Maidstone Gazette 16 September 1845.

The new hotel near the railway station is now completed and opened for business, under the management of Mr. Paceman. It is called The York Hotel.

South Eastern Gazette, Tuesday 2 December 1845.

Maidstone Gazette 2 December 1845

Under the patronage of the principal inhabitants of Folkestone, Dover, and Sandgate.

Folkestone Winter Subscription Balls.

The public are respectfully informed that a series of Winter Subscription Balls will be given at the "York Hotel," Folkestone, on the 2nd Thursday of December, January, and February.

Season tickets (to admit 2) 21s.; single tickets, gentlemen 7s, ladies 5s.; which may be had of Mr. Stock, Library, High Street, or at
the "York Hotel," Folkestone.

The first ball will take place on Thursday, Dec 11th.

Maidstone Gazette 11 January 1848

The much talked of new street from the High Street to the Mill Lane has at last been commenced by pulling down the old Folkestone tavern, and clearing the garden grounds adjacent. We regret to hear that much opposition has been manifested, but the work will nevertheless be proceeded with as fast as the weather will permit, so that there will be no necessity for the ultimatum of our Boulogne contemporary, viz., “a lighted torch and a south-wester”.

Petty Sessions, Wednesday; Before Charles Golder, Mayor, Wm. Major and John Bateman Esqs.

Charles Stuart was brought up in custody of Matthew Pearson, charged by Mr. Thomas Susans, of the firm of Gosling and Susans, drapers and clothiers, with robbing them of a quantity of goods.

Thomas Susans deposed that from information he received from Mr. Smith, of the York Hotel, he was induced to call there and inspect the contents of two parcels, said to be left by the prisoner. He found the contents to be their property (having his own private mark thereon.) The parcels contained three waistcoats, four pairs of trousers, silk handkerchiefs, cap and oil-cloth cover, and two gross of butons; and were of the value of three guineas. The prisoner had been in their employ about three months.

Thomas Smith, landlord of the York Hotel, deposed that on the evening of the 12th December the prisoner came to the bar of his house, called for a glass of ale, and requested to be allowed permission to leave two parcels for a short time; he did not call again till the 25th December, when he stated that he had just arrived from Maidstone, for the express purpose of taking the parcels away. During the time they were in witness's possession the seals were broken by his children, which enabled him to observe the contents and the shop mark upon them. This aroused his suspicion, and he made up his mind to detain them, and having made an excuse to the prisoner that they had been sent away by mistake, he went to the shop of Messrs. Gosling and Susans, having heard that the prisoner was a shopman. He there saw the prisoner. On the 3rd the prisoner came again; he questioned him as to the contents of the parcels, when he said they were smuggled goods. This not satisfying him, he refused to deliver them up, but allowed the prisoner to depart. Upon his calling a third time he called him into a room and told him his suspicions, when he acknowledged that he had stolen them from his employers, and begged permission to take them back and replace them in the shop, which witness did not consent to, but gave information to Mr. Susans, which led to the prisoner's apprehension.

Matthew Pearson, police constable, deposed that he took the prisoner into custody, and received twp parcels from Mr. Smith, at the York Hotel, which he now produced.

The prisoner (who is a very young man and stated to be respectably connected) made no defence, and was committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the Borough.

Kentish Gazette 29 May, 1849.

York Hotel, Folkestone; To be sold by auction, by Mr. H. Bird, on Wednesday, June 6th, 1849; All the household furniture, bar and house fittings, at the "York Hotel," Dover Road, Folkestone.

The Bar and House Fittings comprise a six-motion spirit fountain, with oval spirit casks, pipes, and taps; an excellent four-motion beer engine with pipes and taps; bar counter and shelves, handsome slate chimney pieces, register stoves, two ranges, with ovens and boilers; valuable gas fittings, hall and door lamps, fine wire blinds, bells, &c.

The furniture comprises mahogany four-post, tent, and French bedsteads and hangings, bordered mattresses, feather beds, bolsters, and pillows, blankets, sheets, and counterpanes, mahogany double and single chests of drawers, Japanned wash and dressing tables, mahogany tray dressing glasses, bedroom carpets and chairs, handsome mahogany pedestal sideboard, mahogany telescope dining table (nearly new), mahogany dining and Pembroke tables, double and single-scroll couches, cane-seat end other chairs, handsome large Brussels carpet, 38ft. by 13ft-6in; Turkey ditto, 17ft. by 15ft.; Kidderminster ditto, druggets, hearth rugs, gloom fenders, sets of fire irons, cut decanters, spirit bottles, rummers, tumblers. ale and wine glasses, china and earthenware, the usual kitchen requisites, &c., &c.

As will be specified in catalogues, which may he had of the auctioneer, at his offices, Canterbury, and on the premises on the morning of sale, which will commence at eleven o’clock precisely.

Maidstone Gazette 17 July 1849

Advertisement: Folkestone, Kent, to be sold by auction, at the "Pavilion Hotel," in Folkestone, on Saturday, July 28th, 1849, at three o'clock in the afternoon (by order of the mortgagee, under powers of sale), subject to such conditions as will be then and there produced:-

All that messuage or tenement, known by the name of the York Hotel, situate in the Dover Road, in the town of Folkestone.

The property is held under a lease from the Earl of Radnor and Viscount Folkestone for a term of 99 years, from the 24th day of June, 1844, subject to the annual rent of £11 5s., and to the covenants and agreements contained in such lease.

The premises are well situated, are very capacious, and are constructed with a view to being easily converted into two large and commodious family residences. Immediate possession of the property can be given.

To view the premises apply to the Auctioneer, and for further particulars to Mr. Chalk, or Messrs. Gravener and Sons, Solicitors, Dover, or to Messrs. Brockman and Watts, Solicitors, Folkestone.

July 12th, 1849

Kentish Gazette, 14 August 1849.

Public Sales.

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

Maidstone Gazette 4 February 1851.

Auction Extract:

To be sold by auction, by Mr. David Godden, at the York Hotel, in Folkestone, on Monday, the 24th day of February, 1851, at one o'clock in the afternoon.

Lot 9: A leasehold messuage or tenement, known by the name of the York Hotel, and land, situate near the upper railway station, in the Dover Road, in the town of Folkestone, having a frontage of 75ft., and a depth of 79ft. The licence to this house is still kept on foot.

This lot is held under a lease from the Earl of Radnor and Viscount Folkestone for a term of 99 years from the 24th day of June, 1844, subject to the annual rent of £11 5s., and to the covenants and agreements contained in such lease.

This house is very capacious, and is built so, that by only putting up a partition through the middle, it would be converted into two large and commodious private family residences, or good lodging houses, having each 12 rooms.

The vendor will lend the whole of the purchase money on this lot to a responsible purchaser.

For further particulars and conditions of sale apply to the auctioneer, of at the office of Mr. Ralph Thos. Brockman, Solicitor, Folkestone.

Kentish Gazette, 22 May 1855

Canterbury County Court, Wednesday, May 16th, before Charles Harwood Esq., judge.

Henry Bird v Thomas Smith (Jury Case)

This action was to recover £27 10s. for a quantity of fixtures sold at the York Hotel, Folkestone, on the 6th June, 1849.

Mr. Delasaux for the plaintiff, explained. that the plaintiff had, in June, 1849, been employed by Mr. George Ash, to sell the furniture and goods at the York Hotel, under a Bill of Sale granted to him by a Mrs. Martha Hoskins. At this sale the defendant, who was the real occupier of the house, was present, and employed a Mr. Terson to buy the fixtures in question for him; and after the sale, they were left in his possession, he continuing in the house. In fact, sometime shortly subsequent, the defendant had actually resold these fixtures for a larger sum than they cost him; and had pocketed the money. The defendant had made 100 promises to pay his client, who added, he was a very kind man, and very averse to litigation;ndl so he had abstained from taking any earlier proceedings for enforcing his claim.

Henry Bird, the plaintiff, deposed: I am an Auctioneer in Burgate Street, Canterbury. In 1849 I was employed by Mr. Ash, under a bill of sale, to sell by auction, the furniture and fixtures at the York Hotel, Folkestone. The defendant was present at the sale, and told me he had engaged a Mr. Terson to buy for him. The fixtures were bought by Mr. Terson, for the defendant, for £27 10s., and they were afterwards handed over to the defendant. I have frequently applied for the money; and should say I had done so 100 times; he always promised to pay me but has not. 1 have paid over the money to Mr. Ash.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne: I never had the least doubt about defendant's liability; I knew he owed me the money; he never on any occasion expressed any surprise at my asking him for it. In February last, he certainly promised an arbitration, but I did not consent to it. Previous to tlie sale I did receive a notice from some prior mortgagees not to sell the fixtures; and Mr Ash, and Mr. Delasaux went down with me to the sale, but I do not know that Mr. Ash withdrew his claim to the fixtures. I remember that the fixtures were, however, taken out of the catalogue and put by themselves. Mr. Delasaux is my attorney and knew all about this from the beginning. I employed him to write to the executors of Mr. Terson who was then dead, to demand the money I now sue for. I knew, however, that Mr. Terson never owed me the money.

Mr. Leath deposed: I was clerk to the plaintiff at the auction in question; the fixtures were knocked down to Terson, for Smith; the defendant himself bought a Pembroke table for 17s., which was left in the house for him. I dare say I have been 50 times with the plaintiff to Smith’s, in Westgate Street. I remember Smith’made appointments to meet again, but I never heard any allusion to the fixtures.

The Judge: That is nonsense, you mean he made appointments ro settle.

Mr. Towne: The witness distinctly negatives that any allusion was made to the fixtures.

The Judge: Yes: but he must mean something about the appointments. You mean, I suppose, he made appointments to settle.

Cross-examined by Mr, Towne: I understand you to say, that the defendant made no allusion to the fixtures at any time, when you accompanied Mr. Bird?

Witness: No. the fixtures were not spoken about.

John Robinson said: I am an auctioneer. In July, 1849, Smith employed me value the fixtures to Mr. Watts, on whose part Mr. Major met me; and we valued them at £33. I received that amount, and paid it to Mr. Smith, for which I produce his receipt.

Cross-examined: Before I completed the valuation or paid over the money to the defendant, I required to see Mrs Hoskins; and I got her signature, because I always thought the fixtures were hers.

Mr. Delasaux: That is the plaintiff’s case.

Mr. Towne observed: It was a pity it had ever been brought into Court. One story was generally good before another was told; and he, at least, gave the jury credit, as men of good sense and understanding, for keeping their minds in abeyance until they had heard both sides of this lamentable case. Mr. Delasaux had, he said, represented his client as a most kind-hearted hater of litigation, and that was his motive for not coming here until the eleventh hour- but he could not but be amused at the innocent suggestion of his learned opponent; for he ventured to believe, that there was not an individual in Court, from the judge to the door-keeper, who was not most familiar with the plaintiff's frequent appearance there. He would tell them the other side of this curious case. The real fact was,that Smith had acted throughout merely us agent for his mother-in-law. Mrs. Martha Hoskins, and the plaintiff was perfectly aware of it. Mrs. Hoskins was the true tenant of that hotel; she had granted a bill of sale of the furniture, &c., to Mr. Ash, and the plaintiff acted under it. When he went to sell the fixtures, he had notice of the claims of other parties, and he took his attorney, Mr. Delasaux, to inspect the documents on which those claims rested. Mr. Delasaux had, prior to the sale, satisfied himself and Mr. Ash that the claims were valid, and he had very properly advised his client to withdraw. But Mr. Ash and the plaintiff had no sooner decided to abandon the fixtures, than the defendant interfered for his relative, and ordered the plaintiff to sell them, at the same time appointing Mr. Terson to protect them against sacrifice; and so they were not sold at all, but bought in. About a month afterwards, the defendant, still acting as agent for Mrs. Hoskins, obtained a proper purchaser, and realised the value, which he handed to her. The plaintiff had avowed ignorance of these facts, and said he always knew Mr. Smith to be the purchaser and his debtor, and that Smith never denied his liability; but what would the jury think of his having, several years after the sale, instructed Mr. Delasaux to state that Mr.Terson was his debtor for the amount? When they had heard the testimony he should adduce, he knew they would return a just verdict.

Thomas Smith, the defendant, deposed:That the York Hotel was rented by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Hoskins, who made a bill of safe of the furniture. &c., to Mr. Ash. The plaintiff was employed to sell it. Before the sale, he had notice not to sell the fixtures. On the morning of the sale, Mr. Ash, Mr. Delasaux, and himself, were present at the York, and then Mr. Ash abandoned his claim to the fixtures. On behalf of his mother he then thought if best to pass the fixtures through the sale, and he-appointed Mr. Terson to buy them in, and they were not sold; about a month afterwards he did sell them, and received the money, which he gave to his mother. He had all through merely acted as agent to his mother-in-law. He denied that the plaintiff had ever made any personal claim on him, until February last, and then he said, he expressed his surprise, and offered to leave the matter in arbitration; but he said the plaintiff had frequently wished him to get the matter cleared up between his mother and Mr. Ash, and he had intended and tried to do so.

Matilda Smith, the wife of the last witness, stated, that she happened to be staying with her mother when Mr. Robinson came for her sanction to the last sale. and that her mother distinctly told him that Smith only acted on her behalf, but that she fully authorized him to receive the value for her. Witness said that her husband gave her the £33, the amount of their last valuation, to hand to her mother, and she did actually pay the money tn her mother.

The Judge minutely summed up the evidence, and told the jury, that the question for them to decide was merely whether the defendant was acting as agent or not? If they believed the plaintiff, it would appear that Smith bought for himself. It certainly did seem that one article, a Pembroke table, had been purchased by him, for 17s.; however, that he denied. If the jury thought he had purchased the whole, or the table, they would find a verdict accordingly; but if they were satisfied he was only an agent, then they would give him their verdict

The jury retired for a few minutes and then returned with a verdict for the defendant.

Southeastern Gazette 22 May 1855.

Canterbury County Court, Wednesday, May 16th, before Charles Harwood Esq., judge.

Bird v Smith, a Jury case.

The plaintiff is an auctioneer residing in the city, and the defendant is the keeper of an eating house just outside the city gates, in the parish of Westgate. The present action was brought to recover the sum of £27 10s., the price of certain fixtures and furniture alleged to have been sold to the defendant on the 5th June, 1849. Mr. Delasaux appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne for the defendant.

From the opening statement of Mr. Delasaux, it appeared that in the month of May, 1849, a Mrs. Hawkins, mother-in-law of the plaintiff (sic) kept the York Hotel at Folkestone, and being desirous of helping the defendant, she borrowed £200 of Mr. George Ash, giving him a bill of sale on the goods at the hotel as security. Smith went into the hotel, but it did not answer, and subsequently Ash put his bill of sale in force, but they found that a great portion of the goods had been removed, to the amount of £180. Previously to the sale the plaintiff saw Mr. Terson, an auctioneer, and the present defendant, when it was arranged that Terson should purchase certain fixtures for Smith, which he did to the amount of £27 10s., less 17s., the price of a table sold to the defendant himself. That was the sum now sought to be recovered, and for which repeated applications had been made for payment, but without effect. The sale took place in the month of June, 1849, and in the following month (July) the very same articles were valued to Mr. Watts by a Mr. Robinson and another, for £33 12s., and that sum was paid to the defendant, who gave a receipt in his own name for the amount. Various letter were put in and read, and Mr. Delasaux remarked that after waiting four years, in June, 1853, he (on behalf of the plaintiff) wrote to the executors of the late Mr. Terson about the account and, as he anticipated, received a reply to the effect that they had no knowledge whatever of the transaction.

Plaintiff deposed that in the month of June, 1849, he was employed by Mr. Ash to sell the furniture at the York Hotel, at Folkestone. Previous to the sale he saw the defendant and Mr. Terson, when the latter told him that he was going to purchase for Smith; the defendant also told him what Terson was going to do. Terson did purchase the fixtures and Smith bought a table. (The auction book was subsequently produced, which confirmed the plaintiff's statement). He had not been paid one farthing, but he had paid Ash the money for the fixtures as well as the other furniture sold. Had applied to the defendant for payment more than 100 times, and he had promised to do so more than 50, but had never kept his word. Defendant had also promised to obtain an acceptance for him from a Mrs. Avery, which plaintiff had agreed to take. Defendant had never denied his liability to pay the money. After waiting four years, plaintiff authorised Mr. Delasaux to apply to the executors of Mr. Terson for payment, but they denied their liability. The defendant distinctly told plaintiff that he would pay him, and so did Terson, and Ash's account also.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne – Believed the fixtures belonged to Mrs. Hawkins, but the defendant lived at the York Hotel at the time. Did not know whose name was on the hotel door, or that Mrs. Hawkins was the landlady. Received a notice before the sale that the fixtures belonged to Mr. Brockman, and the defendant gave his man notice that he would have all the things removed. Mr. Delasaux and Mr. Geo. Ash were at the sale. Was never told, either by Mr. Ash or Mr Delasaux, not to continue the sale of the fixtures. Did not remember telling Mr. Delasaux to send the bill produced. Never heard from the defendant that he was acting as agent to Mrs. Hawkins. Defendant never expressed surprise at plaintiff's making the claim for payment on him, nor did he ever write to him to that effect. Never heard him deny his liability until very lately. A short time since defendant proposed to refer the matter to arbitration. At the time plaintiff authorised Mr. Delasaux to apply to the executors of Mr. Terson for payment, he considered that the money was due from the defendant.

Robert Leach deposed that he was clerk to Mr. Bird, at the sale in question. He called upon the defendant with the plaintiff, but never heard the latter make application for payment of the account.

John Robinson said he was employed by the defendant to appraise the fixtures at the York Hotel after the sale of Mr. Bird. Did so with Mr. Major. After the appraisement was made they had to go to the Half Way House to obtain the signature of Mrs. Hawkins. He paid the amount of the appraisement, £33 12s., to the defendant.

Cross-examined by Mr. Towne – Lived directly opposite the York Hotel, but could not say who was the landlady.

Mr. Towne then addressed the jury at some length on behalf of the defendant, remarked that it was one of the oddest cases ever brought before the jury Having animadverted on the conduct of the plaintiff, Mr. Towne proceeded to state his case, which was that the defendant merely acted as the agent of his mother-in-law, Mrs. Hawkins, throughout the whole transaction, and was therefore not liable for the present claim.

The defendant deposed that he was the agent of his mother-in-law, who was the tenant of the York Hotel, and the house was in her name. Before the sale there was a consultation between Mr. Delasaux, Mr. Ash, and witness, respecting the fixtures, which were claimed by a prior mortgage. Mr. Ash, at its conclusion, told witness that his father would give up his claim to the fixtures rather than have any trouble about them. Subsequently witness told the plaintiff to sell the fixtures for Mrs. Hawkins, which he did, Terson buying them in. He denied ever buying the table. Never had any demand for payment of the fixtures until February last, when witness wrote to plaintiff and expressed his surprise at the demand. Witness engaged Robinson to value the fixtures as agent to his mother-in-law. Never acted in any other way than as agent to his mother-in-law.

Cross-examined by Mr. Delasaux – Plaintiff had called upon him for settlement of Mr. Ash's account, but never for payment of the fixtures.

Mrs Smith corroborated the defendant's statement, and in addition said the money received by him for the fixtures was given to her, and she handed it to her mother.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on both points.

Petty Sessions, Monday; Before W. Major, John Kingsnorth, James Kelcey and G. Kennicott Esqs.

Myssen Peters was committed for trial to the next quarter sessions for stealing a cloak from the harbour railway station, the property of Alexander Oswald Esq. The butler, James Montgomery, identified the property as his master's.