From the Maidstone Telegraph, Rochester and Chatham Gazette, 11 February, 1860.

THE NOTORIOUS DUTCHMAN AT ASHFORD

At the police court, on Tuesday, before W. Rurra, Esq., and elderly and very respectable-looking man, who gave the name of Van de Walter, but who has a number of aliases, was charged with defrauding Mr. Bridge, of the "Market Inn," to the amount of upwards of £4.

Remanded.

From the Maidstone Telegraph, Rochester and Chatham Gazette, 18 February, 1860.

ASHFORD THE SWINDLING DUTCHMAN

At the remanded examination of Van de Walter (but who has also a string of aliases) on a charge of defrauding Mr. W. Bridge, of the “Market Hotel,” a good deal of evidence was brought forward as to the prisoner's swindling career previous to his making an appearance at Ashford.

Mr. Henry Cantril, son of the proprietress of the “Royal Hotel,” Derby; Mr. George Hilton, Superintendent of police at Derby; Mr. James Venables, of the “Mitre Hotel,” Oxford; and Mr. Joseph Strangfield, surgeon, Weston-super-Mare, Somersetshire, having given evidence for the prosecution, prisoner questioned Mr. Strandfield, with a view of showing that he had given him ten of the shares back, and that they were all valueless, but Mr. Strangfield said that his assertions were totally untrue. This being the whole of the evidence against the prisoner.

The Chairman said he thought the charge of obtaining goods under false pretences had not been substantiated; he had not obtained goods by means of false pretence, but made the fraudulent representations because he was not able to pay the bills.
Superintendent Hilton said that he had discovered that the prisoner victimised hotel keepers in Yorkshire in a similar manner ten years ago; he had also traced him to Chester and Grantham.

The Chairman:- If the sale of shares can be proved against him there is no doubt of a conviction.

Prisoner:- I think, when I am a little more composed, I can answer every case. The truth is this, Mr. Chairman, that I am ruined by my brother-in-law, who ran away with the money for which I was security. Before that I had been living in very good circumstances. Then I became very poor, and I have tried to my knowledge to make some money, and I came for that purpose into England. I have several inventions, which I have made useful to me, and made money with them; but that would not always succeed, and then I have been reduced, and been almost a pauper. Then I have made money again, and paid what I owed. I am now getting old, and my energies and faculties have not always been successful. Still, I was on the point of being successful in Derby, if that Mr. Bowyer had not interrupted me, and driven me away. But wherever I have been I have paid as much as I could. Now, the man that pays whenever he can is not exactly a swindler. As far as this case goes, it is a trumpery case. To me these shares were worth nothing; they had not paid any interest for the last ten years, or more, and it was only from friendship that I charged myself with ascertaining what they were worth.

The prisoner was then formally charged with having committed a misdemeanour, in applying the shares ton his own use, and on this charge he was ordered to be detained, and, for the convenience of the witnesses transferred to Somersetshire.

From the Maidstone Telegraph, Rochester and Chatham Gazette, Saturday 10 March, 1860. Price 1d.

ASHFORD

Van de Walter, the Swindling Dutchman, otherwise Dr. Wolf, and a number of other aliases, the Dutchman who was examined before the Ashford magistrates, on a charge of swindling Mr. Bridge, of the “Market Inn”, and several other hotel keepers, and who was remanded at Weston-Super-Mare, in order that a charge of fraudulently disposing of some shares in the Hague gas company, of that place, might be further investigated by the magistrates there, has been committed for trial at the next Old Bailey sessions.

From the Maidstone Telegraph, Rochester and Chatham Gazette, Saturday 31 March, 1860. Price 1d.

THE NOTORIOUS DUTCHMAN

The foreigner who under the name of van de Walter swindled Mr. Bridge, of the “Market Inn,” out of several weeks' board and lodging, after practising upon several hotel keepers in Leicester, Derby, and elsewhere, has escaped justice after all. He was committed by the magistrates of Weston-Super-Mare for trial at the Central Criminal Court, for fraudently disposing of Dr. Strangfield's shares; but in consequence of some mistake, neither the prosecutor, prisoner, not witnesses were in time for the sitting, and therefore the prisoner was discharged.

Maidstone Telegraph, Saturday 8 February 1868.

ASHFORD. Petty Sessions, Saturday.

Before G. E. Sayer, Esq., chairman, Lient.-Colonel Groves, R. H. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Esq., M.P., H. Tufton, and P. D. N. Oxenden, Esqs.

How Mrs. Woodgate Lost Her Bag.

A respectably-dressed woman belonging to Ham-street attended to prosecute a pensioner named Horace Finn, living in Ashford, for stealing from her a reticule bag containing some bread and cheese, a bottle of medicine, and 5d in copper. It appeared from the evidence that Mrs. Woodgate came up to Ashford on the previous market day, and towards evening she went into the "Market Inn," having had, as she admitted "something to drink." The barmaid, however, thought from her condition she did not stand in need of any beverage of an alcoholic nature, and declined to serve her with anything stronger than a glass of water. Mrs. Woodgate accordingly partook of a bumper of the limpid element. Being, however, in a generous frame of mind, she treated every one else who happened to be near her to stronger potations. She passed once or twice between an inner room and the bar, and on one occasion left her hag behind her. The prisoner brought it to her, and she thanked him. Soon afterwards she started to go to the railway station, and according to the statement of the prisoner and other persons she asked Finn to accompany her and to carry her bag. She herself denies that she did so. In was certain, however, that her funds by this time were running low, as she complained of having out 2d left to pay her fare. Finn, not to be outdone in the generosity which she had shown, said that "if no one else would pay her fare he would." At the station they became separated, and Finn not being able to find her again took the bag home and hung it up. Mrs. Woodgate in the mean time began to think she had been robbed, and went from the railway station to the police station and made her complaint. Supt. Dewar advised her to go home and consult with her husband before she gave any one in charge. The husband, the day after he had heard his wife's story, communicated with Police-sergeant Smith, and that officer immediately proceeded to Ashford and found the bag hung up in Finns house. There was no concealment of it in any way, and the bottle of medicine still remained in it. The Bench, without hearing Finn's witnesses, dismissed the case.