Above postcard, circa 1908. Kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

Above photo, circa 1930, kindly sent by Shaun Gardiner.

Above photo 1952, kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

Above photo showing driver, Owen Spain and his eldest son, Ernest who ended up establishing Spain's Taxi and Car Hire. date unknown.

Above photo kindly sent by Rory Kehoe. This was originally one of the unknown pubs on my list but we believe it is in fact this one.

Above photo, circa 1957. Kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

Above map 1905, kindly identified by Rory Kehoe.

Above postcard, circa 1970, kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

Above photo kindly send by Peter Checksfield, October 2015.

Above photo kindly send by Peter Checksfield, October 2015.

Above photo kindly send by Peter Checksfield, October 2015.

Above photo kindly send by Peter Checksfield, October 2015.

Above photograph, March 2019, kindly taken and sent by Rory Kehoe.

From the Thanet Advertiser, Saturday 2 October 1897.

FARM SALES.

Before the County Justices, at the Ramsgate Police Court, on Monday, Mr. H. Austen, of the "White Horse Inn," Minster, applied for two occasional licenses for two farm auctions, namely on Sept. 30th, at Hoo Farm, and on Oct. 6th, at Durlock Farm.

The applications were granted.

Thanet Advertiser. Saturday 8 January 1898.

Minster. Transfer of Licence.

At a sitting of the County Bench at Ramsgate on Tuesday, before Mr. H. Wiegall (in the chair,) Capt. L. W. Vaile, and Mr. W. Curling, the licence of the "White Horse Inn," Minster, formerly held by Mr. H. Austen, was transferred to Robert Sturt Stokes, late of Margate.

Thanet Advertiser, Saturday 26 November 1898.

Minster. Wilful damage to a door.

At the Ramsgate County Police Court on Monday, before Mr. H. B. Hammond (in the chair,) the Mayor of Ramsgate, and Sir Joseph Sebag Montefiore. James Alexander, of Faversham, was charged with doing wilful damage to a pane of glass, the property of Thomas Hynes, landlord of the "White Horse Inn," Minster.

Complainant said that defendant came to his house about 3:30 on Sunday afternoon, and asked for a glass of ale, stating that he was a traveller from Faversham. He was served with the ale, and after drinking it he went out of the house. Just then a friend of witness's drove up in a trap and defendant held the horse, for which he was afterwards handed sixpence. This, however, he threw down, and demanding a shilling, and he then went into the bar and abused the assistant. Witness's wife asked him to go away, as there was a man dying upstairs (he has since died,) the defendant then abused her shamefully, and witness, with the help of two of his men, finally ejected him. Defendant then put his hand through the glass of the door, and running out into the backyard he picked up a ginger beer box and deliberately smashed the window right out, also damaging the frame. The value of the damage at 15s.

I.C. Saunders, station at Minster, said he was sent for by Mr. Hinds and showed the window. Defendant had gone away, but witness subsequently discovered him apparently asleep in an alley about 10 minutes walk from the house. He took him back to the "White Horse," where Mr. Hinds gave him in charge. Defendant then became very violent, and witness had to handcuff him before he could get to Broadstairs Police Station. Defendant had had something to drink, but he was sober. He was very excited.

Defendant said the window was broken by accident.

The Bench imposed a fine of 8s., (including costs) and 15s, the amount of damage, in default fourteen days' hard labour; and ordered the defendant to be detained until he had found the money.

Thanet Advertiser. Saturday 22 March 1902.

Bona fide Travellers. Minster Publican's Action.

A case of an unusual character occupied the attention of the Ramsgate County Justice's for a considerable time at the Petty Sessions on Tuesday, when Frederick Miles (Sarre Court) Ernest Ruff (St. Nicholas,) Robert Henry Miles (St. Nicholas,) John Hawkins (St. Nicholas,) and Thomas Charles Williams (St. Nicholas) were summoned, on the information of Martha Hines, the licensee of the "White Horse Inn," Minster, for unlawfully and falsely representing themselves to be travellers and obtaining intoxicating liquors during the hours which said licensed premises were closed in pursuance of Act of Parliament, on March 12th.

The Magistrates present were Mr. H. B. Hammond (in the chair), Capt. L. W. Vaile and Mr. J. W. D. Johnson.

Mr. T. T. Whitehead prosecuted, and Dr. F. W. Hardman appeared for defendants, who pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Whitehead stated the case for the prosecution. He said the defendants had been attending a smoking concert at the "Bell Inn," Minster, on March 12th. The concert terminated about 10 o'clock, which was the closing hour at Minster, and the defendants then came over to the "White Horse Inn" and got refreshments on the representation that they were bona fide travellers. It was true that for the defendants came from St. Nicholas, while the fourth was from Sarre, and that both places were outside the 3 mile limit. The Bench had a rather difficult question to decide. Mr. Whitehead stated that his clients ground for taking these proceedings was that she was a licensed victualler, and, in view of the stringent character of the licensing laws, it behoved her to be very careful in the conduct of her business, in order that she might preserve a clean slate. He submitted that they worships should be guided in their decision by the case of "Pen v. Alexander." He contended that persons we're not bona fide travellers who, merely because they came from outside the 3 mile limit, went from one house to another to get drink. In the present case it would be proved that the men had been at the "Bell" all the evening, and were, therefore, not be in need of liquid refreshment, and, in asking the Bench to convict, he submitted that they were not bona fide travellers.

Anna Jeffries, barmaid at the "White Horse," Minster, said on Wednesday evening, March 12th, the house closed at 10 o'clock, the door being fastened between a quarter and twenty minutes past ten someone came to the door and knocked twice. Witness heard a knock and went to the door. There were four men there. She recognise Frederick Miles and Robert Miles as members of the party. One of the defendant's, in answer to witness, said they were travellers from St Nicholas. Witness said: "Are you sure you are travellers?" And one of the defendants replied:- "Yes. We are travellers. I shouldn't come unless we were, for I'm a public and myself." Witness opened the door and let defendants in. Robert Miles asked for two threes of Scotch whisky and three glasses of ale. Witness served the drinks, and from the conversation which include, she heard that they had had a very good evening. They were discussing the songs they have been listening to. Witness knew that there had been a concert at the "Bell," which was a short distance from the "White Horse." Witness called in the barman, Collard, who was in the stable, and afterwards went to the defendants and told them they were, by their presents on the premises, causing Mrs. Hinds to run a great risk. She told them they were not travellers, having been at the "Bell," and should not have come to the house for refreshments. Defendants did not reply to witness, but Collard, who was present spoke to Robert Miles and said that he, being a publican, ought to have known better. Mr. Miles replied "All right, old man, don't look so white and spiteful" and, addressing the others, said "Come on, drink up, and let us get out." They all went out, saying, "Good night to Collard. Witness closed the door after them.

Cross examined: She fixed the time by looking at the clock in the bar when she heard the knock. Witness did not know until afterwards that defendants had put up their trap at the house, and had come to fetch it away. She knew it before they left, and saw the trap outside as she closed the door.

Ambrose Collard, barman at the "White Horse," said he occasionally acted as ostler. On March 12th Ruff brought the trap to the yard about 8 p.m., or soon after. Between a quarter and twenty minutes past ten Miss Jeffries called witness into the bar and asked him to see who the defendants were. He knew three of them by name and two by site. Witness said to Mr. Robert Miles (who kept the "Sun," at St. Nicholas,) "It's past time, and you ought to know better." He replied, "Alright, old chap, don't look so white and spiteful." Defendants finished their drinks, and said "Good night." Witness did not answer. He had assisted Ruff to put the horse in.

Cross examined:- Witness did not say "Good night" because he was annoyed at the remarks they made to him.

Mrs. Martha Hinds, licensee of the "White Horse," said she was in the living room when the bar was closed. She heard a knock twice about 10:15, and corroborated the barmaids evidence with respect to the subsequent conversation.

Cross examined:- She did not hear all the conversation.

John Abraham Tyler, licensee of the "Bell," present on subpoena, said there was a smoking concert at his house on March 12th, and the defendants were present. Witness knew the Messrs. Miles by name and the other three defendants by sight. Four of the defendants were served with drinks just before they left the "Bell." Witness did not serve Ruff at the time, but had previously done so in the evening.

Cross examined:- A smoking concert was in connection with the local Conservative Association.

Dr. Hardman, on behalf of defendant, said that the onus of proving two things rested with the prosecution firstly, that the representation was made by the defendant's that they were travellers, secondly, that such representation was false. There was, he submitted, no evidence given by the prosecution to show that it was false, and considered that if the matter was to rest upon a point of Law his friends, Mr. Whitehead, might have dealt with the case of "Oldham v. Shearsby," one on all fours with the present case. That was a case in which persons who were undoubtedly travellers visited a place and went to two inns, at both of which they were served with refreshment. The magistrates held that the defendant's were not bona fide travellers when the second inn was visited, but the refinements in the minds of the justice's was set right by the Queen's Bench Division. In support of his contention that defendants were travellers within the meaning of the act, Dr. Hardman mentioned the case of "Dames v. Bond." In that case and man had come from a distance to sing at a smoking concert and when he was going back the people at the end supplied him with a bottle of whiskey. It was held that he was a traveller, and the circumstance that he had been in the place several hours did not alter the fact. The only case his (Dr. Hardmans) friend could quote against him was that of "Penn v. Alexander," but he argued that that was not a similar one. In the case of "Penn v. Alexander" it was proved that the defendants walked beyond the 3 mile limit solely for the purpose of getting beer, and I not, therefore, bonafide travellers. That was a very useful case, for it laid down an important principle of law. It had not been proved in the present instance that defendants came to Minster solely to get drink at the "White Horse." Dr. Hardman remarked on the curious reason which have been given for these proceedings being taken viz., that Mrs. Hinds was seeking to protect herself and ensure that there should be no opposition to a licence. Why should these five men be held up before the bench simply because Mrs. Hinds wished to take the precaution of that kind? If she had reported the matter to the police it would have been a reasonable action, but he did not think it right that Mrs. Hinds should bring the men up when there was uncertainty and her solicitor was uncertain that a case should be made out. Proceding, Dr. Hardman alluded to the allegation that the defendant's have represented themselves to be travellers, and said the evidence proved that one of the party made any statement on the subject. Silent acquiescence did not serve as a statement, and, even if it could have been proved that representations were made all the members of the party, he submitted that it had been simply shown that such representations would have been absolutely true. They asked the Bench to say that a case for the prosecution had failed.

The Bench retired, and, after deliberating in private for some time, the Chairman said:- In this case the Bench decide that, as a matter of Law, no offence has been committed, and, therefore, the case is dismissed, at the same time they wish to state that Mrs. Hinds was perfectly justified in bringing the case forward.

Dr. Hardman asked for costs, on the grounds that, although Mrs. Hinds might have been perfectly justified, she had set the law in motion, and should pay the expenses of the defendant's.

The chairman:- The Bench cannot grant you the costs in this case.

Thanet Advertiser, Saturday 10 October 1903.

MINSTER MYSTERY. WOMANS DEAD BODY FOUND IN A DISUSED COTTAGE.

SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. INQUEST OPENED AND ADJOURNED.

A strange affair has occurred in the neighbourhood of Minster. On Thursday, between the hours of twelve noon and one o'clock, a farm labourer, named Albert Silvester, of Durlock Farm, an ex-soldier, went with another man and two women to take shelter in a couple of disused cottages on a piece of land at Brook, on the east side of the footpath leading from Minster to Ebbsfleet. It appears that the cottages in question have been unoccupied for a considerable period, and they had formed the resting place, and frequently, it is stated, the sleeping place, of tramps and others. Silvester and his friends went there on Thursday for the purpose of taking shelter from the rain and having dinner, and on arrival they found the doors bolted. It should be stated that the dividing wall between the two cottages had been penetrated, and it was possible to pass from one to the other without going outside. Silvester looked through one of the windows and saw a person lying on the floor, apparently asleep. A straw hat lay over the face, and part of the clothing consisted of a man's cloth jacket.

According to details supplied by Silvester afterwards, he did not notice then whether the person he saw was a man or a woman, and his companions did not take the trouble to look. He said to them he supposed it was a man asleep, and they went into the adjoining cottage to have dinner, Silvester getting in through a broken window and opening a door to admit the others. After a time Silvester went to his employer, Mr. Pearce, of Ebbsfleet, to get some money, and on returning to the cottages he was informed that one of the women of the party had been to the entrance to the other cottage and had asked whether the person who was supposed to be asleep required a cup of tea. No answer had been given, and Silvester went into the apartment with the other man, whose name is Davis. There they found the body of a woman lying on the floor. She was on her back, with her face upturned and her left arm outstretched. The straw hat placed over the face wholly concealed it. Silvester took the hat from the face, which he found to be covered with blood, while the breast of the dress was open. He felt the body and found it quite cold. He replaced the hat and carried the news of his discovery to P.C. Butler, of the Kent County Constabulary. Sergt. H. W. Turner took the matter in hand and telephoned to Inspector Fulmer, who was at Broadstairs. Silvester was directed to return to the scene of his gruesome discovery, and there be awaited the arrival of the police, upon whose instructions the body was removed in a conveyance to a shed at the rear of the "White Horse Inn." Sergt. Turner, the police officer, to whom the matter was reported by P.C. Butler, secured the services of a local photographer and called in Dr. Watts, of Minster, before the removal of the body. It was that of a woman apparently about the age of 47, with black hair, and was clothed.

In addition to the apparel she had on, there were other garments she was carrying, and a basket beside her containing iron-holders and other trifles she had apparently made with a view to selling. The woman was 4ft. 11in. in height. The body showed signs of violent treatment, and there had been haemorrhage from both ears. It was not possible to tell, until a post mortem examination had been made, tbe exact nature of the injuries. There were marks about the face and head, and bruises on other parts of the body, and appearances gave colour to the belief that the deceased had been struck by some blunt instrument—probably a boot—and that her neck had been injured, dislocated if not broken. Death had probably occurred from 24 to 36 hours previously. In view of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the case, the county constabulary are naturally somewhat reticent on the matter, which is now under careful investigation. There is a pretty general belief that the body is that of a woman known as Charlotte Turk, who has on several occasions appeared in the local police courts on charges of drunkenness and disorderly behaviour, the description of the person named coinciding with that of the deceased. The woman in question had frequented the district considerably, and had been in the habit of acting as a hawker.

The inquest, which was opened yesterday (Friday) afternoon, was, after the evidence of the discovery had been taken, adjourned until Thursday next, in order that the police might carry on their investigations. Upon the resumption, medical evidence will be forthcoming, and more light will doubtless be thrown on what is now undoubtedly a case presenting some peculiar features.

THE INQUEST.

The inquest, which opened at the "White Horse Inn" yesterday afternoon, was conducted by Mr. R. M. Mercer, County Coroner. Mr. S. Gerrard (master of the Union Workhouse), was elected foreman of the jury, which included several prominent tradesmen of the village and the Rev. J. Harris (workhouse chaplain). The police officers present included Inspectors Heard (Deal, and Palmer (Thanet) and Sergt. Turner.

After the jury had been sworn, the Coroner said he was going to ask them to view the body in the presence of Dr. Watts, because there were certain injuries about which they might wish to ask questions. The only evidence he proposed to take that day was evidence of the finding of the body. There would have to be an adjournment, as the police were not ready with the other evidence. He would not keep the jury very long.

The body was then viewed.

Albert Silvester, labourer, of Durlock Farm, Minster, deposed that on the previous day, between twelve and one o’clock, he was in company of the woman with whom he lived (Alice Foster) and Henry Davis and his wife. They had just come out of the field and turned into one of the disused cottages to have dinner out of the rain. Both of the cottages were empty and anyone could go into them. He was at work at Ebbsfleet Farm. The cottages were at Brook, in the parish of Minster. Both doors of the cottages were bolted inside. They could not fasten the doors from the outside. Witness looked through a window at the end of the cottage farthest from the footpath and saw someone lying on the floor inside. He could not see whether it was a man or a woman. He went into the other cottage, through a window—the glass of which was broken—and unbolted the door. His companions did not look through the other window, but he said to them that he supposed someone was asleep there and proposed that they should go into the next cottage to have dinner. They went in. The two cottages adjoined, and it was possible to walk from one to the other without going inside. He and his companions sat down and had their dinner without going into the cottage where he had seen the person lying, and afterwards witness went to his employer, Mr. Pearce, at Ebbsfleet, and obtained 1s. 6d. from him. He returned to the cottages with the money, and when he got inside, one of the women told him she had been as far as the entrance to the other cottage, and had asked if the person there would have a cup of tea, as the weather was cold. They had not been able to got any answer, and acquainted witness of the fact. He went into the room with Davis and saw the body lying on the floor, face upwards. Deceased was dressed and had a straw hat over her face. It concealed her face wholly. He went up to her, took the hat off, and noticed the face was covered with blood. The breast of her dress was undone. He felt the body and found it quite cold. He said he would give information to the police and put the hat back as he had found it. Deceased was wearing a man's jacket, and the straw hat was similar to a man’s. Her dress was disarranged. The windows of the cottages were very dirty, and he had not been able to see distinctly through them. He told a police-constable what he had seen, and afterwards a conveyance was brought to the cottages. Witness, after informing the police, had been sent back to the cottage to await their arrival and see that the body was not moved. It was then in exactly the same position as when he found it. When he came away the first time the others left also, the women being afraid to stay. There was an old tin, like a child’s footpath, near deceased's head.

By the jury:- He had not been in the cottage before during that morning, nor on the day previous. He had not visited the place for about a fortnight. He did not recognise the deceased. She was a stranger to him. He might have seen her without knowing her. The women had not seen the deceased; they would not look at her.

On the suggestion of Inspector Palmer the inquest was adjourned until Thursday next, at 3 p.m., it being stated that the police would have to get the assistance of Detective-Sergt. Fowle, from Maidstone, to help them in their investigation.

A juryman asked whether ho could not be excused from attendance as he had business to do in London, but the Coroner said he was very sorry he could not accede to the request.

Thanet Advertiser, 17 October 1903.

MINSTER MYSTERY. CONCLUSION OF THE INQUEST.

VERDICT OF “ WILFUL MURDER.”

THE IDENTITY OF DECEASED.— CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

At the "White Horse Inn," Minster, on Thursday afternoon, Mr. B. M. Mercer, County Coroner, and a jury of which Mr. S. Gerrard was foreman, continued their investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of a woman whose body was found, with injuries to the head, in a lonely disused cottage at Brook, a short distance from Minster, on Thursday of last week. The details of the discovery ware given at length in our previous issue. The inquest was concluded on Thursday. Inspector Palmer (Thanet), Detective-Sergt. Fowle, Sergt. Turner, and a detective-constable of the Kent County Constabulary were present.

Before evidence was taken the Coroner asked if any arrest had been made in reference to the affair.

Inspector Palmer:- No, sir.

The evidence of Albert Silvester, taken at the previous sitting, was read over.

Inspector Palmer asked witness questions about his movements on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of last week. In reply witness said he was not working on Tuesday, as he had told the sergeant.

By a juryman:- Witness did not see a candle about the place in which the body was discovered.

Inspector Palmer:- You did not touch the body except to put the hat back.

Witness:- No, sir. I only just felt it.

Bertram Gardener, living at High-street, Minster, said he took the photographs produced at the request of Sergeant Turner, on Thursday and Friday of last week. (The photographs in question were of the deceased lying in the cottage). Witness completed the process to the printing.

Henry Davis, of no fixed abode, said he was a labourer and had been working in the parish of Minster for ten years off and on. He had been in the parish all the summer. On October 8th he was with Silvester and the two women. It was raining hard, and they went into the cottage to have their meal there. They remained there about an hour or an hour and a half. Witness first saw the deceased when he and Silvester went in together. Silvester had been away and had returned. Anyone could pass from one cottage to the other through a door there. Silvester said he thought a man and a woman were lying in the room. After Silvester had gone, one of the women called out to the person in the next cottage "Will you have a cup of tea, missus. It’ll warm you." The women did not go into the other cottage. When Silvester came back he and witness went into the room to see whether the person was asleep. When inside they saw the deceased, whom they took to be a man, lying on the floor. Witness did not touch deceased. Silvester took the hat from her face and found the woman was dead. There appeared to be bruises on the face. He did not see any blood. Silvester said "I shall go and report it to the police constable," and they all came out together. Witness went to Durlock. He did not return to the cottage afterwards. He had been working that day in a wertzel field on the other side of the line, about half a mile away. Witness had not been in the cottages for about a month. He had known a woman named Turk, but he could not say that deceased was that woman. He could not recognise her. Witness had not been working the day before, owing to the rain. He did not touch the body nor any of the things in the room.

By the jury:- The hat was over the face, but he could not say whether it had been put there, the clothes were all over the place. He had never met the deceased.

By Inspector Palmer:- Witness did not take sufficient notice when he first saw the body to be able to say whether it was that of Charlotte Turk. She generally carried an arm basket.

The Coroner asked if the deceased had a basket.

Inspector Palmer:- She had a small basket, sir.

Witness said he did not think, from the photograph, that deceased was Charlotte Turk, and, in reply to the inspector, stated that he last saw Charlotte Turk about three years ago. She was then with a man whom witness knew as her husband. She did not walk lame. Witness had not seen the husband for two or three years.

By the Coroner:- The doors of both cottages were bolted, and Silvester put his hand through a window, pulled the catch down, opened the window, got in, and unbolted the door. Witness did not notice a window at the back of the cottage. Whenever witness had been there before he always found the door open. It was a common thing for people to "doss" there. He had slept there himself a month previously. He had cooked food downstairs.

By Inspector Palmer:- He did not wonder, when he saw the body, whether deceased had met her death by violence. He came up the street on Tuesday night. He could not say what public-houses he went into that night. He did not see deceased on that evening.

Silvester, recalled, said there was a window opening on the back, on the ground floor, large enough for a man to get through. He could have locked the front door and got out of the window at the back.

By Inspector Palmer:- He did not take much notice of the state of the face when he took the hat off. He did not have any conversation with Davis, as they were returning to Durlock, concerning the affair.

Alice Foster, of no fixed abode, wife of David Foster, said she had been at Minster three weeks, and during that time had been living with Silvester. On October 8th she had been working in a wurtzel field with Silvester, Davis, and his wife. They left the field owing to the rain, soon after eleven, and went to Brook Cottages, Silvester looked through a window and said. "There is someone in there lying down." One of the men then opened a window of the other cottage, got in and opened the door, and they all went in. They scraped some wood together, lit a fire, and made some tea. They sat round the fire and dried their clothes. After they had had their food Silvester left to go to Mr. Pearce, to get some money. Witness said to Alice Davis, "That woman must be cold," adding "Perhaps she’d like a cup of tea." They then went to the door between the cottages and called out "Mate, will you have a cup of tea?" They looked in and saw a person lying down. There was no answer, and they came away. Witness said, "We'll wait until Albert Silvester comes back." They were frightened. They told Davis about it, and he said they would wait until Silvester came back. Silvester came in soon afterwards, and they told him they had called to the woman and had got no answer. Silvester said, "I'll go and see if I can rouse her," and the two men went into the room. They came back in a very few minutes and said the woman was dead. Witness and the others put on their things at once and went out. They came straight down to the street together. Witness had not known anyone of the name of Turk, and did not recognise the deceased. On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, before the discovery, none of the four were at work.

By Inspector Palmer:- She had been with Silvester twelve months. She had had conversation with Davis and Silvester, and they said they would like to know who had done the murder.

Alice Davis, wife of Henry Davis, gave evidence similar to that of the previous witness, and said she had known Charlotte Turk. Witness had not seen her for three years. To witness's knowledge that woman was not lame. Witness had been near the cottage the previous day. Alice Foster would not go into the room where the deceased was because she was nervous.

By Inspector Palmer:- Witness had a green painted perambulator before she came to Minster. She sold it to Mr. Craycraft at Ramsgate. She had bought a new one.

Elizabeth Kelly, an inmate of Minster Workhouse, said her husband, who had been a hawker, was also an inmate. Witness knew Charlotte Turk. She saw the body on Friday last, at the "White Horse," and identified it, by a number of the teeth being missing, as that of Charlotte Turk. Witness first knew the woman at Ash three or four years ago. She used to go out with a hawking basket. When at Ash witness lodged at the "Good Intent," and remembered one occasion when Charlotte Turk came into the bar. The lower part of her face was covered with blood, and she showed witness that her teeth had been knocked out. Nine teeth were gone. She said Turk had knocked them out. Turk was with her on that occasion, and asked her to have something to eat. She did not want anything. Since then witness had only seen Charlotte Turk once, and that was on Wednesday, October 7th, at the "White Horse," between four and five in the afternoon. She was in the bar with another woman, having some beer. Witness was in the bar when Charlotte Turk entered with the woman. A man was outside with a perambulator. Witness left Charlotte Turk drinking the beer, and went a cross the street to Mr. Chase's. On returning about ten minutes later Charlotte Turk and the others had gone. Witness did not notice what was in the perambulator. The man she saw was something over thirty years of age, she supposed, but she could not identify him. Witness did not speak at all to Charlotte Turk or her companion. She did not bear any conversation between the two. Witness and Turk did not nod to each other, because Charlotte Turk was so insulting when in drink. Witness also identified the deceased by a mole on her chin. Witness was quite sure that the deceased was Charlotte Turk, but she had not noticed that that woman had a lot of hair upon the chin.

In reply to Inspector Palmer, witness said she on one occasion had a little "set-to" with Charlotte Turk, who had insulted her.

The Coroner pointed out the growth of hair on the chin shown by the photograph.

By a juror:- Charlotte Turk had a little basket with her when witness saw her in the bar. The basket was similar to the one produced. The woman was wearing a dirty white straw hat, with a black band, and a sort of cape. Witness did not take particular notice, but she recognised the hat and fur cape produced.

In reply to the Coroner, Mr. Kenyan, landlord of the "White Horse," said he did not remember the two women spoken of by the witness Kelly being served by him.

James Henry Austen, of Durlock, Minster, gardener, said he had seen the photo of the body of deceased. He saw her about eight o'clock on the morning of October 6th, at Durlock. She was then sitting alongside the yard gates, and said to witness, "I beat you this morning; I have had my breakfast." Witness said he was going to have his. He took rather particular notice of the woman, because she spoke pleasantly and had rather a wrinkled face. Deceased was there when he returned, about half-past eight. Witness identified the deceased’s hat, cape, basket, and tea can.

By Inspector Palmer:- Witness knew Charlotte Turk, but the photograph was not here.

It was stated by the police that a warder and the matron of Canterbury Gaol were certain that the body was that of Charlotte Turk.

The Coroner:- But I have not got them here.

Inspector Palmer said that Mr. Tyler, landlord of the "Bell," a member of the jury, also recognised her.

P.S. Henry William Turner, of the K.C.C., stationed at Minster, said that on August 8th, shortly after two o’clock, he received information from P.C. Butler that there was the dead body of a man lying in a disused cottage at Brook, Minster. The constable had not been there. Witness at once proceeded with the constable to the cottage, and there found Silvester standing outside. He had been sent back by the constable. Silvester got through a window, unbolted one of the doors, and led the way, through an opening in the partition, into the front downstairs room of one of the cottages. Witness there saw the body of a woman, lying on its back, with the head to the south wall. Silvester thought it was a man. Witness removed the straw hat from the face. Silvester told witness he had never moved the hat, but that he had only felt the chest. Seeing indications of foul play, witness left the body in charge of the constable and secured the services of a local photographer. The body lay on straw litter on the floor. The only blood marks in the room were close to the head. Blood had been running from the ears, and was smeared over the face. Beside the body were deceased’s dress, her own jacket, two pairs of boots, and a tea can. The soil around the cottages was hard and overgrown with weeds. Footprints could not be discerned. Witness searched the house for any blunt instruments, but could find none.

By Inspector Palmer:- The breast of deceased's dress appeared to have been torn open and her clothes disarranged. In witness's opinion there had been a struggle. He caused the body to be removed after Dr. Watts bad been called in.

Dr. Alexander Minter Watts, Durlock House, Minster, submitted a report, in which he said that on October 8th he was called to see a dead body lying in a disused cottage at Brook. He arrived about 4.30 p.m., and found the body of a woman lying flat on the back, on the floor of one of the rooms. Death had occurred about twenty-four hours previously.

The Coroner:- What signs did you judge from.

The doctor:- I judged from the rigidity, the post mortem staining, and the coldness.

Continuing, witness said the forehead was much bruised, and blood had been escaping from both ears, and there was blood about the nostrils. The deceased was apparently about the age of 45 years and 5ft in height. The body was well nourished, and marks upon the right arm shewed that she had recently been vaccinated. There was a small abrasion on the bridge of the nose and a bruise on the right side of the lower jaw, two and a quarter inches in length. The external marks of violence also included slight abrasions on both hands and knees, and a wound on the right ear. The face was much swollen and discoloured. On the instructions of the Coroner, witness made a post mortem examination. There was a fracture of the base of the skull, and he came to the conclusion that death was due to coma caused by such fracture.

In reply to questions by the Coroner, the doctor said the fracture was from the region of the right ear and did not extend across the vault. The line of fracture did not rise above a line drawn from one ear to the other.

The Coroner:- How would such injury be inflicted?

The doctor:- I should say by a direct blow.

In reply to the Coroner, the doctor said the skull in this case was unusually thin.

The Coroner drew attention to the battered straw hat and asked if a blow on the top of the head would cause the fracture described.

The doctor said in his opinion the fracture was caused by the blow on the ear. He did not think the injury could have been caused by a blow from a heavy hand. The wound on the lower part of the ear almost corresponded with the fracture, and in his opinion the one followed the other. He thought the wound was inflicted by a blunt instrument, such as a boot. Deceased might have been kicked. The wound was dirty and the ear looked as if it had been split open by a blunt instrument used with force. Such a blow would render deceased unconscious but would not kill immediately.

The Coroner:- Are you convinced that she met her death by a violent blow?

The doctor:- I think she must have been knocked down. I do not think she fell in the ordinary way. She might have produced such a fracture had she fallen from a height of thirty or forty feet.

By Inspector Palmer:- There was a bunion on the foot, but witness did not think it would be sufficient to cause her to walk lame.

The Coroner said that in the photograph of the deceased there was a very prominent bunion, but the size of that, he supposed, had been exaggerated by the proximity of the feet to the camera.

William Turk, of no fixed abode, said be was a labourer, and had lately been working at Wingham. He had been there five or six weeks. He did not see the body of the deceased, but from the photograph he did not think it was that of Charlotte Turk. Her maiden name was Charlotte Elgar, and he believed she belonged to Portsmouth.

Witness last saw her two years ago last April, at Canterbury. She had been in Canterbury Gaol and came to the house at which he was lodging for some breakfast. Witness went to work on that occasion and did not see deceased afterwards. Witness was not at Minster on October 7th. Charlotte Turk had false teeth. What the woman Kelly had said about witness knocking the teeth out was untrue. He did not think deceased was Charlotte Turk.

Mr. Pearce, of Ebbsfleet Farm, in answer to the Coroner, said that the woman in the photograph was similar to Charlotte Turk, who had worked upon his farm.

It was stated by the police that Mr. Tyler, landlord of the "Bell Inn," Minster, and other jurymen knew Charlotte Turk.

Mr. Tyler explained that he and other members of the jury were strongly of opinion that the body was that of the woman Turk, but they could not actually swear to its identity.

The Coroner summed up briefly, referring to the conflicting nature of the evidence of identity, and to the difficulty of the jury in ascertaining whether the deceased was Charlotte Turk or not. He advised them that they could, if the evidence was insufficient, regard the body as that of a woman unknown.

VERDICT: "WILFUL MURDER."

The room was cleared, and after deliberating for some time in private the jury returned a verdict of "Wilful Murder against some person or persons unknown." They also found that there was not sufficient evidence to shew who the deceased was.

Thanet Advertiser, Friday 22 May 1936.

MINSTER HAS MORE LUCK.

Extensions until 11 p.m. on Whit-Saturday and 11:30 p.m. on Whit-Monday at the "Bell Inn," the "Freehold Inn," the "New Inn" and the "White Horse," Minster, and the "New Inn," Monkton, were granted by Ramsgate County magistrates on Tuesday.

The above 1920s sign used to be inside the pub, so Rory Kehoe says.