PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1843

Pavilion Hotel

Latest 1940

(Name to)

The Harbour


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.


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.


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


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.


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,


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


Information taken from website

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.




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+ 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



If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-



LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room