserted advertisements in several newspapers offering £100 reward.

Theodore Tickell, a waiter at the Pavilion, said the prisoner was employed there as housemaid, and it was part of her duty to keep the rooms occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Saunders in order. He remembered a latter coming to the Pavilion respecting the loss of the cross, and on Friday, Sept. 2, he made a search for it in the housemaid’s pantry. He got up on the sink, and removing the top of a housemaid’s box saw between the cistern and the wall a cardboard box, which he took up and found to contain the missing cross. He communicated with the manager, who, taking the cross out, caused the box to be replaced. Witness was set to watch through a window, and on the following day he saw the prisoner come in, get up on the sink, and reach the cardboard box. He then came round to the room and asked prisoner what she had done with the box, but she denied all knowledge of it. On being taken down to Mr. Edwards, the proprietor, she again denied all knowledge of the box or its contents, but afterwards said she found the cross behind the drawers after Mrs. Saunders had left.

Mr. George Spurgeon, manager of the Pavilion Hotel, gave corroborative evidence, and added that, on being sent for to the police-station, prisoner said to him that she did not steal it nor did she find it; she saw the cross in the possession of Thomason (another servant employed in the hotel) who showed it to her and arranged to get a third party into the bedroom, and then pretend to find it so that they might get the reward and share it between them. Witness took the cross to London and left it with Mr. Streeter, of New Bond Street.

Nathan Clayden, manager to Mr. Streeter, proved the receipt of the cross.

Supt. Rutter gave corroborative evidence as to the prisoner’s statement at the police station.

Prisoner repeated her story of the cross having been shown to her by her fellow servant Thomason, and denied that she stole it.

The jury acquitted her, and the prisoner left the court amid applause.

Folkestone Chronicle 13 May 1882

Local News

We regret to record the death of James Gaby Breach Esq., some years ago proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. His courtesy and kindness rendered him a gentleman deeply respected by the visitors to the Hotel, whilst his interest in the town was manifested in the large property he acquired here, and his desire when opportunity offered, to promote its welfare in every way. He was buried at the Cemetery this week.

Folkestone Chronicle 9 February 1884

Tuesday, February 5th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Emily Dyer, a married woman, living at Walton Terrace, was charged with feloniously receiving fifteen linen sheets, the property of Messrs. Spurgeon and Waite, of the Pavilion Hotel, valued at £10. Mr. Minter prosecuted and Mr. Ward defended.

It appeared from the evidence that the sheets came in the possession of the accused some time ago, and that she had sent, on two different occasions, five of them to be pawned at Mr. Joseph's, who received them in pledge. A witness named Hoad had pawned them each time, and on Saturday he went again with the remaining five sheets to be pawned, when Mr. Joseph's suspicions were aroused, and he communicated with Messrs. Spurgeon and Waite, who identified the sheets by the texture, &c., the stamp of the hotel which had been upon them having been torn off and rendering them shorter than those in use at the hotel. It is alleged that a French woman named Georgina Miller, who was employed in the Pavilion laundry, and who lodged with the accused, purloined the sheets and gave them to her landlady in discharge of rent, &c., that she owed her. Miller made her escape by taking train to Dover and crossing to Calais on Sunday.

Defendant was committed for trial at the next Quarter Assizes; two sureties of £25 each being accepted, and herself in £25

Folkestone Express 9 February 1884

Tuesday, February 5th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Elizabeth Dyer was charged with receiving 15 linen sheets from George Muller, the property of Messrs. Spurgeon and Waite, of the Pavilion Hotel, well knowing them to have been stolen.

Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Ward defended.

Mr. G. Spurgeon, one of the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel, said on Friday, February 1st, in consequence of a communication from Mr. Joseph, he went to his shop and inspected the five single sheets produced. Having examined them, he believed them to be his property. He had compared them with others and found they were of the same make and material. The sheeting was purchased in May, 1883. They were marked in one corner “Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone”, and the date and number of the sheet with a stamp. The five sheets are smaller than those in use. There is a difference in the hem, for on one side there was a narrow hem done by hand, and the other side was machine hemmed. They had a girl named Georgette Muller in their employ. She was at the laundry and had no authority to dispose of any sheets. There are 20 sheets missing of the same texture and quality as those produced. The value of the five sheets is about £3. The girl Muller was in his employ until Saturday morning between seven and eight o'clock, and she had since absconded.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ward: The sheets produced I believe are my property. I could not swear that they are.

Mr. Simeon Joseph said he knew the defendant, Mrs. Dyer, as a customer. The five sheets produced were taken to him by a boy named Alfred Hoad last Thursday. He caused enquiries to be made about them. He saw Alfred Hoad and asked him who sent them, and he said Mrs. Dyer, who was then sent for. She went to him on Friday evening at the pledge shop. The five sheets were in his office, and he asked her where she obtained the sheets which Hoad had left, and if they were her own. She said “No”. He said “Where did you get them from?”, and she said “From my lodger”. He questioned her who her lodger was, and her reply was “Eugenie Muller”. He asked her where Eugenie Muller worked, and she stated at the Pavilion Laundry. He said those sheets belonged to the Pavilion Hotel, and she asked him to give her the sheets back, but he refused. He told her that she had pledged two other lots of sheeting, and she knew they did not belong to the girl Muller. She said she thought they did. She was French girl, and going to get married, and all French girls were fond of plenty of linen. He communicated with Mr. Spurgeon, who went to his shop and examined the sheeting.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ward: She pawned some sheets before, but it did not excite his suspicion. He had known her as a very respectable woman for some years.

Alfred John Hoad, a boy living at 27, Walton Terrace, said Mrs. Dyer went to his house and asked him if he would take a parcel down the street, and she would give him sixpence. Mrs. Dyer told him there were five sheets packed up in a towel. She told him to take them to Mr. Joseph's and get £1 on them; if he could not get that, he was to take 15s. He took them to Mr. Joseph's and delivered them into the pawn shop. When the parcel was opened, Mr. Joseph went into the shop. He left the sheets there and went back to Mrs. Dyer and told her that Mr. Joseph wished to see her about the sheets, and she said she would go and see him. He had taken sheets and other articles for Mrs. Dyer before. He had taken four lots of sheeting for Mrs. Dyer. They were all wrapped in towels.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ward: He did not know that Mrs. Dyer dealt in that sort of thing. When he took the other sheets he got what he asked for them.

Sarah Morgan, a deaf and dumb woman, who was interpreted by a boy named Edward Phillips, said she had lodged at Mrs. Dyer's one year and six months. She knew the girl Muller, who had also lodged there for about three or four months, and left last Saturday. She had seen some sheeting at Mrs. Dyer's and had seen Mrs. Dyer sewing the sheets. She did not know how many sheets there were. She saw them picking the hem. She produced a piece of sheet which she found in her room, left there by Mrs. Dyer to make pillows of.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ward: It was a part of a sheet. She did not know what Mrs. Dyer's business was.

Mr. Spurgeon, re-called, said he had examined the sheets in the parcel with the ticket number 57. There were five sheets but they were not full sized. In his judgement those five sheets belonged to him, and were marked in the same way as the last five sheets. The hemming on one side was machine, and on the other, hand. They had been dealt with in a similar manner to the other sheets. They were wrapped in a towel, which he also believed to be a part of his property. The name was on the towel, which had been cut down. Another parcel, 2,087, containing five sheets wrapped in a towel, he also identified as his property. He compared the pieces of linen produced by the last witness, which he believed were portions of sheets. The pieces showed the width of the linen which corresponded with the width of the hem on the sheets. He believed that a piece the width of that produced would take off the mark on the sheets. The value of the 15 sheets was about £10.

Mr. Joseph, re-called, said the parcel No. 57 was taken in pledge on the 22nd December from Alfred Hoad for Mrs. Dyer. The parcel No. 2,087 was taken in pledge from Alfred Hoad for Mrs. Dyer on the 20th December. He advanced 15s. on No. 57, and 10s. on the other parcel.

Mr. Ward said that he reserved the defence on the part of the prisoner.

The prisoner was committed for trial.

Southeastern Gazette 11 February 1884

Local News

At the Police Court on Tuesday, Emily Dyer, a married woman living at Walton Terrace, was charged with feloniously receiving fifteen linen sheets, the property of Messrs. Spurgeon and Waite, of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, valued at £10. Mr. Minter prosecuted and Mr. Ward defended.

The sheets came into the possession of the accused some time ago, and she had sent, on two occasions, five of them to be pawned at Mr. Joseph's. A witness named Hoad had pawned them each time, and on Saturday he went up with the remaining five sheets to pawn, when Mr. Joseph's suspicions were aroused, and he communicated with Messrs. Spurgeon and Waite, who identified the sheets, the stamp of the hotel which had been upon them having been torn off, thus rendering them shorter than those in use at the hotel.

It is alleged that a French woman, named Georgina Miller, who was employed in the Pavilion laundry, and who lodged with the accused, purloined the sheets and gave them to her landlady in discharge of rent owing. Miller made her escape by taking train to Dover and crossing to Calais on Sunday.

Defendant was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, two sureties of £25 each being accepted, and herself in £25.

Folkestone Chronicle 12 April 1884

Quarter Sessions

Thursday, April 10th: Before F.W. Maxton Esq.

The jury returned a true bill against Elizabeth Dyer, charged with receiving 15 sheets, value £7 10s., the property of Messrs Spurgeon and Waite, of the Pavilion Hotel, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Denman prosecuted. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Spurgeon, sworn, said that on the 1st of February he received a communication from Mr. Joseph about some sheets. The sheets produced were the same as those in use at the hotel. There was a piece short in the sheet – a width and a length – on one side, on which the mark of the Pavilion Hotel would be put. The piece cut off would about cover the stamp. They had missed twenty sheets from their establishment. There was a girl named Miller in their laundry, and the girl left the establishment on the day when the sheets were pawned at Mr. Joseph's. When the sheets were shown to him they were wrapped in a kind of towelling, similar to that produced. The value he put on the sheets was £7 10s.

Alfred Hoad said he lived in Walton Terrace, next to Mrs. Dyer, and on the day in question he was asked by her to take a bundle to Mr. Joseph. He went back and said Mr. Joseph wanted to see her. He had been to Mr. Joseph on previous occasions and pawned things for her, and gave prisoner the money.

Mr. Simon Joseph deposed to the last witness coming to him with the sheets. The prisoner was known to him as a customer. He sent for her and asked her where she got the sheets from. She said she had them from a girl named Miller, who had lodged with her, and worked at the Pavilion laundry, and he told her she had no business to take them. She told him that the sheets were given to her as a security by her lodger, and as she could get no money from her she wished to pawn them. He then informed the proprietor of the Pavilion. He had advanced money on two lots of sheets before.

Alice Morgan, who is deaf and dumb, was examined. Edward Phillips, acting as an interpreter to witness, said she lodged with prisoner, and knew a girl named Miller, who in January last lodged at the same place. She had often seen prisoner and Miller together. She had seen tablecloths and sheets there, and prisoner had given her the pieces produced, which had been torn off the sheets. Prisoner was cutting the pieces in the kitchen when she gave them to her. She had seen prisoner sewing the sheets.

Cross-examined by prisoner: Was it not new unbleached sheets you saw me sewing, and not the ones produced?

Witness said it was the sheets produced.

Prisoner: I beg pardon; it was not.

In answer to a further question witness said that she did not know that Miller had given the sheets to prisoner.

Prisoner, in defence, said that the French girl, Miller, lodged with her, and asked her to give to the witness the pieces from the sheets, but the sheets witness saw her cutting up were her own. She denied that she was aware that the sheets had been stolen.

The Recorder summed up, and pointed out that the pieces cut off showed that whoever did that wanted to hide the identity. Prisoner alleged that she took them from Miller, but they must consider that she knew that Miller was employed at the Pavilion. Then she pawned them for a small sum, and sent someone else to do it.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

The Superintendent said prisoner had been in the town about seven years, and nothing was known against her.

The Judge, in passing sentence, said that perhaps she had yielded to a sudden temptation, but hearing there was nothing against her, and that she was 54 years of age, he should sentence her to only three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

The Judge warmly praised Mr. Joseph for the assistance he had rendered to the police in the information he had given.

The Superintendent said it was not the first time that Mr, Joseph had assisted him in the recovery of stolen property.

Mr. Joseph thanked His Honour, and said he had always endeavoured to be most particular in his business transactions.

Southeastern Gazette 14 April 1884

Quarter Sessions

The Quarter Sessions were held on Thursday, before the Deputy-Recorder, Mr. W. F. Laxton. The oases were more important than usual, and excited much interest.

Charles Sibley, the manager of a brewery in the town, was indicted for assaulting Robert Lilley, a police-oonstable. After hearing the evidence a verdict of Not Guilty waa returned, and loud applause was raised in the court.

Elizabeth Dyer, a married woman, waa indicted for stealing a quantity of table linen from the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner had received the goods from a servant named Muller, who was engaged in the laundry, and who has absconded.

Prisoner was sentenced to three months’ hard labour.

Folkestone Express 19 April 1884

Quarter Sessions

Thursday, April 10th: Before F.W. Laxton Esq.

Elizabeth Dyer surrendered to her bail, charged with receiving 15 linen sheets, value £10, the property of Messrs. Spurgeon and Waite of the Pavilion Hotel, knowing them to have been stolen. She pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Denman prosecuted. The prisoner was undefended.

In this case it appeared that there was a woman named Georgina Muller, employed at the Pavilion Laundry, and who lodged at the prisoner's house. This woman had absconded, but the sheets were sent by Mrs. Dyer to a pawnbroker, whose suspicions being aroused, he communicated with the police, and the prisoner was subsequently taken into custody.

Mr. George Spurgeon, one of the proprietors of the Pavilion Hotel, said on Friday 1st February he received a communication from Mr. Joseph, and in consequence went to his shop, where he was shown some sheets, of the kind in use at the hotel. He found that on one side the machine hem had been cut off and hemmed by hand. There was a difference also in the width of the sheets. Their sheets were always marked in one corner, and the portion which appeared to have been cut off the sheets produced would have the effect of removing the stamp. The difference in the length was about six inches. They had missed 20 sheets from the hotel. They had a girl named Muller employed at the laundry. She left on the day the sheets were taken. The towelling in which the sheets were wrapped was similar to others which they used. He had been shown some strips of linen by a woman named Morgan, and if those strips were added on they would make the sheets the same length as those missed from the hotel. He valued the 15 sheets at £7 10s.

Alfred Hoad, a lad, said he took a bundle of sheeting down to Mr. Joseph's at Mrs. Dyer's request. She asked him to get 15s. or 20s. on them. He returned and told Mrs. Dyer Mr. Joseph wanted to see her. He had been on three or four occasions previously with parcels to Mr. Joseph for Mrs. Dyer, and had given the money he obtained to her.

Mr. S. Joseph, pawnbroker, said he knew the prisoner as a customer. On the 31st January the last witness took a parcel to the shop, and he directed him to tell Mrs. Dyer to come and see him. She went. He asked her where she got the sheets from. She said from a girl of the name of Muller. He asked her where Muller lived. Prisoner said she lodged with her. He then asked where Muller was working, and she replied “At the Pavilion Laundry”. He told her she had no business to take the sheets to pledge. She said they were given to her as security for money her lodger owed her. He went to the Pavilion Hotel, saw Mr. Spurgeon, and asked him to look at the sheets. Mr. Spurgeon examined them and said he thought they were his. On two former occasions he had advanced money to the boy Hoad for Mrs. Dyer. He advanced 10s. on one lot and 15s. on another.

Sarah Alice Morgan, a deaf and dumb woman, whose evidence was interpreted by Edward Phillips, said she lodged at Mrs. Dyer's. She knew Muller, who in January last lodged at Mrs. Dyer's, 28, Walton Terrace. She had seen some sheeting at that house, and had seen Dyer and Muller together, working at table cloths and sheets.The pieces of linen produced, Mrs. Dyer gave to her. She cut them from some sheets in the kitchen, but witness did not see them cut off. She had seen Dyer sewing sheets.

In answer to the prisoner, witness said they were not new unbleached, but those produced. She did not know Muller gave them to Mrs. Dyer.

Prisoner said the sheets were taken to her by Muller in the condition in which they were now produced. The pieces produced were given to Morgan to make pillow slips.

The Recorder having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

Superintendent Taylor said nothing was known against the prisoner previously. She had lived seven or eight years in the town. Her husband was in bad health, and the prisoner obtained the living.

The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to three months imprisonment without hard labour.

The sheets were ordered to be given up to Mr. Spurgeon, and the Recorder complimented Mr. Joseph on the manner in which he had acted. There was, he said, no imputation on him, but having his suspicion aroused he at once communicated with the prosecutor.

Superintendent Taylor remarked that on several occasions Mr. Joseph had rendered great assistance to the police.

Folkestone Chronicle 13 June 1885

Obituary

We regret to record the death of Mr. Charles Doridant, at the age of 71, formerly proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, and for many years member of the Town Council, which took place at Paris, after a long illness. Mr. Doridant was four times Mayor of Folkestone, 1864-65-66, and again in 1869. He presented to the town the gold chain of office, to which successive Mayors are expected to add a link. No public man was more esteemed. His hospitality was unbounded, and he was most energetic in promoting every movement for the interest of Folkestone, in which he was much assisted by his respected wife. Mr. Doridant was a Nationalised Frenchman, but he had lived so long in England as to share our insular tastes and prejudices. He was an ardent Conservative. He had seen so much of the evil effects of Revolution in his own country as to dread the tendency of Liberal doctrines in England, in the commercial prosperity of which country he had a great interest. In the contest of 1868 he rendered great service to the Conservative cause, and his warm advocacy of Mr. Nugent's candidature secured for that gentleman considerable support. Then the Conservative Party were thoroughly united, having as their agent and legal advisor that astute and able organiser, Mr. John Minter. The pluck that fought an opposition against the enormous influence of Baron Rothschild, who was supported by the late Mr. R. Hart, can readily be appreciated by those who have a knowledge of the influences at work at the time. The unity of the Party; the abandonment of all petty and personal motives; the open and confidential dealings of the leaders of the Party with the rank and file, contributed to the respectable defeat the Conservatives received, and the enthusiasm, and energy displayed. It was Mr. Charles Doridant who helped to infuse this spirit into the Party, aided by the gentlemanly tact and courtesy which distinguished all the actions of his public life. With the approach of a general election, his death reminds us of the great loss the Conservative Party sustained when he separated his connection with Folkestone, by the inhabitants of whom, whether Liberal or Conservative, he was so greatly respected.

Folkestone Express 1 August 1885

Tuesday, July28th: Before J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Frederick Arthur King was charged with being drunk at the Pavilion Hotel, and with resisting the police in the execution of their duty.

P.C. Bean said he was called to the Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner was there drunk and making a disturbance. Mr. Spurgeon requested the prisoner to leave, but he refused, and witness had to obtain assistance to remove him as he was very violent.

There was a previous conviction for being drunk and disorderly.

The Bench commented strongly upon the defendant's misbehaviour, when n the service of so excellent an employer as Mr. Spurgeon, and fined him 2s. 6d., and 3s. 6d. costs for the first offence, and 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs for the second.

Superintendent Taylor said there was a summons for sureties issued against the defendant, who had previously used threats against the head porter at the Pavilion.

Folkestone Express 14 August 1886

Saturday, August 7th: Before The Mayor, H.W. Poole Esq., General Armstrong C.B., Captain Crowe, and A.M. Watkin Esq.

George Richardson was charged with begging on Sunday outside the Pavilion Hotel. He was dismissed on promising to leave the town.

Holbein's Visitors' List 9 February 1887

Obituary

It is with regret that we have to record the death of Mr. J.B. Edwards, late proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel. He died of paralysis at his residence in Augusta Gardens, Folkestone, on Monday afternoon, after a lingering illness, at the age of 62.

John Bowen Edwards, like most successful hotel proprietors, commenced life as a chef. While still young in his position his talents were such that he was appointed maitre-de-cuisine to Queen Adelaide. Resigning this post after some time, he acquired Rider's Hotel (now the Salisbury Hotel) in Fleet Street. This business he successfully carried on until the acquirement of the premises by the Board of Works for street improvements. In February, 1868, he succeeded Mr. Doridant as the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, and this hotel he kept until his retirement from business at Christmas, 1882. As an hotel proprietor Mr. Edwards was probably second to none, being possessed of remarkable industry and assiduity, indeed, during the 14 years he retained the proprietorship of the hotel, he only took one holiday.

The funeral is to take place at the Folkestone Cemetery on Thursday afternoon at 2.30.

Folkestone Express 24 September 1887

Friday, September 9th: Before J. Clark, J. Fitness, and S. Penfold Esqs.

William Davison was charged with being drunk on licensed premises, and with being drunk and disorderly in Lower Sandgate Road.

Charles Horton, hall porter at the Pavilion Hotel, said he saw the defendant in the corridor at the Pavilion Hotel on Thursday evening about nine o'clock. He had no boots, shoes, or coat on, but he appeared to have a pair of bathing drawers on. He ran into one of the sitting rooms and out of the window into the garden.

Richard Burchett, watchman, said he was on duty at the pier about ten minutes past nine on Thursday, and saw the defendant on the works. He “made for him”, but he got away, but he subsequently caught him behind some iron. He had a shirt, waistcoat and cap on. He was very drunk and did not appear to know what he was doing. He did not shout or make any disturbance. Witness took him to the police station.

Supt. Taylor said the defendant's clothes were found on the Pavilion lawn.

The charge of being drunk and disorderly was dismissed, but for being drunk on licensed premises the defendant was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days'.

Folkestone Express 5 November 1887

Monday, October 31st: Before F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Benjamin Parsons, a respectable looking man, was charged with begging on the harbour.

Wm. Brice, boat inspector, said he saw the prisoner on the harbour, and heard him ask several people between the clock tower and the Pavilion Hotel. He went into the Pavilion Hotel and was ordered away.

He was sent to prison for seven days.

Folkestone Chronicle 21 March 1891

Local News

At the Police Court yesterday before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs., Thomas Ford was placed in the dock, charged with stealing a half sovereign and a pair of eye-glasses from the Pavilion Hotel on the 19th inst.

Elizabeth Churchill Morrison said: I am housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel. Prisoner has been in the employ of Mr. Spurgen as waiter for about two years. In consequence of having missed money from my desk, in my private room, I communicated with Mr. Spurgen. I received two marked half sovereigns yesterday morning. I put them in my purse and placed it in my desk, placing an empty purse on top of it. I put them there about half past eight in the morning. I locked the desk and took the key out. I went back about quarter to two in the afternoon. The position of the purses was the same. I went there again about four o'clock. I then found that the empty purse had been moved on one side, and when I opened the other purse, which had contained the marked coins, I found one of them was gone. I then made a communication to Mr. Spurgen, and saw the prisoner about six o'clock in the presence of Mr. Spurgen and Sergeant Butcher in sitting room No. 2. Mr. Spurgen handed me the half sovereign produced and a key. It is not my key, but it is like mine. I gave him into custody for stealing the half sovereign. He said he would not rob anyone a penny piece. He first said the money was his wages and then said his mother had given it to him. About seven o'clock, after the prisoner had been taken to the police station, Sergeant Butcher handed me a pair of eye-glasses. They are mine. I can identify them by the knot, which I tied myself. They are worth about 5s. I left them in the table drawer in my private room and missed them on Wednsday. It was part of prisoner's duty to attend to my room.

The Mayor (G. Spurgen Esq.) was then sworn and said: I am proprietor of the Royal Pavilion Hotel. The prisoner has been in my services about two years. From a communication that was made to me by Miss Morrison I handed her two marked half sovereigns. The one produced was one of them. About four o'clock Miss Morrison again made a communication to me and I sent for the prisoner to come to my room. I asked him if he had cleared Miss Morrison's dinner table. He said “Yes”. I then told him Miss Morrison had lost some money, and took him into room No. 2, which is Miss Morrison's private room. I asked him if he had taken any money, and he said “No, certainly not”. I asked him to show me his keys. He produced three box keys on a ring. I said “These are not all the keys you have. Let me see the others”. He then gave me the key produced. It was single in his pocket. I tried it and it fitted Miss Morrison's desk. I then asked him to produce the money he had in his pocket. He produced a token like a half sovereign, some coppers, and a half sovereign. I asked him to account for the possession of the half sovereign and he said he had taken his mother his two weeks' wages, and she returned the half sovereign out of it. Sergt. Butcher then came in and he was given into custody.

Sergeant Butcher deposed: At 6.20 last night I went to the Pavilion Hotel. I saw the prisoner in No. 2 sitting room in the presence of Mr. Spurgen and Miss Morrison. I received a half sovereign and a key from Mr. Spurgen. I examined the half sovereign and found that it had been marked with a small scratch a little under the ear, and bore the date of 1884. He also handed me a key, which I found unlocked the desk. Miss Morrison said “I shall give him into custody for stealing the money”. I charged him with stealing the half sovereign. He said “You might look over it, Miss Morrison”. She replied “I cannot”. I brought the prisoner to the police station, and on searching him I found a pair of eye-glasses in his waistcoat pocket. He made no reply to the charge, but said he hoped it would be kept out of the papers. I then went back to the Pavilion Hotel, and Miss Morrison identified the eye-glasses as her property.

Prisoner, who pleaded Guilty, said he was very sorry and hoped the Bench would be as lenient as possible.

Miss Morrison pleaded for mercy, and the Mayor said he had behaved himself very well during the time he had been in his service. His parents were very respectable and lived in Darby Road. He was very sorry to see him in such a position.

Alderman Sherwood said the Bench had decided to take a lenient view of the case, and he would be fined 40s., or 14 days' imprisonment.

The money was paid by prisoner's father.

Holbein's Visitors' List 25 March 1891

Friday, March 20th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Thomas Ford was charged with stealing half a sovereign and a pair of eye-glasses, the property of Miss Morrison, at the Pavilion Hotel, on the 19th inst.

Miss E.C. Morrison said that the prisoner had been a waiter for the past two years at the Pavilion Hotel. Having missed money from her desk, she spoke to Mr. Spurgen, who gave her two marked half sovereigns, which she put in her desk, locking the desk and taking the key away. Shortly before two she saw the desk had not been disturbed, but at four o'clock she found that one of the marked sovereigns had been taken from a purse. She told Mr. Spurgen about it, and shortly afterwards (in the presence of prisoner) he handed her the missing half sovereign, a key which fitted her desk, and also a pair of eye-glasses, which were her property, and which were worth about 5s.

Mr. George Spurgen said that in consequence of something Miss Morrison told him he asked prisoner if he had cleared her dinner table, and prisoner replied “Yes”. Witness then asked him if he had taken any money, and he said “Certainly not”. Being asked for his keys, he produced three on a ring, and a single small one. The latter fitted Miss Morrison's desk. When told to turn out his pockets he produced some coppers and the missing half sovereign. He then gave prisoner into custody.

P.S. Butcher proved apprehending the prisoner, who said at the police station that he hoped the matter would not be reported in the papers.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and asked the Bench to deal as leniently with him as possible. Miss Morrison also asked the Bench to be as lenient as possible.

After consultation, the Chairman said it was a sad case, and there was no doubt the lad was Guilty, but the Bench had decided to deal with the case under the First Offenders'Act, and would only impose a fine of 40s.

The money was paid by the lad's father.

Folkestone Express 28 March 1891

Friday, March 20th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Thomas Ford, 17, was charged with stealing a half sovereign and a pair of eye glasses, value 5s., the property of Miss Morrison, housekeeper at the Pavilion Hotel.

Prosecutrix said the prisoner was in the employ of Mr. Spurgen as waiter, and had been for about two years. In consequence of missing the money from the desk, in her private room, she made a communication with Mr. Spurgen. On Thursday morning she received from Mr. Spurgen two marked half sovereigns. She put them into a purse and placed them in the desk, with another purse on top of it. That was about half past eight in the morning. She locked the desk and took away the key, which she always carried in her pocket. Her room was on the ground floor. She went to the desk about a quarter to two in the afternoon and found the purses had not been disturbed. She went again about four o'clock in the afternoon, and then found that the purse had been moved – the one left on top was lying by the side of the other. She opened the purse which had contained the two half sovereigns and found one of them was gone. She told Mr. Spurgen, who sent for the prisoner. They were all three in No. 2 room, and there Mr. Spurgen handed to her the marked half sovereign produced. The coin was marked with a scratch under the ear. Mr. Spurgen also gave her a key. Sergeant Butcher had been sent for, and she gave the prisoner into custody for stealing the half sovereign. Prisoner made no remark at first, except that he would not rob anyone of a penny piece. Mr. Spurgen asked him how he came by the half sovereign. At first he said it was his wages, and afterwards that his mother had given it to him. Afterwards Sergt. Butcher showed her the pair of eye glasses, which she identified as hers. She used them on Monday and missed them on Wednesday. She identified them by the knots tied in the cord. They were left in the table drawer in her room. The value of them was 5s. It was part of the prisoner's duty to look after her room.

Prosecutrix was re-called later, and said that prisoner said “You might look over it, Miss Morrison”.

Mr. George Spugen, proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, said in consequence o a communication made to him by Miss Morrison, he on Thursday handed to her two marked half sovereigns. About four o'clock in the afternoon she made a communication to him, and he sent for the prisoner to his room, and asked him if he had cleared Miss Morrison's dinner table, and he said he had. He then told prisoner that Miss Morrison had lost money, and asked him if he had taken the money, and he said “No, certainly not”. He asked prisoner to show his keys, and he produced three on a ring – ordinary box keys – and afterwards a small key, which witness tried in the lock, and found it unlocked it. He then asked prisoner to produce the money he had in his pocket and he produced a token, like a half sovereign, some coppers, and the marked half sovereign produced. He asked him to account for the possession of the half sovereign. He said he had taken two weeks' wages home to his mother, and she returned him half a sovereign. Sergt. Butcher came in, and Miss Morrison gave the prisoner into custody.

Sergeant Butcher said he went about 6.20 on Thursday to the Pavilion Hotel, and saw the prisoner in No. 2 Sitting Room with Mr. Spurgen and Miss Morrison. He received from Mr. Spurgen the half sovereign and the key produced. He examined the half sovereign and saw it had been marked below the ear. The small key he tried, and found it unlocked Miss Morrison's desk. Miss Morrisone said she should give the prisoner into custody for stealing the money. Witness charged him with stealing the half sovereign and he said “You might look over it, Miss Morrison”. She replied “I cannot”. He took prisoner to the police station, and on searching him found the eye glasses produced, which Miss Morrison identified as hers.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Magistrates, and pleaded Guilty.

Prosecutrix said the prisoner's mother had been to see her, and asked her to request the Magistrates to be merciful, and she hoped they would deal leniently with the lad.

Mr. Spurgen said the prisoner's conduct had been fairly good. Miss Morrison had been losing money for a long time. He was sorry to see him in the position he was.

Alderman Sherwood severely reprimanded the prisoner, and said they were willing to give him an opportunity to do better, and not send him to prison. He would be fined 40s., and they hoped it would be a lesson to him for the rest of his life.

Folkestone Express 5 December 1891

Tuesday, 1st December: Before J. Holden and J. Fitenss Esqs., Aldermen Dunk, Sherwood and Pledge.

Fredk. Heiman was charged with stealing a pair of field glasses, the property of Mr. W.J. Phillips, from the Pavilion Hotel on Sunday.

George Spurgen said: I am the proprietor of the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone. I recognise the prisoner, who came to the hotel on Wednesday last. He gave me the name of Herstling, and engaged a suite of rooms on the ground floor, adjoining those occupied by a gentleman named Phillips and his wife. Prisoner left the hotel on Sunday morning, without notice and without paying his account. After he had left, I went to his room, No. 11, and examined his portmanteau. It was strapped up, but unlocked. It was empty with the exception of a pair of socks, a pair of gloves, a medicine bottle, and a portion of old newspaper.

Mr. Bradley: Do you wish to ask Mr. Spurgen any question?

Prisoner shook his head.

Theodore Tickell, waiter at the Pavilion Hotel, said: I recognise the prisoner as a man who was staying in the hotel. On Sunday morning at a quarter past eight I saw him coming from the sitting room, No. 10B, and go into the adjoining room, No. 11. I am sure he is the man I saw.

Walter John Phillips said: I reside at 59, Wallington Crescent, Maida Hill, London, and am now staying at the Pavilion Hotel. I occupy sitting room No. 10b on the ground floor. I had in the room a pair of field glasses. I saw them safe in their case about midday on Saturday, when I used them, and put them on the table, and a young lady staying with us put them in the case. I missed the glasses at midday on Sunday. Sergeant Harman showed them to me yesterday evening. I identify them by my initials underneath the shade on both sides. The value is about 50s.

Sergeant Harman said: From information I received I went on Monday afternoon to the Saracen's Head Hotel, Ashford, and there found the prisoner in the coffee room. I said “How do you do, Mr. Kelly?” He made no reply. I said “I suppose you don't know me”. I was in plain clothes. I said “I am a police sergeant at Folkestone, and you answer the description of a gentleman I am enquiring for”. I also said “There may be a charge preferred against you, and I am about to ask you some questions. You need not answer them unless you like. Whatever you say I shall use as evidence against you. What is your name?” He said “Frederick Heiman”. “Were you at the Pavilion Hotel on Sunday morning?” He said “No” “Were you at Seabrook Hotel on Sunday afternoon?” He said “No”. I said “Will you show me your bedroom?” I followed him to a bedroom at the top of the hotel, and on a table I found the glasses produced. I said “Are these your glasses?” He said “Yes”. I looked for the initials “J.W.P.” and found them on the shade inside. Prisoner said “You won't find any initials”. I charged him with stealing the glasses and he made no reply. On the way to the railway station he voluntarily made a statement, and said “I am an Austrian, suffering from a very bad disease, and have no means of getting a living. I am glad it has come to this. A lady was sleeping in the room next to me. I took the glasses out of a leather case in the room to make a little money”. I went to the Seabrook Hotel.

Mr. Bradley: Never mind that.

Supt. Taylor asked for a remand until Wednesday, which was granted, and prisoner said he had nothing to say why he should not be remanded.

It is understood there will be other charges brought against the prisoner, who is an elderly man.

It is understood that the prisoner is wanted for similar robberies at Birkenhead, Chester, and other places. After leaving the Pavilion, it appears that he went to the Seabrook Hotel, where he appropriated a portmanteau or bag. He had in his possession an overcoat and a pair of gloves, which Mr. Baker, of the Hotel De Paris, Dover, has identified as his property.

Wednesday, December 2nd: Before J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Fredk. Heiman was brought up on remand charged with theft from the Pavilion Hotel. No further evidence was offered, and the prisoner was committed for trial at the Assizes, commencing on Monday next.

Folkestone Chronicle 16 July 1892

Wednesday, July 13th: Before Councillor J. Holden, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, Mr. J. Fitness and Mr. H.W. Poole.

Stephen Maxted, a little lad of about nine years of age, was charged with stealing a quart of gooseberries, value 3d., the property of Mr. George Spurgen, of the Pavilion Hotel, on the 10th inst.

The gooseberries, still hanging to the branch of the tree, were produced in court, and Mr. Fitness observed that the lad was not satisfied with the gooseberries, he wanted the tree also!

Percy Amos, of Pavilion Gardens, said on the 10th inst. he saw the defendant in the gardens during the afternoon. Witness told him that he ought not to be there. The defendant made no reply to this. Witness attempted to sieze the lad, but he kicked him and got away.

The Superintendent of Police said the boy was one of a large family which was a continual nuisance to the neighbourhood. In fact, as soo as the defendant got away from the garden, he and another went and damaged a stack of hay belonging to Mr. Spurgen, and when remonstrated with they pelted the woman in charge of the stack with stones.

Mrs. Maxted was present, and the Bench advised her very strongly to keep a watchful eye over the boy in the future. They imposed a fine of 1s. and 10s. costs, and 3d., the value of the gooseberries.

The woman asked the Bench to “birch” the boy, as she thought it was very hard to make her suffer for the boy's depradations.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892

Local News

Margaret Galway was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Lower Sandgate Road on Tuesday evening.

P.C. Scott said he was called on Tuesday evening to turn the prisoner out of the hall of the Pavilion Hotel. She was drunk, and when she got into the road she became noisy and disorderly. She refused to go away and he took her into custody.

Defendant said she had been employed in the Laundry, and she went to the hotel for her money. She only wanted the porter to take a message to the proprietor. She wanted money to get back to London. She only said when she got outside “My God, I hope they will be punished as they are punishing me”. All she wanted was her money.

The Bench said as Mr. Spurgen did not press the charge, and as she had been locked up all night, the defendant would be discharged.

Folkestone Chronicle 3 September 1892

Local News

On Sunday afternoon, we learn, a large quantity of valuable jewellery was stolen from a bedroom at the Pavilion Hotel. It is stated that a lady saw a man in her bedroom, and asked his business. He said he had mistaken the room, apologised, and departed. Soon after another lady, having an apartment on the same floor, discovered that her jewels were stolen. It is presumed that the thief went off to London by the boat train with his booty. The police have issued the following notice: Stolen, 28th August, 1892, one yellow gold and cameo brooch, subject “Psyche and Cupid”; two gold rings, each set with five large oval turquoise and diamonds; one steel bead purse, gold slides. Gold seal, at one end set bloodstone, engraved “H.G.W.”, containing six sovereigns and a George IV sixpence (bent); one small gold pin, set single paste stone; one small gold and coral pin; one small gold open-face watch, white dial; one long snake pattern gold chain, with gold chatelaine; Napoleon guinea, half guinea, and seven shilling piece; gold lockets containing photos of a gentleman, child, and hair, gold seal, set white stone, engraved “H.R.”, and a number of other gold trinkets and three bars attached; one gold brooch, set paste, shape of leaf; one gold brooch, set paste, bar shape; by a man, aged 28 to 30, fair, square build; Dress, light clothes.

Southeastern Gazette 13 September 1892

Local News

The police are endeavouring to trace the perpetrator of a robbery of jewels and money at Folkestone. The robbery was perpetrated at the Pavilion Hotel. Amongst the articles stolen were two gold rings set with turquoises and diamonds, a cameo brooch, a gold pin set with coral, a gold open-face watch with gold chain, four 100 francs French notes, and 100 francs in French gold.

Folkestone Chronicle 10 October 1896

Local News

It is stated, apparently authoritatively, that Mr. Spurgen is giving up the Pavilion Hotel, having disposed of it to a company, who propose to entirely rebuild it in modern style. However, the popular Mayor will continue to take an active part in the town, and will reside in the ward he represents on the Town Council (the North) at Radnor Park, where he has built a splendid villa.

Folkestone Express 14 November 1896

Local News

The Pavilion Hotel: This hotel, which has just changed hands, is now being carried on by Henry Frederick and Co. Limited.

Folkestone Express 21 November 1896

Local News

“An Ancient Hostel” – Under this heading the following paragraph appeared in the Daily Chronicle on Wednesday. “Sir J.B. Maple writes with reference to our notice of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, to explain that the purchase has not been made by himself, but by a syndicate in which he is interested. The old Pavilion Hotel at Folkestone is not to be pulled down. The home-like comfort for which it has been so long famous will be maintained, and the same officials and servants remain at the hotel.”

Folkestone Chronicle 12 December 1896

Wednesday, December 9th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Fitness, and General Gwyn.

The licences of the Pavilion Hotel and Harbour Refreshment Room were transferred to Mr. Evans.

Folkestone Chronicle 25 February 1899

Inquest

Mr. Minter, the Coroner of the Folkestone district, has had many sad stories of death to hear during the last few months, but no other so tragic as that told by the witnesses of the death of George Henry Teandle Newington, who was crushed to death beneath the ram (a rod of six ton power) working a hydraulic lift in the Pavilion Hotel. The lift is used in carrying food from the kitchen to rooms above, and Newington, a bricklayers' labourer employed in the rebuilding of the Pavilion, had been engaged assisting an engineer in repairing the lift.

Reginal Meyer, foreman of the works, said the manager had told him to get some small work done at the bottom, underneath the cage. The cage could not reach the ground, as there were two Indiarubber stops 2ft 8½in. from the ground. The counterpoise, however, came right down to the ground when the cage went up to Floor 2. The work required was allotted to Edward Gibbons, bricklayer. It could safely be done while the lift was in work. The ram was in a separate place, by the side of the cage, and closed in. There was no necessity at all to go in the place where the ram was.

Edward Gibbons said deceased was serving him at the time of the accident as his labourer. Deceased had no occasion to go near the ram. His duties were outside altogether. The work occupied about an hour. During that time deceased had found a few knives and spoons at the base of the ram box. About one o'clock the cook asked whether the lift could be used, to which he replied “Yes”, and began to clean his tools. On hearing a shriek he turned round and saw deceased crushed under the ram. He tried to release him but was unable to do so until the engineer arrived about ten minutes later. He was of opinion that deceased had voluntarily gone into danger with the object of picking up some other spoons.

William Jenner, engineer at the hotel, gave evidence as to the nature of the lift, and as to finding deceased under the ram.

William Lageu, billiard marker, stated that as he was passing the lift he saw the deceased kneeling in the ram box, looking up the lift with a lighted candle in his hand. He saw him immediately drop the candle and groan. The man was killed instantly.

Dr. J. Hoggan Ewart said he was summoned by telephone to the scene of the accident. The ram had then been raised from deceased, who was so crushed against the wall that it was difficulty that he could be extricated. Artificial respiration was tried. Death was primarily due to asphyxia. Five ribs were broken and there was internal haemorrhage.

The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

During the week, at the request of the unfortunate man's mates, Mr. Meyer the foreman of the works, and Mr. Ovenden, the foreman of the rebuilding, opened a subscription list for a burial fund, the deceased being one who was believed to have no friends or relatives, but who had earned the affection of his fellow workmen. Messrs. Meyer and Ovenden found their staff readily responded, with the result that £8 was subscribed. The funeral will take place today (Saturday), with Messrs. Meyer and Ovenden in attendance with the men.

Folkestone Herald 25 February 1899

Inquest

On Tuesday afternoon the Borough Coroner (Mr. J. Minter) held an inquest at the Town Hall, touching the death of a labourer named George Henry Yeannell, Newington, a bricklayers' labourer, who was crushed to death by the ram of the hydraulic lift at the Pavilion Hotel under shocking circumstances.

Mr. Reginald Meyer, foreman of the works at the Pavilion Hotel, produced a sketch of the lift, which he said was correct. (This was passed to the jury.) He deposed that he had a representation made to him by the manager that he wanted some small work done at the bottom underneath the cage. He inspected the work, which could be safely done by the front part of some casing being taken away, even while the lift was being worked.

Edward Gibbons, foreman bricklayer, deposed that he went by order to work on the previous morning to do some repairs under the cage. He took the deceased with him as his labourer. The house carpenter took down the matchboarding and opened the door of the ram. Witness looked on, but the ram would not hinder him. He proceeded to his work under the cage, having got a candle. It took about an hour. The deceased had no occasion to go where the light was or anywhere near the ram. His duties were altogether outside. When he hda nearly finished one of the servants asked him whether he could work the lift, which was simply for plates, dishes, and food, and was near the kitchen. It was worked by hydraulic pressure. Witness wanted to finish cementing a pipe. He said “Yes”. It could have gone while he was doing his work without any danger to him or anyone. A pastrycook came and started the lift. Witness went on finishing his work while the lift was going up. The work took about five minutes. After he had finished he got up and said to his mate, who was standing close to him, “I have finished that”. Witness started cleaning his trowel in a pail. The candle was still alight in the place the ram came down. His mate's duty was to take the candle out. After the lift had started he did not notice how high it went, or how far the ram came down. The deceased shrieked, and he saw him lying, his head on one side, the ram having caught him. He was got out. Witness tried to pull the rope, but it would not work. His idea was that the poor fellow must have seen a knife which had fallen down, and got in. Previously the deceased had pulled out two from the corridor. That was the only way witness could think of. The deceased could have taken the candle out without going in.

William Jenner, engineer, of Bouverie Cottage, deposed that the lift was in his charge. He kept the key of the door which enclosed the ram of the lift. The door was to clean rubbish out, and he had unlocked it the day before for this purpose. (The Coroner said he would imagine it was for protection.) He was called and found the man under the ram a few minutes past one. It would be possible for someone on the first floor to start the lift again to the second floor. If he had known, he could have prevented the lift moving at all.

Anatole Sachau, cook, deposed that at five past one he had an order for luncheon from the second floor, and he asked Gibbons if the lift could be worked. He replied in the affirmative. Witness did not see the lift started. He saw the deceased sitting down inside the lift doing something. The candle was not lit and was in the right hand. Witness had two dishes, and asked before he put the things in if it could be used.

Gibbons, re-called, said he did not know his mate was inside. He was by witness's side, out of the lift.

Louis Bizeau deposed that he started the lift.

William Lague deposed that he was passing the lift at the Pavilion Hotel on the previous day, and saw a man inside the lift. He was kneeling down, looking up the lift, with a lighted candle in his hand. He was under the ram. Seeing the man looking up, witness stopped to see what he was doing, and heard the deceased groan. Witness caught hold of the rope, but pulled the wrong way. He saw the ram press on him.

Dr. John Holland Ewart, practicing in Folkestone, deposed that he was called to the Pavilion Hotel at 1.15. He found the deceased in the basement, with the ram off. He was crushed into a square space between a pipe and the wall. Witness gave orders to have him got out, and tried artificial respiration. There were five ribs broken. The primary cause of death was asphyxia. There was a pressure on the breastbone.

The Coroner summed up exhaustively, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict of Accidental Death. The enquiry lasted about three hours.

Folkestone Up To Date 25 February 1899

Inquest

A fatal accident occurred at the Pavilion Hotel on Monday last to a bricklayer's labourer named James Henry Y. Newington. The poor fellow was crushed to death under the ram of a lift.

At the inquest on Tuesday the jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

John Hotham Ewart said: I am a doctor of medicine practicing in the town of Folkestone. I found the deceased crushed between a steam water pipe and the wall. I got him removed with difficulty, he was so wedged in. On examination I found there were five of his ribs broken on the left side. There was a deep red mark on his chest. He died from asphyxia, caused by pressure. There would be about six tons weight upon him.

The Coroner, in summing up the evidence, raised the question of responsibility for the accident. It could not be said that there was any negligence on the part of the bricklayer, Gibbons. There were Indiarubber stops which prevented the lift coming lower than 2ft. 8ins. from the ground, and he ran little risk working under the cage. The deceased, on the contrary, knew very little about the working of lifts.

Southeastern Gazette 28 February 1899

Local News

A labourer named George Henry W. Newington was, on Monday, February 20th, crushed to death at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone. He crawled beneath a hydraulic lift to recover some knives and forks. The lift descended and forced his chest into his ribs, five of them being crushed. At the inquest on Tuesday a verdict of “Accidental death” was returned.

Folkestone Chronicle 5 May 1900

Thursday, May 3rd: Before Alderman Banks and Messrs. Herbert and Fitness.

Caroline Norris and Harriett Hall, alias Rye, were charged with larceny from the bakehouse of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, the articles stolen being some electric incandescent lamps.

Detective Burniston and Wm. Jenner, the engineer at the Pavilion, gave evidence, and the Chief Constable said he would like a reman for a day. From a statement made by one of the prisoners he had reason to believe that they were taken into the hotel by one of the employees. He wished to investigate this statement.

The Bench granted the application.

When the case was resumed on Friday, before Messrs. J. Banks, J. Fitness, and Wightwick, the Chief Constable explained that a certain man had been found, but the accused failed to positively identify him. Under the circumstances he did not intend to carry that part of the case any further.

Thursday's witnesses had the evidence of the previous day read over to them, and prisoners pleaded Guilty. They were, they said, coming down the slope, when an employee of the Pavilion whistled to them, and took them inside. He gave Norris a shilling and a loaf. They were both very sorry for the theft.

The Chief Constable said neither of the prisoners had been charged with a similar offence, but Norris had been before the Bench on five occasions for drunkenness.

The Chairman told the prisoners that even if they were taken into the hotel there was no reason why they should commit a theft. They would both be sentenced to one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 12 May 1900

Friday, May 4th: Before J. Banks, W. Wightwick, and J. Fitness Esqs.

Caroline Norris and Harriett Hall were charged with stealing five electric lamps, of the value of 9d., from the Pavilion Hotel, the property of Messrs. Frederick and Co.

Detective Officer Burniston said about 12.05 a.m. on Thursday he saw the prisoner Norris in Dover Road carrying something under her shawl. He followed her and saw her go into a gateway. After a few minutes she came out again and went away. He went to where she had been and found three electric lamps. He stopped her and asked her what she had just hidden, and she then admitted hiding the electric lamps and confessed she stole them. About one a.m. on the same morning he went to 14, Fenchurch Street, where the other prisoner lived, and found she was asleep. He woke her and asked her for the other two lamps. He was handed them, and then took her to the police station and charged the two prisoners together with the theft.

Mr. C. Jenner, engineer at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he identified the lamps produced, and there were some similar ones still in the engine room. They were the property of Messrs. Frederick and Co., and valued at 9d.

The two prisoners pleaded Guilty and said they were very sorry.

Norris said they went down the slope and saw a man standing at the door of the Pavilion. They asked him for some food, and he gave them a shilling and a loaf.

Supt. Reeve said the prisoners declined to identify the man.

The Bench sentenced the two prisoners to one month each.

Folkestone Daily News 8 January 1901

Local News

The swell thief who was arrested at the Pavilion Hotel some weeks ago by Sergeant Lilley, and who, it will be remembered, was a young fellow of good position and education, has just received eighteen months' hard labour for a jewel robbery at Kensington, and six months' for an hotel affair at Worthing. When arrested at Folkestone, he was evidently planning operations on a large scale, for he had taken rooms at the Metropole, the Pavilion, and St. Osyth's.

Folkestone Chronicle 1 March 1902

Local News

The authorities at Folkestone are seeking to clear up the mystery attached to an alleged daring safe robbery at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. A few of the particulars, which are religiously guarded, have leaked out. From these it is gleaned that between Friday night and Sunday last the safe at the hotel was in some mysterious way rifled of its contents, one item being the proceeds in gold of a recently cashed cheque amounting to considerably over £100. A peculiar circumstance of the case is that the safe was locked up with every precaution, and the key deposited elsewhere. What then was the astonishment of one of the responsible officials, when, on visiting the safe, it looked as if the money had disappeared without any evidence of the iron walls having been tampered with? That is all we know for certain at present, but it is understood that the police have a clue.

Folkestone Chronicle 21 February 1903

Local News

Just twelve months ago a great mystery attended the loss of £100 in gold from a safe at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone. Many people were suspected, and many were shadowed, yet the money was never found.

The mystery was on Saturday morning voluntarily cleared up by a person whom neither management nor police had ever suspected.

This individual was William James Abbott, late a plateman at the Royal Pavilion, who was charged upon his own confession with having stolen, in February, 1902, the sum of £100 in gold from a safe in the manager's office.

Samuel Eeley, manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, and the Burlington, Dover, said that he mostly resided at the Dover hotel, the assistant manager, Mr. Percy James Hope, being left in charge in his absence. He remembered Tuesday, February 18th, 1902, because on that date he placed £100 in gold in a canvas bag, and put the bag in a cash box in a drawer in a safe. The money was made up of 80 sovereigns and 40 half sovereigns. The safe, which stood in the general office, was not locked, but the drawer inside it was. No-one but himself had a key to the drawer, and the key was with others on a bunch. When he left the hotel he always left the key in charge of the assistant manager. On the 22nd of February witness went to the safe, and on looking into the cash box missed the money. The canvas bag remained, but was empty. Prisoner had been employed in the hotel as plateman from February 23rd, 1901, until April 21st, 1902, and formerly from July, 1898, until September, 1900. In the dates between those mentioned he had been employed at the Burlington, Dover.

Percy John Hope, assistant manager, said he saw the money placed in the safe by Mr. Eeley. He was in the habit of placing the keys in one of the drawers of the manager's office. It had been usual to leave the drawers unlocked.

Minnie Bassett, book-keeper at the Royal Pavilion, said she remembered the 22nd of February last year, when she found a half sovereign on the desk in the general manager's office just underneath the ledge. She had kept it ever since, and now produced it. The key of the safe was left in her charge. The drawer in the safe was always kept locked.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said that on Saturday, from information received, he proceeded to London, and at 9 p.m. saw the prisoner detained at Tottenham Court Road police station. Witness, after duly cautioning him, said “I am a police sergeant from Folkestone, and shall charge you with stealing £100 in gold between the 18th and 22nd February last year, from a locked drawer in a safe at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone”. Prisoner replied “There was only £99 10s. I dropped one half sovereign. I counted the money when I got into my bedroom. It was about midnight when I took it. I found the key of the safe in the office, I opened the safe and unlocked the drawer, and took out the money. The reason I gave myself up to the police is because I had no work and no money”.

Inspector Ellis, of the Metropolitan Police, who was present, then handed witness (the inspector) the written statement produced, which had been signed by the prisoner. Inspector Ellis said “This is a written and voluntary statement made by prisoner to Inspector Moody”. Prisoner testified to its being his handwriting and signature.

The Clerk of the Court read over the statement, but owing to the noise made by the new electric fans not a word could be heard by anyone in Court.

When formally charged, prisoner made no reply.

The Bench committed him for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, offering bail, himself in £50 and two sureties in a like amount.

Folkestone Express 21 February 1903

Saturday, February 14th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

William James Abbott was charged on his own confession with stealing £100 from the Royal Pavilion Hotel between the 18th and 22nd February, 1902.

Samuel Eely, manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel and the Burlington Hotel, Dover, said he resided at Dover, but used to make daily visits to Folkestone. On Tuesday, the 18th February, 1902 he placed £100 in gold (80 sovereigns and 40 half sovereigns) in a canvas bag. This in turn was placed in a cash box, which had no lock, and locked in his private drawer in the safe, which stood in the general office. On leaving the hotel, he gave his keys in charge of the assistant manager. On Saturday, the 22nd of February, about one o'clock (noon), he visited the safe, and then found the money missing; the canvas bag, however, had been left behind. Prisoner had been employed at the hotel as plateman from February 3rd, 1901 to April 1st, 1902. Previous to that he was at the Pavilion from July, 1898 to September, 1900, and between those periods at the Burlington Hotel, Dover.

Percy John Pope, assistant manager at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he saw the previous witness place £100 in the cash box on the 18th February, 1902, but did not see the box placed in the safe. He was present when the robbery was discovered on the 22nd. He had placed the keys in a desk in the Manager's office. That, however, was unlocked.

Minnie Bissett, head bookkeeper at the hotel, said on the 22nd February last she found half a sovereign on a desk in the general office. She had kept it in her possession ever since, and now produced it.

Detective Burniston said the previous day, from information received, he proceeded to London, and about nine p.m. saw the prisoner detained at the Tottenham Court Road Police Station. Witness charged him, and after the usual caution, prisoner replied “There was only £99 10s. I dropped one half sovereign in the office. I counted the money when I got back to my bedroom. It was about midnight when I took the money. I found the keys of the safe in the office. I opened the safe, unlocked the drawer, and took out the money. The reason I gave myself up to the police was because I had no work or money”. In the presence of prisoner, Inspector Ellis, of the Metropolitan Police, handed witness the written statement produced, made in the presence of Inspector Moon.

When charged at the Folkestone police station, prisoner made no reply.

Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was committed to the Quarter Sessions, bail being fixed at £50 and two sureties in like amount.

Folkestone Herald 21 February 1903

Local News

About a year ago the town was somewhat startled when it was spread abroad that a daring safe robbery had been committed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. £100 in gold, which had been under lock and key in the Manager's Office, had suddenly disappeared, and in spite of searching enquiries, both by local and London detectives, the affair remained a mystery up to Friday morning of last week, when a message was received by the local authorities from Tottenham Court Road Police Station that a man had surrendered himself there and made a full and detailed confession.

The sequel was heard at the Folkestone police Court on Saturday morning last, before Mr. W. Wightwick and Mr. W.G. Herbert, when William James Abbott was charged with stealing £100 in gold from a safe at the Royal Pavilion Hotel between the 18th and 22nd February of last year.

Mr. S. Eeley, manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, and Burlington Hotel, Dover, said he generally visited the Pavilion daily. In his absence Mr. Pope acted as assistant manager. Witness placed eighty sovereigns and forty half sovereigns in a canvas bag on Feb. 18th, 1902. This money was placed in a private drawer in the safe in witness' general office. No-one had the key of the drawer but himself. The key was in a bunch, and this he gave into the charge of Mr. Pope when leaving the hotel. On the 22nd February, about 1 p.m., he had occasion to go to the safe, and found the cash had been taken out of the bag. Prisoner had been employed as plateman from February 23rd, 1901 to April 1st, 1902, and from July, 1898 to September, 1900. Between those dates he had been employed at the Burlington hotel, Dover.

Percy J. Pope, assistant manager, said he remembered Mr. Eeley placing the gold in the cash box, but not in the safe. Witness had charge of the keys, and on this occasion they were kept in an unlocked drawer.

Miss Bisset, head bookkeeper at the hotel, said on the afternoon of February 22nd she found a half sovereign near the ledge of a desk in the general office. She now produced the coin. The safe was always kept locked. Witness had a duplicate key.

Mr. Eeley, re-called, said that on the bunch of keys there was a key of the safe, and also a key of the drawer within the safe.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said, from information received he went to London, arriving at Tottenham Court Road Police Station about 9 p.m. Witness here saw prisoner detained, and told him he should charge him with feloniously stealing £100 in gold from a locked drawer at the Royal Pavilion Hotel between 18th and 22nd of February last year. After witness had given prisoner the usual caution, the latter said “There was only £99 10s. I dropped a half sovereign in the office. I counted the money when I got in the bedroom. I found the key of the safe in the office. I opened the safe and then unlocked the drawer and took out the money. The reason I gave myself up was that I had no work and no money”. Witness now produced a statement made by prisoner to Inspector Moon. It was signed William Abbott, and when witness read this over to prisoner he replied “That is my handwriting and signature”. Detective Sergt. Burniston further added that on charging prisoner at Folkestone he made no reply.

Prisoner, who asked no questions, nor desired to make any further statement, was formally committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Chronicle 25 April 1903

Quarter Sessions

Monday, April 20th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward.

William James Abbott, 23, pleaded Guilty to stealing from the Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, £100 in money, belonging to the Fredericks Hotels Limited, on the 22nd of February, 1902.

Mr. T. Matthew (instructed by Mr. J. Minter), for the Crown, said the prisoner had been employed in the hotel, where he had by some means got possession of the keys of the safe, from which he stole £100 in gold, less half a sovereign, which he dropped. Almost twelve months afterwards he made a voluntary confession to the police. Needless to say, by that time the money had gone.

Mr. Eeley, the manager of the Pavilion Hotel, said that prisoner had been previously engaged in the hotel for three years.

The Chief Constable said there was no previous conviction against the accused to his knowledge.

The Recorder (to prisoner): Well, what have you got to say?

Prisoner: Nothing.

The Recorder: Nothing! This is a serious offence. What made you write a confession?

Prisoner: Because I had no money, sir.

The Recorder said that, considering that prisoner had been in prison awaiting trial since the 14th of February, he would now be sentenced to four months' hard labour.


Folkestone Express 25 April 1903

Quarter Sessions

Monday, April 20th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward

William Jas. Abbott was charged with stealing £100 from the Frederick Hotels Limited, on the 22nd February, 1902.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to four months' hard labour.

It will be remembered that the prisoner was a plateman at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, and he took the money from a safe at night. He left the service and spent all the money. He then gave himself up to the police.

Folkestone Herald 25 April 1903

Quarter Sessions

Monday, April 20th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

A true bill was returned against William James Abbott (23), plateman, who was indicted on a charge of feloniously stealing in the dwelling house of the Frederick Hotels Ltd., the sum of £100, monies of the said Frederick Hotels Ltd., on the 22nd February, 1902, at Folkestone. He entered a plea of Guilty.

The facts of the case, as reported at the Police Court proceedings some time ago, were briefly reiterated by Mr. Matthews, prosecuting counsel. In view of the largeness of the sum of money, the offence, he said, was a somewhat serious one. The money was the property of Mr. Eeley, manager of the Pavilion Hotel. On the 18th of February last year that gentleman placed it in a safe at the Hotel, and on the 22nd of the same month it was missed. Prisoner had been employed at the Hotel as plateman, and in that way became familiar with the Hotel and the different parts of it. Somehow or other he seemed to have obtained the keys of the safe, and extracted the money, with the exception of half a sovereign, which he left behind. Last February – a year after – prisoner made a confession to the London police and was thereupon arrested and charged. He was instructed that there was no previous conviction against the man, he having, so far as he knew, hitherto been an honest man.

Evidence was given by Mr. Eeley, who said that prisoner, during the three years he was in the service of the Pavilion Hotel behaved himself to his satisfaction.

Prisoner had no defence to offer.

In answer to the Recorder, who impressed upon him the fact that it was a very serious crime, Abbott said he wrote his confession because he had no money. He had been in prison since the 14th February. He was a single man.

A warder from the gaol said that Abbott had behaved himself all right during the time he had been in prison.

The Recorder remarked that it was a matter of great regret to have to sentence a man who had been in the service of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, where he had spent so many of his days since he had been in this borough. He, however, had a duty to perform, and must perform it. He had taken into consideration the fact that he had been in prison awaiting his trial for a period of two months; otherwise he would have passed a much heavier sentence. The sentence which he would inflict was one of imprisonment with hard labour for four calendar months.

Folkestone Chronicle 16 May 1903

Saturday, May 9th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

The Manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel applied for an extension of licence until 4 a.m., for the 15th and 19th of May, the occasion of social balls.

Alderman Banks, in granting the application, remarked, amid laughter, that it was rather late for ladies to stop up.

Folkestone Express 13 October 1906

Friday, October 5th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

James Ryan was charged with being drunk and incapable that morning. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Nash said at about five minutes to one he was in South Street, when he was called by the night porter of the Pavilion Hotel, who said there was a man, drunk, lying on the mat in the doorway of the hotel. Witness raised prisoner up, and, finding he was drunk, brought him to the police station. Going up High Street Ryan became very violent. His boots had to be taken off, and he had also to be handcuffed. They had eventually to carry him to the police station.

Prisoner, who was said to hail from Newmarket, was fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

Folkestone Express 14 September 1912

Tuesday, September 10th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

George Coleman was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street the previous night.

Prisoner, on entering the dock, said before the proceedings went any further he thought he was justified in asking Mr. Herbert not to sit on the Bench, because he attacked him in a very cruel manner when he had the misfortune to be placed there the last time. He thought Mr. Herbert himself would feel that under the circumstances he should not act.

The Clerk: I am sure you will get justice from Mr. Herbert as well as from the other Magistrates. Personally I am sorry you have made such a statement.

Coleman: He is prejudiced.

The Clerk: Are you Guilty or not?

Coleman: I was elevated.

The Clerk: Were you drunk and disorderly?

Coleman: I don't think I was disorderly. I had three drops of spirit.

Inspector Lawrence said at five minutes to eleven the previous night he was called to the Royal Pavilion Hotel buffet, where he saw the prisoner leaning over the bar, and at the request of the barmaid he got Coleman out of the hotel. When he got into the road, prisoner commenced to shout and swear, and he was compelled to bring him to the police station.

Prisoner said it was not his habit to swear. He had been in great pain all day. He had been working very hard, and he did not take alcohol in any way whatever. However, the previous evening when he had finished his business he took a little drop of gin. There were three drops, but not very large, only twopennyworths. When he went to the Pavilion Hotel the young woman, very rightly, probably, did not wish to serve him. When he was asked to leave, the Inspector would admit, he left. He had no recollection of using obscene language. He might have said it was d---- stupidity, but he could not call that obscene language.

Inspector Lawrence then gave an example of the language.

Prisoner said he saw men rolling and staggering about the town almost every day, but no-one interfered with them. However, he was the “pilgarlic”, and he was taken. It must be prejudice, and was persecution and nothing less. Everyone in that Court knew that between the Harbour and the north end of the town any time of day, and on all days of the week, they would see a man or certain men staggering or rolling about, but no-one interfered with them. That, however, was no justification for him, but it was not fair. He had been a tradesman, and had lost £6,000 in that town. His wife had lost her business owing to the insanitary condition of the premises, and his children had been injured. He admitted he might have been excitable, but he did not admit that he was using obscene language.

The Clerk said during the past six years Coleman had been fined three times for drunkenness.

The Chairman said the prisoner would be fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and the Magistrates hoped that he would not come there again.

Coleman: I hope I shall not.

Folkestone Express 29 August 1914

Saturday, August 22nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Col. Owen.

Lucy Foreman was charged with stealing a ring, the property of a fellow servant at the Royal Pavilion Hotel.

Maud Ellen Lambert, a chambermaid employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said the prisoner had also been employed there as staff maid from July 28th until August 14th, when she left without notice. The ring (produced) was her property. On Thursday week she placed the ring in a hatpin box in her bedroom, and she saw it safe on the following morning at ten o'clock. The same evening she went to the box, but the ring was missing. She made a search for it, but could not find it, and on Saturday she gave information to the police. On Friday she was shown the ring with two others, and identified it as her property. She valued the ring at 32/6. On Thursday before the prisoner left she was sweeping he (prosecutrix's) room at four o'clock. She did not give the prisoner permission to take the ring; in fact, she had not even shown it to her.

Harrison Prescott, manager to Mr. S.W. Joseph, pawnbroker, of High Street, said the previous day, at half past eleven, the prisoner came to the shop and offered the ring produced in pledge, and asked a loan of 5/- or 6/-. She said it was her property, and had been in her possession five or six years, it having been given to her by a young man. He ultimately advanced 5/- on it. Prisoner gave the name of Lily Gilham, 85a, Marshall Street. Later in the day he handed it over to Det. Sergt. Johnson.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said from information received he made inquiries. The previous evening at 9.45, he, in company with P.C. Butcher, saw the prisoner in the public bar of the Swan Inn, Dover Road. He called her outside, and told her they were two police officers, and asked her her name. She replied “Lucy Foreman”. He then cautioned her, and showed the ring (produced), which had been given to him by the last witness, and told her she answered the description of a woman who had pledged the ring, which had been stolen, at Mr. Joseph's, and had been identified by Maud Lambert as her property. He informed her she would be charged with stealing it from a bedroom at the Royal Pavilion Hotel on the 14th. She replied “My young man, named Carter, gave it to me two years ago”. He saw Carter in the prisoner's presence, and showed him the ring produced, and told him that the prisoner said he gave her the ring two years ago, He replied “I did not. She asked me to pledge it for her. I took it down to the pawnshop, and they refused to take it in”. Prisoner then said “I may as well tell you the truth. My husband gave it to me as an engagement ring ten years ago, but he is now in Canada”. He brought her to the police station and formally charged her, and she again said her husband gave it to her ten years ago. Prisoner had not a wedding ring on.

Prisoner asked the Magistrates to decide the case, and pleaded Not Guilty. She said her husband gave her the ring ten years ago when she was in the Victoria Hospital.

The Clerk pointed out that she told Det. Sergt. Johnson that her young man gave it to her two years ago.

Prisoner said what she told the Magistrates was the truth.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said they knew nothing about the prisoner there. She had, however, been drifting about a good deal. Mr. Easton, the Police Court Missioner, told him that she was eight or nine years ago in service in the town, and bore a very good character then. She was married, but her husband had deserted her, and she had one or two children in the Cottage Homes at Chatham. He was afraid she had not been leading a very good life since she had been down there.

The Clerk said Mr. Easton informed him that the prisoner had been in a Salvation Army Home from January to July, when she was found that situation down there.

Prisoner agreed to go into a home.

The Chairman said they did not wish to send her to prison. They wished to give her another chance. They had decided to bind her over for twelve months, the condition being that she was to go into a home for that period, during which time she would be under the supervision of the Probation Officer.

Folkestone Herald 29 August 1914

Saturday, August 22nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Col. G.P. Owen.

Lucy Foreman was charged with stealing a ring, the property of Maud Ellen Lambert. She pleaded Not Guilty.

Miss Maud Ellen Lambert said she was employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, and prisoner was employed there as staff maid from July 24th till August 10th. On the 14th inst. accused left without giving notice. The ring produced was identified by the witness as her property. On Thursday, August 13th, witness placed the ring in a hairpin box. At 10 o'clock on Friday morning it was safe there, but on the same evening when witness went to the box it was gone. She made a search, but was unable to find it. On Saturday afternoon witness gave information to the police, and on Friday afternoon, the 21st inst., she was shown the ring with two others. She identified hers. She valued it at 32s. 6d. On the day it disappeared prisoner swept out her room. Accused left about seven in the evening. Witness had not given or lent the ring to prisoner.

Mr. H. Prescott, employed by Mr. S.W. Joseph, pawnbroker, deposed that on Friday, 21st inst., at 11.30, prisoner came into the shop and asked for a loan of 5s. or 6s. on the ring. Witness asked her if it was her property, and she said it had been in her possession for about two years, it having been given to her by her young man. Witness advanced her 7s. in the name of Lillie Gibbons, 85a, Marshall Street. Later in the day witness handed over the ring to Detective Sergt. Johnson.

Detective Sergt. Johnson deposed that on Friday night, at 9.45, he saw prisoner at the Swan Hotel, in Dover Road. In the company of P.C. Butcher he called her outside and told her they were two police officers. Witness asked her for her name and she replied “Lucy Foreman”. He then cautioned her and showed her the ring, telling her that it had been stolen and that Miss Lambert identified it as her property. Witness added that she would be charged with stealing it from a bedroom at the Royal Pavilion Hotel on the 14th inst. She said “My young man, Carter, gave it to me two years ago”. Witness then saw Carter in prisoner's presence and showed him the ring, but he said he did not give it to her. Carter said she had asked him to pledge it, but they refused to do so at the pawnshop. Accused then said “I may as well tell you the truth. My husband gave it to me ten years ago, but he is now in Canada”. Witness brought her to the police station and there formally charged her. Prisoner again said her husband, who was in Canada, gave it to her ten years ago.

Prisoner, in defence, said her husband had given it to her ten years ago when she was in the Royal Victoria Hospital.

The Chairman asked her if she would go in a home. At first she refused, but on second thought she said she would. She was then bound over for 12 months, and to go into a home selected by Mr. Easton, the Police Court Missioner, for that period.

Folkestone Express 16 March 1918

Wednesday, March 13th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Thomas Leonard Ford was charged with stealing a pair of fur gauntlet gloves, value 50s., from the cloakroom of the Royal Pavilion Hotel.

William Alfred Taunton, head porter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said the prisoner was the attendant in charge of the cloakroom. On January 16th he was on duty there. A few days later he asked the prisoner if he knew anything about a letter concerning the loss of some gloves. He handed him the letter and prisoner said “Mr. Taunton, I know nothing whatever about them. I have never seen him”.

Lieut. G.T. Mellitt said on January 16th he stayed at the hotel for a few hours, and left his pack in the cloakroom with the attendant, from whom he received a receipt. The pack was there about five hours, and he received it from the same attendant. Included in the pack was the pair of gloves (produced), which he valued at 50s. On opening the pack later he missed the gloves.

Harold Robert Manning, taxicab driver of the Pavilion Garage, said some evening about the end of January he was standing with his cab near the entrance to the Hotel when the prisoner came out of the Hotel to him and asked him if he would buy a pair of gloves, which he had had for some months. Witness enquired what sort they were, and Ford replied “Big fur gloves”. He asked the prisoner if he could see the gloves, and he said he could if he went down into his room. Witness went with him to a room in the basement, and the gloves (produced) were taken by Ford from a drawer, and witness asked him the price. Ford replied “10s.” and witness gave him that money, as he thought it was a fair price, having seen gloves like them marked up for 18s. 6d. He wore them for a fortnight.

Det. Sergt. Leonard Johnson said about 11.30 the previous morning he went to the Royal Pavilion Hotel, where he saw the prisoner, whom he told he should charge with stealing the pair of gauntlet gloves, one of which he showed to the prisoner. Ford replied “I went round to dinner, and when I came back to the cloakroom I found them. I asked several officers there if they belonged to them, and they said “No”. I kept them two or three days and then sold them”. Witness brought him to the police station, where he made no reply to the charge. Manning handed him the gloves on February 25th, when he was making inquiries about them.

Prisoner said he wished to be tried by the Magistrates. He was Not Guilty. When he went to dinner on the day in question he left the cloakroom in charge of another attendant. He found the gloves, and he ought to have taken them to the office. When spoken to by Taunton concerning them, he had sold the gloves.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was a Folkestone man, and had been working about the town in the different hotels. Stange to say, some 27 years ago he was fined for stealing property from the same hotel. He understood that several complaints had reached the hotel of property having been missed from officers' luggage in the cloakroom.

The Chairman said had it not been for the prisoner's good character for a long time they would have dealt very severely with him, for he was in a place of trust. Other people must be protected, and the prisoner would have to go to prison for a month's hard labour.

The witness Manning was called forward, and the Chairman said he must think himself lucky that he was not in the dock. He ought to have known better than to buy the gloves. He never inquired where they came from, and the Magistrates warned him that if he ever came there again in such a way he might find himself doing time.

Folkestone Herald 16 March 1918

Wednesday, March 12th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Thomas Leonard Ford was charged with stealing a pair of gauntlet gloves, value 50s., from luggage left by an officer in the cloak room of the Royal Pavilion Hotel on January 16th.

Wm. Alfred Taunton, head porter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said defendant was the cloakroom attendant at the Hotel. On January 16th witness gave him a letter to read, complaining that a pair of fur gauntlet gloves had been taken from an officer's pack in the cloakroom. Defendant said he knew nothing whatever about them, and had never seen them.

Lieutenant G.T. Mallett stated that on January 16th he stayed at the Hotel for a few hours, and deposited his pack in the cloakroom, leaving it with the attendant. He could not say prisoner was the attendant. He received the luggage back from the same attendant. Later he opened his pack and missed the gloves, which were a present to him, and were worth about 50s.

Harold Robert Manning, a taxi driver employed at the Pavilion Garage, stated that on an evening near the end of January he was standing with his cab in front of the Pavilion Hotel, when defendant came out of the hotel to him and asked him if he would buy a pair of big fur gloves he had had for some months. Witness asked to see the gloves, and defendant took him to his room in the hotel and showed them to him. Witness asked him the price, and he said “10s.”, which witness gave him. Witness wore the gloves for a fortnight, and then put them away. Later he handed them to Detective Sergeant Johnson.

Detective Sergeant Johnson stated that on the previous morning he saw prisoner at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, and told him he would be charged with stealing the gloves. Witness showed him one of the gloves, and he said “I went round to dinner, and when I came back to the cloakroom I found them. I asked several officers if they belonged to them, and they said “No”. I kept them two or three days and then sold them”. When charged at the police station he made no reply. Witness saw Manning on February 25th, and from what he told him Manning handed him the gloves.

Prisoner said he was Not Guilty. He left the cloakroom in charge of another attendant. When he came back he found the gloves lying on a suitcase. He inquired of the officers present, and finally kept them for several days. As they were still unclaimed, he sold them.

The Chief Constable said prisoner had been working in local hotels for a good many years. He had been charged at that Court and fined £2 for stealing property from the Royal Pavilion Hotel 27 years ago. He understood the management of the Hotel had had many complaints of property being stolen from officers' luggage.

The Chairman said if prisoner had not had a good character he would have had a long sentence. A person in a position of trust like this must be taught in order to protect the public. Prisoner would go to prison for one month with hard labour.

Addressing the witness Manning, the Chairman said he was fortunate in not finding himself in the dock. He ought to have known better that to buy a pair of gloves like that for 10s. He must have known they were worth more. He had better not come before the Bench again under similar circumstances.

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1922

Friday. February 10th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. A. Stace, Cr. C. Ed. Mumford, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles, C.B.

Floyd McKinn Garrison as summoned for assaulting Edward Haines. Mr. A.K. Mowll prosecuted, and Mr. C.J. Roberts appeared for the defendant, who admitted the offence.

Mr. A.K. Mowll, in his opening remarks, said that the defendant had offered to give the prosecutor £15 as compensation, and pay the costs in the matter. No doubt the Bench would bear that in mind. Otherwise he would have strongly pressed that the only punishment defendant should receive would have been imprisonment.

Edward Haines, night porter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he was on duty there on Sunday about midnight when the defendant and another man, both strangers to him, called at the hotel and wanted to be supplied with drinks. He told them that he could not do that. They pressed witness several times, and he told them several times he could not serve them. Defendant said he would make it worthwhile for him to do so, but witness told him that it was more than the job was worth. He then requested them to leave, but defendant took up his position with his back to the door and said “You don't intend to serve us, then?” Witness replied “No”. Defendant then suddenly lashed out at witness, striking him three or four blows with his fist on the face. One eye was blackened and a tooth loosened.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not accuse defendant of being an American.

Mr. Roberts said his client understood the foolishness of his action, and he informed him that he only acted as he did after being accused of being an American. He was of Canadian origin, and he thought it spoke rather well for his honour for his flag that he took it so seriously to heart. That was the reason he became excited. He quite realised the seriousness of his conduct, and he called the next day and apologised to the prosecutor and offered compensation. He had done everything in his power to apologise and satisfy the prosecutor, and he asked the Bench to take this into consideration.

Mr. Haines, re-called, said on the night after the occurrence the defendant came and saw him. He pulled out a bunch of Treasury notes, but witness would not have anything to do with him. Defendant offered to square it then. He said it was a very serious matter to him, and that he did not remember anything that happened, but his friend told him afterwards.

The Bench then retired, and upon returning the Chairman said they were unanimously agreed that this was one of the most brutal cases they had had for some time, and the licensed victuallers must be protected. This man was carrying out his duties, very arduous duties. If it had not been for the pleading of Mr. Mowll with regard to compensation they would have sent him to prison without the option of a fine. He would be fined £5 or 14 days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 18 February 1922

Friday, February 10th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Col. Broome-Giles, Mr. C.E. Mumford, Dr. Nuttall, Mr. G. Boyd and Mr. A. Stace.

Floyd McKinn Garrison was summoned for assaulting Edward Haynes, night porter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, on the 6th February. Mr. C.J. Roberts appeared for defendant and pleaded Guilty.

Mr. A.K. Mowll appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and said defendant had undertaken to give the prosecutor £15, and to pay his costs. It was a matter no doubt the Magistrates would bear in mind, or otherwise he would strongly press that the defendant should receive the punishment of imprisonment.

Edward Haynes said he was the night porter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, and he was on duty there on Sunday night last. About midnight the defendant and a friend, who were strangers to him, went into the hotel, and defendant asked to be supplied with drinks. He told him he could not do that. The defendant pressed him several times, and said he would make it worth his while. He told defendant it was more than his job was worth. He requested defendant and his friend to leave on three occasions. Defendant stood with his back to the door, and said “You don't intend to serve us”, and he replied “No”. Defendant suddenly lashed out; struck him on the jaw, cut his eye and ear, and also hit him on the mouth, loosening a tooth. It was a very great shock.

Cross-examined by Mr. Roberts: He did not accuse defendant of being an American.

By the Clerk: The conversation probably continued five minutes before defendant struck him.

Mr. Roberts said his client quite understood the foolishness of his action, and had informed him that he only got excited after being called an American. Defendant was, in fact, a Canadian, and he took it rather seriously to heart that he was accused of being an American. Defendant called at the hotel the day following the occurrence, and apologised to Haynes and offered him compensation. His client had done everything to satisfy prosecutor before coming into Court in endeavouring to make amends even before he had instructed him, and it was an evident sign of his good faith that he was genuinely repentant for his foolish act.

Mr. Haynes was re-called, and said defendant went to the hotel the following night, and asked him to go outside. He pulled a roll of Treasury notes out of his pocket and offered to settle it, stating it was a very serious matter for him, and he did not want his name to appear in the Press. Defendant said he did not remember anything about it, but his friend had told him about it in London.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return to Court the Chairman said they were unanimously agreed that this was one of the most brutal cases they had had for some time, and licensed victuallers must be protected. The prosecutor was carrying out his duty, and a very arduous duty the man had to perform. If it had not been for the plea of Mr. Mowll that defendant had decided to compensate Haynes, defendant would have been sent to prison without any option. He would be fined £5.

Folkestone Express 10 February 1923

Local News

On Tuesday morning the Magistrates heard applications for the extensions of licences for various functions, and the Clerk called attention to the supplying of refreshments to outsiders.

Mr. Bright (Pavilion Hotel) applied for extensions for February 15th to 11 p.m. for the dinner of Master Bakers; February 24th until 12 midnight for the Post Office officials' dinner and smoker; February 28th until 1 a.m., Masonic dinner and dance (ladies' night).

The Chairman (Mr. Swoffer) said the licence on February 15th would be granted until 11 p.m., and those for the 24th and 28th to 12 midnight. The Magistrates considered that twelve o'clock was late enough for the supplying of drink. There was no reason why they should not dance on until three o'clock in the morning, but drinks must not be supplied.

Mr. Bright said he only based his application on the fact that a similar licence was granted a few months ago.

The Clerk said that with regard to a matter arising out of the recent granting of some of these extensions of hours for the purpose of a ball, it had been brought to the knowledge of the Licensing Justices that the letter and spirit of the Act of Parliament, which enabled the Magistrates to grant these exemptions from ordinary closing hours, had been transgressed. Precise information had been brought to the Licensing Justices in one or two instances of gentlemen who were not patrons of the ball driving up to a certain hotel in the town, and they went in, and were supplied with refreshments for a considerable time. The Magistrates desired him to point out to the licence holders that that was a distinct infringement of the Act of Parliament, and the conditions on which they granted the extension of hours. He need not tell them that the Act o Parliament merely allowed the Magistrates to grant them for the accommodation of people attending the hotel on special occasions, and not for outsiders to go and get a drink after hours.

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1923

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday (Mr. G.I. Swoffer in the chair), Mr. Bright, on behalf of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, asked for three extensions: on Thursday, February 15th, until 1 o'clock, on the occasion of a dinner; on Saturday, 24th, until 12 o'clock, for a Post Office dinner; and on Wednesday, February 28th, until 1 o'clock, for a Masonic dinner.

The Bench, after retiring, stated that in respect of the first application they would allow an extension to 11 o'clock. For the Masonic dinner and dance and the Post Office dinner an extension would be granted to 12 o'clock in each case. In their opinion that was quite late enough for the supply of drink. There was no reason why the guests should not dance on later, but drinks could not be served after that time.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said the Justices wished him to explain a matter arising out of these recent applications for extensions of hours for balls. It had been brought to the knowledge of the Licensing Justices that the letter and spirit of the Act of Parliament which enabled them to grant these orders of exemption from the ordinary closing hours had been transgressed. Precise information had been brought to the notice of the Justices that in one or two recent instances gentlemen who were not patrons of the ball, and who had not ball tickets, had driven up to a certain hotel in the town, gone in, and had been supplied with refreshments for a considerable time. The Bench desired him to point out to licence holders that the Magistrates granted these extensions solely that those taking part in the ball could obtain drinks, and outsiders should not be supplied with drinks after hours.

Folkestone Express 29 September 1923


Tuesday, September 25th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Dr. Nuttall, Col. P. Broome-Giles, and Mr. W.R. Boughton.

Priscilla Burton was summoned for receiving from a person, whose name was unknown, a tablecloth and serviettes, well knowing them to have been stolen, belonging to the Frederick Hotels Ltd. Mr. A.K. Mowll defended.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said that on the 11th inst. he received a search warrant to search the premises of the defendant. About 4 p.m., in company with P.C. Allen, Mr. Bright (Manager of the Pavilion Hotel) and Miss Drake (the housekeeper), he went to 21, St. Michael's Street, a dwelling house in the occupation of defendant's husband. A second hand business was carried on there by the defendant. Defendant was not there, and in her absence he searched the premises. In the front room he found one serviette, marked Hotel Burlington, Dover; 5 serviettes were found in a drawer in the back bedroom, all marked in the same way, and 10 serviettes in a drawer in the kitchen, four marked Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, and six marked Hotel Burlington, Dover. They were identified by Mr. Bright and Miss Drake as the property of the Frederick Hotels Ltd. On the 18th he received a summons for the defendant. About 6.50 he went to 21, St. Michael's Street, where he saw defendant, and read the summons to her, and she replied “I found them here with the linen when I came back in February of this year. I had let my rooms furnished. A Mr. Frank, who worked at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, has also lived here”. The serviette and tablecloth produced were handed to him by P.C. Allen, and the corner of the tablecloth had either been cut or torn away.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: As far as he knew defendant had borne an excellent character up to the present. The front room was full of all kinds of things, boxes packed and unpacked. Defendant did say “I should not be so foolish as to ruin my character by buying such things”.

Miss W.V. Drake, linen-keeper at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said she took stock of the linen in June last. Since then she had missed three tablecloths and sixteen serviettes. They supplied daily linen from the hotel for use on the boats, and after use it was returned to the hotel, and then sent to the Folkestone Sanitary Steam Laundry. All the serviettes were marked, either with Burlington Hotel, Dover, or Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone. The serviettes belonged to the hotel, and she identified the tablecloth by the pattern. All the tablecloths were marked in one corner. The serviettes were worth 2s. each, and the tablecloths 49s. each. No linen was ever sold, but was used for other purposes. Since June she had missed 21 serviettes, and had missed some previous to her stocktaking. Practically every time she had made her quarterly stocktaking she had been short of serviettes and tablecloths.

Mr. F.C. Bright, Manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said that on the 8th September he received a communication from the manager of the Folkestone Steam Laundry, and in consequence he communicated with the police. The serviettes marked “m213” had probably been in stock for years. The undated ones had been in use recently, and were a later stock.

Miss Hilda Burbridge, employed at the Folkestone Sanitary Steam Laundry, said the tablecloths and a serviette bore their mark. The tablecloth had been at the laundry about three weeks ago, and the serviette about a fortnight ago.

Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

The case was adjourned until today (Friday).

Folkestone Herald 29 September 1923

Local News

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday (Mr. G.I. Swoffer in the chair) Priscilla Burton was summoned for, on or about August 20th, receiving from a person unknown tablecloths and serviettes to the value of £3 4/-, well knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. A.K. Mowll defended.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said from information received he made enquiries. On the 11th instant he received a search warrant, and, in company with P.C. Allen, Mr. Bright, Manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, and Miss Drake, housekeeper at the hotel, he went to 21 St. Michael's Street, where defendant lived. A second hand business was carried on there by defendant, the front room being devoted to the purpose. The defendant was then absent. He searched the house, and in the front room he found one serviette, marked “Hotel Burlington, Dover”. He found five serviettes in a brawer in the back bedroom, these being marked in the same way, and he found ten serviettes in a drawer in the kitchen downstairs. Some were marked “Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone”, and others “Hotel Burlington, Dover”. They were identified by Mr. Bright as the property of Frederick Hotels Ltd. He took possession of them. On the 18th instant he received a summons for the defendant, and about 6.50 p.m. he went to St. Michael's Street, where he saw her. He read the summons to her, and she replied “I found them here with the linen when I came back in February of this year. I had let my rooms furnished. A Mr. Frank, who worked at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, has also lived here”. A serviette and tablecloth were handed to him by P.C. Allen. The corner of the tablecloth had been torn off.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said that up till then defendant had borne a good character.

Miss Violet Drake, linen keeper at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said that she took stock of the linen in June last. Since then she had missed three tablecloths and sixteen serviettes. They supplied from the hotel linen for use on the boats. After use the linen was returned to them, and then sent to the Folkestone Sanitary Steam Laundry. Every serviette supplied to the boats was marked. The serviettes produced were part of the stock. She identified the tablecloth by the pattern as belonging to the hotel. The tablecloths were marked in one corner. The serviettes were worth about 2/- each, and the tablecloth about 49/-. The linen was all in good condition. Actually she had missed twenty one serviettes since the stocktaking. Practically every time she had taken her quarterly stock she missed serviettes and tablecloths.

Mr. Frank Bright, Manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said on the 8th September he received a communication from the manager of the Sanitary Steam Laundry with regard to a tablecloth sent to the laundry, and in consequence he communicated with the police. Six of the serviettes had been in use at the hotel for some years past. The others were portion of a later stock, and had been in use quite recently.

Miss Dolly Berbridge, employed at the Sanitary Steam Laundry, said the tablecloth and serviettes bore their laundry mark. The tablecloth was received about three weeks ago, and the serviettes about a fortnight ago.

Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Mowll objected to the tablecloth being included in the summons. He said he considered that this part had not been proved.

The Chief Constable said he could call witnesses to prove that part of the summons.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the Bench considered it was a case for the Quarter Sessions.

The Bench adjourned the case until yesterday (Friday).

At yesterday's hearing Mrs. Grace Swift, of 6, Garden Road, a niece of the defendant, stated that she had suggested to her aunt that she should sell some of her linen to Mrs. Fairburn, of 32, Bouverie Square, witness's employer, who was not willing to pay the price of new stuff. Mrs. Burton told her to ask 27/6 for the goods, which consisted of two tablecloths, five or six serviettes, half a dozen knives, and half a dozen tea cloths. As defendant was in bed at the time, having been seriously ill, witness got the linen from a chest of drawers and took the things to Mrs. Fairburn, who paid the 27/6, which she handed over to defendant.

Defendant, on oath, stated that in July she found the linen in two boxes, which she took down to Encombe, Sandgate, in 1920, when she looked after the house. She determined to return them to the Royal Pavilion Hotel when she had sorted out the things, but as she fell ill she did not think much about it. At no time had she purchased any serviettes belonging to the Frederick Hotels Company.

The Bench dismissed the case.

Folkestone Express 21 February 1925

Local News

The following extension of licence was granted by the Magistrates at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday:—Royal Pavilion Hotel, on Wednesday evening, when the Rowing Club Ball was held, from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m.

Folkestone Herald 16 January 1926

Local News

When Mr. F. Bright, Manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, applied at the Folkestone Petty Sessions yesterday for two extensions of licence for dances at the hotel, the Presiding Magistrate (Mr. G. Boyd) said that he did not know whether Mr. Bright noticed the remarks which were made a few days previously with regard to the extension of licences. The Bench had reason to say that care should be taken to see that no-one was allowed to go into the hotel for drinking purposes other than those at the dance. He thought that he had better remind him of the matter because they had reminded one smaller house, and he thought that perhaps it would be just as well if Mr. Bright knew. There were reasons for the remarks, otherwise they would not have been made.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said that there was a feeling that the extension of licences entitled the holder to let outsiders in for drinking.

Mr. Bright said that he quite understood the danger, which was one he personally took every step to guard against.

The extensions asked for were granted.

Folkestone Express 6 March 1926

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court, on Friday morning, Mr. F. Bright applied for extensions of his licence at the Royal Pavilion Hotel.

The Chairman: What the Bench have to consider is whether these are special occasions. You are not supposed to ask for an extension until one o'clock in ihe morning unless there is a special reason for it.

Mr. Bright: Quite so.
The Chairman: It seems to me you are rather inclined to ask for these late hours.

Mr. Bright: In the majority of cases they are repetitions of what you have been kind enough to grant.

The Chairman: The procedure of the Bench also is to see they are special occasions and that is what we are bound to keep in mind, and if it is not a special occasion you are not entitled to special indulgence.

Mr. Bright: I follow that.

The licences were granted.

Folkestone Herald 6 March 1926

Local News

When Mr. E. Bright, manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, applied at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on the 26th ult. for extensions of hours in respect of social functions to be held at the hotel, the Chairman (Col. G.P. Owen) said that licensees were not supposed to have an extension until 1 o'clock unless there was a special reason for it.

Mr. Bright: Quite so.

Col. Owen: It seems to me you are inclined always to ask for these late hours.

Mr. Bright: In the majority of cases they are a repetition of what you have been previously kind enough to grant.

The Chairman said that what governed the procedure of the Bench was that they were special occasions. That was what they were bound to keep in mind. If they were not special occasions the licensee was not entitled to special indulgence.

Mr. Bright said that he quite followed that.

The applications were granted.

Folkestone Express 30 June 1928

Tuesday, June 26th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. W.R. Boughton, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mr. S. Seager, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. R.J. Stokes.

George Alfred Steib, a waiter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, was charged with stealing two bottles and four half bottles of champagne, the property of the Fredericks Hotels Ltd.

Defendant said he wished the Magistrates to deal with the case, and he pleaded Guilty. He was very sorry for what he had done.

Mr. B.H. Bonniface prosecuted, and said he wanted to put before the Magistrates quite plainly the position with regard to that matter, and with regard to the man himself. His clients desired to protect their other employees. Having regard to the fact that the defendant had been in the employ of the hotel for 13 years with an absolutely clean character, they did not ask the Magistrates to send him to prison. For some three months there had been leakages from the wine cellar. Mr. Bright, the manager of the hotel, had the keys, and the cellarman was the only other man, other than the manager and assistant manager, who were entitled to have the keys in their possession. The cellarman had the keys in his possession during the day, and when he went off duty he either handed them to Mr. Bright, or put them on the table in Mr. Bright’s private office if the manager was out. On Sunday, having regard to the leakages from the cellar, observations were kept on the wine cellar by a police officer. The cellarman left shortly after three o’clock and took the keys to Mr. Bright’s office. In the morning a check had been taken of the wine. The keys were placed on Mr. Bright’s table. About five o’clock Detective Constable Budgen, who was keeping observation on the wine cellar, saw the defendant open the door of the cellar and go inside. He came out with two bottles of champagne in his hand. Det. Budgen went to him and found, on searching him, that he had also four half bottles of champagne in his possession. When a check was made of the stock in the cellar in the evening the identical bottles were missing. The position from the cellarman’s point of view was a serious one. He had worked his way up to the position and he had only been there for a matter of twelve months, and when three months ago bottles of champagne were missed he had been under suspicion until Sunday. During the past three months there had been lost champagne of the total value of £15 19s. 5d. The defendant had been in the hotel's service for thirteen years, and was a married man with two daughters. There had been nothing against him of complaint that could be made previously, and he had always done his work well. They could not help thinking that there had been someone receiving the champagne, and the prosecution would only like to have before the Magistrates the receiver as well as the thief. The defendant had lost his position, and would certainly not be reinstated.

Det. Constable Budgen said at 1-10 p.m. on Sunday he kept observation on the main wine cellar. At 5 p.m. he saw the defendant enter the wine cellar by means of a key. Shortly after he came out carrying two large bottles of champagne. He went to Steib and informed him that he should take him to the Police Station on a charge of stealing the champagne. He cautioned him and defendant said “Can this be looked over?” He searched him and found four half bottles of champagne and the bunch of keys (produced). He brought the defendant to the Police Station where he formally charged and cautioned him. He replied “I have nothing to say. I am sorry, that is all”.

Claude Albert Attwood, of 12, Belgrave Road, Dover, said he was the cellarman at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. He was present when the wines were checked by Mr. Bright on Sunday morning. He left the Hotel at 3-15 in the afternoon and before doing so placed the keys on the Manager’s desk in his office. He was the only man who had a right to! have the keys. The stock was checked in the evening when two bottles and four half bottles of champagne were missing The bottles produced were similar to those in the cellar, and the champagne was the same kind as that missing from the cellar. The defendant had no right to the keys and had no right to go into the cellar.

Mr. F. C. Bright, the Manager of the Hotel, said during the last three months he had lost a considerable quantity of champagne from the cellar. The defendant had been in the employment of the Hotel for 13 years and had been a good servant, other than the complaints concerning the champagne, which had been going on for the last two and a half months. The value of the missing champagne was between £12 and £15. The keys (produced) were his property.

Defendant said he had noting to say except that he was very sorry. He wished the Magistrates to settle the case that day because he wanted to make a fresh start. He had worked hard all his life.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): There has been other wine missed. Is there anything you wished to say as to what has become of that?

Defendant: Nothing except that I took it to drink.

The magistrates retired to consider their decision and on their return the Chairman said that was a very serious case because the defendant had involved so many other people, and suspicion had fallen on innocent men and their families. It was undoubtedly a grave thing he had done. He would be bound over in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour. He really deserved having to go to prison.

Folkestone Express 13 October 1928

Inquest

An inquest was held at the Folkestone Town Hall on Monday afternoon by the Deputy Coroner (Mr. B.H. Bonniface) concerning the death of Adolphe Charles Bieri, for 25 years in the employ of the Fredericks Hotels Ltd., and who was 57 years of age.

Benjamin Flowers, second night porter, said deceased was employed as chef at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. He saw deceased go in on Saturday morning at five minutes to three. He spoke to deceased, who also spoke to him (witness). He asked if the dance was finished at the hotel, and he asked how many were in the hotel. Deceased went through the swing doors to go through the lounge up to his bedroom. He did not see deceased go upstairs. On going along the second floor he heard weird noises, and it was a noise something like a groan or a snore. When he came to the staircase he saw deceased on the stairs, about half way up. He was sitting against the wall, with his head hanging on his chest. Mr. Bieri was very tall and very heavy. The lights all the way up the staircase were on. He found deceased at 3.20. He went to deceased, and there was only a small clot of blood from the nose. He went down into the hall for assistance, and called the night porter. They went up straight away, and got cushions. He left the night porter with deceased. Twenty minutes later he saw deceased again, still in teh same place, and he was then semi-conscious, and he looked better. Witness continued with his duties, and a quarter of an hour or ten minutes later he again saw deceased, who, with his assistance, sat up a bit. The night porter had been with him all this time. Then he laid back on his right side, and the next time he saw deceased was about ten minutes to five. They assisted him to sit up, and still sitting on the floor he moved himself towards the stairs, and caught hold of the banister, as if he was going to stand up. Mr. Hardwick asked him to see if there was a vacant room on that floor, and he found one vacant. When he returned he found they had gone. He went down to the hall, and Mr. Hardwick went down five minutes later, and told him he had left deceased in the lavatory. They then went to get the chef from the lavatory, and when they got there deceased was standing just inside the door. They then took deceased to the vacant room, took his boots off, and laid him on the bed. Later on he saw deceased again, when he was half in and half out of the bed. Deceased sat on the bed, and witness put him back in bed, and put a wet handkerchief on his forehead, and, seeing he was comfortable, he left him. He saw deceased again at ten minutes to eight, when he was lying on his back, and breathing heavily. A little bruise was then coming out over the eye. He saw him again at 8.20, and deceased was in the same position. The bruise had then come out more. Deceased touched his forehead, and said he wondered what was the matter there. That was the first time he had heard deceased complain. He reported this to the night porter, and he did not see deceased again.

John Hardwick, night porter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said that while deceased was in the lavatory he asked him not to inform Mr. Bright or get a doctor. At 7.30 a.m. he noticed that the deceased's right eye was closing. At 8.20 a.m. he saw Mr. Bright.

Mr. Frank Cecil Bright, manager at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said deceased had been with the company for 25 years, part of the time in London and the rest of the time at Folkestone. He was a most reliable man, and a very valued and esteemed servant. He saw deceased at 8.15 p.m. on Friday, and his health generally was good. He had had a very busy season, and he had been to the doctor, who had prescribed him a rest. He (witness) arrived in the hall at 8.25 a.m. on Saturday, and the night porter was looking for him, and he told him about the accident, and where deceased was. He went straight away to the bedroom, and he found deceased lying on the bed breathing very heavily, and he was holding his hand to his nose. Deceased had a badly discoloured eye, and the other was slightly discoloured. Deceased was alive. He telephoned to the doctor, and also for an ambulance. He went back about twenty minutes later, and found that deceased had ceased to beathe.

Dr. J.W.D. Buttery said he received the telephone message about 9.30 a.m., and he went to the Royal Pavilion Hotel, and found the chef dead. He made a post mortem examination, and death was due to a fractured skull. It was an extensive fracture. He had an unusually thin skull for a man of his age and build. Had he been called earlier there was nothing he could have done for the deceased.

The Deputy Coroner said it was a most unfortunate thing both for the hotel and for the relatives that this should have happened, but it was some consolation for them to know that the hotel porters did everything they possibly could under the circumstances. The doctor had told them the cause of death. He found that deceased died from an extensive fracture of the skull, following a fall on the stairs, but there was no evidence to show how he came to fall.

Mr. E.J. Chadwick (Coroner's Officer) said he would like to express his sorrow that deceased had met with such an untimely end. He had known him for many years as a good and true friend.

Mr. Bright said that on behalf of his company he had been asked to express their regret at the untimely end of such an esteemed and valued servant.

Folkestone Herald 13 October 1928

Obituary

We regret to announce the death, on Saturday, at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, of Mr. Charles Adolphe Bieri. His death was caused by injuries sustained in a fall downstairs, as detailed in our report of the inquest.

Deceased, who was in his 58th year, was widely known, not only locally, but beyond. He had been employed as a chef for 30 years by the Fredericks Hotel Company Ltd. He earned for himself the highest esteem of the Chairman and Directors of the Company, as he did also the successive managers under whom he served.

Mr. Bieri was a Swiss by birth, and never lost his love for the little republic situated amidst the Alps. He was a patriot in the highest sense of the word. However, he became devoted to the country of his adoption and for the people of England he had a fond affection.

No ordinary man was Charles Adolphe Bieri. He was of fine stature – tall and broad shouldered. He always wore a pleasant smile, and had a kindly word for all. No trace of envy or jealousy possessed his soul. If he was big man so far as his frame was concerned, his heart was bigger still. It can be said without exaggeration that he went about doing good. Only his intimates know the extent of this. It can be said too that no-one who was in real trouble ever sought his aid in vain.

Deceased was one of the first twelve to join the local Brotherhood of Cheerful Sparrows, and, although it was accomplished quietly, he did some splendid work for an organisation that appealed to his heart and soul.

Deceased was a Freemason, and in this connection was associated with the Temple Lodge, Folkestone, and the Mark Lodge. He was also a member of the Folkestone Club and it goes without saying he won the esteem and respect of all his associates.

In his profession he was regarded as a peer amongst chefs. Deceased was, indeed, in this connection highly gifted, whilst his power of organisation in reference to staff work was beyond compare. Thousands of patrons that have sat at tables of the Royal Pavilion Hotel during the nearly quarter of a century that the late Mr. Bieri occupied the post of chef have testified to the excellence of his art. The almost countless public banquets, including those of successive Mayors of Folkestone, held at this hotel have won fame too because of their merit. It has been the fashion for years to hear the expression when a banquet has been held at the Pavilion “Ah! Bieri is here tonight. We are sure of an excellent menu and well served into the bargain”. By the death of Mr. Bieri, Mr. Bright, the manager of the hotel, has sustained the loss of a friend and invaluable colleague. The whole staff at the Pavilion Hotel were grief stricken when they knew that he had passed away.

The deceased was unmarried. He lost a brother recently in Australia. Another resides in New York. Deceased's nephew, Captain Frederick Bieri, came to Folkestone from Switzerland immediately on being informed of his relative's death.

There are many in this town who by the death of Mr. Bieri feel the loss of a brother and friend. For full twenty years the writer of this notice has enjoyed the sunshine of deceased's friendship. He was always the same, and had a good word for all, be he rich or poor.

“He was a man; think what a man ought to be. He was that”.

Inquest

The inquest was held at the Town Hall on Monday by Mr. B.H. Bonniface (Deputy Borough Coroner).

Mr. Benjamin Flowers, second night porter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he saw Mr. Bieri come in at about five minutes to three on Saturday morning. He spoke to Mr. Bieri, who asked him about a dance. Mr. Bieri then went through the swing doors to go through the lounge and up to his bedroom. Witness did not see him go up the stairs. On going up to the second floor at about 3.20, he heard a queer noise – something like a groan or snore. When he came to the staircase he saw deceased on the stairs, sitting up against the wall, with his head hanging down on his chest. Deceased was a very tall and very heavy man, and he did not move him. The lights were on all the way up the staircase. Witness went down and fetched the night porter. They fetched cushions and undid deceased's collar. The night porter then instructed witness to go on with his duties. About 20 minutes later he saw deceased in the same place and he was then semi-conscious and looked better. About ten or fifteen minutes after that deceased sat up, but lay back on his side. At about ten minutes to five he again saw deceased, who moved himself along the floor with his hands, in a sitting position, to a banister. At the request of the night porter, who had been with deceased all the time, he (witness) found a vacant room on that floor. When he returned he found the night porter and deceased had gone. The night porter came down and told him he had helped deceased downstairs to the lavatory. They found deceased standing inside the lavatory door and took him to a vacant room, took his boots off, and laid him on the bed. At about a quarter to seven he again saw deceased, who was half out of bed. He got his legs out of bed and sat on the side. Witness wetted his handkerchief and put it on his forehead. When he was comfortable witness left. At about ten minutes to eight he saw deceased in the bedroom. He was then on his back and breathing heavily. At about 20 minutes past eight deceased was in the same position and a bruise had come out over one eye. He touched his forehead and said he wondered what was the matter there. That was the first time witness had heard him complain. Witness reported it to the night porter.

Mr. John Hardwick, the night porter, also gave evidence. Deceased asked him not to get a doctor. That was at about 5.30. At 7.30 he noticed Mr. Bieri's right eye was closing.

Mr. Frank Cecil Bright, manager of the hotel, said that deceased had been with the company 25 years, part of the time in London, but most of it in Folkestone. He was a very esteemed and valued servant. He enjoyed good health generally, but witness thought he was in need of a holiday after a busy season. At about 8.25 he went to the bedroom and found deceased lying on the bed breathing heavily, holding his nose with his hand. He had a badly discoloured eye, and the other was slightly discoloured. Witness communicated with the doctor and on going back to the room about 20 minutes later he found deceased had ceased to breathe.

Dr. J.W.D. Buttery said he received a message at about 9.30 on Saturday morning and went to the Royal Pavilion Hotel. Mr. Bieri was dead on his arrival. He made a post mortem examination and found that the cause of death was an extensive fracture of the skull in the frontal region. Deceased had an unusually thin skull for a man of his age and build. Had witness been called earlier he could not possibly have done anything for the deceased.

The Deputy Coroner found that deceased died from a severe fracture of the skull following a fall on the stairs, but there was no evidence to show how he came to fall. Mr. Bonniface said it was a most unfortunate thing for the hotel and the relatives that this should have happened, but it was perhaps some consolation to know that the night porters did everything they possibly could in the circumstances.

The Coroner's Officer (Mr. E.J. Chadwick) said he had known deceased for many years. He was a very good, true friend.

Mr. Bright expressed regret on behalf of the company for this untimely end of a very valued and esteemed servant.

Folkestone Express 14 June 1930

Inquest

A frequent visitor to Folkestone, Mr. Patrick Stewart Leckie, a brother-in-law of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, died under somewhat tragic circumstances during the Whitsun holiday while staying in the town.

Mr. Leckie, who was 52 years of age, was a tea and rubber merchant in London, being associated with his father, and many times throughout the year he stayed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. He came to Folkestone on Friday and went to the Hotel as usual. During the evening when going down the stairs leading from the main entrance hall to the billiard room he fell to the bottom of the stairs, and when assistance reached him he was unconscious. Dr. T.J. Howell was immediately called, and he ordered Mr. Leckie's removal to the Eaton Court nursing home. An operation was subsequently performed, but Mr. Leckie passed away on Sunday morning.

The inquest was held at the Town hall on Tuesday morning by Mr. G.W. Haines (the Borough Coroner), when evidence was given by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who stated that for the past two years deceased had suffered from Bright's disease, which caused him to have attacks of giddiness, and also he had had blood pressure.

Mr. E.J. Chadwick, the Coroner's Officer, said on Sunday the deceased was identified in his presence by Mr. Patrick Leckie Forbes, of 63, South Way, London, S.W. 1, as that of his uncle, aged 52, of Monkstown, Crowborough, Sussex, a tea and rubber merchant.

Mr. Percival Frank Flood, a waiter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he knew the deceased as a visitor. He arrived on Friday. At about a quarter to ten in the evening he was proceeding along the basement towards his dressing room when he heard a few bumps down the stairs leading to the gentlemen's cloakroom. On turning round he saw the deceased lying on the mat on the stairs. He was unconscious. He would say the deceased had fallen from about halfway up. He went upstairs for assistance, and the manager and others returned with him. Together they carried deceased to the billiard room. He remained with him until Dr. Howell arrived, and deceased was subsequently removed that night in a motor ambulance to the Eaton Court Nursing Home. There was just a small pool of blood on the mat where deceased had fallen. He had only seen deceased once that evening, at ten minutes to seven in the dining room.

Miss Blanche Evelyn Stratford, a hotel bar attendant at the hotel, said she knew the deceased as a visitor. On Friday evening she saw the deceased at about 6.30, and spoke to him. He seemed quite all right and in good health. The bar was close to the top of the stairs leading down to the billiard room. She thought it must have been at about nine o'clock when she saw him again, and they had a few words of conversation. He seemed quite normal. Later on, some three quarters of an hour afterwards, she heard someone walking down the stairs, and then there was a terrific thud. She ran out to see what it was. She would say the person had got halfway down before he fell. She then saw the deceased lying at the bottom of the stairs. She went back to the hall immediately to report. There was no other person present on the staircase so far as she could see.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, of Windlesham, Crowborough, said the deceased was his brother-in-law. He had suffered from Bright's disease for at least a couple of years, and he thought his blood pressure was rather high. He had many times complained of giddiness, and he had known him to seize hold of furniture when attacked by the giddiness, although he had never seen him fall. Folkestone was his favourite weekend place when he did not go down to see his father. He was a bachelor, and was very temperate indeed. During the last 25 years he had never known him to exceed in any way.

Dr. Thomas John Howell, practising in Folkestone, said on Friday last at about half past ten, he was called to the Hotel. On arrival he found deceased lying in the billiard room on a couch. He was unconscious and breathing stertorously. There was something bleeding from the back of the head. He advised Mr. Leckie's removal to a nursing home. He could not then say whether deceased was suffering from concussion or a fractured base. Deceased was removed to Eaton Court and witness examined his head, and could not find the least signs of a fracture, and put s stitch in the wound. His heart was normal and the pulse was good. The next morning, at about eleven o'clock, he discovered that there was a fracture of the skull on the top of the brain, towards the front of the head. He called in Dr. Molesworth, and they decided to operate immediately, and found a fracture. Decompression was performed, and a clot of blood removed from the upper surface of the brain. Deceased did not regain consciousness as they thought he would, and they then came to the conclusion that there were other injuries involving the base of the brain. Deceased died on Sunday morning at one o'clock. The effects of Bright's disease did at times cause giddiness. Death was due to a fractured skull.

Mr. Flood, in reply to the Coroner, said there was nothing on the stairs upon which the deceased could have caught his heel, and there was nothing on his heel to cause him to slip.

The Coroner said it was clear that Mr. Leckie had suffered from Bright's disease, and that at times he became very dizzy. Functioning as a jury, he found that the deceased had died from fractured skull caused by falling down a staircase.

Folkestone Herald 14 June 1930

Inquest

Whilst staying at the Royal Pavilion Hotel for the Whitsun Holidays, Mr. Patrick Stewart Leckie, of Monkstown, Crowborough, Sussex, a member of the firm of James B. Leckie and Company, Norfolk House, Lawrence Poultry Hill, London E.C., tea and rubber merchant, fell down a flight of stairs, and died later in a nursing home from a fractured skull. Mr. Leckie, who was 52, was a frequent visitor to Folkestone, a town which he loved very much. He was the brother of Lady Conan Doyle.

The Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) held an inquest at the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was called as a witness. A verdict that deceased died from a fractured skull received as a result of falling down stairs at a Folkestone hotel was returned.

Edward John Chadwick, the Coroner's Officer, said on Saturday the body was identified in his presence by Mr. Patrick Leckie-Forbes, of 63, South Way, London S.W. 11, as that of his uncle.

Percival Frank Flood, a waiter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said the deceased came to stay at the hotel on Friday. The same evening at 9.45 p.m. witness was in the basement when he heard a few bumps down the stairs leading to the gentlemen's cloak room. On turning round he saw Mr. Leckie lying on the mat at the bottom of the stairs. He was unconscious and witness summoned assistance. From the number of bumps he judged that deceased had fallen about halfway down the stairs. With assistance Mr. Leckie was carried into the billiard room on the same floor. Dr. Howell arrived, and by his instructions he was removed in an ambulance to the Eaton Court Nursing Home. There was a small pool of blood on the mat. He had seen the deceased once before that evening, at 6.50, when he was in the dining room.

Blanche Evelyn Stratford, a hotel bar attendant at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said she knew the deceased as a visitor. On Friday evening she saw Mr. Leckie at 6.30, and at that time he seemed quite all right. The bar was close to the top of the stairs leading down to the cloakroom and billiard room. She saw deceased again about 9 o'clock, when they passed a few words in conversation. There was nothing abnormal about him. A little later she heard someone pass and proceed down the stairs and then she heard a terrific fall. She believed deceased had got about halfway down the stairs. She rushed out and looked over the stairs. She saw Mr. Leckie lying at the bottom of the stairs. She immediately went to the hall and reported the matter.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Windelsham, Crowborough, said deceased was his brother-in-law, and he had suffered from Bright's Disease for at least two years. As a result his blood pressure was rather high, and many times he had complained of giddiness. He had seen him suddenly have to catch hold of something to prevent himself from falling. When he did not go to see his father at Crowborough he always came down to Folkestone for weekends. He was a man of very temperate habits.

Dr. T.T. Howell said on Friday last about 10.30 p.m. he was called to the Royal Pavilion Hotel. On arrival, he found deceased lying on a couch. He was unconscious and there was some bleeding from the back of the head. He advised deceased's removal to a nursing home. There was a slight wound at the back of the head. The next day about 11 a.m. deceased had a fit, which indicated that there was some fracture on top of the brain. He then called in Dr. Molesworth, who operated in teh afternoon. There was a fracture of the skull. A clot of blood on the upper surface of the brain was moved, but deceased did not recover consciousness, this indicating that there were other injuries affecting the base of the brain. Deceased died on Sunday morning at 1 o'clock. Dizzy attacks were very common when a person was suffering from Bright's Disease. The cause of death was a fracture of the skull.

The Coroner, on returning his verdict, said nobody was present, but there was little doubt that deceased fell down the stairs and having regard to the fact that he was suffering from Bright's Disease he was of the opinion that he became giddy and that was why he fell.

Folkestone Express 24 February 1934

Wednesday, February 21st: Before Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mrs. E. Gore, and Mr. W. Smith.

High Vernon Nelson, a well-dressed elderly man, was charged with obtaining credit by alleged false pretences from the Fredericks Hotel Company.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the police would offer evidence of arrest only that morning, and then ask for a remand to complete the case. One essential witness had left the employment of the Company, and was now in residence in Warwickshire. The warrant was issued in March, 1932.

Det. Con. Pearce said at 12.35 p.m. on the previous day he saw the prisoner detained at Marlborough Street Police Station. He informed him he was a police officer from Folkestone and held a warrant for his arrest. He produced and read the warrant to him and cautioned him. He replied “I plead Guilty to that. I admit it”. He was brought to Folkestone, and at 3.15 p.m. was formally charged by Acting-Sergt. Bowley in his presence and again cautioned. He replied “I plead Guilty to it”.

A gentleman in the Court informed the Magistrates that he was instructed by relatives of the defendant to engage a solicitor to defend him.

The Chairman, at this stage, said the prisoner would be remanded until Tuesday next, and bail would be allowed, himself in a surety of £50 and one surety of £50, and that would have to be satisfactory to the police.

Folkestone Herald 24 February 1934

Local News

Hugh Vernon Nelson, a well dressed man, was remanded on bail at Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, when he was charged with obtaining credit from the Frederick Hotels Ltd. by false pretences. The charge was dated March 12th, 1932.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he understood the police would offer evidence of arrest only that morning, and then ask for a remand because one of the essential witnesses, who at the time was working at the hotel, was now in Warwickshire.

Detective Constable Pearce said at 12.35 p.m. the previous day he saw the prisoner detained at Marlborough Street Police Station. He informed him that he was a police officer from Folkestone and held a warrant for his arrest. He read the warrant over to Nelson, who after being cautioned said “I plead Guilty to that. I admit it”. He was brought to Folkestone, and when formally charged he replied “I plead Guilty to it”.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock then asked for a remand.

It was stated that arrangements were being made for Nelson to be defended.

The Magistrates remanded accused until next Tuesday, bail being offered in one surety of £50, and prisoner himself in a similar sum.

Folkestone Express 3 March 1934

Tuesday, February 27th: Before Mr. W.R. Boughton, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks and Mrs. E. Gore.

Hugh Vernon Nelson was brought up on remand charged with obtaining £3 13s. 2d. credit by alleged false pretences from the Royal Pavilion Hotel, in March, 1932. Mr. H.B. Bonniface defended.

Mrs. K. Vougan, of 130, Bills Lane, Shipley, Birmingham, said she was employed as receptionist and clerk in 1932 at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. In February of that year the defendant, accompanied by a woman and child, stayed at the hotel for about three weeks. He made payments in cash for two weeks. On March 12th he called for his bill, which she gave him. He said he came down in a hurry, and asked her if she would take the cheque (produced) for £25 12s. 2d. When there was a question of her taking the cheque he said something to the effect that he was not running away, and he also said they would be coming back for Easter, when they would require similar accommodation. The cheque came back marked “No Account”. The account was never paid during the time she was at the hotel. The man was staying at the hotel as “C.A. Moreton”.

Mr. F.C. Bright, manager at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he remembered the defendant staying at the hotel. He paid the cheque into the bank, and it was subsequently returned. The defendant was not seen again at the hotel after Monday morning, March 14th. The date of the cheque was March 12th. He incurred a debt of £1 1s. 7d. for himself because the lady and child left on the 12th. Had he (witness) been aware that the cheque would not have been met the defendant would not have been allowed to stay in the hotel after the 12th.

Mr. F.A. Jeffreys, manager of Barclay's Bank, Radlett, Herts., said the cheque signed “C.A. Moreton” was on March 16th, 1932, received at the branch of the bank, and it was returned marked “No Account”. The cheque came from a book issued to Mrs. J. Nelson, whose account was closed in January, 1930, it being moribund.

Det. Con. Pearce repeated the evidence he gave concerning him taking the prisoner into custody when he was detained at Marlborough Police Court.

The amount specified in the charge was then altered to £1 1s. 7d., and the defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Bonniface, on behalf of the defendant, said he had the defendant's wife present. The circumstances in connection with that case were unfortunate. The defendant formed a liaison with another woman and was staying at the hotel with her and her child. Is instructions were that he would have paid the hotel, only the money ran short, and the cheque was issued actually to the lady with whom he was staying. Since that time he had been able to make good to a considerable extent, and until Christmas he was regularly employed. During that time he had been the sole support of his widowed mother and consumptive brother and had contributed to his wife and child's support, and also contributed to the support of the child of the other woman. He asked the Magistrates to take the lenient course of binding the defendant over as it was the first offence. Fortunately the defendant and his wife had been reconciled, and he could go back to her. His invalid mother had passed away recently, and the brother had got employment.

Mrs. L. Nelson said her mother told her that her husband was concerned with another woman. He had always treated her with kindness, and when he was away he provided for her and her child and for her mother. He had also had to provide for his mother and brother, who was an invalid.

Mr. Bonniface: If the Magistrates were to adopt a certain course would you live with him again?

Mrs. Nelson: If it would help him. I feel that I should give him a chance of making a fresh start.

When were you separated? – We were never really separated. He was always travelling, but he continued to support me, coming hom occasionally.

The Chairman said they were going to treat defendant leniently. He would be bound over for twelve months to be of good behaviour, but he would have to pay the costs, £4 15s. 9d.

Folkestone Herald 3 March 1934

Local News

“As a result of this case the parties (a husband and wife) have been reconciled”, said Mr. B.H. Bonniface at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, when he defended Hugh Vernon Nelson, a well-dressed man, who appeared on remand, charged with obtaining by false pretences £3 13s. 2d. by incurring a certain liability at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, on March 12th, 1932.

Nelson appeared before the Magistrates on Tuesday of last week, and was remanded after evidence of arrest had been given.

After hearing Mr. Bonniface and accused's wife, the Magistrates on Tuesday bound Nelson over for 12 months on condition that he paid the costs, amounting to £4 15s. 9d.

The first witness was Mrs. Kathleen Vangar, Bull's Lane, Shirley, who said that in 1932 she was employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel as a receptionist and cashier. She recognised the defendant, who came to stay at the hotel in February, 1932, with a lady and a child. He stayed about three weeks, and he made payments in cash at the end of two weeks. On March 12th he called for his bill to date, and she took a cheque for £25 12s. 2d. in payment. On that day defendant said they were not running away. He made that remark when there was a question of taking the cheque. He also said that they would be coming back at Easter, when they would require the same accommodation. The cheque, which was signed “Morton”, eventually came back, and whilst she was at the hotel the cheque was never met.

Frank Cecil Bright, manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said the cheque was returned marked “No Account”. Defendant left the hotel on March 14th without giving notice of his intention to leave, and there was a further amount of £1 1s. 7d then due.

The amount mentioned in the charge was at this stage amended to £1 1s. 7d.

Fred. H. Jeffries, Manager of Barclay's Bank, Radlett, Herts., said the cheque was presented to his bank on March 16th. They had no account in the name of “A.C. Morton” then or at any other time. The cheque had been taken from a book which was issued to Mrs. Joan Nelson. That account was closed in January, 1930, as the funds were exhausted.

Det. Con. Pearce gave evidence of taking defendant into custody at Marlborough Street police station.

Defendant pleaded Guilty, and elected to be tried summarily.

Mr. Bonniface said at the time of the offence Nelson formed a liaison with another woman, and he stayed at the hotel with her. He came to the hotel with a certain sum of money, and then when the money ran short he gave this cheque, which had been issued to the lady he was staying with at the hotel. Afterwards he made good a considerable part of the money. Until Christmas he was regularly employed, and during that time he had been the sole support of his widowed mother, a consumptive brother, and he had also contributed to the support of his wife and child. At the same time he was supporting this other woman and her child. As a result of that case the parties had been reconciled, and he would go back and live with his wife. His mother had passed away recently, whilst his brother had just got work. Under all the circumstances he asked the Magistrates to give Nelson another chance by binding him over.

Mrs. Eva Nelson, defendant's wife, said her husband had always treated her very well. He had always provided for her and their child, and her mother. He had also provided for his own mother and brother, who was an invalid. She was prepared to live with her husband again if that would help him to make a fresh start.

The Chairman (Mr. W.R. Boughton) said they were treating him very leniently by binding him over for 12 months. He would have to pay the costs, which amounted to £4 15s. 9d.

Folkestone Express 4 April 1936

Local News

When an application was made for the extension of the licence of the Royal Pavilion Hotel on the occasion of a Folkestone shops’ staff dance, Alderman Hollands drew attention to the fact that he had seen posters advertising the dance, stating that there would he an extension of the licence, although it had not been granted.

Mr. Bright said he had nothing to do with the issuing of the posters, and the promoters should certainly have seen him first. He had, however, omitted to have applied for that extension earlier.

The extension was granted, and Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, the Chairman, in announcing the magistrates’ decision, said it ought to be generally known that when such a thing as that was advertised it rather stultified any action that ought to be taken. The magistrates might even disagree with the application.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the magistrates wished it to be generally appreciated that bills announcing such events should not be posted until applications had been made.

Folkestone Express 16 September 1939

Local News

Because he was hungry, George Frederick Humbles, of no fixed abode, smashed a plate glass window of the grill room at the Royal Pavilion Hotel. At Folkestone Police Court on Monday, he was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

Alec Gunn, a night porter at the oyal Pavilion Hotel, said at about 8.15 that morning he was on duty at the main entrance of the hotel when Humbles came over to the door and asked if he could give him something to eat. He told the defendant that he had no authority to give him anything as it was against the rules of the hotel, and advised him to go away. Humbles asked to see the manager, and said perhaps he would like some of his windows broken. Witness told him not to be silly, and advised him to leave. He watched Humbles leave and cycle towards Auto Pilots' garage.

Sidney Reeves, a carpenter employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he was on duty at about 8.20 a.m. when he found that a grill room plate glass window measuring 6ft. by 18ins. had been broken. The defendant was standing outside with a cycle. Witness informed the manager and sent for the police, remaining with the defendant until an officer arrived.

Mr. Percy Thomas Ladd, assistant manager at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said the grill room window was smashed, and the approximate cost of replacement would be 30/-.

P.C. Morgan said at 8.40 a.m. that day he went to the Royal Pavilion Hotel, where he saw the prisoner standing outside the grill room. In reply to questions, Humbles said “Yes, I did it”, and when cautioned replied “I have been trying to get into the Army, and I am hungry”. When he was charged at the police station he made no reply. Witness said he found a piece of York stone amongst the gragments of glass in the grill room.

Chief Inspector W. Hollands said Humbles had been tramping the country for some time. He was sentenced to 14 days' and 14 days' consecutive in 1937 for wilful damage and refusing to work in a casual ward, and in 1938 he received three weeks’ hard labour for wilful damage at a public institution.

Humbles told the magistrates that he had had no food since four o’clock on Saturday, when he had 8ozs. of bread and a piece of cheese at the institution.

The Chairman (Mr. L.G.A. Collins): What was the point of smashing the window?

Mumbles: If I cannot get food I had better go into jail and get food there.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): He could have applied to the police for assistance.

Humbles said he went to the police, and they told him to see the Relieving Officer. He was then given a ticket for a bed because the casual ward was closed.

The Chairman: You will go to prison for one month with hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1939

Local News

That he was hungry was the explanation given by George Frederick Humbles, of no fixed abode, at the Folkestone Police Court on Monday, when he was charged with wilfully damaging a window at the Royal Pavilion Hotel that day. Humbles, who was sentenced to a month's hard labour, said if he could not get food outside, he could get it inside gaol.

Alec Gunn, night porter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he was on duty at 8.15 that morning. He was at the main entrance when the accused asked him for some food. He told Humbles he had no authority to give him anything as it was against the rules, and advised him to go away.
Humbles asked to see the manager and witness told him that was not possible. Humbles said perhaps the manager would like some of his windows broken. Witness told him not to be so silly and to go away. He walked as far as the entrance with Humbles who went off with his bicycle down to the left.

Sidney Reeves, a carpenter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he was working there that morning at about 8.20. As a result of something reported to him he went outside the grill room, which was on the ground floor and facing the Harbour Garage. There he found a plate glass window, about six feet by eighteen inches, was broken. The accused was standing nearby and had his bicycle with him. Witness informed the manager and later communicated with the police. He went to the place outside the grill room again and Humbles was still there and remained until the police came.

Percy Thomas Ladd, Assistant Manager at the Hotel, said he saw the broken window at about 9 o’clock that morning. The approximate cost of putting in a new glass would be about 30s.

P.C. Morgan said he was on duty in Beach Street when he was informed of the occurrence. He went to the hotel and saw Humbles standing on the footway in Lower Sandgate Road opposite the grill room of the hotel. He questioned the accused respecting the incident and Humbles replied “Yes, I did it”. He took accused to the Police Station where he was charged. He later examined the broken window and found a piece of stone inside the grill room among fragments of plate glass.

Humbles told the Magistrates he had had no food since 4 o'clock the previous day and was hungry.

Chief Inspector Hollands said the accused had been tramping the country for some time. He had admitted two previous convictions. In February, 1937, for wilful damage and refusing to work in a casual ward he had been sent to prison for 14 days and 14 days to run concurrently. In September last year for wilful damage to a public assistance institution he had been given three weeks’ hard labour.

The Chairman of the Bench (Mr. L.G.A. Collins): What did you think you were going to do by smashing this window ?

Humbles: If I can't get food, I can go in gaol and get food. The casualty wards were closed.

You could have applied to the Police? - I did and they told me to go to the Relieving Officer.

Humbles was sentenced to one month's hard labour as stated.

Folkestone Express 16 December 1939

Local News

On Tuesday at the Folkestone Police Court the licensed victuallers were granted an hour extension at night on the Friday and Saturday before Christmas Day. The magistrates on the Bench were Councillor R.G. Wood, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Alderman W. Hollands, Eng. Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Miss G. Broome-Giles.

Extensions were granted for the Christmas festivities as follows: The Royal Pavilion Hotel, Saturday before Christmas, from 10 p.m. to 11.45 p.m.; Boxing Day, for a dinner and dance, from 10 p.m. to 1.30 a.m.; on December 31st, for a dinner, concert and dance, from 10 p.m. to 1.30 p.m., dancing not to take place before midnight.

Folkestone Express 23 March 1940

Lighting Order

There have been more prosecutions at the Folkestone Police Court during the past week of offenders against the lighting regulations regarding the black-out.

William Belfield, the manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, said he was Guilty of the offence.

A War Reserve Police Constable said on March 9th he saw two bright lights coming from the hotel. He saw the manager and he asked him if he was responsible. He said “Yes”. He (witness) told him he had two unscreened bright lights coming from the top of hotel. The defendant accompanied him into the road, where he could see the lights and he then said “You are quite right. I am guilty”.

The defendant said the man on duty who should have gone round the whole of the hotel only went halfway round. The light was from the staff’s bathroom window and someone had been into the room, turned on the lights and not drawn the blinds.

The Mayor said the defendant would have to pay a fine of 10/-.

Folkestone Express 20 April 1940

Lighting Order

Seventeen summonses were heard by the Magistrates, the Mayor (Alderman G.A Gurr), Dr. F. Wolverson and Mrs. A.M. Saunders, on Friday at the Folkestone Police Court against defendants for failing to observe the lighting regulations in the black-out.

William Belford, the manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, admitted the offence.

P.C. Josty said at 11.15 p.m. he saw a light issuing from a window of the hotel. He made inquiries and the defendant eventually found the room. He said the black-out had fallen down, and someone had left on the light.

Defendant said the material looked as if it had been torn down by one of his staff, who was probably disgruntled. He twice went round the building.

Chief Inspector Hollands said there was a previous conviction.

Fined £1.

Folkestone Herald 17 August 1940

Lighting Order

Edward Barton was summoned m respect of a light at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone.

P.C. Crane said at 12 40 a.m. on August 3rd he was on duty near the Marine Gardens Pavilion and from there he saw a light showing from two windows of a top floor room at the Royal Pavilion Hotel He went to the hotel and saw defendant, who was the caretaker. He took him to the passage where there was a 40 watt lamp burning.

Barton told the Magistrates that during the day he had occasion to go to the roof to turn off some water and he switched on the light in the daylight. It would not occur again, however, because he had removed the lamp.

A fine of £1 was imposed.

Folkestone Herald 24 August 1946

Local News

Pearl Candy, Folkestone's carnival beauty queen, gave evidence at the Folkestone Magistrates' Court last Friday, when A.B. Colin Sutherland, stationed at Dover, was charged with stealing her bicycle from the Royal Pavilion Hotel. Stoker Harry Hoskins was also charged with stealing a bicycle from the Royal Pavilion Hotel on the same evening, the property of the War Department. Both pleaded Guilty.

Cpl. Coral Pilgrim, in charge of the Quartermaster's Stores, No. 2 Service Women's Transit Camp, Royal Pavilion Hotel, said three bicycles were usually kept in the passage outside the stores for use by the staff. On Friday morning she noticed two were missing; they were valued at £3.

P.C. Saville said he stopped defendants in Dover Street and they told him they were going to catch a train to Dover; they had borrowed the machines in Dover. Later the bicycles were found abandoned against a hedge at the Junction Station. Defendants were subsequently arrested. Sutherland made a statement in which he alleged that two girls had tol them where the bicycles were.

Both men told the Magistrates that they had been drinking during the evening.

The Chairman (Eng. Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens) said the Bench was satisfied that the event was just a “drunken frolic” and they were willing to give the men another chance. The case was dismissed, each man paying 15/- costs.

Eng. Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens sat with Mr. P. Fuller, Alderman N.O. Baker and Dr. Esme Stuart.

Folkestone Gazette 24 December 1956
Local News

After being fined £5 at a Dunfermline court on a charge of larceny just nine days beforehand, James Easton, of no fixed address, appeared before Folkestone Magistrates on Friday on a similar charge. He was sent to prison for a month after pleading Guilty to stealing, between December 4th and 6th, a pair of trousers, a shirt, five handkerchiefs, a wallet and a mirror, total value £3 14/3, the property of Leonard Thomas Boucher.

Inspector A. Gray said Mr. Boucher, a caretaker at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, found the property missing from his room after accused had slept in the hotel for two nights from December 4th.

P.C. Baynes said he saw accused at Aberdeen Police Station at 5.30 a.m. on December 20th and brought him to Folkestone where he was charged with the offence at 12.45 a.m. the following day. The police officer said Easton, in a statement, said that he sold the property to a secondhand dealer in Folkestone for 30/- and with the money bought himself some clothes.

Defendant told the Magistrates that he took the money because he wanted to get home to his people in Scotland. He asked for another offence of stealing two white jackets, valued at £6, the property of Mr. Victor Behar, manager o the Royal Pavilion Hotel, to be taken into consideration.

Inspector Gray said Easton was 22 and had six previous convictions for larceny, the last being nine days ago at a Dunfermline Court where he was fined £5. Defendant had also undergone two periods of Borstal training.

The Chairman (Ald. W. Hollands) said in view of defendant’s very bad record the magistrates had no alternative but to send him to prison for a month.

Folkestone Herald 28 May 1960

Local News

Plans for the proposed licensed parts of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, were approved by Folkestone Justices on Wednesday at a licensing transfer sessions. The plans were put forward by Mr. H. S. Worthington-Edridge on behalf of the licensee, Mr. Richard James Butcher, the present owners, Anglo Scottish and Foreign Trust, Ltd., and the purchasers, Mount Liell Court, Ltd.

Mr. Worthington-Edridge stated that the licence was in suspense at the moment, but it was proposed to renew it on the completion of the hotel’s purchase. He said there would be a bar in the reception room and a cocktail lounge to the left of the main entrance hall, which served as a smoking room in the hotel’s pre-war days. There would be two more bars in the north block, which would be completely cut off from direct access to the main part of the building. Alterations were to be made to the banqueting hall and to the toilets and cloakrooms.

The architect, Mr. Cyril P. Griggs, of Folkestone, was present in court, but was not called to explain the plans to the Justices.

“I think the plans are so clear that we don’t need to”, commented the Chairman, Mrs. D.M.T. Buttery.

Folkestone Gazette 17 May 1961
Local News

Two bars were re-opened at the Royal Pavilion Hotel on Monday. For the first time since before the last War the public can walk into the hotel and buy a drink. The old pre-war omnibus booking office at the corner of the hotel is once again an attractive lounge bar, while across the corridor the pre-war American bar has been redecorated as a cocktail bar. The bars are being run by Truman Hanbury Buxton and Co., Ltd., by arrangement with Mr. M. Burstin, owner of the hotel, which has been converted into flats. The Royal Pavilion Bars were opened on Monday by Sir Thomas Buxton, a director of Trumans, and by Mr. Burstin, who pulled the first pint to be served across the counter of the new lounge bar.

Folkestone Gazette 21 November 1962

Obituary

Mr. Frank Cecil Bright, a former manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, since residing at the Hatfeild residential home in Trinity Gardens, died in the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday at the age of 80.

Mr. Bright, born in Ireland, first came to Folkestone in the 1890s, and attended a Folkestone preparatory school which has now closed. He then moved to Scotland, where he lived until 1919, when he returned to Folkestone as manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, a position he retained until his retirement in 1938. One of the founder members of the Folkestone Golf Club, Mr. Bright was a keen player. During World War H Mr. Bright moved north again, but came back to Folkestone again in 1950, since when he had been a resident at Hatfeild House. Former Worshipful Master of the Temple Lodge of Freemasons. and a member of the Rotary Club of Folkestone, Mr. Bright also took a keen interest in the Folkestone Hockey Festival, and during his managerial term at the Royal Pavilion catered for many of the competing overseas teams. Mr. Bright, a widower, leaves a son and a daughter. His son is managing director of the company running the Prince of Wales Hotel in Southport, and his daughter, a business woman, lives in Hythe. The funeral service at Holy Trinity Church, Folkestone, tomorrow will be followed by cremation at Hawkinge.

Folkestone Herald 24 November 1962

Obituary

Mr. Frank Bright, the well-known former manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel. Folkestone, died in the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday at the age of 80.

Mr. Bright was born in Ireland, and came to Folkestone some 60 years ago. He attended a preparatory school in the town before going to Scotland, and returned to Folkestone in 1919 as manager of the Royal Pavilion Hotel, a position he retained until his retirement in 1938. Among his interests were Folkestone Golf Club, of which he was a founder member and an enthusiastic player, and the Folkestone Easter Hockey Festival. Many of the overseas teams playing at Folkestone stayed at the Royal Pavilion during Mr. Bright’s term as manager. Mr. Bright was also well-known as a keen Rotarian in Folkestone, and was also Worshipful Master of the Temple Lodge of Freemasons. During the last war Mr. Bright moved to the north of England, returning to Folkestone in 1953. He was a resident at Hatfeild Lodge, premises acquired some years ago for the accommodation of elderly residents. Mr. Bright leaves a son, who is managing director of the company operating the Prince of Wales Hotel in Southsea, and a daughter, a business woman in Hythe.

A funeral service at Holy Trinity Church, Folkestone, on Thursday, was conducted by the Vicar, Rev. A.L.E. Hopkins, and was followed by cremation at Hawkinge.

Folkestone Gazette 13 February 1963

Local News

Permits under the Betting and Gaming Act for amusements with prizes have been granted to the Martello Hotel, True Briton, Ship Inn, East Cliff Tavern, Raglan Hotel, Royal Pavilion Bars, Railway Tavern, and Royal Standard.

Folkestone Herald 24 February 1973

Local News

A girl was knocked unconscious and a member of a pop group had two front teeth knocked out when they were assaulted in a bar, Folkestone magistrates heard on Monday.

John Friend, aged 20, of Beatty Road, Folkestone, pleaded guilty to assaulting Ian Whitby, occasioning him actual bodily harm. Friend also admitted three other assaults committed on the same occasion in the pavilion bar at the Royal Pavilion, Folkestone. Ian Whitby was a member of a pop group playing at the Pavilion that night. Also assaulted were Steven Robert Whitby, Neil Clinton Buckie, both members of the pop group, and Miss Jacqueline Payne. Friend pleaded guilty to the assaults as well, and to a charge of criminal damage.

Inspector Ronald Young, prosecuting, told the court that the pop group were with two girls, one of them Miss Payne, in the bar, awaiting transport home to Dover. “The accused was in the bar and had been drinking. He first punched Ian Whitby and two other members of the group, and one of the girls, who was knocked unconscious”. Friend then struck Ian Whitby in the mouth, knocking him unconscious and breaking two teeth. Inspector Young said the police were called during the violence and after Friend had hit Ian Whitby unconscious, he ran off. He was found on The Leas and became “extremely violent” towards police officers and was later placed in the detention room at the police station. There he did £22.50 worth of damage to the wooden cover round a radiator and the framework of the door.

Friend said “I had been drinking quite heavily. I went to ask the young lady if I could have a dance, and before she had time to speak one of the lads interrupted and said no. He took a swing at me. I took a swing at him and he got out of the way and the young lady got in the way and she fell on the floor”.

The case was adjourned until March 9 for a probation report.

Folkestone Gazette 14 March 1973

Local News

V
iolence flared after Saturday night dancing to a pop group called Brainstorm. Punches flew in the Pavilion Bar near Folkestone harbour, Folkestone magistrates heard on Friday. Three members of the group were taken to hospital. So was a 16-year-old girl who was knocked out in the fight. Cause of the trouble was 20-year-old John Friend, of Beatty Road, Folkestone. And on Friday he paid the penalty – the Magistrates ordered him to Borstal.

Friend had admitted assault occasioning actual bodily hard to three members of the pop group, Ian and Roger Whitby and Neil Buckle, and Jacqueline Payne, one of two girls with the group. He had also pleaded Guilty to causing criminal damage to a detention room at Folkestone Police Station.

Inspector Philip Roberts, prosecuting, said the incident, on February 17, resulted in one of the men losing two teeth, and the two others receiving black eyes. Friend ran off, but was later found on The Leas. He was aggressive to police officers. He was left in a detention room at the police station, where he damaged a wooden radiator cover and a wall.

Friend had been remanded in custody by the court two weeks previously for reports. On Friday, magistrates were told that he had been released from Borstal training last September.

Mr. Thomas Hulme, defending, said Friend had been drinking at the time of the incident. He had recognised that he had a drink problem and had made an effort to do something about it.

Friend’s mother said that since returning from Borstal her son had got on well and had worked hard. “I was shocked that night when I heard he was at the police station”, she said.

The presiding Magistrate, Mrs. Dorothy Buttery, told Friend “Due to the seriousness of the offences we are ordering you to be returned to Borstal”.

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1974

Local News

Warning that he now had a bad reputation was given to a 34-year-old man who appeared before Folkestone magistrates on Monday.

William Daniel Bolland, of Cambridge Gardens, Folkestone, admitted being drunk and disorderly on Folkestone sea front on Sunday.

Inspector John Ansell, prosecuting, said the police went to the Royal Pavilion bar in Harbour Approach Road at about 10.35 p.m. Holland, who was in a group of people, started to use “extremely obscene language”. He was told to stop, but continued to use it. “It got stronger and stronger”, said Inspector Ansell. Bolland was arrested and charged.

The court was told he had two previous convictions for being drunk and disorderly. Fining him £10, the presiding magistrate, Mr. John Moncrieff, said “You realise now that you have become well-known?”

Bolland, who said he worked as a builder’s labourer, agreed.

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1978

Except from “Front Line Folkestone” article.

There was a lucky escape for the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, during one of many raids on the town in September, 1940. The hotel escaped destruction because a 1,000 lb bomb, dropped from roof-top height by a Ju.88, did not explode. The bomb hit the roadway and then went through a window into the basement of the hotel before coming to rest on a shelf where carpets were stored. A bomb disposal officer, using a doctor’s stethoscope, found that the bomb was ticking when he examined it.

Folkestone Herald 16 June 1979

Local News

The demolition of Folkestone's dilapidated Royal Pavilion Hotel and the re-housing of its tenants in the adjacent Pavilion Court flats has come a big jump nearer.

Shepway District Council's Health and Housing Committee accepted on Monday the District Valuer's negotiations and price for acquiring Pavilion Court. This followed the committee's decision last February to "immediately and urgently” open negotiations for the flats.
Referring at Monday’s meeting to an estimate of £51,000 to correct defects in the 100 flat complex, the treasurer, Mr. Arthur Ruderman, said that £75,000 would be more realistic. The negotiations with the owner, Mr. Motel Burstin, were on the basis that the council should pay sitting tenant value, although 40 flats were vacant. “I think the council needs to grasp this nettle and decide on the broader issues”, said Mr. Ruderman. “I don’t think anybody would deny that conditions in the Royal Pavilion are deplorable". “It might well be that, in taking this action, the council would be helping the owner out of a difficult position”, the treasurer added. But if it were not taken, nothing was likely to be done for the people in the Royal Pavilion.

Asked if there was any way the council could force the owner to “bulldoze this place down”, the chairman, Councillor Will Harris, said a condition of the contract would be that money would be withheld unless this were done. "We don't want him to get this money - and I would say this to his face - and then find we are still faced with the problem”, said the chairman. The 37 tenants would be re-housed “directly or indirectly." If any of them were housed elsewhere, their empty flats would be available for others.

South Kent Gazette 22 August 1979

Local News

When Folkestone’s Royal Pavilion Hotel was sold to property tycoon Motel Burstin it was hailed as “splendid news” for the town. That was in April 1960. The early Victorian building had lain empty since the War Office gave up possession 15 years before. Today, after a public outcry over living conditions for elderly tenants of flats at the former hotel, Shepway District Council is preparing to buy up the adjacent Pavilion Court annex so that the Royal can be demolished.

Household Works - a little-known essay by Charles Dickens published in 1855 - gave the watering hole of the well-to-do rave reviews. It was, said Dickens, the epitome of good catering standards, having been built in 1843 to an "unpretending” design by Mr. W. Cubitt. And its importance to the developing port impressed him so much that he referred to the town throughout as Pavilionstone! A century later Folkestone’s pride and glory has deteriorated into a dilapidated slum Formerly owned by Frederick Hotels Ltd., the building was closed after the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940. Later it was occupied by the Royal Navy and towards the end of hostilities the Army used it for leave troops. Its last wartime role was as a married families' hostel.

With the takeover in 1960, Polish-born Mr. Burstin promised a major overhaul of the Royal and its speedy conversion into flatlets. But as a success story it was short-lived. The town’s oldest large hotel, and the first to be lit by electricity, deteriorated into one of its worst slums. The rise of the Motel Burstin hotel in 1974 brought a rapid decline to the Royal. For his 250-room harbour complex, Mr. Burstin envisaged a future as one of the biggest conference centres in Europe. But the 650-room extension would come at the expense of the old hotel. “We hope to have 30,000 conference delegates in Folkestone by 1977. It is our minimum figure”, he said at the time. However, speculation never took concrete form and after the remaining wings of the Royal were overshadowed by the massive new edifice, conditions in the Royal deteriorated.
Early in 1969 the old ballroom had been closed down. Mr. Burstin described it as “a victim of the changing times”. Another disappointment struck four years later. Old Folkestonians had remembered that 800 books of gold leaf were used to gild ornamental domes in 1909.
Unfortunately, they had been camouflaged at the outbreak of war. The cost of recovering the precious metal would have been more than it was worth.

Teething troubles at the motel had created problems for the parent company – Mount Liell Court Ltd. – of which Mr. Burstin is a director. Lack of safety precautions on the uncompleted site had already cost Folkestone Construction Ltd. £800 in fines. A year later - November 1975 - Mount Liell was fined £980 by the town’s magistrates after the company was convicted on 22 summonses alleging insanitary conditions at the hotel - which still had kitchens in the Royal Pavilion. Elderly tenants complained of rain coming through the roof, stuck and broken windows, violent attacks by intruders, too few staff and no milk deliveries. Vandals and thieves rampaged through the crumbling corridors - terrorising old folk living alone. They also had to put up with a “firebug” terror.

By September 1975, millionaire Mr. Burstin admitted the Royal was no longer a haven. Faced with a barrage of complaints from residents, he said “Those who don’t like it and feel so bitter, should move”.

Armed intruders bludgeoned a night-watchman unconscious in 1976. He was sacked shortly afterwards for taking a weekend off sick. Just over two years ago the professed socialist announced that the 130-year-old Royal was to be demolished in favour of the long-awaited Burstin extension. More than 80 occupants would be given a choice of moving to other properties owned by the company at Southend, Bexhill, Hastings and the nearby Pavilion Court, he said. At that time he was replying to an attack by Hastings Council, which had accused him of deliberately letting four sea-front buildings, housing nearly 100 elderly people, become run down. He replied that he had been hit hard by the economic recession. There were no money problems in Folkestone and his £10 million scheme would start in nine months and be completed within three years, Mr. Burstin claimed.

To date it has not materialised and in February this year - under pressure from the housing action group, Shelter - the former Southend councillor admitted: “Things are bad at the Royal Pavilion flats”. Speaking to Folkestone Junior Chamber of Commerce, he said candidly “I wouldn’t put my own mother up at the Royal Pavilion”.

Unharmed when a “dud” 2,000 pound bomb fell into a basement during the war, the once-glorious hotel is now under sentence of death.
Shepway District Council has been given the go-ahead to take over and improve the 100-flat Pavilion Court by the Department of the Environment. Now all that remains is for financial arrangements to be settled so that re-housed tenants officially come under local authority care. Before the affair is dead and buried, the Royal Pavilion must be razed to the ground.

Folkestone Herald 19 January 1980

Local News

Demolition workers have started to knock down a notorious Folkestone seaside slum. In the next four months a ten-man crew will gut the building and finally raze it to the ground. And owner, Mr. Motel Burstin, said this week he will use the site to extend the existing motel. Shelter, the housing action group, branded Pavilion Court “a seaside slum”. Backed by former Folkestone parish curate, the Rev. Tony Shepherd, members campaigned to have it knocked down.

Old folk complained of damp, unhealthy conditions. They were prey to vandals, muggers and firebugs. Then Shepway District Council stepped in and agreed to buy Pavilion Court from Mr. Burstin, who agreed to demolish the Royal Pavilion. The Council said it would turn the Court into sheltered homes for old people.

Mr. Burstin said on Wednesday “I intend to build the approved extensions to the existing motel on the site. These include kitchens and restaurants. When the complex is finished I hope to be able to accommodate about 1,400 people. The sooner the Royal Pavilion is down the better. It can only be in the interests of the remaining residents”.

Mr. John Gluntz, deputy controller of Shepway District Council's Technical and Planning Services Department, said the Council has no details of Mr. Burstin's plans. “We would like to see what he has in mind”, he said. “We're glad to see the Royal Pavilion go down, but we would be interested to see his ideas for development”.

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room