1901 News - Hartley-Kent: Covering Hartley, Longfield & District

19 Jan 1901 Northfleet Standard

Stealing a Bicycle - A Longfield Publican's Stupidity

"Thomas Dockrell, labourer, of Shorne was charged before the county justices, sitting at Chatham on Friday, with stealing a bicycle, valued at £4, the property of Walter William Young, builder and cycle dealer, of Town Road, Hoo, on the 7th July last.

Prosecutor said the prisoner hired the bicycle from him for 2 hours to go to Shorne.  He never returned, and witness had not seen prisoner since until that day in court.  Witness let the bicycle to prisoner on the recommendations of his landlord, Mr Hammond of Church Street, Hoo.  On the 14th July, in consequence of information received, witness went to the Green Man public house, Longfield, where he was shown the bicycle by the landlord.  He, however, refused to give up possession of it.  On the following Tuesday witness took out a warrant for prisoner's apprehension.

Prisoner denied that he went to prosecutor's shop on the recommendation of anybody.  He offered to pay for the hire of the bicycle before he started, but Mr Young said he would not take any money until he (prisoner) returned.

Ambrose George Dockrell, labourer of Longfield Siding, said the prisoner was his brother.  On a Monday in July the prisoner and another brother came to see him.  They were both cycling, and prisoner was riding the machine produced.  Prisoner said he wanted to sell the bicycle.  Witness said, 'Is it your own?'.  He replied 'Yes, I bought it from a man in Cliffe about 5 weeks ago for 30 shillings.'  Prisoner asked a sovereign for the bicycle and witness eventually gave him 10 shillings for it.  2 days later witness sold the bicycle to the landlord of the Green Man for £1.  George Tyrer, landlord of the Green Man, Longfield Hill, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

PS White proved the arrest of the prisoner at 9pm on the 5th inst at his father's house, Shorne Ridgeway.  Prisoner said he did not know anything about stealing a bicycle, and asked if the machine had been found.  Prisoner, after some hesitation, pleaded guilty, and the Bench sentenced him to 6 weeks' hard labour.

Supt Sargent said the witness Tyrer was a licenced victualler in the Dartford Division.  In consequence of his refusing to produce the bicycle and to attend the court ot give evidence, the county had been put to greater expense.  He would like an expression from the bench as to the witness's conduct, with a view to reporting him to the Dartford Division.  Tyrer said he wanted to know in what way he had put the county at greater expense.  When the constable first came to him he showed him the 'bike' and said 'How do you know it is the bike? I won't sell it or do anything with it in case it is the one you want.'   When the policeman came and asked him to attend court on Tuesday, he said he couldn't get down as he had important business.  He would want a magistrate's order to produce the bicycle, and a subpoena for his attendance.  Supt Sargent said the constable who saw the witness was in court if the Bench would like to hear him.  He absolutely declined to come; his conduct had not been what one would have expected from a licensed victualler.  Mr R F Brain (to witness): You ought to assist the police.  Supt Sergent: If he was in this Division I should know what to do with him.  Police Corporal Barnard said when he warned Mr Tyrer he said he shouldn't attend, and if he came to the court he shouldn't give evidence before he was paid to.  He asked him to hand over the bicycle, and he said he shouldn't do so.  On a previous visit to the witness's house he said he knew the bicycle was wrong, because a brother of the prisoner had been apprehended in regard to it.

The Chairman (Mr A Rosher) told witness that he had acted very improperly in refusing to assist the police in the way he had done.  Tyrer said he had always tried to assist the police to the best of his ability,and he was very sorry if in this matter he had done anything wrong.  Supt Sergent thanked the Bench for their expression of opinion, and said he thought the Dartford Magistrates should be informed of it."

30 Mar 1901 Gravesend Reporter

A Runaway

"About half past ten on Monday morning a horse attached to a van, belonging to Mr Whiffin of Hartley, bolted whilst in Queen Street.  It collided with and overturned a barrow on which was a quantity of fish, scattering the latter about the roadway."

[At the time Mr Whiffin ran the village carrier service from Hartley to Gravesend]

30 Mar 1901 Northfleet Standard

A Postal Prosecution

"At Dartford Police Court, John Brown, living at the Green Man, Longfield, was summoned for committing an act likely to injure a post office letterbox, at Longfield on the 23rd February, by shooting at it with a catapault.  Mr Clinch prosecuted on behalf of Mr J Parker Ekins, postmaster at Dartford, who proceeded at the instance of the Postmaster General.  Mrs Chowne and PC Russell gave evidence and defendant was fined 1 shilling, and costs or 7 days'."

06 Apr 1901 Northfleet Standard

Longfield Houses for Sale

"Messrs Dann & Lucas have received instruction from F Armstrong, esq, to sell by auction, on Wednesday 17th day of April 1901 at 1 o'clock, at the Auction Mart, Tokenhouse Yard, City EC:

A desirable freehold bijou residence situate within 5 minutes' walk of the Fawkham Station, consisting ample accommodation for a small family.  Large, well stocked garden and planation of fruit trees, coach house, stable, with loft over, workship, engine shed, poultry houses and runs; captial water supply; the whole in the occupation of the owner.

Also a pair of ornamental cottage residences containing 6 rooms, with gardens.  Possession on completion of purchase......"

[The paper of 18/4/1901 gives the results, it says the house was Holmwood (Kent Road) and the 2 cottages were adjoining, probably 41, 47-49 Kent Road]

18 Apr 1901 Morning Post

The Property Market

"An extremely heavy supply of property was offered under the hammer at the Mart, Tokenhouse Yard, yesterday…..The freehold residence Holmwood, near Fawkham Station, Longfield, Kent, having large garden, was disposed for £700, while a pair of cottages adjoining, let at 6 shillings and 6s 6d per week, fetched £290......"

25 May 1901 Times

Hartley Manor Sale

"The Hartley Manor and Fairby Estate, Hartley, Kent: Adjoining Fawkham Station on the main line (SE & CR) about 23 miles from London and 5 from Gravesend and Dartford.  An important freehold residential, sporting and manorial estate, comprising the Manor House, Hartley with its grounds, stabling and appurtenances, exceptionally good farm buildings and cottages, a second residence and about 1,012a 1r 28p of boldly undulating and well timbered pasture, arable and fruit land (all in a high state of cultivation), rising to upwards of 400ft above sea level, in the midst of a bracing? and very healthy district affording capital shooting and hunting.  The proximity of Fawkham station and the convenient service of trains to the City and West End render part of the estate immediately available for building purposes, while further portions with extensive frontages are likely soon to become extremely valuable for the same purpose.  For sale with possession of the principal portion - Messrs Debenham, Tewson, Farmer and Drinkwater will sell, at the Mart, on Thursday, June 27 at 2 (unless previously disposed of by private contract), the above name freehold estate, in the parishes of Hartley, Longfield, Fawkham and Ash, comprising 2 comfortable residences, the principal one known as:

Hartley Manor, commodious and easy to maintain, is warmed by hot water throughout, wired for electric light, has a high pressure water supply, and is fitted with fire hydrants.  It is approached by a long carriage drive, has an almost due sout aspect, with a pretty home view, and contains 10 bedrooms, box room, bathroom, housemaid's closet, airing room and linen cupboards, principal and secondary staircases, entrance hall and drawing room opening to a conservatory and verandah (the latter 47ft long), dining room, squire's room, offices with fire proof strong room, and exceptionally good cellarage; tastefully laid out pleasure grounds, tennis lawn, kitchen and fruit garden, stabling for 4 horses, new brick and tiled dairy, and captal range of farm buildings.

The second residence, known as Hartley Court, is near to the church and contains 7 bed and dressing rooms, bathroom (hot and cold), 3 reception rooms, and offices; pleasure and kitchen gardens, modern stabling for 3 horses, coach house and an ample homestead.

Fairby has a large and very comfortable farmhouse with an extensive range of new and substantial buildings, with accommodation for 68 beasts, besides carthouses, cart-horse stabling for 17, 6 bay cart shed etc, and a lambing yard nearby; there iare also two cottages used as a farmhouse at Hartley Bottom, Stocks Farm and Middle Farm homesteads, and 33 other conveniently placed cottages.

The estate has a boldly undulating and very attractive conformation, lies almost entirely within a ring fence, with long frontages to good hard roads, and from various points charming home and distant views are obtained; it is divided into numerous enclosures of pasture and arable land, with some valuable fruit plantations, interspersed with thriving, well place woods admirably adapted for rearing a large head of game.  The property has been highly farmed for many years past, and is now in excellent heart and cultivation.  Large sums have been expended in improvements to buildings, fruit planting etc, the main water supplied has recently been reorganised, and large reservoirs constructed to ensure ample storage, in addition to numerious ponds and wells.  There are valuable beds of brick earth, chalk, flints etc, underlying the property, which have been, and should still be, a considerable source of revenue, a valuable adjunct in thie respect, being the private siding at Longfield Hill, on the SE & CR, which affords great facilities for quick and economical transit to and from the metropolis.  The Manor or reputed Manor of Hartley with its rights and privileges is included in the sale.  The West Kent Foxhounds and Mid Kent Staghounds hunt the district."

[The Evening Standard of 1/7/1901 reported that at the auction, the property was withdrawn with the bidding at £35,000]

08 Jun 1901 South London Press

The Newington Scandal - Mr Dunham at the Police Court

More alleged Defalcations - The Mayor's Evidence

Lambeth police court was crowded on Thursday afternoon on the occation of the hearing fo the summons against Mr L J Dunham (clerk to the late Newington Vestry) for falsification of accounts.  Mr Hopkins was the magistrate, and amongst those present in court were the Mayor of Southwark, Alderman Haynes and Cole, Councillors Hamel (who was accommodated with a seat in the inspector's box), W Edwards and TG Young, ex vestrymean Kirke, Colbrook and Pearson, Messrs J A Johnson (town clerk), Percy Sharp (Mr Dunham's solicitor), B Cohen, W Martin and other well known local gentlemen.

Mr H C Biron, barrister (son of the late magistrate) prosecuted on behalf of the Southwark Borough Council, and mr Travers Humphreys (who was instructed with Mr Charles Matthews) appeared for Mr Dunham, who was accommodated with a seat by the side of his solicitor.

The summons was taken out at the instance of Mr J A Dawes and Mr George Browing (accountant), and the defendant was required to answer the complaint that on June 25, 1886 and on divers dates between that date and March 22, 1897, being then employed by the vestry of St Mary Newington, as vestry clerk, he did wilfully and with intent to defraud alter, mutiliate and falsify certain books of account which then belonged to the said vestry - to wit, the branch drains cash books; and did wilfully and with intent to defraud, omit certain material particulars from such books.

Mr Biron, addressing the magistrate, said: I appear in support of this summons to lay the facts before your worship upon wich Mr Dunham is charged, under the Falsification of Accounts Act, with altering, mutilating and falsifying certain books which were kept by him on behalf of his employers, the Newington Vestry.  Mr Dunham had been vestry clerk of the parish on Newington since February 9, 1870, and his duties were defined in the terms of his appointment.  Among other duties, he had to keep the cash accounts for the vestry; prepare quarterly, or oftener if required, proper balance sheets and abstracts of the same for the vestry and the committees, and paricularly to prepare balance sheets and abstracts for the auditors with the vouchers, as provided by the Metropolis Local Management Act.  Among the books which Mr Dunham kept were the branch drains cash book, and it will be proved that these books were locked up in the safe in his private office, and that all the entries are in his handwriting.  Since June 18, 1890, the defendant has enjoyed a large salary of something like £800 a year.  Every confidence was reposed in him by the Newington Vestry, and, in consequence, perhaps, greater laxity was allowed than would otherwise have been the case.  the charge against mr Dunham is, shortly, this - that from the year 1886 until the end of 1897 he systematically altered the books which it was his duty to keep, with the result that he defrauded the vestry of a very considerable sum of money.  Unfortunately, no professional auditors were employed by the vestry, which in itself was somewhat unsatisfactory, and was the subject of comment at the meeting sof the vetry in the years 1896 and 1897.  That is possibly the reason why the mutilation of the books ceased in 1897, the latest instance being December 25 of that year.  In 1899 Mr Patterson was appointed by the vestry as accountant clerk, and the management of the books was taken over by him in October 1899, since which date Mr Dunahm has had no opportunity of making any such alteration sas I think there can be little doubt he had been in the habit of making during the period in question.  By the creation of the new borough of Southwark Mr Dunahm's duties came to an end, and he made representation to the vestry in the month of October 1900, stating that in connection with certain vestry matters he had undertaken duties and labours which were extemely onerous, and suggesting that in consequence a sum of money should be vote to him as a reward for those services.  Of course, at that time there was no idea in anyone's mind that there was anything wrong in the relations between Mr Dunham and the vestry, or that he had in any way abused his position of trust.  In fact there was a suggestion in the air, which had considerable support in the vestry, that he should be the new town clerk.  On November 5 last year the matter was considered, and the vestry voted Mr Dunham a gratuity of £1,000 in respect of his past services.  It is a fact that at that time, though it was not known, Mr Dunham had got into considerable arrears; that is to say, he admittedly owed the vestry considerable sums in respect of the moneys which had passed through his hands.  That sum was voted on November 5, and on November 14 he went to the Mayor (Mr Dawes) and told him that there was a large deficit, for which he was responsible, in connection with the accounts.  His object in doing so was obvious, because that deficit, of course, would have been discovered in any event, and would have led to further investigations of the books, with the result that the extraordinary state of things wihch was subsequently discovered would have been brought to light.  Mr Dawes had no idea at that time that there had been anything more than gross carelessness and professional misconduct on the part of Mr Dunham.  Certainly he did not think he had been guilty of any criminal conduct.  Mr Dawes however, took the view - I think it will be agreed that it was the right view - that under the circumstances it was impossible that Mr Dunham shoudl be appointed town clerk, and in consequence he was not so appointed.  With this new light thrown upon his conduct, it became doubtful whether Mr Dunahm had desrved the £1,000 which had been voted, and on January 30, 1901, a special committee was appointed to inquire into the accounts and go through the books.  On March 27 an erasure was discovered in one of the books known as the branch drains cash book, a particular figure having been obviously scratched out with a penknife.  The balance showed the account which it was Mr Dunham's duty to pay over to the vestry, and by scratching out the first figure the defendant had put £100 in his own pocket.  When that was discovered, Mr Dawes saw Mr Dunham, but could get no explanation as to how the erasure came to be made.  The books were then placed in the hands of a chartered accountant and thoroughly gone into, with the result that a most remarkable state of affairs was discovered.  I will deal first with what is known as the branch drains book.  That is a book kept by the vestry with respect to certain moneys expended on drainage works.  The vestry themselves do the work, but the owner of the house is charged with it, being required to pay to the vestry beforehand the estimated cost, which is entered in the book.  When the work is done, the actual cost is arrived at, and the difference is paid back to the owner.  Every year the balance is struck, and the amount shown which Mr Dunham has in hand to pay over to the vestry.  We shall show that from 1886 to 1896 there is a deficiency of £1,849 which is concealed by this system of erasure.  It is probable that at the time the books were audited by the amateur auditors the figure was there in each case, but was afterwards erased by the defendant, who trusted to the confidence reposed in him that the books would not be very carefully inspected.  In 1892 the balance in defendant's hands amounted to £556.  It would appear from the book that that sum was carried forward, but there is a long erasure, and in realityno sum is carried forward at all, so that Mr Dunham was able to put that £556 into his own pocket.  On September 29, 1895, he inverted the practice of erasure, for it appears taht on that day he paid the sum of £25 on behalf of the vestry, and by inserting the figure "1" before it got credit for £100 more than he had disbursed.  We have selected some 8 cases in respect of the drains book which we shall prove before you.  Directly this state of things was ascertained by the new body, a letter was written to Mr Dunham, asking for an explanation, and after some delay a long communication was received from Mr Dunham's solicitors, in which they admitted that there were deficiencies amounting to £1,849.  About that there was no dispute at all.

Mr Hopkins: Was the defendant represented at the audit?

Mr Biron: I understand he was represented by his own accountant.  At any rate, an accountant went through the books on his behalf, and these deficiencies, which are admitted, are all concealed from teh face of the books by mean of those mutilations, of which Mr Dunham's solicitors gave no explanation whatever.  Indeed, te sisue is entirely evaded in their letter, the only explanation being that Mr Dunham had rendered in the past great service to the vestry, that he had been very much oeverworked, and that inconequence he had not had time to give that attention to the books which ought to have been given to them.  Of coure, that is not the point, because these erasures cannot possibly be accounted for by mere lack of time.  They were deliberately made, and made in such a way as to conceal the fact that htis large sum of money had found its way into Mr Dunham's pocket.  The council therefore had no option but to swear an informatio here and issue this summons.  Since the information was sworn, the accountants have carefully examined a book known as the wages cash book.  Cheques were drawn on account of wages and handed to Mr Dunham, an don one side of the book the cheques so drawn appear and on the other the moneys paid for wages An investigation of this book shows that from September 29, 1892 to December 25, 1897, by a similar system of falsification, Mr Dunham has failed to account for no less than another £2,140.  These are, as far as we have been able to go at present, the facts of the case we propose to lay before you.  These mutilations are on a very large scale indeed.  What we have done is to select items from tiem to ttime sufficient to show the scheme adotped by Mr Dunham to defraud the vestry, and also the estremely systematic way in which that fraud was carried out.  With egard to the wages cash book, we have selected an instance on September 24, 1896, when there was a balance in hand, which ought to have been paid over to the vestry of £209.  The first two figures were scratched out, with the result that Mr Dunham only paid over the sum of £9.  On December 25, 1897 two sums appear, but by the erasure of the first figure in front of a sum expended by him, he obtained credit for £100 more than he had expended.  I shall call the Mayor, the accountant and one or two other witnesses, and shall then ask you to say that Mr Dunahm should be committed for trial on these various charges.

The Mayor in the Box

Mr J A Dawes gave evidence in support of counsel's opening statement.  He said the books were never audited by a professional accountant, but by five gentlemen elected by the ratepayers from outside the vestry.  In 1896 a motion by Mr Hester to appoint a chartered accountant was discussed.  At that meeting a letter was read from Mr Dunham, in which he said that the motion, when read in conjunction with Mr Hester's electioneering address to the ratepayers in May of that year, and the statements published in papers enclosed therewith, contained by innuendo the grave charge against the Finance Committee, the auditors and himself (the defendant) of having falsified the accounts and balance sheets for party purposes, and of having included in the accounts charges not authorised by law.  Mr Hester's motion was negatived by the vestry.  Another motion, for which he (witness) voted, was brought forward in December 1896, in favour of the accounts being audited by auditors appointed by the Local Government Board, but that motion was also lost.  Witness explained to the court how the £1,000 came to be voted to Mr Dunham, and said the vestry had no knowledge of the deficiencies at the time.  He then went on to relate the circumstances which led to the appointment of the special committee and the discovery of the alleged falsifications, previous to which the idea of dishonesty had not entered his mind.

Mr Biron: Has Mr Dunham given any explanation of the erasures?

The Mayor: No.  In the absence of any explanation we initiated these proceedings.

Reserving the defence

Mr Travers Humphreys: I do not propose, your worship, to ask the witness any questions at this stage, but will reserve them for the trial.

The magistrate intimated that the case would have to be adjourned, as he could not spare any more time that day.

Mr Biron: the evidence of my next witness, the accountant, will be rather long, and I do not think we could conclude it today.

The magistrate: What do you say as to bail?

Mr Travers Humphreys: There is not the smallest fear that Mr Dunham will go away.  He appears today in answer to a summons.  I would suggest his own recognizances.

Mr Biron offered no objection

The Magistrate: Very well, I will accept his own recognizances in £500; but it must not be assumed that after the books have been put in I shall take the same view.

The case was adjourned till Thursday next.

[ Mr Dunham was principally involved in setting up the Newington Vestry rubbish dump at Longfield.]

11 Jul 1901 Daily News

A London Vestry Clerk's Frauds

"Trial and Sentence.  Up to a few months since Levi Joseph Dunham, 58, as clerk to the Vestry of St Mary, Newington, was the recognised 'king' or the prominent parochial personages in that district, and many public buildings within the locality bear foundation stones upon which his name has been conspicuously set forth.  Respected, honoured and trusted, this vestry official was named as a candidate for the Town Clerkship of the Borough when the newly created council took over command in November of last year.  Investigation of his accounts conclusively proved, however, that for a period of nearly 28 years the undoubtedly clever and courteous Vestry Clerk had belied the excellent reputation everyone ungrugingly bestowed on him.

Yesterday, before Mr William Robert McConnell, KC, chairman of the Newington Sessions, Dunham surrendered to his bail, and confessed to having on various dates from June 1886, down to December 1897, falsified his accounts do that he embezzled some £1,800 of the monies received by him on behalf of the late Vestry.  The indictment contained 28 specific charges, and abou 14 feet of parchment was required to fully detail his offences.

The court was crowded with persons who had always looked upon the prisoner as an energetic and faithful public servant.

Mr Horace Avory KC and Mr H C Biron prosecuted for the Borough of Southwark; Mr Rufus Isaacs KC and Mr Charles Matthews represented Dunham."

13 Jul 1901 South London Press

Eighteen Months' Imprisonment

The last stage in this painful story, which opened at the Lambeth Police Court but a few weeks ago, was witnessed at the South London Sessions on Wednesday afternoon.  On the court resuming after the luncheon hour came the summons from the assistant clerk, "Call upon Levi Joseph Dunham to surrender."  A policeman immediately left the court, and returned followed by Mr Dunham, who carried his silk hat and bag in his hand, and mounted the steps with a defiant air.

The Assistant clerk (to the prisoner), Levi Joseph Dunham, under 26 counts of this indictment you are charged with unlawfully and with intent to defraud falsifying certain books, the property of your masters, the late vestry of St Mary, Newington.  How say you - are you guilty or not guilty?

The prisoner: I plead guilty.

Mr Avory, KC, then described the charges against the accused, which have already been fully reported in the South London Press.  He was there, he said, with his learned friend Mr Biron to prosecute, Mr Rufus Isaacs and Mr Charles Matthews being for the defence.  It was a case in which he had to perform a very painful duty, because as vestry clerk Mr Dunham had been known to him professionally for many years.  Mr Dunham was appointed clerk to the Newington Vestry in 1870, and continued in that office till last year.  Since 1890 his salary had been £800 a year.  He was solely responsidble for the keeping of the accounts and principal books.  Shortly after the borough council came into existence it was found that the books of the vestry showed a balance owing by the defendant of £1,800, and that amount was paid by Mr Dunham in different sums between November and December 1900.  It was then supposed that all matters of account had been properly settled.  But in consequence of some suspicion a special committee was appointed in January of this year to investigate the books, the result being the discovery of certain erasures.  This led to a further investigation by a firm of accountants, and the total deficiencies were found to be £4,572.

Mr Rufus Isaacs then rose to address the court for the defence, but technically there could be no defence, the prisoner having pleaded guilty.  The only point put forward was a plea in mitigation of punishment, counsel stating that the accused had not utilised one penny of the money for his own personal benefit, but had expended it all in helping forward the great schemes which he had promoted in the vestry for purposes he could not properly put into the vestry's books in the sense of extending hospitality to a number of persons simply for the purposes of the vestry, and in no way to benefit himself.  In connection with the dust depots he expended considerably more than the 2d per ton commission allowed to him by the vestry.

Mr McConnell KC (the chairman): I do not quite follow you.  In what way was the commission distributed?

Mr Isaacs replied taht it was distributed to farmers and various persons in order to induce them to purchase the 'mixture'.  This great scheme for the disposal of the refuse of the parish was entirely due to the defendant, and it had resulted in the saving of thousands of pounds to the parish.

Mr McConnell said the system of commission was a roundabout way of doing business.

Mr Isaacs: In the furtherance of this scheme the defendant had a great deal to do with the farmers, seeing them and waiting upon them, and he had to spend a great deal of money with them in luncheons, dinners and so forth, giving to these people that which he could not properly, and did not, charge against the vestry.

Mr McConnell: Did the Vestry know this?

Mr Isaacs: That he was spending money, certainly; but that he was spending more money than the amount they were giving him I do not say.  Continuing, counsel referred to the electric lighting scheme as having been very expensive to Mr Dunham.  It was not suggested by anyone that he had spent the money in extravagant living, in gambling or in anything of that sort; and an analysis of his pass book showed that he had not spent more money than he was receiving as salary.  What Mr Dunham had done was this - he had looked upon himself as responsible for those schemes, and had spent money of the vestry which ought not to have gone in the way it did for the purpose of making the schemes a success, and enabling the vestry to get a profit.  He hoped that in dealing with this case his lordship would take this into consideration.

Mr McConnell (to Mr Avery): The late Vestry or its successors have received the sum of £1,800 from the prisoner?

Mr Avory: Yes my lord.  The £4,572 is in addition to the £1,800 already repaid.

The learned judge, after a private consultation with his colleagues, which occupied a quarter of an hour, passed sentence on prisoner in the presence of a large number of late vestrymen, present aldermen and councillors, and ratepayers of the borough.  He said this was one of the gravest cases which could come before a court of quarter sessions.  The prisoner had enjoyed a liberal salary and the confidence of the vestry, yet he had in his position of trust deliberately, for a period extending over many years carried on an ingenious scheme of fraudulent bookkeeping and embezzlement.  Doubless he would feel the punishment more than many others; but the court could not pass a more lenient sentence of than 18 months' impisonment, with hard labour.

Mr Dunham then left the dock in custody of the prison warder.

[Levi Dunham was the Vestry Clerk (Chief Executive) of Newington vestry for 30 years.  The council did not conduct proper audit of the books he kept but the fraud was discovered when Newington Vestry was abolished and Southwark Borough Council was created.  His defence was that he didn't benefit personally but used the money embezzled to promote sales of the fertiliser Newington Mixture from the Longfield Rubbish Dump.  The Daily News report of the trial (11.7.1901) said the indictment amounted to 14 feet of parchment because there were so many charges. The South London Chronicle of 18.10.1903 reported that he had been released 3 months' early from his sentence.]

05 Aug 1901 Freeman's Journal

Meat, Fish and Newspapers Destroyed

"A London Evening News telegram from Margate says - The newspaper train which left London on Saturday morning caught fire at Fawkham.  Meat, fish and newspapers were all lost and the mail bag was damaged.  Tradesmen at Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs are seriously inconvenienced, as tons of provisions were destroyed.  Visitors are despondent because there are no papers.  The cause of the fire is unknown.  Many passengers were on the train."

[Another short article in the London Evening Standard says the van was shunted into a siding and the rest of the train proceeded on its way.  The van and all its contents, save a mail bag was destroyed.]

31 Aug 1901 Gravesend Reporter

Obituary of Jane Packman

"Born October 22nd, 1805; Died March 6th, 1901, aged 96 years - A long and interesting life.

Inhabitants of our villages around Gravesend and Dartford would hardly entertain the idea of taking their holidays in places like Ash, Hartley, Ridley or Stansted, but prefer seaside resorts, which, through being badly chosen, often prove unsuitable, and where they derive not a tithe of the beneficial results to their constitutions compared with a quiet resting in the places mentioned above  This particularly healthful district is situated 550 feet above the Thames, which can be plainly discerned, and is rich in wooden hill and dale.  Among these pleasant surroundings, in 1805, was born Mrs Robert Packman.  When only 8 years of age she lost her mother, and until she was married in her 20th year, at Chalk Parish Church, kept house for her father, who was a basket maker.  It is said she made as good a housekeeper at 10 as many at 20 years of age.  In this parish the lately deceased used to tell that it was then the custom for anyone living outside the district to sleep one night and leave a pocket handkerchief in the house to entite the person to be married in the church, as there were no banns published.  Her husband farmed a small holding in Hartley, from which they journeyed to Gravesend to dispose of the produce.  They were blessed with 13 children, seven of whom survive her - 4 sons and 3 daughters - Mrs William Russell of Ash being the youngest.  Below we give a list of the descendants:

In America - Her own children - 3, grandchildren - 16, great-grandchildren - 44, great-great-grandchildren - 12; total 75.

In England - Her own children - 4, grandchildren - 16, great-grandchildren - 19, great-great-grandchildren - 9; total 44.

Mr Henry Packman (son) took his family of 9 to America, and they are all living and well in and around Webster City, Ohio.  One of his sons, referring in a recent letter to his lately deceased grandmother, writes - "Now I want you to get some pictures of monuments and the prices and see how much money we can raise to put them up a nice monument."  Her eyesight was wonderfully keen up to the last, and she retained extraordinary powers of vitality.  It was the writer's pleasure to be invited to afternoon tea with her when she had scored her 93rd year, and despite the proffered assistance of ladies, she insister on getting ready and making the tea and clearing the table afterwards.  She was greatly attahced to her home, as is substantiated by the fact that she occupied one house for 50 years, and not for a single night slept elsewhere during that period.  She was a devout worshipper, and only during the last few years absented herself from divine service.

She was a widow for 36 years, and her bachelor son William lived with her.  She was buried with much respect in Hartley Churchyard, by the side of her husband and three daughters."

[ An obituary of Jane Packman, who lived for many years at Hartley Hill Cottage, and died at the age of 96.]

07 Dec 1901 Gloucester Citizen

Goods Train in Coillision - Narrow Escapes

Late on Thursday night an up Dover goods train parted in the centre after passing Meopham, on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway.  At Fawkham the train was stopped by signal, and the second portion running down a gradient dashed into the first part, throwing several trucks off the line.  At this moment the Queensborough Pier goods train approached on the down line and collided with the wreckage.  Happily no life was lost, but the driver and fireman of the Queenborough train had a narrow escape, the engine rolling down the embankment.

19 Dec 1901 Yorkshire Evening Post

Alleged looting from a wrecked train

In connection with the recent collision on the Chatham and South Eastern Railway at Fawkham Junction four of the company's employees were today arrested at New Brompton.  The men are charged with stealing from the debris of the two wrecked goods trains valued at £200.  The men belonged to the breakdown gang sent to clear the line.

09 Jan 1902 Sunderland Echo

Railway Smash

"A goods train from Fawkham divided near Farningham Road Station, on the Chatham and South Eastern line, last night, and the rear portion afterwards dashed into the front part, throwing several wagons off the road and blocking both lines.  No personal injury was sustained.  The midnight passenger train for Chatham had to return to London and go via the South-Eastern route.  One line is now clear."