From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 2 March 1907.

THE ROSE AND CROWN, HERNE BAY.

There were two objections against the renewal of the licence of the “Rose and Crown,” Herne Bay, the police objecting on the ground that the house was not structurally suitable, and the Magistrates because the house was not required for the needs of the public.

Mr. R. M. Mercer appeared for the brewers, the Canterbury Brewery Company.

Superintendent Jacobs gave evidence as to the structural defects which rendered police supervision difficult, and with regard to the requirements he pointed out that the distance of the house from the “Rodney's Head” was thirty yards, and it was almost equal distance from the “Prince of Wales” in Mortimer Street and the “Ship Inn” on the front. The rates were £18 13s. 9d, and the assessment was £38. It was a labouring class of trade. The tenant, Mr. W. Draper, was a naval pensioner, and had been a coastguard at Herne Bay. The house was now conducted fairly well, much better than it was before.

Superintendent Jacobs, in reply to farther questions, said, in his opinion, then were too many houses in Herne Bay.

Mr. Mercer—How long have yon been Superintendent in this division?

Superintendent Jacobs— About seven years.

Now, what drinking facilities have been granted within the last seven years?

I remember one grocer’s licence being granted, and the “Grand Hotel” as well.

Mr. Mercer proceeded to point out that in 1896 the magistrates granted one licence, in 1897 two, in 1898 one, in 1899 three, and in 1900 one. “Now,” said Mr. Mercer, turning to Superintendent Jacobs, “do you think the magistrates were wrong in granted drinking facilities—not over spotty terms, but over regular periods—only to say to-day that the position has altered? Do yon say the magistrates were wrong in granting these licenses?”

Superintendent Jacobs—I say there are too many in the neighbourhood.

Would you be surprised to hear the takings at this house are £80 a month?

I should be.

The house is need by mechanics?

No, the labouring classes.

Do you object to the labouring classes having their houses? Do they not like to have houses for themselves?

They could go into other public houses.

Mr. Mercer—In the matter of police supervision the police did not like it because they could not see what was going on outside and inside the house.

“You are like Mr. Sam Weller," He said, turning to the superintendent. (Fictional character from the Pickwick Papers.)

“I wish I was, sir," said the superintendent.

Mr. Mercer said he did not know a house that could be watched better then this one. Why a policeman with one eye could do it. (Laughter.) He protested against little tin-pot objections being brought against a house, and then said the tenants valuation was £138 14s 6d. the average trade for three years was 262 barrels. He reminded the Bench that there were only three or four houses in the district east of William Street. He pointed out that the takings during one month amounted to £80, and in one fortnight Mr. Draper paid the brewers £40 13s. “I thought,” said Mr. Mercer, “Herne Bay had little money to spare, but it teems it has plenty.” Then Mr. Mercer spoke of Mr. Draper's high character, and of his thirty years’ service in the Navy. There were no convictions and no complaints against the house by the police. Further, he reminded the Bench that going back to 1886 and down to 1900—not so very long ago—the magistrates were enabling people to put their money into the trade which they were now going to suppress. He submitted it was a case that should not be reported to Quarter Sessions.

THE JUSTICES’ DECISION.

After considering the evidence in private for some time, the Chairman announced that the decision of the Bench was that the following houses should be reported to Quarter Sessions for the licences to be taken away on the grounds that they were not required The “Queen’s Head,” Herne Bay; the “Rose and Crown,” Herne Bay; the “Lower Red Lion,” Herne; and the “Sportsman,” Sturry.