Mr Hodsoll is instructed to sell by auction, on the premises, as above, on Friday, March 7th, 1890 at 11.30 the whole of the genuine household furniture and effects, comprising the appointments of 10 bedrooms, an excellent carved oak sideboard, oak dining room suite, upholstered in Utrecht velvet, white and gold drawing room suite in satin, oak, mahogany, and rosewood, dining and other tables, a handsom 5ft 6in Buhl ebonised cabinet, chimney glasses, black marble and ormolu manel clocks, a few choice oil paintings and other pictures, ornaments, plate and plated articles, china and glass, culinary and dairy utensils, and numerous useful miscelleneous effects."
Mr William Hodsoll is instructed to sell by auction at Hartley Court, on Wednesday, March 19th 1890, at 12 for 1 o'clock, all the valuable live and dead farming stock comprising 13 powerful and active draught horses, a 2 year old cart colt, a ditto nag ditto, bay geldin, quite to ride and drive, bay pony, young roan cow in full profit, 2 goats with 2 kids, black sow with 7 pigs, black boar and 3 store pigs. The agricultural implements include 2 waggons, spring van, 9 dung carts, liquid manure cart, ploughs, harrows, drills, land rollers, mowing and reaping machines etc, a large iron cistern, also a clamp of Regent and Hebron seed potatoes (about 12 tons) and a quantity of cut underwood. Catalogues may be had on the premises and of the auctioneer, 188 Parrock Street, Gravesend and Farningham."
Messrs Daniel Smith, Son and Oakley have received instructions to offer for sale by auction in the month of July (unless previously sold by private contract), the Hartley Manor Estate, in the parishes of Hartley and Longfield, comprising a gentleman's residence of moderate size, a large farm house, outbuildings, several cottages, and 585 acres of land in a ring fence, of which about 137 acres are thriving woodlands and the rest arable and pasture, offering a good opportunity for investment, and also for occupation and sporting. The house, known as Hartley Manor, stands of high ground, approached by a long carriage drive, and contains 7 bedrooms, 2 attics, entrance hall, dining room, library, drawing room, conservatory, and usual domestic offices. There are also 2 farms known as Hartley Court and Hartley Bottom, each having farm house, homesteead and several cottages respectively. The estate contains a valuable bed of brick earth and pottery clay, and also of flints, which are now being worked with a siding on the railway....."
[Interesting for being the earliest reference to Manor Drive. It was not mentioned when the property was marketed in 1884, and so the road can be dated to the period 1884-1890.
According to the Maidstone Journal it was the second sale of the year. The Bromley Times of 5.9.1890 reported that Mr F D Barnes of Bickley was the purchaser by private contract. The paper's edition of 23.1.1891 reported that the sale price was £10,000 - for nearly half the area of Hartley!]
[Gravesend Journal 28.3.1891 adds "He was formerly a shepherd, and lived for several years in a field hut." and that his birthday was in September]
[Paper of 14.4.1891 reported that the parties had settled out of court: Dartford Magistrates: "James Beach of Scudders Farm, Fawkham, appeared to answer a charge of fraudulently witholding money, the property of Mr Henry Booth Hohler. The case was remanded from Saturday last, and it was now stated that the matter had been settled, and the case was, with the consent of the magistrates, withdrawn." Once again this seems an attempt by the powerful to use the criminal law for what was basically a civil matter]
Messrs W Wood and Son will sell by auction in a meadow on the North Ash Farm (by the kind permission of Mr G Day) on Friday, May 1st 1891, at 1 o'clock, the live and dead farming stock, the property of gentlemen in the neighbourhood, comprising 14 useful cart and nag horses, 2 nag colts (2 years old), 70 beasts, 1 bull, 6 cows in milk and in calf, 100 Kent and half bred tegs, 7 sows, 8 pigs, quantity of poultry, 3 trucks, 3 dung carts, covered sheep van, pony van, Kent plough complete, 2 iron ploughs, iron broadshare, 2 brakes, mower, scarifier, 2 hop nidgets, 3 ox harrows, 2 sets of Yorkshire harrows, set of zig-zag harrows, 5 share drill, 3 horse rakes, 2 chaff cutters, cake mill, turnip cutter, elevator (with horse gear complete), 200 hurdle gates (new), 2 30 stave ladders, 2 corn chests, 3 plough harness, 2 chain harness, 2 quoiler harness, 2 horse nets, 3 nose bags, 3 head stalls, beam and scales, wire hen coop, wire vermin trap, 2 dog kennels, 4 wheel dog cart, waggonette, dog cart, wheelbarrow with moveable top (new), churn, etc. All further entries respectfully solicited. All entries received to April 27th will be inserted in the catalogue. Arrangements will be made for conveyance to meet the trains at Fawkham Station. Offices - Cooling, Rochester and at 31 High Street, Rochester."
[The Gravesend Reporter of 4.4.1891 carried a brief advert to sell the business.]
To wheelwrights, carpenters, undertakers etc. Mr Hodsoll will sell by auction, on the premises, as above, on Friday June 5, 1891 at 11 for 12 o'clock, the valuable stock in trade, comprising seasoned oak, ash and elm planks and boards, wheels, felloes, spokes, naves and other useful timber, axles and other iron work, timber chains, pit and cross cut saws, ladders, quantity of tools, nuts, bolts, screws, nails, undertaker's furniture, and numerous useful effects. Catalogues may be had at the Black Lion Inn, Hartley, and of the auctioner, Farningham, Kent."
[The adverts are written in a kind of standard shorthand. Mr Day's employer was leaving Hartley so he needed to find a new situation.]
Messrs Cronk [of Sevenoaks and 12 Pall Mall SW] have received instructions from Mr Day, who is leaving, to sell by auction on the premises, as above, on Friday, October 9th 1891, at 12 o'clock precisely the valuable live and dead farming stock, comprising 5 powerful cart horses, 61 Kent ewes in lamb, Hampshire ram lamb. The implements comprise, narrow wheel waggons, dung carts, captial light spring dog cart, captial mowing and reaping machines by Hornsby and Samuelson, cleaning machine, Kent and other ploughs, ox and small harrows, iron horse rake, Cambridge and other land rollers, iron land presses, Bentall's broadshare, scarifiers, hop nidgets, oilcake crushers, and chaff cutting machines, turnip pulpers, collar, chain and plough harnesses, stack cloths, poles, pullies, and ropes, about 400 slat gates, quantity of wire netting, scale beam, scales and weights, weighing machine, ladders, grindstone and frame, sheep troughs, cages and numerous other effects."
[A report of the Dartford Guardians meeting said Dr Smith reported he had ordered a medicine chest at a cost of £10.10.0 - Bromley Times 29.1.1892. The local Guardians claimed it wasn't well used about a year later - Maidstone Journal 20.4.1893]
In the first case, Richard James Crouch, and George Thomas Davis, both young men, were charged, on remand, of stealing three fowls, and one live duck, valued at 10/-, the property of Mr Henry Smith, at Fawkham on November 24th.
In relation to this charge, the following evidence was adduced:-
John Wane, of West Hill, Ash, farm labourer, stated that he went down to his employer's stables at seven o'clock in the morning, at Court Lodge Farm, Fawkham, on November 24th. Witness went into the henhouse, to feed the chicken and the ducks. He noticed that there was a duck missing. After he had fed the ducks he went into the henhouse and saw a couple of heads lying upon the floor. He sent word to Mr Day, who had the looking after Mr Smith's place, and to him he showed the heads. Mr Smith was the tenant. There should have been four ducks and a drake, whereas there were but three. The witness said he noticed that the staple had been drawn from the henhouse door.
Mr Day, in the employ of Mr Henry Smith, deposed that his attention had been drawn to the henhouse on the 24th November. He saw the two heads produced lying upon the floor, and he took charge of them. Witness gave information to Instructing constable Rhodes. Witness afterwards saw police constable Humphrey at Fawkham Green, to whom he also gave information. The henhouse was examined the next day (November 25th) by police constable Humphrey. This witness said there should have been 60 chickens in the henhouse on Sunday, the 24th. He counted 57 only. Witness valued the three chickens and duck at 10/-. Witness locked . the henhouse up on November 23rd, at about 4.30 pm. The fowls were quite safe at that time.
Mrs Elizabeth Ludlow, of Mile End Green, Horton Kirby stated that the prisoner Crouch came to her about a fortnight previous, and asked her if she would like to buy a fowl. This was about six o'clock (at this point the witness commenced to cry bitterly). She said she asked the man what he wanted for one, and he said 2s. Witness said she gave the man the 2s for a dark fowl, similar in colour to that produced. The head had been removed.
In reply to Mr Elgood, the witness said the man Crouch brought the chicken to her about a fortnight previous, she could not remember the exact date.
Police Constable Walter Humphrey (stationed at Hartley) stated that the saw the two prisoners on Sunday night last. He noticed that Crouch had a brown paper parcel under his left arm, and said "What, do you carry parcels about, on Sunday night now, Dick?" and he said "Yes, sometimes". Witness said "What is inside it?" and he replied "Nothing particular." Witness however said he wanted to see it, and began to examine it, and found it contained a lot of feathers. Witness then said "there are some feathers here, have you got any fowl?" and he said "Yes, I have two, I gave 3s for them, ls 6d each." Witness took the white fowl out of the parcel, and next a duck. He said "I have a duck here," and Crouch said "Yes, I forgot that; I gave 4s 6d for it." Witness then asked the prisoner from whom he bought the fowls, and he said "Of a man who was by our place at it half past ten last night." In reply to a further question the prisoner said he had never seen the man before, and he should not know him again if he were to see him. Witness told prisoner he was not satisfied, and stated that they answered the description of some stolen fowls, and he should take him to Fawkham in order to see if they could be identified. Both prisoners were afterwards taken to witness Day's house at Fawkham by the witness, who, in their presence, asked Day if he had seen the fowls before. Day said "I can swear to this one out of a hundred" (the brown), and he also said with reference to the white fowl that "he would fetch a head that would fit it." Day further said that the duck had no particular mark on it, but that it was exactly similar to one stolen. The constable asked Crouch if the young fellow Davis knew anything about the fowls, and he said "No." Witness then said that he should arrest Crouch for stealing the fowls, but to Davis he said "I shall not arrest you now." He brought Crouch to Dartford, and on Tuesday morning, February 2nd, he accompanied Rhodes to Fawkham, where they saw the prisoner Davis. He said "Crouch has made a statement implicating you in this fowl robbery." And he said "Oh! Has he: that is what I expected when I first saw you. He's a nice chum to round on me." He also said on the 13th January. He saw Day near the tavern. They asked him if he would buy any fowls, and he replied that he bought anything. Day had the fowls on top of his van. They were dead. To the best of witnesses recollection there were three hen birds. It was agreed that he should pay 2s apiece for the birds, but he had not yet paid the money. Witness said that he did not look at the birds before he bought them. He had on several occasions had rabbits of the prisoner Day.
Cross examined by Mr Chancellor, witness said the van Day was driving was a coal van. He bought the fowls from Day, and this was all he could say. The fowls were not concealed in any way. He had he said bought lots of wild rabbits of the prisoner Day. Sometimes he paid at the time he bought them, and sometimes afterwards. He bought some thousands of rabbits.
Police Constable Humphrey stated that on January lst he had visited and examined the place belonging to Rev W. Allen, and he found that the hen house had been entered the same as had been described by the witness Wells. He saw the prisoner Day at Longfield on the same day, January lst, and witness said to him that he believed the young fellow Davis was at his (prisoners) house on the previous night, and Crouch also. Day said, "Yes, they were there having a sing-song." Asked when they came, he said about eight o'clock, and that they went about half-past eleven. Witness asked if they brought anything with them, and he said he had not. He also asked him if he saw the men again after they had gone. He said "No, why?" Witness said "Because some fowls were stolen from Mr Allen's last night, and things seem to point very much to Crouch and Davis having taken them." He also said, "If you want to know anything about it, I have not seen anything." On February lst the witness said he saw the prisoner Day near the Church at Hartley, and he said, "I hear Dick Crouch was taken last night," and witness replied, "Yes he was, for fowl stealing." He also said to Day, "Are you sure you don't know anything about those who came from Mr Allen's, as he and the other young fellow were at your house last night?" He said, "No, I don't know anything about it." If I had I should have told you on the next day when you asked me." On the following morning (Tuesday), witness accompanied instructing constable Rhodes to the prisoner Davis at Fawkham respecting the last charge. Having been told that he was implicated, Davis said, "He's a nice chum to round upon anybody, if it had not been for him I should not have helped done Mr Allen's job." (This evidence referred to Crouch). "As soon as we left George Day's house at twelve o'clock, he said (meaning Crouch), let us take some of Mr Allen's fowls." They then went to the hen-house and made a hole through the thatched roof. Davis said he had in there six fowls; the others made such a noise that we ran away. We then took them to Day's house. He (Crouch) promised me 4s for my share, but I have never had anything." They afterwards took prisoner Davis to Fawkham "he came to my place at about twelve o'clock on Saturday night and asked me to come and take some of Mr Smith's fowls, I told him I should not go as he had not 'squared up' for the last job at Mr Allen's. He promised me 4s for this, but I never had any money. He persuaded me, and I went with him to Mr Smith's, and helped him break open the door. We took them to my stable, and kept them till last Sunday night. All I have had is one shilling for one or two of the fowls he took away a night or two afterwards." Davis was afterwards brought to Dartford and was charged. Instructing Constable Rhodes was with witness when Crouch made his statement, and upon this being repeated before Davis, Crouch replied that it was correct.
Instructing Constable Rhodes deposed that on the 2nd inst. at 9.30 am he conveyed the prisoner Crouch to Dartford police station. He asked witness if he had seen his father, and he replied that he had, and prisoner then wished to know how he took it. The witness replied that he was very much cut up about the affair, and he said, "Long un (Davis) was with me when I did it, and they were in his stable until we shifted them on Sunday night." He corroborated the statement as made by himself to Humphrey. They were both charged with jointly stealing the fowls and duck on November 23rd, and they made no reply. The feathers produced were found in Davis's employer's stable. Davis had not a stable of his own.
Another charge, that of stealing six live fowls from the fowl-house belonging to the Rev Whitton Allen, at Hartley, on December 31st, or morning of January lst last, was next preferred against Davis and Crouch. A man named George Day was also charged in this case with having received the 3 fowls into his possession, well knowing them to have been stolen. Day was defended by Mr Chancellor.
William Wells, gardener, in the employ of the Rev Whitton Allen (Hartley) said he had locked the fowls up securely on December 31st, in the hen-house. He said he could not say how many there were. Witness went the next morning to the hen-house. This would be on January lst, when he found that someone had broken in. The fowls were in two compartments. The window was broken of one compartment, and into the other compartment an entrance had been effected through the roof, the thatch having been pulled off. Witness said that the three fowls which were in one compartment the night previous were missing on January lst. These were very common fowls. A dead fowl lay with its head off. The head produced was similar to the head of the dead fowl. Witness valued the fowls at 2s each.
George Mills, of South Street, Dartford, General Dealer, deposed to purchasing three fowls of a. Mr Day. He met the accused when he was coming home from Fawkham railway station and they said to Day, "Those fowls have gone to your place which were stolen from Allen's place on Saturday night." Day said, I don't know anything about them." In consequence of what was said, Police Constable Rhodes told both that they would have to accompany him to the Police Station, as he was not at all satisfied about them. Day afterwards said (with some hesitation) "Crouch and Davis were at my house on New Year's Eve and left about twelve. About an hour afterwards they came back and Crouch gave me six fowls and I gave him 9s for them then. We ate one and I kept the other five for nearly a fortnight. Then I let George Mills have them, he never gave me anything for them as he said they were too far gone." Day and Davis were taken to the Police Station and Crouch was informed of the statements made by Davis and Day. They were then charged with stealing six fowls the property of Mr Allen. Crouch said when charged "Yes there were six, and you (meaning Day) gave me 7s for them." Day said "No it wasn't, it was 9s". They then told Day that he would be charged with receiving the six fowls, well knowing them to be stolen, Day replied, "The reason I did not tell Humphrey was because I did not wish to get into trouble. They brought them to me (the other two prisoners) and I had them."
At this juncture Mr Chancellor wished to ask privately some questions of Crouch and Davis, whereupon Superintendent Webster objected.
The magistrates, however held that Mr Chancellor had a perfect right to ask any questions he chose of the accused for the purposes of the defence.
Mr Chancellor cross-examined the witness Humphrey. Instructing constable Rhodes (A-b), deposed that he saw the prisoner Davis respecting the previous charge, at Fawkham, and he corroborated the evidence of Humphrey, which was, this witness said, correct. Day said, after they had gone into his house, to his wife, "This comes of those fowls which young Dick brought." Day's wife then said, "Good gracious, I hope there's nothing wrong." Day replied, "It's all wrong for me; give me my jacket." Instructing constable Rhodes stated that Crouch and Davis were first charged with stealing three fowls which were missing.
Instructing constable Barnes (Farningham) said that on Wednesday last the prisoners were liberated out on bail. The prisoner Day accompanied him to the police station to receive his property, and during his conversation with witness he said, "How do you think I shall got on, think it'll be a fine?" and witness replied that he could not tell. Pointing to the other prisoners, who were just ahead of Day, he said if they had said they had stolen three or four fowls I should have been all right, as I should have paid full value for them."
Ladies and Gentlemen, I again beg to offer you my services as county councillor for the ensuing 3 years. I have during my term of office carried out to the best of my ability the furtherance of those questions which have been brought before the council for the gneral benefit of my constituents. The question of old age pensions was introduced by me last year, with a view of taking the opinion of the council thereon; but, unfortunately, my motiom was not allowed by the chairman to be discussed. Should you again honour me with your confidence, I will endeavour to carry out the duties you have placed upon me. I beg to remain, ladies and gentlemen, your obedient servant. William Chambers. Manor House, Southfleet, Gravesend. February 13th, 1892."
[Rare for such an advert to be phrased like this then, obviously Mrs Newcomb was a loving mother]
Messrs Glover & Homewood have received instructions to submit to auction on Wednesday, May 25th, 1892 at the New Falcon Hotel, Gravesend at 3 o'clock precisely, a charmingly situated detached residence, standing in a garden containing 29 perches, on the High Road in the parish of Hartley, Kent, in the occupation of Mr T R Mabe, at £16 per annum; also the Wheelwright's Shop, Lodge, Sawpit and premises adjoining, let on lease to Mr Elvy Cooper, at £10 per annum; the whole possessing a frontage to the high road of 200 feet, and producing a rental of £26 per annum, clear of all rates......."""
[The unnamed Rector is William Hare Duke (1818-1894), said by Gravesend Reporter (20.1.1894) to have died of a sudden violent internal pain. It is uncertain what the dispute was about, but at this time the Vestry also ran civil matters too.]
The report presented to the council last Wednesday by the Sanitary Inspector was a clear, concise statement, and worthy of that officer's tact and enterprise, but I venture to think that he might have looked nearer home for an illustration as to how the council could do its own collecting, and that with a prospect of making the system almost, if not quite, self supporting after the initial outlay.
The overcrowded South London Parish, known as Newington, has solved the problem of dust disposal by utilising it upon the land, which I believe, is what the present Gravesend contractor has done with advantage. Newington saves £3,000 a yar by removing its refuse without the contractor. Of course, there is no comparison between the size of Newington and Gravesend, or the quantity of refuse to be disposed of, so, the overburdened ratepayers of the borough need not build enormous castles in the air. Neither can the 'rule of three' be safely applied. Yet there is no reason why the principle could not be successfully adopted to the Gravesend collection.
At Longfield - 2 miles from Meopham, an exemplary system of dealing with refuse has been established by the Vestry of Newington. Refuse of every kind is sent and treated on the spot by the Vestry's own workmen, whose cottages form part of the Vestry's property. Numerous bays are provided for the reception and treatment of the refuse, which passes through 2 or 3 processes. First it is pitched from the railway sidings into special bays, where it is allowed to be untouched for a period, so that a good deal of the matter rots away. Afterwards it is sifted by the men and women engaged for the purpose, who work on piece. The ashes, manure, and fine dust are placed in separate receptacles, and then disposed of - the ashes to brickmaking firms, and the manure to farmers. There is a large furnace in constant use for the burning of inflammable materials. As a proof of the efficiacy of town refuse for the treatment of land, it may be mentioned that near this depot was a large field which had been barren for years. The owner determined to try the manure, which has become famous among the farmers as the 'Newington Mixture'. He put a thousand tons of it upon the land, and this year he is growing splendid crops. Inasmuch as Gravesend is likely to continue - despite the stigma - the old fashioned system of cesspits, instead of main drainage, there is every facility for our borough to establish a reputation for a 'Gravesend Mixture' of similar character. Yours faithfully, Sanitarian. August 14th 1893."
Kent and Sussex Courier (24.11.1893): Kent Assizes - Monday - His lordship took his seat at 11 o'clock. Samuel Spicer, 42, labouerer, was indicted for indecently assaulting and ill treating Esther Godden, aged 5 years, at Hartley, on October 24th. Mr Hohler prosecuted. Prisoner practically admitted to the police that he did interfere with the child, but he was in drink; and 2 persons gave evidence as to what they saw prisoner doing in a field near Hartley Church.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and his Lordship passed sentence of 3 months' imprisonment, stating that he should have exactly the term he told the police he expected (laughter).
[Esther Godden's family had moved to Hartley Court Cottage, about 1891. The report of the trial shows how such cases were treated in the past. It seems that they are not treated as seriously as they would be today, and there was no attempt to protect the identity of the victim.]
Julia Adelaide Whitehead, the wife, stated that the presioner had been strange in his manner towards her for two months, accusing her of conduct of which she was innocent. Shortly after 4 on the morning in question witness gave him a drink of water in bed, and scolded him for spilling some of it. Witness went to sleep again, but was awakened, and found blood flowing from her throat. Prisoner was sitting by the side of the bed with a knife in his hand, and she said 'You are murdering me.' He replied with an oath, 'I mean to.' Witness struggled for her life, prisoner having got her on to the floor, with her head between his knees. He had a knife in his hand, and remained sitting on the side of the bed. Prisoner still tried to cut her throat, and she continued to struggle and scream, getting near the door. She was still on the floor when her two children came, and she got outside. Witness knocked at the window of Mrs Ridge's next door, but nobody answered. then she got to the end house of the row, and Mrs Swan opened the door. When she asked to be atken in as she was being murdered, Mrs Swan refused her admittance. Then she saw a Mr Jenkins, and he took her to Mrs Woolley, who at once let her into her house, where Dr Lace attended her later in the morning. Witness has since received a letter from the prisoner asking her to forgive him.
Cross examined - Prisoner has often asked her to let him go to Dr Lace to see what was the matter with him and the reason she refused was because she thought it would get better.
James Jenkins of Brickfield Cottages, said that he met Mrs Whitehead as described. He saw a gash in her throat, and took a knife from her hand. He then went and saw prisoner, who admitted having cut his wife's throat, saying that he had told her he would do it. Witness sent the eldest boy for the doctor, and prisoner laughed at them, telling the boy to be quick or he would lose his mother. Prisoner afterwards left the house, whereupon witness went for the police.
Dr Lace said that when he got to the house he found the bed clothes soaked in blood. On the left side fo teh neck there was an incised wound 3 in long, and on the right side there was another incised wound 4½ in long, whilst on the right cheek was a scratch. On the right temple was a small wound, and altogether there were 7 wounds on the shoulders from half an inch to an inch long. The wounds in the throat had been caused by a sharp instrument, such as the knife produced, and the smaller wounds looked like stabs with the point. Teh wound on the right side of the neck was an inch deep, and the one on the left side was only half an inch deep. The woman had lost a lot of blood, and if the wounds had broken out again she might have died. Witness now expected her to recover completely.
PC Trill stated that he arrested prisoner at Southfleet the same afternoon. When charged prisoner said, 'All right, poilceman, I know what I have done. I am not ashamed of it, Bob Peacock has cause all this. He is a bad man, and my wife is a bad woman.' On the way to Dartford, prisoner said, 'It's a wonder the old woman isn't dead.' When witness was examining his shirt, he said 'You'll find no blood on that, as I was not wearing it when I did it.'
Prisoner who had nothing to say was committed for trial."
[Bob Peacock in another report was said to be a young engine driver. At the assizes he was acquitted of attempted murder but found guilty of Grievious Bodily Harm and given 18 months. Paper says he was 62 - Canterbury Journal 1.12.1894]